Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 12/7/04 02:39 AM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

Your "absolute bad" is anything but absolute.

but it is :o
no one LIKES to feel pain, and everyone feels pain ( when they can). Its EFFECTS are not absolutely bad, but IT is absolutely bad, and that is why it is used by the body to warn us, because we don't want to feel it, and no one wants to feel pain beyond a certain point, unless there is something wrong with their brains which causes pain to become pleasure, which is the other absolute good.
Really, pleasure is fun. You want pleasure. What is pleasure? I mean, its a product of atoms and all that stuff making us react via our brain, but in itself, pleasure.. is.. just fun :o
You like it :o You want pleasure, but not pain. Those are usualy the two forces that govern the world: avoiding pain, and getting pleasure.

hence why I say they are two absolutes, and I have yet to be proven wrong on that.

think about it. You and I both know that pain and pleasure are just simple byproducts or quarks and neutrinos and gluinos interracting in a certain way, but it has an effect on "us", the person, the weird abstract thing that we are, in an abstract way of good and bad :o

So maybe I could explain it better if I said.. you know how we are just matter, but yet we think we think? And we think? And it seems to us we exists as a whole? As me? But that me is.. where? When do I become me and not just the sum of all my components? As I can assemble those components on like a rock, and it won't become a me.

So at one point, pain and pleasure stop being physical and become abstract, and thus absolute in good and bad in the way they act on the "me" in people :o

Could you possibly concieve of everyone as having everything? That in itself would either remove all individuality from everyone and/or create even more discord than there already exists between people today. How could anything possibly develop if it is already born into absolute Perfection? It would almost be like stopping time itself...there would be no progress, no development, no concept of change at all. If there's anything we might agree on, I'm sure it would be that "change" is simply just a fundamental principle of existence.

I see what you mean. But then, using my "pain is an absolute bad" and "pleasure is an absolute good" concept, you could at least say that God has given us pain for no real reason o.o Since I can experience a state of neutralness where I don't feel pain or pleasure, then I don't need pain to appreciate pleasure.
So I can at least show that God didn't give us as much as he could have to make us live better, since he wants us to live happy.

So since we could be happier than we are now, and God only wants us to be the happiest we can be and forver, if he's absolutely good, then either you accept that god isn't absolutely good, but simply "good" or "nice" or whatever, or that well.. nothing. Because like you said, if he was absolutely good, we'd all have everything and everything would be perfect and it would all stagnate.

So maybe we ought to question the very concept of "absolute goodness" anyways -.- What does it even mean when you think about it.

This is why man suffers on his way to self-discovery. The suffering isn't God-ordained, because man creates his own experience as he becomes individualized. By individuality I mean self-choice, volition, conscious mind, spirit, complete freedom, and A POWER TO BACK UP THAT FREEDOM. It's hard to imagine a mechanical or unspontaneous individuality; to be real and to be free, individuality must be created in the image of Perfection and let alone to make the great discovery for itself.

I understand this concept, but it doesn't not need God to be "all good" for it to work, and as out little buddy Ionius likes Occam's razor a lot, we can move towards the simpler model that God isn't all-good, which would allow him to create us, knowing we'd suffer terribly, just for our autonomy.
And in any case, if he's that pefect, could he not have found a way to make us individuals without suffering? Since he created our bodies andits mechanics, he intended for us to suffer horribly by crushing of the balls.
We can suffer terribly by this, and this pain as an absolute bad everyone wants to avoid, is needless in the sense that it could have been less and we would still have gotten the message that our balls are being squeezed.

there is simply no way that I can conceive God as "all-good" or even "good as can be"

---

At 12/7/04 02:28 AM, -poxpower- wrote:

At 12/7/04 02:07 AM, Thelonius wrote:

You like probabilities, so go ahead and try to figure that one out. Either every broken shard from my windshield had a trajectory that avoided my body, and I managed to land just right at such a high velocity that I did not break or fracture anything or there were other forces at work. Keep in mind Occam's Razor.

Occam's Razor simply states that I have to choose to most likely answer between models I consider. Since you cannot prove god acted in any way shape or form, then the only model left is pure coisidence.

That's stupid. That is so unexplainably stupid, that it could almost bring me to tears. Are you saying, therefore, since I personally cannot prove that Hitler killed Jews (I can't do it myself, that is.. there is no way... how do I know history books are credible?) that the only possible model is they did not die?

I cannot prove my mom is my mother, so the only model left is that she isn't?

I cannot prove my name is Jack? So what is it?

You're argument is silly. So incredibly silly..... Just because you cannot prove something, does not mean it is taken out of the equation. There is another possible model: Divine intervention without absolute proof... and Divine Intervention is always like that anyway.

The odds of you surviving that were probably higher than the odds of me winning the lottery tomorrow, and in any case, many things far luckier have certainly happened to other people.

NO NO NO! Why are you so incredibly moronic? Did your dad smash your head against a steel wall? He never talked about surviving... HE DID NOT GET INJURED AT ALL. Think about it. Just think about... you stupid moron, the possibility of not even getting injured, in any way, from an accident like that is so unlikely, that most people would consider it impossible.

OPEN YOUR EYES. You wouldn't know a miracle if it hit you in the fucking face and said "I'm a miracle you dumb ass!"

I just can't reply to your stupidity anymore! Stupid person...

---

At 12/7/04 02:53 AM, CapnJack wrote:

Technically, you will never appreciate pleasure without first feeling pain, so one way to refute that, among many others, is to say that God wanted us to fully appreciate happiness, joy and pleasure.

ok, I already said you could be in a neutral state to steve, but let's take this alternative into account.
According to this, to appreciate pleasure fully, we would have to endure pain fully? Right?
So that means I couldn't fully appreciate this life without by balls being crushed at least once in the most horrid way?
Since we can observe that to not happen to everyone, then we can say that either God doesn't want us to appreciate Joy to a full, thus proving he's not all-good, or that it is possible to experience joy without pain, thus proving he's not all-good because of the undeniable existence of pain.

We do have everything we need, and what makes you think that life is all we are bound to? Maybe life is not meant to be a glorious journey, but a trial so that we may be worthy of entering a much greater place.

now you're just in maybe-land, and you will achiece nothing with me by stating all the possible models of what can be "after life" and whatever crap. If you want to justify that your God is all-good, then do it by examples of this life, or accept that I get to create whatever god I want to explain things and then have it all validated in the "after life" or some crap.

And every creation dulls in complexity to its creator.

what makes you say that? You just affirm this for no reason at all. What about clones? We create clones about as much as we create computers, since we don't create the matter itself, only re-arrange it. This is another example of how your analogy fails. You claim god created us out of NOTHING, which we cannot do with stuff.

