Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Protests over a cartoon... wtf.
( ) 3 Votes
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #202554 is a reply to message #202552] |
Mon, 05 June 2006 09:35   |
 |
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Javaxcx wrote on Mon, 05 June 2006 11:08 |
| JohnDoe wrote on Mon, 05 June 2006 11:42 |
What is more probable?!
|
That we were caused.
|
I'm losing you here tbh. What exactly are you arguing? Give me the whole picture.
My position is that God is superfluous, since all of his characteristics can be given to the universe. I can however appreaciate people thinking that a thing like the universe must be made by "somebody", because we humans make things, too.
lol
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #202556 is a reply to message #202550] |
Mon, 05 June 2006 09:37 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| warranto wrote on Mon, 05 June 2006 10:48 |
The same reason other scientists interfere with the natural course of things. To ensure that it doesn't become a complete failure.
If a Scientist is trying to develop a cure for somthing, he won't just leave it be once the start of the experiment has begun, he'll modify and assist the process to ensure that the end result is what he wants.
But like I said, don't read too much into the "experiment" word. That's mostly there as a placeholder until I can find a better comparison. It works, but gets people thinking of the wrong ideas.
|
So the "ultimate" doesn't imply all-knowing?
lol
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #202561 is a reply to message #188804] |
Mon, 05 June 2006 10:09 |
 |
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
It .could. The example doesn't discount him being all-knowing
Being all-knowing, all-powerful, all-whatever. Doesn't necessarily mean that we are going to be the same. For argument's sake, let's assume that he is all-knowing. That just means he'll know when and where to make the "fix" to put us back on course.
[Updated on: Mon, 05 June 2006 10:10] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #202565 is a reply to message #188804] |
Mon, 05 June 2006 10:57 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
If he was all-knowing, he wouldn't need to fix anything. The outcome would be clear from the start.
All-powerful doesn't really work either, given the good 'ol exemple of telling God to make a stone that's too heavy for him to carry.
lol
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #202575 is a reply to message #188804] |
Mon, 05 June 2006 12:53 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
"all-knowing" simply means that he knows what will happen, that as an isolated thing, does not mean that he would necessarily be able to fix it.
Think of it as us being able to predict the future, We may know when something will occur, how it will happen, where it will happen, etc., but we won't be able to do anything about it simply by knowing about it.
The outcome may be clear, but that doesn't mean some modification won't be required to reach that. Cause and effect, and every other time-based paradox being as they are.
As for the all-powerful, just becuase you have the power, doen't mean you'll use it. Besides, you know as well as I do that the universe (or, the substance within it  ) are subject to rules. If he started to break them, despite his creation of them, there would be concequences.
More later, large workload came in.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #202577 is a reply to message #188804] |
Mon, 05 June 2006 13:12 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Quote: |
"all-knowing" simply means that he knows what will happen, that as an isolated thing, does not mean that he would necessarily be able to fix it.
Think of it as us being able to predict the future, We may know when something will occur, how it will happen, where it will happen, etc., but we won't be able to do anything about it simply by knowing about it.
The outcome may be clear, but that doesn't mean some modification won't be required to reach that. Cause and effect, and every other time-based paradox being as they are.
|
The premise however is that he engineered it. So by being all-knowing he would know what consequences are going to happen with each "setup". The case that he will have to "fix" something would never occur.
| Quote: |
As for the all-powerful, just becuase you have the power, doen't mean you'll use it. Besides, you know as well as I do that the universe (or, the substance within it Wink ) are subject to rules. If he started to break them, despite his creation of them, there would be concequences.
|
The exemple with the stone shows that there is no "all-powerful". If he was all-powerful, then shouldn't he have the power to create every stone possible, even a stone that's too heavy for him to carry? On the other hand, by creating such a stone, he would stop being all-powerful since he has created a barrier for himself.
| Quote: |
More later, large workload came in.
|
Speaking of work, I should be studying for my final oral exams...too bad I'm a very lazy person when it comes to those things.
lol
[Updated on: Mon, 05 June 2006 13:14] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #202601 is a reply to message #202594] |
Mon, 05 June 2006 15:49 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| SpyGuy246 wrote on Mon, 05 June 2006 17:01 |
If God is all-knowing, then "fix" is the wrong word to use because something being "broken" implies that something went in an unexpected way.
