But then how would he be omniscient?

At 9/17/10 10:13 PM, Aesopian wrote: But then how would he be omniscient?

Have you read the Bible? Already in Genesis God doesn't know what's up after Adam and Eve ate of the fruit from the Tree of knowledge. It took him a few minutes to figure it out, or he was being dishonest and playing dumb. Either way, zoink.

So, god is not infinite?

At 9/18/10 01:01 AM, LeroyJ wrote:

At 9/17/10 11:42 AM, Drakim wrote:

At 9/17/10 11:32 AM, LeroyJ wrote: This is something that's been bothering me for a while. If evolution is indeed correct, then we all evolved from primates, small mammals, and at the beginning of the chain, microorganisms. Of course, since life cannot simply arise out of nothing or no organic material (Failed theory of Spontaneous Generation), there is also the study of abiogenesis, but I'm not going to get into that in full.

The theory is that these microorganisms just simply came to be, evolving out of chemicals, amino acids, etc. that are necessary for life. If that were true, could we not create life ourselves by replicating the process? Be it as it may, it may take a substantial amount of time to replicate the process, if it could be done. Thoughts?

There are experiments like this around if you use google a little. This one is famous for instance.

That's actually pretty interesting, but has it already been done in the way that it created life? I seem to recall something about synthetic bacteria a few months ago but they made them from organic material.

Yeah it's really an interesting subject when you think about it. Synthetic life, Man has decided to act as God yet again. The last time this happened, was when we managed to control fire quite some time ago. But playing God isn't always for the better...

I have a question, if you could field it. If God's intent is to allow everyone to have the freedom to choose between Good and Evil, and he really is all-powerful, then why has he been so slow in spreading his message? The bible's parables all take place in the Near East, a rather limited area geographically. It took centuries for the teachings of Christ, or even Moses, to make it to Africa, China, India, or even a lot of Europe. Not to mention places like New Guinea that have only gotten bibles in the last hundred years.

If God wanted everyone to have free will, then why did he only explain himself to the Semites? For my argument here, I'm not focusing on the logic of the proposition itself, but pointing out that there are tons of people who were not 'enlightened' or 'chosen.' If you've never heard of the duality of Good and Evil, and what the two choices entail, then how can you be held responsible for making the decision between them? If you've never heard the word of God, do you end up in Dante's first circle of hell? Why would God distinguish between people who happen to have been 'enlightened' and people who haven't? What makes Christians so special?

And if you were to respond by saying that God never actually spoke to the Semites, that they found the word of God on their own, then I'd say that you've proven that God has nothing to do with Christianity. :P

I have a question, what if nobody gives a flying fuck wether or not you believe in God and that you're just a generic teenage atheist who fails to realise the dark ages are over and that the crusades happened because of a gold crisis in Rome and religion was just an excuse?

At 9/18/10 11:30 AM, Lorkas wrote: I have a question, what if nobody gives a flying fuck wether or not you believe in God and that you're just a generic teenage atheist who fails to realise the dark ages are over and that the crusades happened because of a gold crisis in Rome and religion was just an excuse?

That's impossible. Religion is the sole reason that suffering exists per se. Ergo thus, the crusades must have been caused by religion.

Also, everyone cares about what I believe, or at least they should. Cause I'm smart and I have the right (not stupid) answers. People come to this forum to see my genius.

At 9/18/10 12:05 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 9/18/10 11:30 AM, Lorkas wrote: I have a question, what if nobody gives a flying fuck wether or not you believe in God and that you're just a generic teenage atheist who fails to realise the dark ages are over and that the crusades happened because of a gold crisis in Rome and religion was just an excuse?

That's impossible. Religion is the sole reason that suffering exists per se. Ergo thus, the crusades must have been caused by religion.

Also, everyone cares about what I believe, or at least they should. Cause I'm smart and I have the right (not stupid) answers. People come to this forum to see my genius.

I am the only person who doesn't believe in God. Why are people so blind why can't they see religion brings more suffering than anything else it wasn't the crazy extremists that did 9/11 it was religion.