A computer cannot comprehend the complexity of a human, and never will they or can be quite equal to us, just as we cannot comprehend the complexity of God, and we can never be as complex as Him.

man, and you call ME an idiot.
Computers will comprehend us the day we give them the information, simple as that. Its been demonstrated that we can build a computer program that would learn on its own :o So yes, given time and technology, its perfecty plausible to affirmate that one day, we will be able to create a computer than can "understand" us as much as we understand ourselves, and could even best us.
Your computer analogy is completely flawed.

yet they do not necessarily have to give you the reason why.

ok, so when is God asking me to do anything? I'm waiting.

The example is flawed in the sense that I can communicate with my governors in a way that all agree is real and with base, and that I can also speculate and understand the reasons as to why I would do what they tell me to do.

"war" isn't God telling us anything, first of all, since you have no way of procing it has anything to do with his will or command, you just assume it like an arrogant ass, and you state that I can NEVER understand God, when in your analogy I can easily understand my governors once I have the same informations as them, same with the computer analogy.

So provided I have the same informations as God, I would understand him, that's what you are saying, yet at the same time, you people say that we can't understand God.
So either you admit your analogy is shit, or your admit that we can indeed understand God.

Why can you not understand that? Are you retarded? I bet you voted for George Bush, too... seeing as you are very narrow-minded and ignorant, and no intelligent person with dignity would vote for such an unintelligent president. It's probably wrong of me to bring up politics, I just couldn't resist, let's stick to religion though.

Sorry, but this, coming from someone who goes around inssulting people in a debate when unprovoked, holds very VERY little meaning to me.
You act extremely arrogantly and then expect me to respect you?

GOD is spirit!

like I said, spirit is something, as you even have a word for it, and if its something, it exists in a way, and if it does, I can shove it into the "everything" ensemble, because "everything that is something" goes in it.
How fucking simple can that be? I'm not even claiming the same laws apply to all parts of the whole ensemble, I'm just saying there is an ensemble, no matter what you say.

look at me being extremly arrogant and showing my true stupidity in the simple act of not understanding simple concept with poxpower explained to me 10 times

yup

---

At 12/7/04 03:08 AM, CapnJack wrote:

That's stupid. That is so unexplainably stupid, that it could almost bring me to tears. Are you saying, therefore, since I personally cannot prove that Hitler killed Jews (I can't do it myself, that is.. there is no way... how do I know history books are credible?) that the only possible model is they did not die?

you don't know History books are credible you incredible tard.
Is everything that is written in them true?
We simply choose to believe the things we hear the MOST from the most sources we trust, depending on our experiences, and that's for factual things.

I cannot prove my mom is my mother, so the only model left is that she isn't?

you can prove she is your mom: DNA test o.O It all comes down to choosing a source you trust. If EVERYONE ON EARTH agrees that your mother is your mom, and that they all have proofs of it via DNA, then the simple laws of probability dicate that she is, yet you can never truly prove she is.
But in the case of God, no one can even have an argument as to why he would save that person from the car crash. All you have is a bunch of people going "well yeah sure he did", and since you can't really place much trust in that kind of people, well you just don't and you conclude that the model where God didn't interract is much more likely.

I cannot prove my name is Jack? So what is it?

Why would I complicate my task and create another name? The simplest model is that your name is Jack, so following Occam's razor, I can choose with the highest probablility of being right, with what I know of you, that your name is indeed Jack. Creating a name for you would be longer than using the one you tell me.
Get it?

Think about it. Just think about... you stupid moron, the possibility of not even getting injured, in any way, from an accident like that is so unlikely, that most people would consider it impossible.

God you're a sad fucker. I don't know why I don't just ban you right here and there for being so vulgar and arrogant in a debate. THIS IS A DISCUSSION so don't flame like that without being provoqued. I chose to insult you because you did it first do don'T come crying and be happy you're not banned.
And why would I believe he didn't get injured?I have to believe everything he says now?
And even if he didn't get injured, well HE DIDN'T and you can't prove God interracted, so the model that he didn't is at LEAST as likely as the one where he did interract.

---

Sorry for calling you an idiot. That's all I'm sorry for, I'm just frustrated. I'm really not arrogant, just having a bad day.

I don't want to read what you said to me because I feel guilty for being so rude lol. Oh well, if you don't accept my deepest apologies for acting out of line, you are an idiot! :-P

---

At 12/7/04 03:18 AM, -poxpower- wrote: So that means I couldn't fully appreciate this life without by balls being crushed at least once in the most horrid way?

Actually there are many reasons why God would make your balls hurt when being crushed, which I do not feel like naming. The idea of my balls being crushed makes me woozy :-(

My point is, to fully experience love you need hatred. To fully experience joy you need anger. I think this is so true, that it even applies to God.

Since we can observe that to not happen to everyone, then we can say that either God doesn't want us to appreciate Joy to a full, thus proving he's not all-good...

We can say that, but that wouldn't make us right.

Or, I can leave it at this: I will never arrogantly claim that my mind is so great that I understand that ways of an all-powerful being. Maybe I do not even know what "good" is. Without all the information, neither of us can judge His work. You know, I fucking hated the way Nintendo made Windwaker until I learned that they wanted to create an artistc approach with a childish feel... but the point I'm trying to make is at least I understand now, while before I was judging the work of a video gaming company (that obviously knows more about video games than a consumer like me) without knowing everything about it. Same thing should apply to God. I can't assume God is not all-good just because I don't understand something.

now you're just in maybe-land...

Nothing can be deemed true if there is the slightest fraction of a doubt. Nothing can be deemed untrue if there is the slightest possibility that it is.

If you want to justify that your God is all-good...

I cannot justify Him as all-good, because if He is so great, then He knows what good is and I don't... so I have to assume that if He loves me, what He does is good. Besides, I don't believe in absolute good or bad... just better and worse.

what makes you say that? You just affirm this for no reason at all. What about clones?

Let me make this clearer. God created us, every single atom. We created the technology of whatever it is that we have created. We can only take credit for the technology, which indeed is not greater than us. If we can create atoms, then we have just created something at least equal to ourselves and the analogy is completely false.

Since we cannot create what God has created, we cannot create things greater than ourselves and we will never be as great as Him. You can't possibly tell me I'm wrong about that sentence. Creator > Creation as long as Creation cannot create something greater than what it's Creator has made.

We create clones about as much as we create computers,

We create the technology that reproduces an already living cell, which becomes a clone. And no, we definitely create many more computers, so this isn't an argument I recommend you stand by.

Computers will comprehend us the day we give them the information, simple as that.