If God is all-powerful, then there simply is no rock so big that He couldn't lift it. It could be infinitely big and it would make no difference. "All" includes the infinite.
|
1. Warranto said something about modifications, so I just used the verb fix in "" to express that...it doesn't change my point in the slightest.
2. So you're saying that God can't create such a rock? Hmmm...
lol
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #202610 is a reply to message #188804] |
Mon, 05 June 2006 17:02 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
As to the "all-knowing" idea, you can engineer things a certain way and still expect to "fix" them on the way. The only difference between this type of fixing, and the type where an honest mistake has occured, is that this one is a planned event.
| Quote: |
The exemple with the stone shows that there is no "all-powerful". If he was all-powerful, then shouldn't he have the power to create every stone possible, even a stone that's too heavy for him to carry? On the other hand, by creating such a stone, he would stop being all-powerful since he has created a barrier for himself.
|
Ignorant question.
Only the all-powerful would be able to take their own power away. That's the beauty of being all-powerful. Of course, once you take it away, you cease being all-powerful.
So, until he actually does create that stone, he has not taken his own power away. You can't judge the current status of something by what will modify it in the future, by reasons that can ONLY be done by the person it would affect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #202635 is a reply to message #188804] |
Mon, 05 June 2006 22:34 |
 |
PlastoJoe
Messages: 647
Registered: October 2005
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Is it a sign of weakness to not create something that can't exist by your own laws? Also, is it safe to constrain God to the perception that he has to physically lift things? Couldn't he teleport the rock, or simply will it to another place? If so, the size of the rock would be irrelevant. Besides, in my view any God that can be explained without the presence of such paradoxes is hardly a God at all.
"Chuck Norris can create a rock so heavy that even he can't lift it. And then he lifts it anyways, just to show you who the fuck Chuck Norris is."
What was this thread about again?
You may be a fundamentalist atheist if...
Toggle Spoiler
| Blazer wrote on Fri, 04 August 2006 18:53 |
If you wanna be a badass ex-marine law enforcment game programmer college graduate, then you can be! I'm just glad we don't see the other part of you where you join AOL chat rooms as "hotchik69" and cyber with guys while you spank off into a sock and then cry yourself to sleep on your cock-shaped pillow.
|
| tzarmind wrote on Sat, 06 January 2007 20:52 |
Not only did you immaturely edit what J_Ball said in your quote. But you fucking got in the irony truck and drove it straight off a cliff.
|
| Canadacdn wrote on Tue, 23 October 2007 12:04 |
California burns down every year. I think it's part of nature's cycle.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #202663 is a reply to message #188804] |
Tue, 06 June 2006 02:55 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Quote: |
As to the "all-knowing" idea, you can engineer things a certain way and still expect to "fix" them on the way. The only difference between this type of fixing, and the type where an honest mistake has occured, is that this one is a planned event.
|
He would "engineer" it in a way where he wouldn't have to intervene at all. His creation would take those turns by itself. I know what you mean by your fixing, I'm talking about the same.
| Quote: |
Ignorant question.
Only the all-powerful would be able to take their own power away. That's the beauty of being all-powerful. Of course, once you take it away, you cease being all-powerful.
So, until he actually does create that stone, he has not taken his own power away. You can't judge the current status of something by what will modify it in the future, by reasons that can ONLY be done by the person it would affect.
|
Touché.
| Quote: |
Is it a sign of weakness to not create something that can't exist by your own laws? Also, is it safe to constrain God to the perception that he has to physically lift things? Couldn't he teleport the rock, or simply will it to another place? If so, the size of the rock would be irrelevant. Besides, in my view any God that can be explained without the presence of such paradoxes is hardly a God at all.
|
The all-powerful wouldn't have to abide by any laws.
| Quote: |
"Chuck Norris can create a rock so heavy that even he can't lift it. And then he lifts it anyways, just to show you who the fuck Chuck Norris is."
|
Ooops wrong stone! 
