Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

But, Bacchanalian, who established that God is in charge and above us? God?

I see a looping argument here. God is in charge because he is in charge.

If I was to say that I was above God, then what decides that I'm wrong? God?

At 12/13/08 11:14 PM, heroicspatula wrote: Because if you suffer through all the bad things in life,you'll try and be better to enjoy the afterlife you believe in. Unless you like hell, then be an asshole all you want :D

So basically if a man who's born disfigured or suffers from a horrible physical or emotional injury during life will try and better himself in a place that is not known to exist with a God that's one of many and also unknown to exist.

I doubt terrorist survivors, car crash victims, genetic disabilities, gun shot victims, those suffering illness etc will all have a huge smile on their face because their next life will be better. Why not just make this life better? Because If I got 50+ of pain with an eternity of happiness where I'm eventually going to run out of things to do I'd call that a shitty deal.

At 12/16/08 08:06 AM, Drakim wrote: But, Bacchanalian, who established that God is in charge and above us? God?

Well. People who believe in God establish it, though they generally believe they're establishing a statement of truth.

I see a looping argument here. God is in charge because he is in charge.

"Why" can be used as a qualifier of causality, purpose, or definition. Causality: the box fell because I hit it. Purpose: The box fell because I wanted it to. Definition: the box fell because it was on the shelf and is now on the floor.

Causality: there is no additional why or because. God is in charge. That is the end of it. There is no, "God is in charge because [etc...]."

Purpose: God was not made for a purpose because he was not made. He exists by any purpose he prescribes. Infact he's decided not to be in charge in some cases... though with limitations.

Definition: defining a thing with itself is somewhat pointless. So rather than say, "God is in charge because he is in charge," we might say, "God is in charge because he has control over his domain and that which is within it."

If I was to say that I was above God, then what decides that I'm wrong? God?

Well that's sort of the point... to replace arbitrary laws defined by humans with arbitrary laws defined by an omnipotent being... effectively making the latter set of laws universal and objective for everything within the domain of the omnipotent being.

At 12/16/08 07:14 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 12/16/08 07:09 AM, hippyhunter5 wrote:

At 12/16/08 07:05 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 12/16/08 07:04 AM, hippyhunter5 wrote: Right so that means that it's okay for a govenor to commit murder. After all it's their rule.

Except the governor operates under the domain of God's rules, so no it's not ok for the governor to commit murder.

Some people are just too damn stubborn.

I get that it's an analogy, but it doesn't hold up because its dependant on removing God as a factor... where as God is required for the logic to work. So obviously if you remove God the logic no longer works.

And the statement isn't that a being that makes its own rules can break them. So the parallelism between the actual thing and your analogy is off.

Since your argument was that "God is above his laws because he created them", I can understand what you mean when it comes to human laws about for example murder. You argue that the governor DIDN'T create the law, since it came from God, and that he therefore aren't above it.
However, many laws aren't related to christianity or the ten commandments at all; for example, neither "thouh shalt not drive a car above speed limit" nor "though shalt not copy what another has created" is in the bible. These are laws created by a human. Would you agree that by your logic, the inventor of copyright laws doesn't have to obey it?

At 12/16/08 11:08 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: These are laws created by a human. Would you agree that by your logic, the inventor of copyright laws doesn't have to obey it?

I wouldn't agree because creation of a law does not necessarily mean you own the law, especially in a legal system that places all people ideally under the law, including the laws creator. On the moral end of things, copyrights are a means to stop theft. The only reason this person would need to circumvent a copyright law would be to steal, which is immoral. The act purely in itself of this man disregarding the law he created is, however, amoral.

God is omnipotent and thus exists in a system in which he can arbitrarily exist above his laws, having complete reign over what they are, how to punish according to them, and how to reward according to them.

The human doesn't exactly have those priveleges. Even the dictator operates within a series of domains that are out of his control.

At 12/16/08 09:27 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 12/16/08 08:06 AM, Drakim wrote: If I was to say that I was above God, then what decides that I'm wrong? God?

Well that's sort of the point... to replace arbitrary laws defined by humans with arbitrary laws defined by an omnipotent being... effectively making the latter set of laws universal and objective for everything within the domain of the omnipotent being.

But who decided that being omnipotent is better than being human? God? You?