Humans don't full comprehend humans, how can computers do that? I don't think computers can be greater than us, therefore I don't think they can comprehend us... simple as that.

Your computer analogy is completely flawed.

No, I'm sorry, we cannot make computers feel and they will never be as amazing as our minds. Computers will never think the way we do, even if they learn to think faster or hold more information. Computers cannot improve without us, while we can improve without them. Just like, spiritually we cannot improve without God. The analogy is not so flawed, after all.

Besides, this doesn't need to be about computers. A creator is always greater than it's creation, because you cannot create something that you are not completely greater than. This applies tenfold to God because He has control of everything, every particle... while we only have control of our technology and creations.

ok, so when is God asking me to do anything? I'm waiting.

You're completely missing the point here. The point is you cannot assume you fully understand God since you are merely human and do not know, and cannot, know all the facts. And He's always subtly asking you to come to Him, but waiting won't help... paying attention might.

The example is flawed in the sense that I can communicate with my governors in a way that all agree is real and with base

If somewhere from up above in a government office, you had an absurd order without the essential information... you might think it's wrong because you don't know all the facts. That's all this analogy is trying to explain. We cannot understand God without knowing everything He is thinking, and we cannot know those things.

You act extremely arrogantly and then expect me to respect you?

Yeah, I guess I was being arrogant. Let's put it behind us. I feel bad for you, so many arguments, you should make a clone of yourself to help you reply to these.

At 12/7/04 03:27 AM, -poxpower- wrote: you don't know History books are credible you incredible tard.

I don't know anything. I believe they are, yes. How can I possibly know something? In philosophy class, I learned we can only think we know, and never know, unless we can absolutely be certain that something was true.

Get it?

We cannot prove God intervened in that car accident. You also cannot prove I am Jack. So, if that's enough evidence to assume that it was a coincidence, you have to say that I am not Jack, and just lying. Things in life don't work that way. Just because you can't prove something, doesn't mean it's not true.

God you're a sad fucker. I don't know why I don't just ban you right here and there for being so vulgar and arrogant in a debate.

I'll tell you why you didn't ban me: You're nice. So thanks.

I admit it, I really did deserve a ban so I appreciate this. Although I'd probably get more homework done, damn...

THIS IS A DISCUSSION so don't flame like that without being provoqued.

I was provoked. By my girlfriend, fuck why are girls so sensitive? I mean people think I'm sensitive.

I chose to insult you because you did it first do don'T come crying

I'm not that sensitive, lol.

---

At 12/7/04 04:59 AM, CapnJack wrote: My point is, to fully experience love you need hatred. To fully experience joy you need anger. I think this is so true, that it even applies to God.

but like I said, either its 100% or 0%. If extreme joy can be felt by extreme pain ( first) then he would want us all to experience both in this life, so he would have made it so everyone's balls explode at one point, and then we'd all sniff 100 grams of coke and die of an overdose of pleasure.
I ain't seing that happen, so like I said, either you don't need pain to feel pleasure, or God doesn't want us to experience life fully. Can't argue that :o

Or, I can leave it at this: I will never arrogantly claim that my mind is so great that I understand that ways of an all-powerful being.

then it retracts your logical right to justify your actions or anything else with God :o You can't assume that people will trust your explanations of the world based on a concept your claim no one can understand. You'd just be choosing certain parts of the concept to justify whatever you want, and that's logicaly wrong.

I was judging the work of a video gaming company (that obviously knows more about video games than a consumer like me) without knowing everything about it.

so? you could still go "well that Windwaker sure looks like crap" and if they tell you " we wanted it to look like crap", well I don't know why you'd suddenly not say it looks like crap anymore o.o

Same thing should apply to God. I can't assume God is not all-good just because I don't understand something.

are you talking about yourself or me?
As I explained, there are only a limited number of models to explain this "all-good" thing, and none of the models include both God as all-good and God as all-poweful.
You can't say "well there is one but we didn't find it so I pick it anyways" because that's not how logic works, and if you expect to convert people to your beliefs, you'll have to base them on logic and not bold claims that no one can verify or explain in theory

Nothing can be deemed true if there is the slightest fraction of a doubt. Nothing can be deemed untrue if there is the slightest possibility that it is.

Theory: true until proven untrue, explains things in this world.
See? So the Theory of God is only useful and needed to explain the beggining of the Universe ( in that particular model).
After than, God is not needed anymore, and choosing a model where he is = disobeying Occam's razor law, because you pick an over-complicated model to explain things that are happening.

Which is why I've been saying since the beggining that the odds of there being this God are smaller that the odds of there not being one, without saying its impossible. Its just not necessary, and since we base all our modern science on the simple principle that we pick the simplest theory that explains all our observations, then I don't see why we'd make an exception in this case :o

I cannot justify Him as all-good, because if He is so great, then He knows what good is and I don't... so I have to assume that if He loves me, what He does is good. Besides, I don't believe in absolute good or bad... just better and worse.

well then your Good isn't absolute good by your definition, and if you just want to "assume" and all that stuff, then you have to admit that while you believe in that model of God, any other model that I could make up right now on the spot is just as valid :o
That's the trap with the "no proof" game. You can't prove that your choice is more likely than any other's, hence you'll have one helluva incredible time justifying it to people.
Hence why there are many different religions with many different books, which are all similar, but different anyways.

So I just say "well since you can't prove it to me and can't prove it has any effect on me or this world right now, as in it doesn't require me to change my ways of acting, then I might as well ignore those models until I have proof and go on"
hence why I think its useless to have Faith in a particular model of God and practice a particular religion.
I'm not saying its worthless to study them or that its not interesting, I'm just saying that its useless to have faith in them ( on the simply scientific level)

Let me make this clearer. God created us, every single atom. We created the technology of whatever it is that we have created. We can only take credit for the technology, which indeed is not greater than us. If we can create atoms, then we have just created something at least equal to ourselves and the analogy is completely false.

Well no its not really false. Because your analogy seems to have two parts: we built something, we build something that can work in a similar way than our brain.
The problem from your analogy arises that you claim we'll never be able to do as God did, or make the analogy not work by creating a computer at least as smart as us, which I tell you its possible.
So your analogy sortof crapily works if you say humans can only make pentium 500 computers and will have to do those forever, but it crumbels to pieces once you take into account we'll surpass that stage.

---

Creator > Creation as long as Creation cannot create something greater than what it's Creator has made.

like I said, if we can make a computer as smart as us, your analogy will crumble, and there are reasons to think we'll be able to do it one day.

We create the technology that reproduces an already living cell, which becomes a clone. And no, we definitely create many more computers, so this isn't an argument I recommend you stand by.

