Printable View
meh, I know this sounds very self-centered, but Universal keeps saying I'm not answering his posts, and Imran says I must be "A good dodge ball player"
well, lets set things striaght as best we can.
Universal (and anyone who wants to as well) can, if he wishes, ask me any question he has wanted to, or has but considers I have "doged", and I will answer it as best I can. If I can not, then I will say so
sounds fair?
When will you read a book on evolution like darwin selfish gene or origin of species.
Hurry up keeper i know your logged on, or our you trying to dodge the question.
When I have the money and I find the book
This sould be in the religious discussio narea as it is plainly obvious that the main bulk of questions will regard religion and your warped perspectives =)
Imran
warped? :P
if it becomes religius, then I have no problim with it getting moved :)
What a book cost really little. Where do you actually live in cape town i guess it not the poor parts as you would not have the internet, but it cant be that well of because you would be able to afford a book. Havent you got a libary next to you that you can borrow books.Quote:
When I have the money and I find the book[/b]
See you havent read one book on evolution and yet you judge it to be wrong. You dont even understand what evolution is. See faith against knowledge and reason. Since you dont know what evolution is because you havent read a book on it then it shows you are just taking it on faith that evolution is wrong.
first
a. I am on a network at home. My dad and cousin pay for the conection. I also have not been recieving pocket money for some time due to an agreement I made with my dad, but I should be recieving again soon
b. I will see if I can find it at the library, but lately, I havn't had time to look it up
c. I have the internet. I look things up on it. Though I hate to say this (because I love reading), books dont have all the stuff, and the internet has a lot itself. I have looked up Evolution online
d. Nice sig
Common looking at links to evolution is wrong is not proper research. Seriously have you look at things like scientific peer review website or maybe pro darwian website to balance out the chrisitan religious pro intelligent design website. Using confrimation biased to find evidence to support your belief is not research.Quote:
I have the internet. I look things up on it. Though I hate to say this (because I love reading), books dont have all the stuff, and the internet has a lot itself. I have looked up Evolution online[/b]
Question time then eh?
Explain your understanding of evolution, and what makes you beleive it to be false?
Imran
How much is the price of 1kg of grapes in Cambodia?
Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-c...gin-of-species/
anyway,
question, just cause I can
There's been countless religions over the ages
all with their own views on God (or deities, prophets, or whatever)
most are from civilisations that are long dead
What makes the Christian God and the Christian literature
any more valid than these?
How can you (and, I'm assuming here) consider Poseidon, Greek God of the Sea to be false
while clinging onto the Christian belief system, and touting it as fact?
[edited so that it address newley addedd stuff]
Imran:
that might take some time ...
alright. I understand evolution to be the belief that life forms continually improve themselves to suit there enviroments, by genetic mutations that slowly change one creature from one form to another
I beleive it is wrong for several reasons, and not just religius (as Evolution doesn't contradict the concept of God, nor would it fully discredit the Bible)
I beleive it is wrong because many scientists have pointed out numerus flaws in the concept, about how it is physicly impossable, how the time factour is inconsistant with discoveries, how it has not been obverved in rappidly reproducing spiecies (such as fruit flies) even though tests have been diliberetly set up to see if it is correct. Only a sieries of horrible mutations that do not benifit the creature at all, or have no expernal effect
that is only a few of the reasons, but the full list would take a long time to compile. I am hopiing to get it sorrted into a topic soon, but knowing school, who knows when it will be done
Kaniaz:
Dont know :P
Ynot:
Good one. First, I beleive that it is correct because it is (if viewd as the continuation of Jewdaisim) perhaps the oldest religion, and thus the most likely the one God directly influence. It also has many differences from other religions, reffusing to portray God as a physical being as the other religions do, as God no-doubt is.
I have covered some reasons why Jewdaisim would be right, and Christianity forfulles the prophasis put forth by the prophits of the Hebrew religion, making it rather likely
I hope this clears that up somewhat. If not, I'll try to express myself better next time
Now you can read a book on evolution. Also Keeper i wont accept my dog ate my computer :chuckle: .Quote:
:wtf:
Why would a fruit fly change into something else?Quote:
Originally Posted by Keeper
it's not going to happen unless they're adapting to a slow environmental change
Say, just say
that oxygen levels on Earth started to increase
this would mean that a fruit fly's primative respiratory system could support larger bodies.
