Gibberish of the day!

[Maj]

If you accept Mormons as Christian, they use the omni terms for sake of conversation ease, but their doctrine doesn't support a deity who possesses the three omnis.

[RobbyPants]

If you accept Mormons as Christian, they use the omni terms for sake of conversation ease, but their doctrine doesn't support a deity who possesses the three omnis.

I never knew that.

[NativeJovian]

If you don't toss out sensory experiences, then they are evidence of the non-existence of any god. And yes, you can experience the presence or lack of god through your senses. If there were an omnipotent being who loved us, you could see the results of his actions, just like I can see the results of your actions, typing on a computer.

1) How do you know? An omnipotent being might simply choose not to interfere. Maybe he likes watching silly humans run around like crazy people and then dropping dead after a few decades. Just because he has infinite power doesn't mean he has to exercise it.

2) Maybe we are seeing the effects of God's existence. Maybe God is the one willing gravity and nuclear forces and electromagnetic radiation into existence. How would you know? What's your criteria for determining what's an "act of God" and what's not?

3) Even if he was doing overt things, he might not want you to know. Maybe what we call "coincidence", "happenstance", and "serendipity" are all actually God manipulating reality. Again, how would you know?

So you don't think creator of the universe is a necessary quality of a god?

Did I say I did?

Now please define being,

Something that exists; something that is.

omnipotent,

all-powerful

and omniscient.

all-knowing

For being, I want as exact and technical definition as you can.

You got it. It's a pretty simple concept. If you want it to be more exact or more technical, feel free to add a lot more words that mean the same thing until you're happy with it.

For omniX I will suffice with knowing your position on burritos

They're delicious, but I don't see what it has to do with omnipotence or omniscience.

and free will,

I'm for it. Presumably God is too (if he exists), because I seem to have it. Or maybe I don't and God just wants me to think I do. I don't claim to know God's mind.

with a clarification on where the sphere of action is "the universe" or "everything."

The two are functionally synonymous, aren't they?

Fuck you asshole. Pay attention. I do have evidence they are wrong. They self admit to having no evidence they are right. It's not my problem that the fucking Pope himself can't point to his evidence for god's existence and tells people to take it on faith.

I'm going to repeat this one more time, them I'm going to give up on you entirely. Really, this is not a difficult concept and you're either failing to grasp it (making you a dumbass) or deliberately ignoring it (making you an asshole).

Not having evidence that something is true is not the same thing as having evidence that something is not true. Lack of evidence that God exists is not evidence that God does not exist.

There beliefs are wrong. I know this because I have evidence that they are wrong.

What evidence? Don't just tell me you have it, tell me what it is.

Their beliefs are clearly not evidence based.

I know that and I never argued against it. I just said that your belief that God does not exist isn't evidence based either.

You can't physically experience my existence either.

Sure I can. Were I to walk up to you and punch you in the face, I would see you there as I walked up toward you, feel your face with my fist when I punched it, and probably hear you get pissed off after I was done. All of that is me empirically observing your existence. None of that can be said of God.

Now, can you please actually try to answer some of my questions instead of just blowing me off while simultaneously insisting that you're right and I'm an idiot for even questioning you?




As an aside, about the whole "If God loves us, why do bad things happen to good people?" thing, there's a whole area of philosophy that seriously does nothing but talk about it. Every facet of the question has been gone over a thousand times. There are a few different reasons for why "bad things happening to good people" doesn't disprove the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God.

1) This may be the best of all possible worlds. If God changed anything, the world would be a worse place. We can't know the consequences of every action the way an omniscient being could. Maybe the Holocaust was necessary in order to prevent global thermonuclear war from turning the entire planet into a crater. Maybe herpes exists because, if it didn't, humanity would have no immunity against a virus that turns people into zombies. Maybe hurricanes and tornadoes happen because without occasional violent windstorms, Earth would have evolved flying, fire-breathing dragons which would've eaten us all by now. Who the fuck do you think you are to second-guess God?

