|
I don't know what the SA rules are on prophet-sharing Mods?
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 13:15 |
|
|
There must be a God who is testing me with these homosexual urges, because if there's not then that would mean I'm gay and I can't be gay. e: Perry Mason Jar posted:And that's the cosmological argument. Learning is fun. And which classic argument is this, smart guy? 
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:...this sounds like a familiar story. Don't we have a thread in D&D about someone who is gay but only his love of Jesus keeps him from wandering off the path of truth? Oh poo poo, I forgot about that. Now I feel bad about making the joke 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Also, leftism. Seems kinda nice at first, but then you get a little more exposed to it, and yeeesh! Wasn't leftism the original message of Jesus before it was corrupted by the Roman Empire and used as a tool of empire and an apologia for aristocracy and slavery? Oh wait poo poo, you're an arch-conservative catholic: empire, slavery, and aristocracy are good things 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:The most basic place to start is probably Socrates's idea of an Unmoved Mover, which Rainbowbeard kind-of-sort-of touched on earlier. The argument goes that in the universe, we can observe certain objects that move from actuality to potentiality. Further, an object can only be moved by something else. Potential movement can only be the result of actual movement. Thus, there must be some kind of first mover from which all change proceeds. This first "Unmoved Mover" can be understood to be God. 1: Everything that moves requires something to move it 2: This thing here moves and does not require something to move it  I like that you seem to recognize the contradiction inherent in the argument, but then you just go ehhhhhhhh...whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2014 07:15
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Fact: when most of you are elderly, you will believe in God. Ah, the always-successful Argument From Future Fear I Bet You'll Have, You Know, Probably
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2014 07:17
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:And that's fine. If you abandon cause and effect, then the "Unmoved Mover" doesn't work as its presented. It's an argument I chose because it is extremely simple and easily discussed. You do, however, need to then accept the consequences of throwing out cause and effect which a lot of people find uncomfortable. Why do we have to throw out cause and effect? As far as we know, energy cannot be created nor destroyed, so what is the point of inventing the unsupported idea that everything including energy can and must be created, only to walk that back and posit still yet another phenomenon that requires no creator? If we're going to accept the existence of uncreated things, it seems to me we might as well stick to the thing we actually know exists which by all indications is impossible to create anyway. Whether you start from God or start from the Universe, cause and effect work just fine after that. Edit: And my other problem with the Cosmological Argument is that it doesn't seem to tell us anything interesting. It just gives an arbitrary name to whatever is responsible for existence, and there's no more reason to call it God than to call it Zeus or the Tooth Fairy or anything else. The only way to get to something interesting is to pick the same name that our favorite religion uses for its deity so we can later equivocate with that and add in external assumptions like "Now obviously the Uncaused Cause which we call BabyJesus hates it so much when dicks go into butts or get pulled out from vaginas too early that it would naturally write a whole book promising to kill you for doing that". VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Dec 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
duck monster posted:I believe the universe is not out to get me, so therefore God isn't real. God fucks up dangerous mortals all the time. Tower of Babel, yo. You're obviously just not as smart and threatening as some dudes building a pile of mud bricks.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Perry Mason Jar posted:Blasphemous atheistic impiety? This guy's obviously treating atheism like a religion.  Therefore God exists and everyone believes QED
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:If the universe "just exists" without a creator, that sure would be strange! Why did the Big Bang occur out of nothing? "It just did?" And soon the universe will be ruined by the heat death, and its entire inhabitable existence will be an incidental blip from the context of eternity? How strange. Idk man, if "inhabitable existence" is so important then when God created earth and filled it with people to worship Him, why did He bother making billions of galaxies over such vast expanses of empty space? That's pretty strange of him to make all this extra stuff that will never be inhabited.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2014 08:38
|
|
|
It'd be weird if stuff just existed with no explanation, so obviously it was all spun out of nothing by something that just exists with no explanation.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Proposition three and four are not the same, neither are they related. True. It requires the premise that matter/energy cannot be created, which is correct to the best of our knowledge.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
If God is omnipotent, He wouldn't have stood by while you broke all the tables
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