At 9/18/10 12:56 PM, Lorkas wrote: I am the only person who doesn't believe in God. Why are people so blind why can't they see religion brings more suffering than anything else it wasn't the crazy extremists that did 9/11 it was religion.

I just have to ask, at what point do you think religion is to blame? Is it a matter of percentage of the population of the religion that partakes in the crazy activities?

At 9/18/10 11:30 AM, Lorkas wrote: I have a question, what if nobody gives a flying fuck wether or not you believe in gravity and that you're just a generic teenage academic who fails to realise the dark ages are over bla bla bla

Fixed for you to realise that different people have different interests and it can lead to whole new methods of thinking and obtaining of knowledge.

Or an even funnier reply is, what if nobody gives a flying fuck about your opinion but you still post under the assumption people do?

At 9/18/10 04:31 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 9/18/10 12:56 PM, Lorkas wrote: I am the only person who doesn't believe in God. Why are people so blind why can't they see religion brings more suffering than anything else it wasn't the crazy extremists that did 9/11 it was religion.

I just have to ask, at what point do you think religion is to blame? Is it a matter of percentage of the population of the religion that partakes in the crazy activities?

I was being sarcastic...............................
........................................
.......

At 9/18/10 05:38 PM, Lorkas wrote:

I just have to ask, at what point do you think religion is to blame? Is it a matter of percentage of the population of the religion that partakes in the crazy activities?

I was being sarcastic...............................
........................................
.......

Hey, don't use up the dots, we need some too

At 9/18/10 07:24 AM, RWT wrote: I have a question, if you could field it. If God's intent is to allow everyone to have the freedom to choose between Good and Evil, and he really is all-powerful, then why has he been so slow in spreading his message? The bible's parables all take place in the Near East, a rather limited area geographically. It took centuries for the teachings of Christ, or even Moses, to make it to Africa, China, India, or even a lot of Europe. Not to mention places like New Guinea that have only gotten bibles in the last hundred years.

Because the Semites were God's chosen people, and he instructed them to go forth but the persecution of the Jews hurted that, but Christ came along and started teaching and the Romans killed him but it helped increase God's word.

At 9/19/10 03:08 AM, Hancack wrote:

At 9/18/10 07:24 AM, RWT wrote: I have a question, if you could field it. If God's intent is to allow everyone to have the freedom to choose between Good and Evil, and he really is all-powerful, then why has he been so slow in spreading his message? The bible's parables all take place in the Near East, a rather limited area geographically. It took centuries for the teachings of Christ, or even Moses, to make it to Africa, China, India, or even a lot of Europe. Not to mention places like New Guinea that have only gotten bibles in the last hundred years.

Because the Semites were God's chosen people, and he instructed them to go forth but the persecution of the Jews hurted that, but Christ came along and started teaching and the Romans killed him but it helped increase God's word.

Right, OR they were created by the "warring" civilization at the time, always taking over and being an empire, by the people of these empires to explain things like science, how the earth functions in the universe, and where the sun goes when it gets dark at night. Those empire countrys took over and spread their people everywhere, and they took their stories with them. Then, as science progressed, it started disproving some of the previous stories that religions had made up. But by then, these stories were so regarded as fact rather than story, and they started fighting back, and thus this giant war about fairy tales has come to existence.

soup guise relgon maek war an drak age it bad i athist

At 9/17/10 05:21 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 9/17/10 04:30 PM, akmeteor wrote: Prove it.

Proving a negative/ Negative evidence.

Yes, I'm aware it was indeed a troll, but I'm making a simple point.

You can't deny something exists when you have no proof either way. You also can't fully accept that same being if you can't prove they do exist.

I also have another question.

If matter can't be created or destroyed (same with energy). How did the Big Bang even occur?

At 9/19/10 05:58 PM, akmeteor wrote: You can't deny something exists when you have no proof either way.

Yeah. You can. We do it all the time. Like for instance. I reach into my pocket and find that there's no money in it.

If a thing has no intrinsic effective (as oppose to absolute) consequence then it may as well be said to not exist. That is perfectly reasonable.