2) A consistent reality is a good. That means that God can't fuck with the laws of physics whenever he feels like it because it'd blow our tiny little human minds, and that would be bad. This constrains God's ability to act, not because he's actually unable to do something, but because he doesn't want to. I mean, he could turn everyone's blood into bleach, too, but he doesn't, and probably never will, because it would be a dick move. So no "whoosh everything is better!" miracles, because they would actually make things worse in the long run.

3) Free will is a good. God (presumably) doesn't want us to be puppet automatons that he controls completely and utterly. He wants us to be free, to make our own choices, to live our own lives. Thus, evil exists because humans are dicks. But humans being dicks is still better than humans unable to be dicks, because free will is a good thing.

Look up "the problem of evil" if you want to read more about it.

[violence in the media]

3) Free will is a good. God (presumably) doesn't want us to be puppet automatons that he controls completely and utterly. He wants us to be free, to make our own choices, to live our own lives. Thus, evil exists because humans are dicks. But humans being dicks is still better than humans unable to be dicks, because free will is a good thing.

Is our capacity for choice somehow separate and independent from our biology, brain architecture, sensory perception, and environment?

If not, are these things something that god does not have some degree of indirect control over, at the very least? In other words, given an omnipotent creator of the universe, can't everything ultimately be traced back to him?

If god is omniscient, I don't think it is unreasonable that such a being could see all the inputs that went into arriving at a particular consequence. Like a sophisticated chess program, god sees all the moves that have contributed to the current state and sees all of the possible future permutations. Unlike the program, god also knows (based upon perfect knowledge of the inputs) which permutation you will actually select. If this is so, isn't free will actually an illusion? God knows who will do what, and why, and ultimately set in motion the events that led to those foreseen outcomes. How did we have any real choice in the matter?

Can we surprise god with our choices?

[Kaelik]

Something that exists; something that is.

all-powerful

all-knowing

[And a shit load of question dodging]

Fuck you. Those don't mean anything, and the part where you explicitly avoid answering a single clarification I specifically asked for is fucking bullshit and the fact that so far the only definition you have provided for god is:

"something that exists and is glagagle and herefuaf"

Is a fucking dick move. Your can't define god as a thing that must exist and pretend even a little bit to be intellectually honest.

I'm going to repeat this one more time, them I'm going to give up on you entirely. Really, this is not a difficult concept and you're either failing to grasp it (making you a dumbass) or deliberately ignoring it (making you an asshole).

Not having evidence that something is true is not the same thing as having evidence that something is not true. Lack of evidence that God exists is not evidence that God does not exist.

Or maybe you are just a retard. The statement 'I have evidence.' and 'they do not.' were too separate statements. Shove it up your ass and die.

What evidence? Don't just tell me you have it, tell me what it is.

Depends on the fucking god. Since it's based on the logical implications of their existence. Give me a fucking god, so far you got to "Something which definitionally exists and has no other qualities at all." Which so many levels of cop out that I probably missed a few.

Sure I can. Were I to walk up to you and punch you in the face, I would see you there as I walked up toward you, feel your face with my fist when I punched it, and probably hear you get pissed off after I was done. All of that is me empirically observing your existence. None of that can be said of God.

First of all, you can't do any of those things for me specifically. Secondly, all of those are observations of the results of my existence, rather than my actual existence.

Now, can you please actually try to answer some of my questions instead of just blowing me off while simultaneously insisting that you're right and I'm an idiot for even questioning you?

No I can't answer your question. Your question is: "Prove jkjkjasdas doesn't exist." WTF is jkjkjasdas? You won't tell me, except that it definitely exists.

As an aside, about the whole "If God loves us, why do bad things happen to good people?" thing, there's a whole area of philosophy that seriously does nothing but talk about it. Every facet of the question has been gone over a thousand times. There are a few different reasons for why "bad things happening to good people" doesn't disprove the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God.

1) This may be the best of all possible worlds. If God changed anything, the world would be a worse place. We can't know the consequences of every action the way an omniscient being could. Maybe the Holocaust was necessary in order to prevent global thermonuclear war from turning the entire planet into a crater. Maybe herpes exists because, if it didn't, humanity would have no immunity against a virus that turns people into zombies. Maybe hurricanes and tornadoes happen because without occasional violent windstorms, Earth would have evolved flying, fire-breathing dragons which would've eaten us all by now. Who the fuck do you think you are to second-guess God?