You have to see that ultimately, nobody gave God authority, he just took it. D:

THeory of god: all powerful, eternal, omnipresent

Nature of the universe: more powerful bigger than us, been around longer than us, is everywhere

They're the same.

Why can't you guys get this through your heads.

At 12/16/08 12:17 PM, Drakim wrote: But who decided that being omnipotent is better than being human? God? You?

Who said it was better. It's just more advantageous for absolute control... since that's what it is.

You have to see that ultimately, nobody gave God authority, he just took it. D:

But there was no authority before God. No one gave it to him, nor did he take it. :P

At 12/16/08 12:37 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: THeory of god: all powerful, eternal, omnipresent

Nature of the universe: more powerful bigger than us, been around longer than us, is everywhere

They're the same.

I agree. They very much serve the same purpose within their respective belief systems. They do however also carry with them differences beyond the fact that they're called different things.

A little bit ago i posted something about God breeding people or somethin' or other but now i'm learning more about evolution. I understand now why giraffes have long necks and such because of natural selection and to be honest I think Darwin was a genius to figure this out. The fact that he traveled all around the world (primarily in the Galapagos Islands) is astonishing along with the fact that most creatures, plants and animals alike, were only found in certain areas. They've grown and adapted into the creatures they are today so they don't end up like the other 90% of the species that have ever existed that are now extinct.
To be honest I don't know how you could find a fault in that logic. The gene pool is so extremely diverse you can't argue that evolution is the answer.
It isn't so much as the Theory of Evolution but more the Law of Evolution. We have even noticed bacteria and viruses change and adapt. It is a widely accepted fact that we all started out as single-cell organisms.

At 12/16/08 01:09 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 12/16/08 12:17 PM, Drakim wrote: But who decided that being omnipotent is better than being human? God? You?

Who said it was better. It's just more advantageous for absolute control... since that's what it is.

So, the basic argument goes to that God is more powerful, therefore God is in charge, and decides what is right and wrong?

Might is right?

And besides, why is it just "that's the way it is"? If I said that that's not the way it is, what is speaking against me? Who is telling me that I'm wrong when I say that I'm the supreme authority of the universe? Another being that says he is the supreme authority of the universe? With the argument "that's just the way it is"? I'm not particularly impressed.

Who even decides that God is more powerful than me? Who defined power? I could just argue that I'm more powerful than God. Even if he struck me down, I could just argue that striking down people isn't an indicator to your power. The indicator to your power is your new grounds post count, where I am way over God.

Or are you going to tell me that God used his might to decide that it's might that makes right so he can be justified in his claims?

You have to see that ultimately, nobody gave God authority, he just took it. D:

But there was no authority before God. No one gave it to him, nor did he take it. :P

Okay, but what prevents me from taking it myself? That God already got it before me? Who decided that time is a factor to who has right to something? I took the authority last, thus, it's mine! I've decided that!

: Okay, but what prevents me from taking it myself? That God already got it before me? Who decided that time is a factor to who has right to something? I took the authority last, thus, it's mine! I've decided that!:

Very true. But saying that is saying that you're stronger then the omnipotent force(if any).
Are you atheist I just want to know.

At 12/16/08 06:12 PM, AwesomeMan35 wrote:

Okay, but what prevents me from taking it myself? That God already got it before me? Who decided that time is a factor to who has right to something? I took the authority last, thus, it's mine! I've decided that!:

Very true. But saying that is saying that you're stronger then the omnipotent force(if any).
Are you atheist I just want to know.

Yeah, I'm an atheist.

I'm stronger than God alright. He might be powerful, but he is spiritual dead, which is the real kind of power! See, who is going to refute this claim? God? rofl.

At 12/16/08 06:16 PM, Drakim wrote: Yeah, I'm an atheist.

I'm stronger than God alright. He might be powerful, but he is spiritual dead, which is the real kind of power! See, who is going to refute this claim? God? rofl.

I once heard a story. An atheist walked up to the preist and said "Why would I want to believe in God? If I died and found no God I'd be crushed."
Then the priest said "That may be but if there is a God my soul will rise to Heaven and you will be cast to Hell."
I also heard a story when someone told a non-atheist, "When I die I will become a tree."
Then the non-atheist said "What happens when a big sweaty lumberjack chops you down?"
I hope you learned something from these two fables.

At 12/16/08 11:54 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 12/16/08 11:08 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: These are laws created by a human. Would you agree that by your logic, the inventor of copyright laws doesn't have to obey it?