Yeah but its our "creation" in a way. But I guess its not a really great argument anyways so I'll drop it.

Humans don't full comprehend humans, how can computers do that? I don't think computers can be greater than us, therefore I don't think they can comprehend us... simple as that.

Well you thinking it is irrelevant to its eventual happening. Sorry to break it to you :o
As science progresses, we discover ways to do things we always thought impossible, so much so that science is now extremely sceptical of things that are "impossibe to do". Of course you can make predictions, like "its more possible that we make computers that are smarter than us that it is to prove the existance of God".
So yeah, the analogy just doesn't work if you understand how A.I. could be programmed to act like a human :o

Computers cannot improve without us, while we can improve without them. Just like, spiritually we cannot improve without God.

computers will be able to improve without us the day we make them smart enough to do it. Your whole analogy just stands on a prediction that we'll never be able to reach a state where computers are as smart as in The Matrix :o Yet there is reason to believe so from current experiments and theories. Those are based on this world, unlike God, which you say, again, we interract with somehow. With no proof.

Besides, this doesn't need to be about computers. A creator is always greater than it's creation, because you cannot create something that you are not completely greater than.

How do you define "greater"? More complex? If we make computers that kill us all, are they greater than us? See? There isn't really a definition of "greater" for this case, hence it just comes down to your interpretation of the word, which, scientificaly speaking, isn't worth 2 cents :o

And He's always subtly asking you to come to Him, but waiting won't help... paying attention might.

see, I can agree with your first one, but not with this one, since it implies that YOU can tell when God is speaking with you or not. So either you tell me exactly how you can be 100% sure of this, or admit that you aren't and are just going on a "hunch", which could be later proven to be a chemical imbalance in your left toe O.o
Again, its not because you don't understand something right away that you can claim it a miracle or an act of God, which is something many people did in the past and still do now.

If somewhere from up above in a government office, you had an absurd order without the essential information... you might think it's wrong because you don't know all the facts. That's all this analogy is trying to explain. We cannot understand God without knowing everything He is thinking, and we cannot know those things.

Not only can I not UNDERSTAND him, which I can agree with, but you're saying I cannot COMMNICATE with him, so that wether I understand or not is irrelevant, because with all the NOPROOF you have, he could as well be not communicating we me at all.
Basicaly, you're telling me that either everything that happens is God trying to communicate with me and that I should find some meaning to everything that happens, that God is never communicating with me, or that God is only communicating with me in specific instances that YOU decide.
So again, if you have no proof that he his indeed communicating with me, Occam's razor points to choosing the simpler model that if he exists, he left the Universe develop on its own, which is a model I can easily conceiver and admit is possible.

At 12/7/04 03:27 AM, -poxpower- wrote:

I don't know anything. I believe they are, yes. How can I possibly know something? In philosophy class, I learned we can only think we know, and never know, unless we can absolutely be certain that something was true.

Yup. That's why I said you don't know anything from those books. But that philosophy just says "you can't know 100%". You can know 99% and base your actions on it no problem, and it'll work out perfectly.
But with God, its either 100% or 0%, and since 100% isn't possible becuse of that philosophy ( unless he just came and told us all extremely clearly and plainly, which never happened) and 0% just implies that we can not care and it'll be the same anyways.

Just because you can't prove something, doesn't mean it's not true.

woah there bucko. I CAN prove 99% that you are Jack. I can go get your birth records, I can ask your friends, I can ask you, I can ask your parents. Those are all concrete proof that you are Jack, and if all of those proofs point to "you're Jack", then I know you are and I have no reason to believe you're not.
As in the divine intervention, there is no proof at all, so I might as well say he didn't, and if he did, since there is no proof of it, its irrelevant.

get the point? You have no proof, so saying he did it or not ends in the very same result: he's alive. If I say your name is Jack, either it is or not, and both results have a different effect right here and now :o
If god did save him from the crash, the only real implications are in the after-life, which is irrelevant to us mortals, as there is no proof that any of the after-life models are truer than another, so again, I can make up my own and be statisticaly as correct as any of the great religions.

I admit it, I really did deserve a ban so I appreciate this. Although I'd probably get more homework done, damn...

yeah :p
I've been doing good progress this weekend. I'll have a great weekend next week at this rate 8-) Classes are almost over, and then its x-mas. Yay.

anyways I accept your apologies or whatever, I've no reason to be an ass :o

---

At 12/7/04 01:55 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

It's all just an experience, neither absolutely bad nor absolutely good.

again, you being stubborn does't not equate to you being right 8-)
Its absolute in the way that no one wants to feel it ( pain) and everyone wants to feel pleasure :o
wether it varies in intensity or not is irrelevant, as it is absolutely bad or good. It can be REALLY good or REALLY bad, but its still bad and good, and it goes beyond the simple words or experience.

pain and pleasure are the only real things :o Even if I was in The Mtatrix and they squeezed my balls in there, I would feel real physical pain, and its the only force, along with pleasure, I can truly base my actions on.

Could you state "blue" as being absolutely bright or absolutely dark?

blue is simply absolutely blue :o the only proper quality of "blue" is the fact that it is blue, and the less something is blue, the more red or yellow it is.
They don't really work like pain and pleasure, but pain is bad, and pleasure is good, and there is neutral in the middle, so that the less something is painful the more neutral it is, the more pleasurable.

or is it just an experience in and of itself?

yes, I bike, and those big hills are a bitch, and the muscle pain IS an absolute bad that, at the moment of feeling it, if I make abstraction of everything I do and know, is absolutely bad and I want to avoid it.
Like I said, to understand the concept of how pain and pleasure by themselves are absolute good and bad, you have to detach them from their effects. The effect of muscle pain being, say, energy they make, or building of strenght.

As for the people avoiding it, its a simple mental threshold. Simple evaluation of consequences. Like "would you want to endure X amount of pain to gain X amount of pleasure?". But those are just the effects of all pain and pleasure.
If you want to take your color analogy again, then you could say that there is infinite sorts of pain and pleasure, but they are all either pain or pleasure, like a color is always either blue, red or yellow ( unless you mix them all equaly etc, but that's going beyond the point of the analogy)

Who do you think is living a "fuller" life?

that is beyond the point :o

the point is that pain and pleasure are the only two real absolutes. The best example is The Matrix. Everything in it is false, except pain and pleasure, and its all that it takes for people to perceive it as real. So am I really sitting here, typing all this? Maybe not, but when I hit my toe and feel pain, I DEFINATELY, BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT feel pain, and I can DEFINATELY SAY, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that if you take it out of all context, NO ONE would rather feel pain that pleasure.

hence, they are absolute.

of course when you bring them back to our life on earth, well they are still absolute, but hey, "no pain no gain", that's how the world is, so that's how we make it work, but everyone still avoids as much pain as they can, everyone always makes the best "pain vs pleasure" ratio that they imagine works, with their knowledge.