2) A consistent reality is a good. That means that God can't fuck with the laws of physics whenever he feels like it because it'd blow our tiny little human minds, and that would be bad. This constrains God's ability to act, not because he's actually unable to do something, but because he doesn't want to. I mean, he could turn everyone's blood into bleach, too, but he doesn't, and probably never will, because it would be a dick move. So no "whoosh everything is better!" miracles, because they would actually make things worse in the long run.

3) Free will is a good. God (presumably) doesn't want us to be puppet automatons that he controls completely and utterly. He wants us to be free, to make our own choices, to live our own lives. Thus, evil exists because humans are dicks. But humans being dicks is still better than humans unable to be dicks, because free will is a good thing.

Look up "the problem of evil" if you want to read more about it.

Seriously. I don't know how you found a base class called retard, took it to epic levels, then took the Epic feat, Epic ignorance, but you did.

1) No, it's not a part of philosophy, it's a part of theology, that thing where you start by assuming total crazy bullshit is true.

2) Your theodicity is laughable, and already countered in this fucking thread.

3) Free will has shit all to do with the existence of suffering before humans even existed. Not that you can even make a compelling argument for free will.

2) Has nothing to do with reality being arranged differently.

1) See, I can think of an absolutely 100% better world right now. It's one in which human beings sense of 'the other' never ever includes other human beings. That would be exactly like this one, but much better.

[Murtak]

If you accept Mormons as Christian, they use the omni terms for sake of conversation ease, but their doctrine doesn't support a deity who possesses the three omnis.

I'm not sure if I'd say mormons are christians, but I will say that not actually believing in the omnis makes their faith at least more internally consistent than christianity.

[Murtak]

Not having evidence that something is true is not the same thing as having evidence that something is not true. Lack of evidence that God exists is not evidence that God does not exist.

Sort of. As Kaelik pointed out, given certain attributes we should be able to see evidence. If God is capable of doing anything and everything, perceiving everything at once, including everything that follows from everything we do and is infinitely benevolent then suffering can not exist. Since suffering exists one or more of these traits must not be present (or God does not exist, that works too).

Other traits may prove harder to pin down of course.

Their beliefs are clearly not evidence based.

I know that and I never argued against it. I just said that your belief that God does not exist isn't evidence based either.

Again, sort of. Believing in something without even the slightest shred of evidence is not a rational act, is it? I can not tell for sure whether the CIA is controlling people with undetectable mind rays, but I am quite certain they do not. Are you telling me that wearing a tin-foil hat is sane?

You can't physically experience my existence either.

Sure I can. Were I to walk up to you and punch you in the face, I would see you there as I walked up toward you, feel your face with my fist when I punched it, and probably hear you get pissed off after I was done. All of that is me empirically observing your existence. None of that can be said of God.

All you are experiencing is yourself, or rather, electrical currents in your brain (if brains exist at all). You can't know whether you are hallucinating, dreaming or are actually hooked up to the matrix.

1) This may be the best of all possible worlds. If God changed anything, the world would be a worse place.

Omnipotence. Does not compute.

2) A consistent reality is a good. That means that God can't fuck with the laws of physics whenever he feels like it because it'd blow our tiny little human minds, and that would be bad.

Omnipotence. God could totally make that perfect reality have existed from the start of time. The fucking pope can do this.

3) Free will is a good. God (presumably) doesn't want us to be puppet automatons that he controls completely and utterly. He wants us to be free, to make our own choices, to live our own lives. Thus, evil exists because humans are dicks. But humans being dicks is still better than humans unable to be dicks, because free will is a good thing.

In other words, Gods is willing to see innocents (say, a baby) suffer because non-innocents (say, Mao) should be free to be assholes? God is actually totally fine with me murdering and raping my way across the country, leaving untold suffering in my wake, as long as I really regret it afterward? Mind you, he is omniscient, so he can see what will happen. That is, in one word, evil.

Who the fuck do you think you are to second-guess God?

This is what all of these "arguments" boil down to. Or rather "who the fuck are you to question your betters, peasant".

[Sock Puppet]

In Soviet Russia, Devil advocates you!