Larger fruit flies are less likely to get eaten by spiders
Larger fruit flies live longer
Larger fruit flies produce more offspring
so we have a slow, gradual increase in fruit fly numbers, and overall body size
now, it will get to a point where their wings cannot sustain long flight
"Place A" has a lot of food supplies close to the ground, food from bushes etc. that can be climbed on foot.
"Place B" is populated with trees
These trees (due to their own evolutionary process for competition over their neighbours, are increasing in size and overall height)
so food is at higher altitude and flight is nessessary to reach this food
There's a couple of colonies in "Place A" that use their wings less and less
Therefore the runt offspring with damaged wings are more likely to survive
due to the food locations in "Place A"
so Colonies in "Place A" are breeding in wing weaknesses into their population
and over time, these wings become smaller, non-functioning, and eventually disappear from the fruit flies.
Colonies in "Place B", however need their wings to gain food
No such wing weaknesses are bread in, as those with mal-formed wings die without reproducing.
Instead, only those with the strongest, most well-formed wings survive.
Bigger bodies put more urgency on having excellent wings.
Summary.
Over a long period of time
Place A is swarming with moderately large, 6-legged, non-flying insects that walk and climb small bushes - these creatures are descended from the fruit fly
Place B is swarming with moderately large, 6-legged, flying insects that can fly to higher altitudes than their descendant friut flies
2 New Species of insect with one common ancestor
Hypothetical, I know, but
Comments?
then why havn't they doen even something similer under controled changed conditions
because those experiments have not been running for thousands of yearsQuote:
Originally Posted by Keeper
it's all about slow, gradual changes
nothing snaps into existance
if climate changes too fast,
most things will become extinct
organisms need time to react
*edit*
you can't put a load of fruit flies in a jar of water and expect them to turn into fish
You do know that Fruit flies breed like ... flies, right?
They go through thousands (if not millions [stop me if I am wrong]) of generations for every human generation. If you follow that line of reasoning ...
hence why I said thousands, and not millions :wink:
:lol:
true, you did :)
Keeper where is your source. Common keeper do you actaully understand the drival coming out of your mouth. 99% of the biologist believe in evolution.Quote:
I beleive it is wrong because many scientists have pointed out numerus flaws in the concept[/b]
wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BiologyQuote:
The central organizing concept in biology is that all life has a common origin and has changed and developed through the process of evolution [/b]
Common evolution is the second most supported thing in biology. If you show your sources your see that you are taking advice from biology from a person who hasent got a degree in biology and it just saying religious crap.
Well i would like to say the obvious keeper belifes like all religious belife is based not on scientific fact or evidence but on ignorance and lazyness. It properly why he doent believe in something he dosent understand, also pleese read thishttp://skepdic.com/creation.htmlQuote:
Despite the fact that 99.99% of the scientific community considers evolution of species from other species to be a fact, the creation scientists proclaim that evolution is not a fact but just a theory, and that it is false. The vast majority of scientists who disagree about evolution disagree as to how species evolved, not as to whether they evolved. [/b]
Also read this to keeper.
http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.htmlQuote:
ID isn't scientific and it isn't an alternative to natural selection or any other scientific idea[/b]
Keeper at the end of the day you are just a fundamentalist religious person. Or a Automaton.
http://skepdic.com/creation.htmlQuote:
Despite the fact that 99.99% of the scientific community considers evolution of species from other species to be a fact, the creation scientists proclaim that evolution is not a fact but just a theory, and that it is false.[/b]
Keeper dispite the fact that you havent read a single book about evolution, also that 99% of the scientific biology community believes in evolution. Here the question why dont you believe in evolution?
Common keeper you view point of life is not supported by science nor the science community. Also anwser the question and dont use the but scientist say it wrong because they dont keeper they dont. Also you still havent gave me any scientific sources like paper published on peer review scientific website.
Common keeper anwser the question i know your out their dont try to dodge this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keeper
You aoblsute Idiot
I deetest it when people lie blatnalty
the earliest mnonothestic religion in histroy is zorostrianism
the earliest of the six major religons i believe to be Hinduism
Jeus Chrsit man, why lie.
Zorostrianism, which was pracitced in Persia, was the earliest monothestic religion
check your facts before you spout crap, please =)
Imran
read it again
Keeper dispite the fact that you havent read a single book about evolution, also that 99% of the scientific biology community believes in evolution. Here the question why dont you believe in evolution?