BTW Darkdemin, you should feel proud that this thread has turned into an intelligent debate despite being started by a retard.
lol
[Updated on: Tue, 06 June 2006 03:00] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #202688 is a reply to message #202565] |
Tue, 06 June 2006 07:16 |
 |
Hydra
Messages: 827
Registered: September 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| JohnDoe wrote on Mon, 05 June 2006 13:57 |
All-powerful doesn't really work either, given the good 'ol exemple of telling God to make a stone that's too heavy for him to carry.
|
That's assuming a diety/higher power was bounded by the laws of logic. You yourself has said that a truely all-powerful being would have no barriers at all; this would include logic.
Is God bounded by the laws of logic? Don't know, but probably not since logic is a law created in and for this universe by that very diety.
I believe God is all-powerful, so my answer to that little paradox you proposed is that yes, God CAN create a rock too heavy for him to lift it, yet he can also lift it.
Is it illogical? Yes, but who said God was restricted by logic? He MADE logic.
Walter Keith Koester: September 22, 1962 - March 15, 2005
God be with you, Uncle Wally.
 (<---New(ish) Prayer Group Forums)
 (<---Archived Prayer Group Forums)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #202692 is a reply to message #188804] |
Tue, 06 June 2006 07:53 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Quote: |
And perhaps he hasn't had the necessity to intervene, which is why we don't see him, and he doesn't come when we demand him to.
And to jump your next argument, that doesn't mean he wouldn't take pity on some/all from time to time. You may not intervene, nor have the desire to when you know what will occur next, but that doesn't always stop us from doing so. He may not need to intervene, but choses to do so at times.
|
He wouldn't chose to do so because all of his choices have been made prior to "creation".
| Quote: |
That's assuming a diety/higher power was bounded by the laws of logic. You yourself has said that a truely all-powerful being would have no barriers at all; this would include logic.
Is God bounded by the laws of logic? Don't know, but probably not since logic is a law created in and for this universe by that very diety.
I believe God is all-powerful, so my answer to that little paradox you proposed is that yes, God CAN create a rock too heavy for him to lift it, yet he can also lift it.
Is it illogical? Yes, but who said God was restricted by logic? He MADE logic.
|
I have already scrapped the all-powerful arguement. The whole idea of what powers god possesses is nonsense anyway...we're giving an abstract idea human traits
lol
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #202768 is a reply to message #188804] |
Tue, 06 June 2006 14:16 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
Well, by chosen, I mean he made the action. Not necessarily made the choice then and there to act.
Or, just because I sense a circular argument being possible, I'll throw in a new variable, perhaps his knowing is simply limited to "right now". and "all-knowing, right now" type of person. It doesn't infringe upon the idea of "all-powerful", as the future is something that simply hasn't occured yet. Or, simply that he knows the beginning and the end, but the idea of free will puts the whole "how do you get there" idea out the window.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #202853 is a reply to message #188804] |
Wed, 07 June 2006 02:40 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
The worst case scenario would be that he was no control.
I'm not talking about why people would feel the need to believe in God, not how likely his existance is (which isn't very).
lol
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #202890 is a reply to message #188804] |
Wed, 07 June 2006 09:14 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
I don't claim to know the reason for this "need", but I can give some educated guesses.
The human condition is that we need something to believe in, for us to continue on a psychologically-"normal" path. Whether it be friends, family, money, violence, sexual gratification, etc. there has to be something there. Some people decide to believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing, omnipotent being. From that, however, different interpretations arise in the form of the multiple religions in the world (Another one of my beliefs: One God, infinite interpretations of the same thing). However, even if the need is based on personal "gain", and the interpretation is different, based on personal belief, it doesn't negate the idea that there IS something out there which we call God, in some sort of physical presence (I believe you quoted South Park earlier), that created everything to some extent. But that is also the reason why he can never be proven. The interpretation is, at least primarily, human-driven (that doesn't negate God intervening, but it does't prove it either), but the simple fact of that doesn't negate the overall ability of the matter. That being, the existance of "God".
Just for clarification: This is simply one reason for it. Not necessarily the one that I believe, or the one that would hold up to scrutiny. But it is a reason, nonetheless.
[Updated on: Wed, 07 June 2006 09:30] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Conversation with an atheist [message #203295 is a reply to message #188804] |
Fri, 09 June 2006 23:22 |
|
Hydra
Messages: 827
Registered: September 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
"God doesn't exist; God is just some fairytale people made up to give purpose to their meaningless lives. It's easy for people to attribute to 'God' that which they cannot explain. I absolutely KNOW there is no God and believe strictly in science and logic."