[Maj]

I'm not sure if I'd say mormons are christians

Just out of curiosity, why not?

[Draco_Argentum]

3) Free will is a good.

Why is it a choice between good and evil then? Why isn't there a third option? I want to be a fnord person but God took the option away by not creating fnord actions for me to take.

2) A consistent reality is a good.

Assuming I take that a a given, why didn't God create a consistent reality that sucks less? He could have, what with the omnipotence and all.

Who the fuck do you think you are to second-guess God?

A being with free will as created by said God according to you. If He didn't want to be questioned He shouldn't have given me the ability. But seeing He did, why the hell would a zombie virus even evolve? Because God let it according to you. The picture of God you paint makes him look like a total ass. I'll be glad to question and if He takes exception I'll burn with pleasure.

[Neeeek]

Not having evidence that something is true is not the same thing as having evidence that something is not true. Lack of evidence that God exists is not evidence that God does not exist.

I'm going to put this in incredibly simple terms, just to be clear.

If you agree with the above statement you are, all at the same time, stupid, lying and intellectually dishonest.

[RobbyPants]

No, I think he's right. It's just, looking at things like that leaves the possibility of the flying spaghetti monster open as well. It's not that the belief is necessarily wrong, but that it can't be proven wrong. That doesn't make it wrong, but rather unscientific.

Really, discussing it scientifically is meaningless.

[Prak]

Who the fuck do you think you are to second-guess God?

I'm a god myself.

A being with free will as created by said God according to you. If He didn't want to be questioned He shouldn't have given me the ability. But seeing He did, why the hell would a zombie virus even evolve? Because God let it according to you. The picture of God you paint makes him look like a total ass. I'll be glad to question and if He takes exception I'll burn with pleasure.

Don't worry, God is an asshole, many intelligent people have said such. Sadly there are plenty of academically intelligent people who don't realize the same...

Not having evidence that something is true is not the same thing as having evidence that something is not true. Lack of evidence that God exists is not evidence that God does not exist.

I'm going to put this in incredibly simple terms, just to be clear.

If you agree with the above statement you are, all at the same time, stupid, lying and intellectually dishonest.

meh, it's just not quite the same as saying "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
ie: "Absence of evidence for the existence of god is not evidence of the absence of god" which is, at least philosophically, true. I don't know if science necessarily accepts a similar rule.

Who's up for some new gibberish. Mine might even make sense if deconstructed enough, unlike most it would seem.

[mean_liar]

There is a reason it is called "faith", and that reason is because it cannot be supported with logic or reason. The intellectual effort expended by scholars I really admire is ultimately fallible and unconvincing without that primary component of faith.

Why bother arguing otherwise?

[violence in the media]

Really, discussing it scientifically is meaningless.

Why? Why do we give a such a special status to faith? Why is it acceptible that the ancients got to demand that gods and prophets proved themselves by busting out miracles for all manner of silliness, but it's too much to ask god now to let his priests demonstrably cure AIDS by touch?

Can you prove to me that bears don't fly when nobody is looking? Would I be crazy to insist that they do and, as a result of my belief, that any sort of incredulous disbelief towards my lack of evidence for this is wrong?

[Prak]

Really, discussing it scientifically is meaningless.

Why? Why do we give a such a special status to faith? Why is it acceptible that the ancients got to demand that gods and prophets proved themselves by busting out miracles for all manner of silliness, but it's too much to ask god now to let his priests demonstrably cure AIDS by touch?

Demanding such is dangerous, see faith healers.

Can you prove to me that bears don't fly when nobody is looking? Would I be crazy to insist that they do and, as a result of my belief, that any sort of incredulous disbelief towards my lack of evidence for this is wrong?

Obviously bears cannot fly, whether one is looking or not, for if they did, we'd all be fucking dead.

[violence in the media]

Demanding such is dangerous, see faith healers.

I wasn't talking about faith healers, I was referring to the supposedly real deal. You know, where lepers stopped losing body parts and had their sores close up, ears were reglued to heads, and dead people got up.

Related to all this, why does god hate amputees?

[Kaelik]

Actually, absence of evidence for something is evidence of it's absence. In reality, and in most versions of philosophy. It's not proof. But it is evidence.