Common keeper anwser me
if you quit calling him common, he may answer you........
He will never anwser he would just dodge the question.Quote:
if you quit calling him common, he may answer you........[/b]
How old are you? You're acting like an impatient 5 year old who wants his chocolate chip cookie. People have lives and aren't on all the time, or they just aren't looking at a certain forum 100% of the time. Religion/Spirituality isn't the only forum here, you know.Quote:
Originally Posted by becomingagodo
Can God microwave a burrito so hot that he himself is unable to eat it?
He'd be a pretty crappy god if he couldn't. What kind of idiot can't run a microwave?
I burn popcorn on a regular basis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark75
Okay, Keeper. I hope you are serious.
1. How did Noah know what species to have on the ark when today's scientists have classifications for only a small fraction?
2. Specifically what points do you disagree with in my post about evolution from molecules to humans?
3. Does God have Narcissistic Personality Disorder under the DSM IV criteria?
Thank you. :)
to Becoming: If you have asked a question, I cant see it for the trees
Ataraxis: I really wouldn't know. I know you are doing that old paradox of pitting Gods Omnipotence against itself, but that is out of my leage.
I'm not sure if God even needs to eat ...
Universal: I am sieriase, and I will answer your questions to the best of my abilities.
1. I beleive it has been posted elsweare, but I think (I can never be sure) it was due to the Core-spieces theory (about the primary cat-creature that underwent transphormation [I do not denigh that part of Evolution] into the Lion, Tiger, leapard, comman cat, etc). Also, as I recall, Noah didn't go looking for the animals, and it is believed by many that the earths terrain was gratly different then it is today.
2. Its not so much of what you posted as the intervieening steps you didn't. For example, how did DNA itself come into being, along with the RNA commponents and Protean synthasis (sort of a "Chicken and the egg" senario) as well as how the mind develpoed, along with the brain, and several other parts. What you yourself wrote I find to be a good explination. Its just the bits you didn't that are a hassil for me
3. some of the points are up for debate (I.e. Has God doen anything worthy of being worshiped/exalted? Some would say yes, others no, etc.)
To go through it in Point form:
(1) has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
Dose it have to be undiserved? If Yes, then I dont think this point applies, if no, then possably
(2) is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
If fantisies is the opritive word, then No, otherwise possably
(3) believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
again, must it be unfounded? However, God cant be understood by anyone other then Himself, so I dont think this point applies
(4) requires excessive admiration
Exessive is the main part of this that would define it
(5) has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
Well, if God made you, then He has the right to ask impressive things from those He made (like someone expecting there Calculator to work if they made it)
(6) is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
I dont quit follow the takes advantage part, but God has used people to do things, though it often beniffites them as well
(7) lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
But God has on many occassions, so I would say this is not a valide point
(8) is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
I dont see how God has ever been Jealous, so I would say no
(9) shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
I think that relates to a point of View, but if you where the Creator, wouldn't it be expected for others not to fully understand you, so your actions might appear Highty or arrogent
from that, I would say I dont think God has that disorder, but it is mostly from a point of view
Do you believe that god is allpowerfull?Quote:
Originally Posted by Keeper
If you do, how can you say that you're not sure if he has to eat?
Also are you saying that if we create robots, that have the same intelligence as us, it would be ok to use them as slaves? Why would god need people to do things for him? You made it sound like god gets the benifits and people might get some "payment" for their help.
because there is a psalm about "How God drinks the Blood of Bulls". Probably a a litterery device, but still. I dont think God eats (what would He, anyhow?) But I wont commit to that argumentQuote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
I emfisized the important bit. We are to God as current A.I. is to us at the very most. We probably are a lot less intelegent in comparasin. You have no problims asking A.I. to do something for you.Quote:
Also are you saying that if we create robots, that have the same intelligence as us, it would be ok to use them as slaves?
[/b]
or using a microwave
He doesn't need to. He is more then cappable of doing things Himself, but when God directly asked someone to do something it was for there own benifit (i.e. Noah, Abraham, Lot, Moses, etc)Quote:
Why would god need people to do things for him? You made it sound like god gets the benifits and people might get some "payment" for their help.
[/b]
Do these shoes make my ass look big?
horrendously so
Keeper:
Who's winning at the moment
Good or Evil?
and does Good have the power to intervene to prevent Evil?