If matter can't be created or destroyed (same with energy). How did the Big Bang even occur?

OMG! Science hasn't answered everything yet!?

Any argument is incomplete if you entertain infinite potential. And if you have a God to which you can attribute any arbitrary number of actions, then you've always got infinite potential. So, there's really no need to even bring up creation vs thermodynamics.

What the positive and/or negative consecquences of a religion are, are irrelevant next to the question of their truth value. I'm sure there are people who get lots of personal strength from believing that faries help their everyday decisions, but it doesn't mean we should accept "I'll just ask the fairies and they'll know what to do" as an answer in a crisis situation.

That, and as a marxist I do think religion still has a negative influecnce on mankind; when the working classes are taught that a quiet, obidient life will lead to divine reward, they won't make noise, and won't disobey when they have very real needs on earth.

At 9/20/10 03:11 AM, yurgenburgen wrote: This is something that Marx was incredibly accurate about. I agree with what you said there.

Also, before this derails into a flamewar on a different subject; Marx's theories about class struggle and historical materialism were misunderstood, and missapplied. Most of his theories only really apply now, with Globalisation. That, and the whole idea of a historically inevitable revolution doesn't work with a complex species like humanity.

Also, lorkas. You say we don't know what made the big bang, ergo, god did it. Alright. not very sound reasoning, but let's go with that for a while. Now here's the obvious question; which god?

At 9/19/10 05:58 PM, akmeteor wrote: You can't deny something exists when you have no proof either way. You also can't fully accept that same being if you can't prove they do exist.

There's a difference between asserting none existence and not accepting the existence of something.

If you can't deny the existence of something, then you therefore must believe in a giant tea pot that is on the exact same orbit we are but on the other side of sun so we can't see it. There's no proof either way, right?

I also have another question.

If matter can't be created or destroyed (same with energy). How did the Big Bang even occur?

No idea, why do you ask? Are you try to sneak in a subtle gaps argument?

At 9/20/10 04:35 AM, The-universe wrote:

There's a difference between asserting none existence and not accepting the existence of something.

If you can't deny the existence of something, then you therefore must believe in a giant tea pot that is on the exact same orbit we are but on the other side of sun so we can't see it. There's no proof either way, right?

No idea, why do you ask? Are you try to sneak in a subtle gaps argument?

Ok, you seem to be the only one not arguing this like an idiot.

First I'd like to get my beliefs stated and out of the way here. If these are unimportant to you skip to the BOLD LETTERS.

I believe the Big Bang happened, and was created by a god.

I'm also a Christian that believes that Church was created as a control method by power-hungry people who found it as an easy way to do so.

The only reason I've found atheists annoying as of late are the ones who treat it like a RELIGION. Why do you treat something that's supposed to be the opposite of something you hate exactly like that thing you hate? I've seen billboards trying to "convert" people to atheism. That's wrong on both sides of Atheism VS. Religion.

Now that that's out of the way.

I believe that the fact that there is visible or scientific proof that there is not a giant tea pot orbiting the same orbit as us is a good enough reason to think it's not there.

Now a deity, on the other hand, can't be proven to exist or not exist. So denying or accepting are both silly choices. Yet people, like me, see things in this world that seem too good to have just arisen from a massive explosion that seems to have no origin.

Then again, I believe Dante's Hell is accurate representation of one. So what can my beliefs on the situation effect?

At 9/20/10 12:22 PM, akmeteor wrote: Ok, you seem to be the only one not arguing this like an idiot.

Nope, I just made it quick so I couldn't be patronising or condescending.

Now that that's out of the way.

I believe that the fact that there is visible or scientific proof that there is not a giant tea pot orbiting the same orbit as us is a good enough reason to think it's not there.

The tea pot was an example to show the error you're making.

Now a deity, on the other hand, can't be proven to exist or not exist. So denying or accepting are both silly choices.

Maybe I'm interpreting it wrongly, but you're still confusing asserting none existence and not accepting an assertion.