Well, I think that you believing that there is no such thing as selflessness, everyone is absolutely selfish, and life is only about the avoidance of pain and the pursuit of physical pleasure...I think that's one of the saddest thing of all.

its completely true :o You even believe EXACTLY that. Unless you can actualt certify that you like to have people ram rusty nails into your scrotum to benefit for orphan charity, and that without inflating your ego or your sense of self-satisfaction, well shit I'll trust you.

I say no one is selfless simply because we all have a conscience, and not obeying our conscience causes mental discomfort, which everyone tries to avoid, as it is a kind of pain, and pain, as an absolute, is avoided by all as much as possible, to bring the maximum pleasure.

Its all about baragaining. No one wants to have to dish out a lot of pain and not get pleasure, and no one inflicts on himself pain in any way without prospect of a pleasure, MENTAL or physical. You can even divide EVERY action in "good" or "bad" from the standpoint of the person who does it and at the time he does it.
For example, at the time that I eat chocolate, its good, because I feel pleasure and there is like no drawback, how awesome, but after the time of the deed has passed, well I have no more pleasure and a fat ass, which is bad in that time, but still BAD or GOOD.

might want to fully understand what I'm talking about before claiming I'm a sad person :o

---

At 12/7/04 03:25 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote: What you're talking about, is pain is absolutely bad, and pleasure is absolutely good. But - then you go on to say that it actually does involve bargaining, as in, how much people can stand of one versus how much they want of another...which right there, basically nullifies the "absoluteness" of it all.

that's the catch. The catch is that, in the real world, they do not exist as absolute, because they are always in equilibrium, but when you make abstraction of it all, like for example, if I was to say "in the world, nothing is real", then I would still have to admit that pain and pleasure are the two things that are real :o And since, out of all the things that can feel or experience pain and pleasure, none wants to get pain more than pleasure, you can also say that they are both real, and that you can attribute "pain" as the bad one, and "pleasure" as the good one.

So that pain is absolutely bad, and pleasure is absolutely good, but when taken appart from the effects they have or the things that cause them, which of course, does not happen in the real world.

You CANNOT seperate an experience from the effects of that experience.

sure I can :o I can't do it in real life, but I can build a theorytical model where they are separated, and that model is simple and it works and can be used to explain why we prefer pleasure over pain and why we bargain the way we do.

what the mind willfully accepts.

that's just your interpretation. If I accept something as true, its not true or real, not even to me o.o In the sense that I can accept that this computer is real, but at the same time, I can have the theory that its not actualy real, and it works, hence the Matrix, where whatever my mind tells me isn't actualy there, and I can always theorise that its not ACTUALY there and that its all just a fabrication of my mind and that in fact, as we speak, we are actualy in a matrix.
What I cannot theorise doesn't exist, is pain and pleasure, because they happen to me wether I admit to them or not :o Bash my in the head, and you won't need me to accept the pain for it to be reality.

When everything is all said and done, that is the moral of the story of the Matrix.

the moral is this one: wether its real or not, you can experience it in degrees of pain and pleasure, the only two absolutes.

Using extreme examples like getting a rusty nail through the sack doesn't actually prove your argument, because it IS an extreme, and extremes are by definition, different from the norm.

well it can happen, so its valid. If I said "feel the extreme unfealable pain blablabla" then it would be extreme, but as it stands, a rusty nails in the balls is the norm, because it can happen easily.
But that's besides the point.

And remember, there is no gray without black or white, and that's all I'm saying, that there is actualy a black and a white, that are pain and pleasure, that can be attributed good and bad.
Of course when you bring the concepts in real life, they become much more complex and interract in different ways, but by simply remembering that one is good and the other bad, and that humans avoid the bad and seek the good, you can explain much more easily why people do stuff, and you can also be certain that no one is selfless.

Simply put: whenever you do something, you expect something will come out of it that will bring you pleasure, wether its helping the homeless or eating a bowl of cow shit.

but anyways, the whole point of attributing an absolute value to good and bad is to prove that God was not all-good, like I replied to you and that other dude, and you guys didn't reply back :o

---

I like my italics better *mutters incoherently about darker, harder-to-read italics*
So I say "based on what we observed, we can say that evolution exists" and until you PROVE it wrong, its right.
That's a logical fallacy. I believe it's called Argumentum ad Ignorantiam = "appeal to ignorance." If you can't prove something true, that does not mean it is not true. If you can't prove something false, that does not mean it is not false. And everything you usually say needs to be proven is actually hypothetical, so it needs to be supported, not proven. You never prove a hypothesis until it becomes scientific law.
I hate you people. Its like "1 + 1 = 2", PERIOD, and you'll go "just cause you say so blablablabla.
PROVE ME WRONG. And I have explained myself plenty on the computer analogy >:
Then recap, if you have explained it. 'Cause I haven't seen it myself. Also, the analogy doesn't deal with the Matrix: the idea of it came from themes presented in the Matrix. I'd post a link for it, but the paper it's in is about sixty or so pages long.
So perhaps you should try explaining why it doesn't apply.
You're losing track of things. That's your job. I explained why it could apply.
But the bible starts on nothing and cannot be proven "wrong."
As far as this is concerned, there is such a thing as metaphor. Could "Let there be light" be a metaphor for the Big Bang? Could "days" in fact refer to thousands of years? The only people who think that the Bible should be taken literally in certain parts are fundamentalists, people trying to disprove its whole credibility, and people who don't have an education.
"Like "what is after death". Well anything could be."
Well technically, if you're adhering to a non-belief (or atheistic) point of view, then nothing happens after death. You're dead, that's it. That's how I had it explained, but I like the Grim Reaper Show's take on it better as far as how the atheist put it.
So by choosing the bible over other books in a religiou sens, you are making a stupid choice.
I'm not choosing it over other things, I'm citing things from it. Besides, none of this is being done in a purely religious sense. There are authorities on the creation of the world in both science and religion, none of which have been proven or disproven. Any of them could be called theories. As Thelonius says, I do not discount science in any way: I simply see how both Science and Genesis could be equated to each other in certain events. You have to remember that the Bible was written by Man, and that everything told in it was from God or some angel; I remember you cited micro-evolution at some point (growing taller, longer life expectancy). Another effect of micro-evolution is that we are becoming smarter and more intelligent as a species. It's entirely possible that the authors of the Bible weren't smart enough to write down what they were told in scientific terms we could recognize.
and that's called "fiction" to me, same as heaven, reincarnation etc
Well *smiles* the only way to tell if reincarnation is false is to kill you.