If so, what happens to us when that happens?
I'll take religion and philosophy for 200?
I was extremely impressed with your intelligence when you first came here. You argued very well about the nature of the Christian God. I wish you would go back to that. These conversations can be really interesting. What suddenly changed?Quote:
Originally Posted by sloth
I have no problems asking stuff to do stuff for me, because I don't think it has any awareness at all. When a microwave gets really intelligent, I'll make sure I ask first, not just shove food in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keeper
Sloth: I have no idea. Picture please (I know your joking, but I'll take you sieriusly anyway)
From what I understand (wich may be grossly inacurate) It never really was a commpatition. The concept of Good vs Evil in a battle that could go either way is (as far as I know) unscriptural (I invite anyone who dissagrees to pressent to me what they know: I'm always eager to learn). From what I gather, God is the Judge, but also (from Job) He permites evil to be doen if Satan askes Him and no-one interceeds.Quote:
Originally posted by Ynot
Who's winning at the moment
Good or Evil?
and does Good have the power to intervene to prevent Evil?
If so, what happens to us when that happens?
I myself dont fully understand, but it looks like God presides over a "Heavanly council" and other "Powers". There purpose I have no idea to, weather they are Good, Evil or something else, I have no Idea, But back to the question
Can Good stop Evil: I think it is more like "Can Evil ressist Good?" Evil is inevatable. Good happens to Us, and so does Evil. But what you get down to it, its whatsa at the end that matters. I have seen Good people suffer and have no relief, and I have seen evil distroyed.
It is all situation based, but in the End, it is Good that wins
In the End, there is Judgement. I do not fully understand what it entails at the end, but it apperis that there will be a seperation between the "Lambs and the Goats" Some will be with God, others without Him, but I have heard that that might not be the case. I am eger to learn more about it, but that is what I know right now
[edit] I agree with you, but Do we even regester against God, Bonsay?
I haven't 'switched over' or anything like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal
I enjoy nonsense. It screws with people.
I just pick and choose my battles carefully.
...And I feel very honored by the way. Thank you, sir.
-sloth
I have a question keeper, but it hasn't got to do with religion.
Why the hell does your 'personal title' or whatever say: 'I *AM* Glyphs'?
Also, why do you suck at spelling English? Bad education?
He lives in South Africa and is fairly young, so I cut him slack on that. I only speak one language, so I am not about to insult somebody for being rusty on a second language. I think he does a pretty good job with his English, considering his circumstances. I took three years of French and am nowhere near being able to have conversations on a web site where everybody speaks French. I am impressed with anybody who learns a second language and can do that. The only reason I am ever abrasive with Keeper is that he so often either brags that he has answers and then says nothing or repeatedly dodges questions and answers from people he is debating. He doesn't do that every time, but he has done it many times. That is the only problem I have had with him. I don't think he's a bad guy or anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
I actually more like wondered or they don't have a westernized nation, like mine. I mean English is a second language to me, but because I heard English all the time, even on TV, and in every video game I played since I was 6, I have masted it quite well. Even better, I wouldn't Want to have my computer set in dutch language, or would want to see an English movie raped by having everything respoken in dutch. Like they do in Germany.
Anyhow, I advise keeper to use Firefox 2.0, it has an build-in spelling checker. (Ironically, the word 'Firefox' isn't in it's own word-list :) ).
-
Back to the point:
Keeper, doesn't the fact that for thousands and thousands of year no-one even heard of the Christian god and the fact that even still most of the world population never even thought about believing in the Christian god say something to you?
Another question: Do you believe I will be greatly punished (or it is in hell or not, doesn't matter. I would be majorly bummed out if everyone was in heaven but me) just for having said: 'I denounce the holy spirit, and call it a retarded fairy.'. I mean mark 3:29 couldn't be very much more clear: "Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."