If you go outside, and you don't have a blue car in your driveway, or in your garage, that's not proof you don't have a blue car, it could be at the shop, but it is evidence that you don't have a blue car, just not conclusive evidence.

[RobbyPants]

Really, discussing it scientifically is meaningless.

Why? Why do we give a such a special status to faith? Why is it acceptible that the ancients got to demand that gods and prophets proved themselves by busting out miracles for all manner of silliness, but it's too much to ask god now to let his priests demonstrably cure AIDS by touch?

Can you prove to me that bears don't fly when nobody is looking? Would I be crazy to insist that they do and, as a result of my belief, that any sort of incredulous disbelief towards my lack of evidence for this is wrong?

I guess what I'm saying is, such discussions are intelectual masturbation at best. Nothing changes. No one changes their mind. The whole point is the concept of God is set up in such a way as to be nonfalsifiable. It can't be proven to be right or wrong. That fact doesn't make it right or wrong, but rather, completely unverifiable. It cannot be examined meaningfully in a scientific fashion.

I'm certainly not out to prove anything, but that's the point. Neither side can prove their point. It's meaningless.

Actually, absence of evidence for something is evidence of it's absence. In reality, and in most versions of philosophy. It's not proof. But it is evidence.

If you go outside, and you don't have a blue car in your driveway, or in your garage, that's not proof you don't have a blue car, it could be at the shop, but it is evidence that you don't have a blue car, just not conclusive evidence.

True. It is evidence and not proof. It's similar to finding evidence of a crime, which does not prove that someone perpetrated it. It's just one smaller part of the bigger picture.

[tzor]

Which has jack all to do with observable effects. If I can't see the effects because they are below my level of precision, then that sucks for me. But it doesn't stop someone who has figured it out, or thinks they have, from telling me what to look for or giving me the devices needed, and then I will notice that it is there or isn't.

No it has everything to do with observable effects. It all has to do with knowing what to look for. Simply claiming “I can’t see it” is no proof because you first need to know what it is, exactly, you are looking for. Given the general tendency to see what we want to see, this task is difficult at best. This doesn’t have to apply to God; people are still in disagreement about the effects of Keynesian economic principles on the Great Depression.

[tzor]

Why does causing love go against God's nature? Sounds like pure evil to me.

No it doesn’t. If love is all about the self sacrificing giving to another, then it must by its very nature involve free will. Love must be freely given; it must be freely accepted. You cannot force someone to accept love, because in doing so you are imposing your will upon them. You cannot force someone to love in return for that too is imposing your will upon them. Free will really is the key to everything; all solutions that ignore that fact in essence boil down to some sort of self centered evil.

[tzor]

Why is it a choice between good and evil then? Why isn't there a third option?

For man, man is the measure of all things. Simply put for any being we can divide the universe into the first person and everything outside of the first person. This is why, at first glance, good and evil is “binary.” Putting the first person above the not first person is “evil.” Putting the not first person above the first person is “good.” In practice one is not pure in ones actions and all actions are a complex combination of selfish and selfless actions.

[Username17]

I'm not sure if I'd say mormons are christians

Just out of curiosity, why not?

You get to be answered wih a question: There are Hindus who regularly come to the relics of Saint Thomas for prayer. Jesus is amongst their gods. Do you believe that these Hindus are Christians?

-Username17

[violence in the media]

I guess what I'm saying is, such discussions are intelectual masturbation at best. Nothing changes. No one changes their mind. The whole point is the concept of God is set up in such a way as to be nonfalsifiable. It can't be proven to be right or wrong. That fact doesn't make it right or wrong, but rather, completely unverifiable. It cannot be examined meaningfully in a scientific fashion.

I'm certainly not out to prove anything, but that's the point. Neither side can prove their point. It's meaningless.

The argument isn't for the participants, it's for the observers. Tzor and I will probably never change each other's minds, but that doesn't mean we can't influence people that are just observing.

[RobbyPants]

The argument isn't for the participants, it's for the observers. Tzor and I will probably never change each other's minds, but that doesn't mean we can't influence people that are just observing.

I suppose.

Although even with observers, about the best you'll be able to do is sway fence sitters.