I think it was Stephen Hawking, the renowned physicist (the guy in the wheelchair), who said in A Brief History of Time:
"In an unchanging universe a beginning in time is something that has to be imposed by some being outside the universe; there is no physical necessity for a beginning. One can imagine that God created the universe at literally any time in the past. On the other hand, if the universe is expanding, there may be physical reasons why there had to be a beginning. One could still imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there
had been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!"
And another quote (not from Stephen Hawking) goes to the tune of "Science attempts to prove how God did what He did." Just to quote a physicist and not the Bible, since you think it should be discounted.

As for 'God' fucking up like the fucking idiot that it is (Oohohoh, such a wonderful sentence), how about supposedly trusting two people to do what they are told? If 'God' is all powerful and all knowing, then 'God' would have known what those critters were about to do. 'God' would have known before he created them.
I'm actually a proponent to the theory that God isn't all-powerful or omniscient. Remember, micro-evolution; compared to primitive humanity, God would pretty much be those things.
If there's any reason to not believe in religion, it's because of how many there actually are. If you really wanted to get into 'Heaven', you'd be Jewish, since the Jews are Its chosen people
"A religion with no political power is a cult." I forgot who said that. Also, the early Christians were Jews; at some point, they said "fuck it" to some of the traditions (Yom Kippur most noticeably) because, if they were saved simply by faith in Christ, they didn't need to do many of the things the Torah said that faithful Jews had to do.

---

At so-and-so, -poxpower- wrote:

I've noticed something about the way you argue. You're basing everything you say....everything without fail....on what you deem to be true, or on what you have observed. You take base theories like cloning and causality, without truly understanding them, and shape them to form your own arguments. You commit the straw man fallacy (essentially constructing an easier-to-destroy argument loosely based on your opponent's and taking that down instead of your opponent's, claiming you have won) over and over again. You never respond to what has been said to you, you respond with an example based loosely on what you think has been said to you. The group of people debating against your thinking are quoting philosophers and scientists and qualified authorities and all you bring up is your own opinion. You claim to base your opinion on the opinion of general science and causality, but that's just it: general science. Anyone could hear about general science. The moment you thought the idea of cloning would save you from the computer-God analogy was the moment I realized all this.
So, going into maybe a too in-depth Matrix scenario, just how much do you rely on your own perceptions instead of those we've presented you?

---

well ender, properly attributing the burden of proof is not a fallacy.
The bible in literal sense should be forced to prove wrong the heavily supported theory. As for the bible metaphorically, i think its pretty much a load of apologetic shit. You're familiar with christian apologetics i imagine right? But that doesnt matter much for the actual existance of god of course. Without killing you, you wont know for sure any of those things. But to give convincing a book like the bible is full of absurdities, random misinterpreted lines to keep up with modern science and forgeries has been done and is very predictable to happen. Im not saying taosim isnt true or something like that.

But women arent a rib and man wasnt spoken into existance or made from dust. A piece of fruit didnt contain the ability to have knowledge. I know you arent arguing for this but you just as well may be with overwhelming evidence would lend support to the idea that god could do nothing but start the process and design its laws. Or that maybe we are all god and so is all the universe and some sort of idealism is true. Of course we dont know beyond what we can percieve neccesarily, philosophy makes it progress on whats possible and logical.

This all leads me to the conclusion that time is wasted arguing about gods existence and his ability to create. Its a rediculous notion in its very essense, metaphysically. I dont see how someone could say no god exists at this point but i think confidently some people could be told your god makes no sense and isnt worthy of worship.

---

So yeah, the analogy just doesn't work if you understand how A.I. could be programmed to act like a human :o
How much do you actually know about AI and how it is programmed? How much do you know about computer science? Computers run off of predicate logic; I can draw up truth tables for given values and do the same work a computer does all the time. A computer's current processor only allows for the use of propositional logic, the sort of thinking that only requires a yes or no answer, or a T or F truth value for each value submitted in any given equation. AI that we have made still uses propositional logic except that it also utilizes biologically-inspired techniques such as fuzzy logic and neural networks. What makes the human mind superior to that of a machine is the use of predicate logic, something we have been unable to program into any computer thus far in human history. I mean, we barely know how we can use predicate logic ourselves, we have barely any idea of how the brain works on the logical level. AI cannot be programmed to act like a human. It can be programmed to act in a flawed facsimile of a human, but the analogy will stand true otherwise. And that otherwise will never occur as far as I see it.

---

At 12/7/04 05:33 PM, Ender_Wiggin_x23 wrote: How much do you actually know about AI and how it is programmed? How much do you know about computer science? Computers run off of propositional logic; I can draw up truth tables for given values and do the same work a computer does all the time.

Sorry, my fault. I tend to get them mixed up sometimes. Both start with a P and an R.....

---

well that doesnt deny the idea that computers may eventually be able to use that type of logic. It just precludes them from it now. But what if they could? would you consider it a person? (capable of moral praise and blame)

---

At 12/7/04 05:26 PM, The_Darklands wrote: well ender, properly attributing the burden of proof is not a fallacy.
The bible in literal sense should be forced to prove wrong the heavily supported theory. As for the bible metaphorically, i think its pretty much a load of apologetic shit. You're familiar with christian apologetics i imagine right?

Actually, no I am not. I came to the conclusion of metaphorical interpretation of the Bible by myself. I thought pretty much that literally it made no sense at all.

But women arent a rib and man wasnt spoken into existance or made from dust.

I don't know how the hell you could metaphorically explain Women coming from Man's rib. I do know that there is a metaphor for Man coming from dust: pretty much all life is dependent on the Earth it lives on. And I'm sure we weren't born in outer space.
A piece of fruit didnt contain the ability to have knowledge.
:Another good metaphor. "Knowledge of Good and Evil" to be more precise. As I remember, God wanted Humans to remain ignorant in the Garden of Eden (the idea of "ignorance is bliss" comes from this as well) perhaps because He didn't want Humans to experience true pain and joy. He wanted us to essentially remain children forever.

This all leads me to the conclusion that time is wasted arguing about gods existence and his ability to create. Its a rediculous notion in its very essense, metaphysically. I dont see how someone could say no god exists at this point but i think confidently some people could be told your god makes no sense and isnt worthy of worship.

Pretty much, yeah. I'm arguing here, essentially, that the chances of the Universe springing out of nothingness are not more than the same for God creating it.

Final post for today. You people know how to tire one mentally.