Atheism isn't asserting none existence, it's not accepting the claim a god or gods exist, what those reasons are varies. If not accepting a claim for (whatever) reason on the existence of something that has no evidence is silly, then we'd believe every claim that has ever been made in the history of human thought.

Yet people, like me, see things in this world that seem too good to have just arisen from a massive explosion that seems to have no origin.

The Big Bang was not an explosion but an expansion of space. The cause for this is still unknown however no one said the Big Bang had no origin, we don't know that. Perhaps we never will know it's cause, but I would just be speculating. You seem to be be hovering around the God of Gaps Fallacy.

But it would be interesting to ask, what things are ' too good' in this world? Is it because we are suited for our environment? Is it because we're the most intellectually advanced species?

At 9/20/10 12:35 PM, The-universe wrote: be interesting to ask, what things are ' too good' in this world? Is it because we are suited for our environment? Is it because we're the most intellectually advanced species?

Speaking only for myself... the big bang to me, is like writing a computer program that just ranomly grabs chunks of computer code and throws it together. Then tries to compile it. Except, the result is not only compilable (no errors) but it creates Super Mario 64.... and not just any Super Mario 64... but a bug free version of it.

Oh yeah, and you only get to run the random-code app once.

Maybe it was just dumb luck... or maybe the code being generated isn't as random as we think it is. Maybe it's planned. Or you can take the third option and go with the multi-verse theory... but that too is filled with the same logical fallacies as a creator since you can't prove the multi-verse exists.

At 9/20/10 04:51 PM, CacheHelper wrote: Oh yeah, and you only get to run the random-code app once.

To stretch your analogy a bit... whoever said it was only run once?

At 9/20/10 04:51 PM, CacheHelper wrote: Speaking only for myself... the big bang to me, is like writing a computer program that just ranomly grabs chunks of computer code and throws it together. Then tries to compile it. Except, the result is not only compilable (no errors) but it creates Super Mario 64.... and not just any Super Mario 64... but a bug free version of it.

Oh yeah, and you only get to run the random-code app once.

Or maybe the universe isn't a computer.

The universe is a system of laws that coexist with eachother. It is in no way perfect, it's not 'bug free'. There are plenty of ways to easily wipe out the majority of life on this planet (and it's happened plenty of times). Even humans, the most intellectually superior beings come with their faults. Our universe is a series of laws and processes with a massive amount of time on it's hands, that's all.

However, let's go with your concept for a while. Let's say the universe had a cause and we've ruled out what you define as 'random' or 'accidental'. How did you manage to jump to god as the answer? You've skipped over any number of naturally occurring phenomena to a supernatural one.

Do you know why the multiverse hypothesis is more plausible than a god? Because it removes magic and super powers.

At 9/20/10 05:09 PM, Ravariel wrote: To stretch your analogy a bit... whoever said it was only run once?

No proof it's been ran more then once. No proof means you can't accept that as an answer. it only ran once.

At 9/20/10 05:12 PM, The-universe wrote: Or maybe the universe isn't a computer.

It's just an analogy. Why are you allowed to make them but I'm not? Nobody ever claimed god was a giant tea kettle... double standards and such.

The universe is a system of laws that coexist with eachother. It is in no way perfect, it's not 'bug free'.

I've never broken physics and got stuck in a wall. Rocks don't glitch out and start flying all over the room because gravity has failed it's hit detection. Magic isn't real, therefor the laws of physics, on all scales is perfect.

There are plenty of ways to easily wipe out the majority of life on this planet (and it's happened plenty of times).

This has nothing to do with anything I said.

Do you know why the multiverse hypothesis is more plausible than a god?

But it hasn't been seen or proven... and by your athiest rules you have to accept only what has been seen and proven. To argue for the case of the multi-verse is no diffrent then someone arguing for the existance of God.... your only 'proof' is assumptions and personal reasoning. These things don't count remember?

Besides, even if the multi-verse is real. Thiests could still argue that God created the multi-verse... the cycle continues.