I wouldn't agree because creation of a law does not necessarily mean you own the law, especially in a legal system that places all people ideally under the law, including the laws creator.

But you yourself used that kind of argumentation about god.
"God is above the law because he invented it"

On the moral end of things, copyrights are a means to stop theft.

Copying is per definition NOT theft, since you don't remove anything from anyone. If I steal your car - you are one car poorer. If I copy your idea - well, you still have it.

God is omnipotent and thus exists in a system in which he can arbitrarily exist above his laws, having complete reign over what they are, how to punish according to them, and how to reward according to them.

He CAN, the question is: Is it right? Just as a dictator CAN commit crimes doesn't mean it's right. And let's face it - in all respects, God is just a very powerful dictator.

At 12/16/08 11:54 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 12/16/08 11:08 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: These are laws created by a human. Would you agree that by your logic, the inventor of copyright laws doesn't have to obey it?

I wouldn't agree because creation of a law does not necessarily mean you own the law, especially in a legal system that places all people ideally under the law, including the laws creator.

But you yourself used that kind of argumentation about god.
"God is above the law because he invented it"

On the moral end of things, copyrights are a means to stop theft.

Copying is per definition NOT theft, since you don't remove anything from anyone. If I steal your car - you are one car poorer. If I copy your idea - well, you still have it.

God is omnipotent and thus exists in a system in which he can arbitrarily exist above his laws, having complete reign over what they are, how to punish according to them, and how to reward according to them.

He CAN, the question is: Is it right? Just as a dictator CAN commit crimes doesn't mean it's right. And let's face it - in all respects, God is just a very powerful dictator.

After having it rammed into my head over and over again by popular videos by people like Richard Dawkins, I think we can just safely conclude that religion does not belong in a scientific community.

I love religion just as much as the next guy, but our founding fathers believed in the separation of church and state. I know science doesn't apply to "state" very much, but it's still noteworthy. I believe that the true purpose of religion is to talk about things which are unknown, and how can something unknown be accepted into a scientific community?

I mean yeah, I'm not saying that it's wrong to believe in Jesus, but you should keep things like that to yourself. I believe that God exists, and that he comes to people in different ways, which is why there's different religions.

At 12/16/08 06:29 PM, AwesomeMan35 wrote:

At 12/16/08 06:16 PM, Drakim wrote: Yeah, I'm an atheist.

I'm stronger than God alright. He might be powerful, but he is spiritual dead, which is the real kind of power! See, who is going to refute this claim? God? rofl.

I once heard a story. An atheist walked up to the preist and said "Why would I want to believe in God? If I died and found no God I'd be crushed."
Then the priest said "That may be but if there is a God my soul will rise to Heaven and you will be cast to Hell."

What? And what if there is a God that punishes priests and rewards atheists? The priest is surely royally screwed then.

I also heard a story when someone told a non-atheist, "When I die I will become a tree."
Then the non-atheist said "What happens when a big sweaty lumberjack chops you down?"

Atheist who believes that are dumb asses. I won't become a tree, because when I die, I die. Is that really such a hard concept to grasp for some people? When you die you'll be dead? Nothing else! I promise!

I hope you learned something from these two fables.

Not in the way you hoped, I think.

At 12/16/08 06:04 PM, Drakim wrote: And besides, why is it just "that's the way it is"?

The fact that it can take pages of informal back-and-forth to get there is evident that it isn't just "that's the way it is".

If I said that that's not the way it is, what is speaking against me? Who is telling me that I'm wrong when I say that I'm the supreme authority of the universe?

You've no argument when your only argument is absolute relativism. I will not entertain.

At 12/16/08 06:29 PM, Sajberhippien wrote: But you yourself used that kind of argumentation about god.
"God is above the law because he invented it"

And I corrected myself for being to terse, and not being explicit about the additional variables implied in being God. God is in a different position than man when it comes to creation and ownership.

Copying is per definition NOT theft, since you don't remove anything from anyone. If I steal your car - you are one car poorer. If I copy your idea - well, you still have it.

This was a shitty argument when hordes of teenagers cried out against the RIAA and it still is. Unpermitted duplication is theft, as it's an unpermitted transfer of ownership. Now you say, "it's not really a transfer!" and I slap you.

He CAN, the question is: Is it right? Just as a dictator CAN commit crimes doesn't mean it's right. And let's face it - in all respects, God is just a very powerful dictator.