Sure God exists. How the hell else did we get here, completely unorganized randomness? You call THAT science?
"Well, it all started with the Big Bang."
Still doesn't answer my question as to what initiated the Big Bang or what even originated the matter that exploded in the Big Bang.
"It created itself."
So you believe in spontaneous generation of matter out of nothing (never mind living matter from non-living matter)... (hasn't science failed to substantiate this with any reputable evidence?). Why doesn't this seem to happen anymore within our observable realm of space?
"Um... because... the conditions that caused the Big Bang to occur in the first place aren't present anymore."
Conditions such as...?
"Um... the proper temperature, pressure, chemical reactions and stuff like that, I guess, made it all explode...."
Uh-huh... and what caused all those things to be set just right in order for everything to explode?
(Nevermind that you still haven't answered my question as to where it all came from.)
"You know... all the reactions... and stuff.... Y'know, one thing led to another, which led to another, which led to another, which all culminated in the explosion known as the Big Bang."
So, you're saying that you believe in an infinite chain of finite, causal events that have no beginning or any outside cause to exist?
"Umm... well... erm... hmmm...."
...And you say you believe in science and logic when your explanation for our existence is neither scientific nor logical?
"...Religious tool...."
What was that?
"You heard me. You're a tool of your religion."
How am I a tool? Just because I believe that an omnipotent being not bound by any laws (other than those it set for itself) created all that we know?
"You buy into that whole 'God' nonsense; you have created 'God' in your mind in order to put yourself at ease with your inevitable demise."
How could I have created God when God created me? Unlike you, I don't believe I'm God.
"What?"
You heard me right. You believe that you are God.
"The hell are you talking about? There IS no God!"
Sure there is, and you believe in Him; you're just not calling him "God."
"What the hell AM I calling Him, then?"
Man.
"What're you smokin'?"
The same stuff that made you believe we sprung out from nothin'.
"That's not what I meant.... Could you explain yourself, please?"
Certainly. At the beginning of our little conversation, you said you believe strictly in science and logic, both being incarnations of man to explain what we originally could not (isn't that one of the reasons you gave people believe in God?).
As we progressed, we discovered that you believe (since science does not know for sure whether the Big Bang theory is true (and actually has little evidence to support it)) the universe originated as the result of "an infinite chain of finite, causal events that have (1)no beginning or (2)any outside cause to exist" (both (1) and (2) run counter to the definition of "finite," rendering said belief ironically illogical).
In order for you to believe this, you must believe that something can come out of nothing (therefore accepting the unsubstantiated and unscientific theory of spontaneous generation) and that all the matter in the universe must have created itself.
One of the defining qualities of most dieties in which most people believe (myself included) is that they have no beginning/always existed.
What you have done with your belief on the origin of our universe is attribute godly qualities to the events that shaped our universe. You have simply taken traditional, religious views on the origins of our universe and put a scientific spin on it, yet it requires the same "leap of faith" that any other religion requires and does absolutely nothing to disprove the existence of a diety outside the realm of this reality.
"Not only is that utter bullshit, but you completely forgot to mention where I said 'God is man.'"
You said it when you said "[I] believe strictly in science and logic."
"Explain."
The concepts of science and logic are incarnations of man to explain our observations of our universe (no different, quite frankly, from religion). Man, through the mechanisms of science and logic, has created the universe. You have said, therefore, that man is God.
"Ridiculous. Preposterous and illogical. More illogical than your parents deciding to keep you for a son. Do you expect to convert me or something with this ridiculous rant?"
No; since I've hurt your ego, you're not going to be receptive to any of my arguments and are going to try to come up with some other (inevitably illogical) way of circumventing my logic to "prove" me wrong.
"So why the hell did you bother in the first place?"
Boredom.
(Could someone smart check the logical arguments and fluidity of that?)
Walter Keith Koester: September 22, 1962 - March 15, 2005
God be with you, Uncle Wally.
(<---New(ish) Prayer Group Forums)
(<---Archived Prayer Group Forums)
[Updated on: Fri, 09 June 2006 23:23] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed Jul 09 20:09:31 MST 2025
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01766 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