At 9/20/10 12:22 PM, akmeteor wrote:

:Yet people, like me, see things in this world that seem too good to have just arisen from a massive explosion that seems to have no origin.

Then again, I believe Dante's Hell is accurate representation of one.

Dante's Divine Comedy is a work of fiction. It's not even canonical.

And again, even if we believe in a creator, how do you know it is in fact Yahweh, and tha his son Jesus really came to earth to bring us the law?

At 9/20/10 05:12 PM, The-universe wrote: Or maybe the universe isn't a computer.

It's just an analogy. Why are you allowed to make them but I'm not? Nobody ever claimed god was a giant tea kettle... double standards and such.

I never equated the tea pot with god. I was showing that none acceptance was different from asserting the lack of existence.

But your analogy still fails on the basis that the universe isn't perfect nor anything like a simple computer program.

I've never broken physics and got stuck in a wall. Rocks don't glitch out and start flying all over the room because gravity has failed it's hit detection. Magic isn't real, therefor the laws of physics, on all scales is perfect.

I never said physics aren't perfect, unless you want to call every single law "it". I said the universe isn't perfect simply because humans themselves are imperfect. This body of mass we call a planet is imperfect. Our solar system is imperfect. Our galaxy, a galaxy that might collide with another galaxy is imperfect and so on.

Besides, we don't know everything about the physical laws that govern our universe, so do we know that they're perfect?

There are plenty of ways to easily wipe out the majority of life on this planet (and it's happened plenty of times).

This has nothing to do with anything I said.

I was arguing the imperfection of the universe. Would life not thrive continiously on this planet and others if it was? (and made by a designer?)

Do you know why the multiverse hypothesis is more plausible than a god?

But it hasn't been seen or proven... and by your athiest rules you have to accept only what has been seen and proven. To argue for the case of the multi-verse is no diffrent then someone arguing for the existance of God.... your only 'proof' is assumptions and personal reasoning. These things don't count remember?

Firstly, Atheists have no rules. There is no guide book to being an Atheist.

Secondly, I wasn't arguing the multiverse existed (straw man), I was arguing that it was more likely than god but funnily enough, you omitted my reason behind it.

Besides, even if the multi-verse is real. Thiests could still argue that God created the multi-verse... the cycle continues.

Unless the cause for the multiverse is know, if the cause was not know, it would be God of the Gaps fallacy and their reasoning would be redundant.

At 9/20/10 12:22 PM, akmeteor wrote: Ok, you seem to be the only one not arguing this like an idiot.

Excuse me? I make one sarcastic remark and then nothing else I say matters?

Now a deity, on the other hand, can't be proven to exist or not exist.

As is the case with anything supernatural. The condition of being supernatural is the condition of being effectively irrelevant (although alleged otherwise). More relevantly, the condition of being supernatural is a gross presumption, not an exemption. You're treating it as the latter.

Sorry. Saying something can't be proven to exist or not exist is essentially saying that that thing does not exist. Saying, "oh, but this is exempt because it's supernatural," is a tautological presumption (i.e. fallacy).

So denying or accepting are both silly choices. Yet people, like me, see things in this world that seem too good to have just arisen from a massive explosion that seems to have no origin.

And that is also a fallacious argument. It even has a name: Argument from personal conviction.

At 9/20/10 05:21 PM, CacheHelper wrote: No proof it's been ran more then once. No proof means you can't accept that as an answer. it only ran once.

No. False dilemma.

It's just an analogy. Why are you allowed to make them but I'm not? Nobody ever claimed god was a giant tea kettle... double standards and such.

- Your analogy does not apply because you're not allowed to make analogies.
- Your analogy does not apply because the universe does not work like that.

There's a difference between the two.

I've never broken physics and got stuck in a wall.

I'm going to take a bit of both of your positions, and follow the program analogy. I've never programmed a circuit board where And gates sporadically functioned as Or gates.

This has nothing to do with anything I said.

A program crash is a subjectively unintended set of operations. By this I mean... the logic gates did exactly what they should have. The result however, was something a particular user did not appreciate. So, disease could very well be considered a glitch.