Ernest Hemingway posted:If the aim of the ontological argument is to 'define things into existence', or predicate existence onto a contingent subject, then it surely fails... and so much has been established through Gaunilo and Kant. Defining a being as necessary seems to be begging the question in the first place. A necessary being is one that has to exist (it would be a logical contradiction for it not to exist), so really all you're saying is: if I assume X is required to exist, then X exists. It's not really very interesting. There's no really compelling reason to believe that there is such a class of things that their nonexistence would be a logical impossibility. Dzhay posted:In the interests of keeping this thread going: even if we accept the conclusions of the ontological argument*, what makes the thing whose existence it proves a "god" in any sense in which we'd normally use the word? What makes it even sentient? That's why the real goal of the ontological argument is to give that thing that must exist the same name as some other ridiculous entity whose existence you want to prove (God, Yahweh, babyjeezus, whatever) then from there you trust in that equivocation and your audience's cultural upbringing to make them accept your next proposition that logically this necessary being we call God wants you to drink wine on Sundays/abhor bacon/own slaves/lynch fags/beat your wife/whatever other private obsession the speaker has. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Dec 13, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Also holy gently caress there is too many religion threads in D&D, just merge them into one megathread or something to contain the stupid (90% of the stupid comes from kyrie leison). The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion: We tortured some folks › Let's try to find out if God loves purebred babies more than the offspring of miscegenation or not
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2014 14:51
|
|
|
If Big Brother or some random Cardassian secret service douche can make 2+2 equal 5, I'm pretty sure that's no big deal for the omnipotent creator of existence itself.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Ernest Hemingway posted:I'd prefer if you didn't think I was stupid. We all know that Cardassian did no such thing. We have eyewitness testimony that he did though. Captain...Jean-Luc Picard of the USS...Enterprise posted:What I didn't put in the report was that at the end he gave me a choice - between a life of comfort or more torture. All I had to do was to say that I could see five lights when, in fact, there were only four...But I was going to. I would have told him anything. Anything at all! But more than that, I believed that I could see five lights. fb 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
Ernest Hemingway posted:But he was still prepared for the guards to take him away for a lifetime of torture without stating so. I think this is evidence enough to show that he still rationally doubted the fact. No he wasn't, he admitted he was about to say it like two seconds before he was ordered to be released. It's all there in the Historical Records.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Can the rest of the thread please continue to frame all theological discussion in the context of TNG? Can Q create a plot so obnoxious even He can't abide it?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
Ernest Hemingway posted:...b-but he was warned that once the guards got there it would be too late.... and he let the guards walk right up to him without saying anything! It's established canon that Picard is bad at strategy. We're talking about a guy who lost control of his ship and crew to a Victorian literary character, not once but twice. Like I assume he only kept his command after that because nobody in Starfleet command would have believed that a literal comic book villain from make-believe land could seize the flagship of the fleet, so none of the crew bothered to write a report for fear they'd sound like loons. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Dec 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
Berk Berkly posted:The Enterprise D is a weird ship in general. A general purpose exploration, diplomatic, military flag ship. Like, Kirk's Enterprise was much more streamlined in facilities and didn't have the large civilian crew population and amenities that Picard rolls with. That's the other thing that's weird about the Enterprise. They fly everywhere with this huge complement of civilians and children, even when they know they're assigned some insanely dangerous mission like "hey go fight the Borg, you might not come back but buy us some time with your almost-certain deaths while we assemble the fleet to stop them at Wolf 350" And apparently it's not even like standard procedure because years later in DS9 there's that other Galaxy-class ship that's going to investigate the Federations new super-crazy dangerous enemy, and it takes a junior officer to suggest to the captain he might not want to take children with him, and he's like "oh yeah okay I guess I'll leave them behind" and then goes on to get his ship blown up with all hands after a 5-second fight  So what I am saying is: theodicy disproves God because much like the Federation, the sheer amount of avoidable misery inflicted on the innocent babes means that whoever is in charge must lack power, or competence, or goodness, or all three. Ernest Hemingway posted:e.g. He should have known that the first time through the loop he wouldn't have listened to Worf because he never listens to Worf. and should probably give it a try. Picard probably did think of that but he decided it wasn't worth saving his ship if he had to thank Worf for it. And I mean it's not like it mattered, he knew if he hosed up and blew up the ship again he'd get to have another go. Picard is pretty committed to never letting Worf have anything. Like, in Nemesis when the fate of the entire earth and billions of people relied on one person going over to that Romulan ship and kicking everyone's rear end and stopping the doomsday weapon he's like "nah, I don't want to send Work the war hero with a whole bunch of combat championships under his belt too. I think I'll risk the entire earth on the chance that I, a geriatric old man, can take out a huge ship full of monsters singlehandedly" So uh, Worf is Judas and there's a secret Gospel according to Worf where Worf is right about everything but Picard took him aside and asked him to keep that a secret for the greater good. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Dec 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
Yeah I meant the tri-omni God. I admit that reasoning doesn't rule out the TOS Squire of Gothos explanation that God is a cruel child who created the universe as a lark one summer afternoon and pretty soon his parents will make him put his toys away and come to dinner.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 13:15 |
|
|
bobtheconqueror posted:What consequence or deprivation of value would a meaningless reality entail? If P then Q. Q scares me, so I prefer not-Q. Therefore, not-P.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2014 17:54
|
|