---

At 12/7/04 05:03 PM, Ender_Wiggin_x23 wrote:

That's a logical fallacy. I believe it's called Argumentum ad Ignorantiam = "appeal to ignorance." If you can't prove something true, that does not mean it is not true.

you can't really prove anything 100% true, but theories + Occam's razor = you get the most likely explanation for things, and so far, the most likely explanation for our observation of life on earth is evolution.

As far as this is concerned, there is such a thing as metaphor.

see? You can't prove the bible wrong, because no matter what we say, you heathen go "a, but IT WAS A METAPHOR", yet you can't use the bible to accurately predict shit, hence the bible is useless as far as science goes.

if you think the bible should NOT taken litteraly, that means you reserve the right to interpret it freely, meaning that your conclusions are all baseless and USELESS and can't be part of science, or use as science or even historical facts for that matter.
"by one man, I interpret he means 10, and by female, he means donkey etc etc" which all comes back to what I've been saying since the beggining:

If you cannot prove your model is the simplest way to explain our observation, then it is that much more unlikely that it be true, hence you are just gambling if you admit to believing it.

note: "believing it". If I say that there COULD have been a God, and that there COULD have not been a god, I'm not engaging myself at all, where you are engaging yourself in something you can't prove if you choose either one of those.
Note that I also am not engaging myself when I use Occam's razor to predict that certain models are more unlikely that others.

I'm not choosing it over other things, I'm citing things from it.

well if you cite them and use them as truths, you are choosing the bible over other books, and that is just gambling :o
If science proves SOME of the stuff in the bible, then why not just stick to science? The bible has not PROVEN anything in science, just show examples and interpretations of concepts in science.

Any of them could be called theories. As Thelonius says, I do not discount science in any way: I simply see how both Science and Genesis could be equated to each other in certain events.

exactly as am I. I just add Occam's razor to predict that certain scenarios are less likely, and that therefore, basing myself on them is just gambling and will not lead to much :o

I remember you cited micro-evolution at some point (growing taller, longer life expectancy).

oh that wasn't me, that was the other dude :o

It's entirely possible that the authors of the Bible weren't smart enough to write down what they were told in scientific terms we could recognize.

hence why its not useful to base our current science on it :o
I just wish the people would admit that and just use the bible as a reference books for analogies and ways of life and whatnot instead of pretending its a scientific source or the word of god.

Well *smiles* the only way to tell if reincarnation is false is to kill you.

yup. Hence why arrangin my life in prediction of reincarnation is a gamble. Might not be wrong, but its just a gamble, and its a gamble infinitely harder to win than say, winning the lottery 10 times in a row, because since its baseless, I can also make up any model I want, and even Occam's razor won't work to find the simplest scenario, because there are no observations possible.
So yeah, after death, you turn into a smurf and have to eat cow shit for 100 years until you turn into a purple crocodile and then life a life of joy as you are analy raped by flamingos for the rest of time.

"In an unchanging universe a beginning in time is something that has to be imposed by some being outside the universe; there is no physical necessity for a beginning.

yup I'm reading that book right now :p

One could still imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there

yup, can't argue with that. Note that he admits the same as I do: the possibility of God creating the Universe. He just adds that you don't really care what was before the big bang, since it leaves no trace, so its meaningless, which I agree.

"A religion with no political power is a cult." I forgot who said that.

then you don't want faith, you want a political party. SO either join a party or a cult :p

---

Theres probably something about evolution in Corinthians. THeres loads of wierd shit in there.

---

At 12/6/04 12:32 AM, -poxpower- wrote: Pain exists. That's a fact. When you squeeze my balls, there is pain,and pain is an ABSOLUTE BAD.
Why would God create this?

Then why do people that have a defect that they cannot sense pain have horrible lives? They often get severe burns, broken legs, and other medical things that would've been prevented with a sense of pain. We know that humans are fragile objects, and as such they should be able to defend themselves and know when there lives are at sake through other ways besides sight and sound. There is a thing called adrenaline in which the body will sense very little pain when it is necesary to survive or an increase in stimuluses occur.

I don't like to push my religious beliefs on people, so I don't constantly refer to god, so I avoided it as much as possible.

---

At 12/7/04 03:18 AM, -poxpower- wrote: Computers will comprehend us the day we give them the information, simple as that. Its been demonstrated that we can build a computer program that would learn on its own :o So yes, given time and technology, its perfecty plausible to affirmate that one day, we will be able to create a computer than can "understand" us as much as we understand ourselves, and could even best us.
Your computer analogy is completely flawed.

Has it every crossed your mind that possibly God did not create us to understand him? Proves your rebunking theory wrong...

---

At 12/7/04 09:37 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote:

Then why do people that have a defect that they cannot sense pain have horrible lives?

I don't think you got the point.
The EFFECTS of pain are not always bad, but pain itself is bad. No one would want to have leg cramps forever if it didn't allow them to do something, whatever that was, be it have superpowers or just enjoying life more after he gets rids of the cramps.
no one wants to feel pain. NO ONE. If I could do something without feeling pain, I would.
And even in the case that I would inflict pain upon myself simply to feel pleasure better, well I wouldn't actualy enjoy the pain part :o

get it?

and from that notion, you can easily prove there is no way that God cannot be both all-powerful and all-good, which I have explained in lenght in my other posts.

At 12/7/04 09:52 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote:
Has it every crossed your mind that possibly God did not create us to understand him? Proves your rebunking theory wrong...

well then he'd have to add "consider the analogy that we create only shitty computers that aren't like us in any conveivable way....". As a matter of fact, he could have just replace computer with "can-opener".

you see the point of the analogy is to show how something that think, the computer, couldn't understand its creator, and the analogy is flawed in that it assumes computers are always like shit and we do it on purpose just so they don't get us :o

And if you say we can't understand God, what relevance does he then have to the real world??
Why would I care? Why would you even mention him? Why YOUR God? Why not SDLFJKASKLDJFKLSAD, the god of wine and gay porn?

---

This will probably be my last post on this thread, as I am going out of town for a few days, so I will make it short. First, I am going to address an issue, then I am going to summarize my main points, and lastly I will impart with you some suggested reading materials.

At 12/7/04 02:07 AM, Thelonius wrote: Keep in mind Occam's Razor.

Ah yes, here it all begins. After stating this, like a fifth grader who just learned a new word, you managed to squeeze this baby in eight times in a single day. Bravo! Although, unfortunately you were a bit mistaken, but I will get to that below. In the meantime, let's check out some of your classic statements regarding Occam's razor.

At 12/7/04 02:28 AM, -poxpower- wrote: Occam's Razor simply states that I have to choose to most likely answer between models I consider.

When you use Occam's razor, you can't resort to a model that can't be proven :/

and you also can't apply Occam's razor to probabilities.