God is not just a very powerful dictator. God is the most powerful dictator, and that makes a big difference.

Morality is within the domain of God. To ask if it's right is to theoretically place God within the domain of morality. To do this completely undermines the objectivity of God's moral code, and morality becomes subjective, a matter of consensus, or some ridiculous tie in to nature or science. And let's face it. God is a source of justification on the premise of objectivity. And that is aside from the fact that if you believe God is omnipotent, asking if what he does is right doesn't make any sense (as per the first sentence in this paragraph).

Drakim look you don't get it do you?
Its a joke.
Have you no sense of humor?
Whatever evolution is the correct answer.
Moving on.

At 12/16/08 07:44 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 12/16/08 06:04 PM, Drakim wrote: And besides, why is it just "that's the way it is"?

The fact that it can take pages of informal back-and-forth to get there is evident that it isn't just "that's the way it is".

Who established this as a fact? Who decided that you use facts to decide how things are? etc.

Don't you realize that human constructs are the essence of this debate? And not divine authority?

If I said that that's not the way it is, what is speaking against me? Who is telling me that I'm wrong when I say that I'm the supreme authority of the universe?

You've no argument when your only argument is absolute relativism. I will not entertain.

Well, it seems the essence of your absolute absolutism is "it's the way it is because it's the way it is". Fair enough, but hardly convincing.

At 12/16/08 12:37 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: THeory of god: all powerful, eternal, omnipresent

Nature of the universe: more powerful bigger than us, been around longer than us, is everywhere

They're the same.

Why can't you guys get this through your heads.

I never knew the universe was a conscious entity.

The universe having prophets and off-spring is even more confusing.

At 12/17/08 10:50 AM, Brick-top wrote:
The universe having prophets and off-spring is even more confusing.

I am not responsible for the misinterpretations of purported by religion.

-of

Basically a starting force as we talked about is the only thing they have in common.

So we should start there, if this really is science vs. religion topic.

not, atheism vs. god..

While these are similar vs.'s, I think they can have fundamentally difference discussions. If you let them.

At 12/16/08 07:44 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: God is not just a very powerful dictator. God is the most powerful dictator, and that makes a big difference.

So, you want to be controlled by the most powerful dictator in the history of the universe?

Sounds fucking fun.

Morality is within the domain of God. To ask if it's right is to theoretically place God within the domain of morality. To do this completely undermines the objectivity of God's moral code, and morality becomes subjective, a matter of consensus, or some ridiculous tie in to nature or science. And let's face it. God is a source of justification on the premise of objectivity. And that is aside from the fact that if you believe God is omnipotent, asking if what he does is right doesn't make any sense (as per the first sentence in this paragraph).

Fuck the what?

So, you're saying that god is always right because god can never be right or wrong? That doesn't make any fucking sense.

If you're saying that God can't be right or wrong, then you're saying that god has never given us any answers. Things that are neither right or wrong don't fucking mean anything, because they don't lead us in any direction.

So, if god is never right or wrong, god has never done anything worthwhile, which by your logic is not the case.

God, religious people are so out of it. "God exists because god exists and he's awesome because we say so". Yeah, makes sense to me. -_-

At 12/17/08 11:27 AM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 12/17/08 10:50 AM, Brick-top wrote:
The universe having prophets and off-spring is even more confusing.

I am not responsible for the misinterpretations of purported by religion.

So the thousands of Religions that have prophets, saviors, deities, miracles etc are all misinterpreting but you've got it completely right?

At 12/17/08 11:28 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: While these are similar vs.'s, I think they can have fundamentally difference discussions. If you let them.

They are different, I agree.

Though, you should also keep in account that the religion vs science argument is different than the religion vs a god/deity argument.

My personal belief is that there is a god, not necessarily a Christian god, that is a catalyst for the universe and is a catalyst for science.

At 12/17/08 09:10 AM, Drakim wrote:

At 12/16/08 07:44 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 12/16/08 06:04 PM, Drakim wrote: And besides, why is it just "that's the way it is"?

The fact that it can take pages of informal back-and-forth to get there is evident that it isn't just "that's the way it is".

Who established this as a fact? Who decided that you use facts to decide how things are? etc.

Nothing! Oh my god! It's all so arbitrary! There is no absolute and I am so wrong! Black is white! Up is down! God is dead!