And if you want to take Occam's razor and apply it to your theory of God, then you'd come up with "God created the Universe, then left it be, as the Universe works by itself" and not "God created the Universe, and then he saved me from a car crash"

At 12/7/04 02:58 AM, -poxpower- wrote: as out little buddy Ionius likes Occam's razor a lot, we can move towards the simpler model that God isn't all-good, which would allow him to create us, knowing we'd suffer terribly, just for our autonomy.

At 12/7/04 02:08 PM, -poxpower- wrote:

After than, God is not needed anymore, and choosing a model where he is = disobeying Occam's razor law, because you pick an over-complicated model to explain things that are happening.

At 12/7/04 02:09 PM, -poxpower- wrote: So again, if you have no proof that he his indeed communicating with me, Occam's razor points to choosing the simpler model that if he exists, he left the Universe develop on its own, which is a model I can easily conceiver and admit is possible.

At 12/7/04 05:48 PM, -poxpower- wrote: you can't really prove anything 100% true, but theories + Occam's razor = you get the most likely explanation for things, and so far, the most likely explanation for our observation of life on earth is evolution.

Haha, I love it. You see, and I realize this was a bit mean, I tricked you. I knew you would have no clue what I was talking about in regards to Occam's razor, so you would quickly Google it and bang out a retort. Unfortunately, with your limited knowledge regarding this subject, you abused Occam's razor.

You believe that Occam's razor means the most likely answer is right. Truly, in its most basic form, Occam's razor can be stated as the simplest answer is right. However, there is a common misconception associated with this, that without more intimate knowledge regarding Occam's razor, one is prone to make. Occam's razor can be more purely stated as: plurality should not be posited without necessity. Or, in a slightly more dumbed down state, one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.

Furthermore, Occam's razor is not law, contrary to what you believe. For it to be law, it would have to always hold true. The fact is, and we know from experience, that it does not always hold true. For this reason, it is not admissible as an appeal to authority in court or debate.

Part two. My first point was to create a model whereby Creationism and science are harmonious. I also outlined a model whereby God can exist harmoniously with the laws of physics. I showed you that logic serves as your god and it is not greater than God. I taught you the definitions of several words every third grader should know. I showed you how you abused Occam's razor, and taught you what it truly is.

I am sure there is more, but I am satisfied enough to omit them.

Part three. I suggest you read:

The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality by Brian Greene. This book will lay down a lot of foundation on our universe, string theory and dabbles in the multiverse theory.

Dreams of a Final Theory: The Scientist's Search for the Ultimate Laws of Nature by Steven Weinberg. There is a reason this author is a Nobel prize laureate. He is an absolute genius, who helped devised the electroweak theory, and will surely offer some insights into some of the current problems faced by physicists, including a section discussing God.

Our Living Multiverse: A Book of Genesis in 0+7 Chapters by Fred Adams. This book goes through the current scientific model of the beginning of the universe to its present state. It also contains a rather thorough, but shallow, explanation of the multiverse theory.

---

At 12/8/04 02:25 AM, Thelonius wrote:

You believe that Occam's razor means the most likely answer is right.

god you suck at reading.
it simply says: the most simple answer than can answer to all observations is the most likely one.

how the fuck hard is that to get? Nowhere does it say the most likely answer is the right one, but the best one to use to prove other theories because its less complicates o.o

Or, in a slightly more dumbed down state, one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.

you say I'm a moron for googling is, yet that sentence is an EXACT extract from the first site you get when you use Google o.O
Man are you arrogant.

The fact is, and we know from experience, that it does not always hold true.

show me an example of this :o
as far as I know, you only apply it to theories, as since theories are never facts or 100% true, well I doubt you can prove shit with Occam's razor, but you can surely show that you need not a complicated model.

the whole point was to prove that you're a total tard for coming up with stuff like "the real model is the one where god is all-good and helps me get out of car crashes" when its obvious that you're just picking any random model and not following Occam's razor simply so you can be a pompous ass and go around telling people you're God's chosen.

Part two. My first point was to create a model whereby Creationism and science are harmonious. I also outlined a model whereby God can exist harmoniously with the laws of physics. I showed you that logic serves as your god and it is not greater than God.

and I showed you that you use over-complicated models in which you blindly put faith.
Shit and you're the tard who's going on about how I'm retarded. At least I'm not extremely arrogant as you are o.O

thanks for the reading material, but I see that you think you know what I was talking about yet actualy have no clue.
I know what you're talking about and have known since the start. Though I'm not sure if you actualy believe in God or not, or if you're just rambling on trying to prove that a God model is possible, which I admit to from the start, but the point is to show that its LESS likely, because its more complicated than necessary, which is something that Occam's razor applies to PERFECTLY.

so for the last time: YES, whatever model you conceive that involves are god is POSSIBLE but NO, they are not all more likely than the concept of the universe evolving on its own, because that is the simplest model we have than follows all our observation.

Think about it. We are constantly finding out about the Universe's laws and it becomes more and more obvious that it could have evolved on its own from the big bang. So adding a God after the creation is just adding an extra element that doesn't explain anything that couldn't be explained with the laws of the universe :o

reply if you want, but at least be civil and not an ass just because you think reading makes you instantly smarter.

---

At 12/8/04 04:15 AM, -poxpower- wrote: reply if you want, but at least be civil and not an ass just because you think reading makes you instantly smarter.

Yeah, damn those bastards with those books and college edum-a-cations. FUCK THOSE YANKEE PONDSCUM!!!! Think they are so damn smart and nol-edge-em-ble.

Maybe this thread will die now that Thel will be gone. WOOHOO!!!

---

At 12/8/04 04:22 AM, FAB0L0US wrote:

Maybe this thread will die now that Thel will be gone. WOOHOO!!!

maybe it would have a better chance if you shut up and stop posting in it.
ever think about that?

maybe you don't read enough books. Go read books on evolution, bookboy, if you're so sure it'll make your reasoning capabilities much sharper. Maybe then, you'll stop bumping threads you want to die.

---

hey this seems to have turned into a debate of whether god exists, i thought you wanted peoples views on creation?

---

At 12/8/04 06:15 AM, BubbaCloud wrote: hey this seems to have turned into a debate of whether god exists, i thought you wanted peoples views on creation?

Does this surprise you?

Can't have a Guatanabo Bay topic without going onto the war on Iraq.

Can't have a creationalist topic without turning it to whether god exists or not.

Can't talk about if a fetus is a human or not without it going into abortion

Can't talk about governments without talking about how stupid President Bush is.

While it would be nice to have some topics without going back to the main ones on these boards, I don't see it really happening too often.