Don't you realize that human constructs are the essence of this debate? And not divine authority?

It's all human constructs so... we're exploring the human construct.

Person A: Pain hurts.
Person B: Well who decided pain hurts!?

Well, it seems the essence of your absolute absolutism is "it's the way it is because it's the way it is". Fair enough, but hardly convincing.

Every belief ends in faith. Religion gets there quicker than science. I never said it was suppose to be convincing, nor did I realize I was trying to convert you.

At 12/17/08 02:59 PM, His-Penis-is-on-Fire wrote:

At 12/16/08 07:44 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: God is not just a very powerful dictator. God is the most powerful dictator, and that makes a big difference.

So, you want to be controlled by the most powerful dictator in the history of the universe?

Hi. I'm an atheist.

God allows free will, therefore he does not control you. If there is a God, then it doesn't much matter whether I want Him to decide what happens to me after I die.

Sounds fucking fun.

An atheist and a theist both have their legs chopped off.

An atheist and a theist both meet new, interesting people.

So, you're saying that god is always right because god can never be right or wrong? That doesn't make any fucking sense.

I'm saying God is, not that he is right, nor that he is wrong.

If you're saying that God can't be right or wrong, then you're saying that god has never given us any answers. Things that are neither right or wrong don't fucking mean anything, because they don't lead us in any direction.

Decide what you mean by "right" and "wrong".

It's right for me to say a proton attracts an electron. It's right for me not to commit murder. These are not the same kind of right.

God defines reality. Therefore, everything he does is right.

Since God defines reality, he also defines morality, but this does not mean it applies to him.

So, if god is never right or wrong, god has never done anything worthwhile, which by your logic is not the case.

If someone pokes my eye out... is my sight a worth while concern? Conversely, if someone provides me two eyes, is my sight a worth while concern?

I think you're trying to make an argument about purpose. God's purpose is self determined. Our purpose is determined by God.

God, religious people are so out of it. "God exists because god exists and he's awesome because we say so". Yeah, makes sense to me. -_-

I'm not saying either of those things.

At 12/18/08 01:53 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 12/17/08 09:10 AM, Drakim wrote:

At 12/16/08 07:44 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 12/16/08 06:04 PM, Drakim wrote:

Hi. I'm an atheist.

And your arguing damn fine when using God as if he existed. I wish people I know could argue that well.

At 12/16/08 08:14 AM, Brick-top wrote:

At 12/13/08 11:14 PM, heroicspatula wrote: Because if you suffer through all the bad things in life,you'll try and be better to enjoy the afterlife you believe in. Unless you like hell, then be an asshole all you want :D

So basically if a man who's born disfigured or suffers from a horrible physical or emotional injury during life will try and better himself in a place that is not known to exist with a God that's one of many and also unknown to exist.

Thats why I said the afterlifeyou believe in.
If you think that heaven and god are real, then suffering through life means that you will be happier after death.
I don't personally believe that, but for people who do, disaster is just something to make oneself better.

At 12/18/08 01:53 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 12/17/08 09:10 AM, Drakim wrote:

At 12/16/08 07:44 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 12/16/08 06:04 PM, Drakim wrote: And besides, why is it just "that's the way it is"?

The fact that it can take pages of informal back-and-forth to get there is evident that it isn't just "that's the way it is".

Who established this as a fact? Who decided that you use facts to decide how things are? etc.

Nothing! Oh my god! It's all so arbitrary! There is no absolute and I am so wrong! Black is white! Up is down! God is dead!

Those three things are all absolutes. rofl.

Don't you realize that human constructs are the essence of this debate? And not divine authority?

It's all human constructs so... we're exploring the human construct.

Person A: Pain hurts.
Person B: Well who decided pain hurts!?

Nobody did. But nobody said it was wrong to think that pain hurts either. It's not like you are trying to force your pain on others in some way. Person X's pain is completely unrelated to you short of you caring about person X, where it's still YOU who make the connection, not person X.

The idea of God's authority isn't something personal. you are saying, God rules over you, you, you, you and you!

Well, it seems the essence of your absolute absolutism is "it's the way it is because it's the way it is". Fair enough, but hardly convincing.

Every belief ends in faith. Religion gets there quicker than science. I never said it was suppose to be convincing, nor did I realize I was trying to convert you.

I never said you were. I simply said your argument wasn't very convincing.