(By the way, yay for http://blasphemychallenge.com/, like 1000 people dammed to hell ^__^)
Uh-oh. :oops: It looks like I screwed the pooch with that one. So I could do something like read an amazing answer to my recurring question from Ne-yo or Keeper, realize that the idea of the Christian God is completely logical, accept Jesus as my big time awesome master savior, pray to Jesus with complete sincerity ten times a day for the rest of my life, become a preacher, convert two billion people to Christianity, end world hunger and cancer, die kissing a crucifix, and still burn forever and ever? Is that where Christians would say I am? Is there a loophole somewhere in that rule? Any holy judgment case law I can refer to for a final appeal?Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
I am sorry Universal, the bible is quite clear about that. :( I guess that even if you do all those great things, like cure cancer and world hunger, you would still have to be punished for the HORRIBLE ETERNAL SIN, calling the holy spirit a turd-sandwich. : (Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal
Neruo's first post: "I *AM* Glyphs" is a phrase uttered by the Hag in Thief, Deadly Shadows. It basicly means that she is strongly conected to the glyph magic and considers herself to be the real "True Keeper"
Oh, and I am a White English-first language male, its just my spelling that sucks. My spocken language is brillient, but I just never could get the hang of typing without spellcheck
Universal: thank you, I appreciate that :)
Neruos second: I tryed downloading it, but my machine messed up the download. I keep forgetting to download it since
I know lots of people havn't heard of Jesus, but that doesn't nessesserally mean that He isn't the Path to life (if you will forgive that archaic expression). Besides, it is said that only a few will find the path.
however, dispite what it may look like I have said, I dont know all the answeres
on the blasphimy thing, Iam in two minds. I am one of the people who dislikes the concept that others can suffer, let alone the fact that they do, but they do, none-the-less. I read somewhere that someone believes that those who say that are commiting the act of disbelief and will be punished, so I think it is highly likely that you will in some form
To Universal: however, it is said that if you repent, you are no longer a none believer and God doesn't so much as forgive you but simply says it didn't happen, so you (to God) didn't call God/Holy Spirit names
I honestly dont know if I believe that, though
Hey that happened to me too. My Granny told me when I was a kid that the one sin that can never be forgiven is to curse God, so of course my mind automatically thinks "Fuck God!". Then I'm like, oh well. It doesn't matter anyway, because it's not how good you are, you can be as bad as you want as long as you bow down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal
I know that game. It was ok. Thief 2 was WAY better. Why do you compare yourself with such an evil character?Quote:
Originally Posted by Keeper
Your spocken language is brillient. You mean spoken and brilliant. Are schools in south africa that bad. I thought they spoke an Extremely lame version of dutch in south Africa. Really, from what I know, it is hilarious if you know the real -boring- dutch words.Quote:
Oh, and I am a White English-first language male, its just my spelling that sucks. My spocken language is brillient, but I just never could get the hang of typing without spellcheck[/b]
Anyhow, I am glad for you that you think you can brilliantly speak.
But what you DO know, is as true as what I know, and what any Muslim knows, and what every Buddist knows.Quote:
I know lots of people havn't heard of Jesus, but that doesn't nessesserally mean that He isn't the Path to life (if you will forgive that archaic expression). Besides, it is said that only a few will find the path.
however, dispite what it may look like I have said, I dont know all the answeres[/b]
Yeah, people that give all their money away to charity, feed homeless people and help starved puppies should be punished if they defy the holy spirit. The bible says it. That just makes sense.Quote:
on the blasphimy thing, Iam in two minds. I am one of the people who dislikes the concept that others can suffer, let alone the fact that they do, but they do, none-the-less. I read somewhere that someone believes that those who say that are commiting the act of disbelief and will be punished, so I think it is highly likely that you will in some form[/b]
sorry for the delay
sometimes bad people say really cool things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
the primary language is English. Thet kitchen-dutch is called Afrikaans. It is the bane of my life.Quote:
Your spocken language is brillient. You mean spoken and brilliant. Are schools in south africa that bad. I thought they spoke an Extremely lame version of dutch in south Africa. Really, from what I know, it is hilarious if you know the real -boring- dutch words.
[/b]
Oh, and my spelling is just me. It has nothing to do with the schools, I just find spelling some words to be a chore.
I will ignorer the sarcasim (whats for someone to point out the contradiction)Quote:
Anyhow, I am glad for you that you think you can brilliantly speak.
[/b]
not necesserallyQuote:
But what you DO know, is as true as what I know, and what any Muslim knows, and what every Buddist knows.
[/b]
not necesserallyQuote:
Yeah, people that give all their money away to charity, feed homeless people and help starved puppies should be punished if they defy the holy spirit. The bible says it. That just makes sense.
[/b]
Not like the Koran is more flawed like the bible, is it? That would be impressive!Quote:
Originally Posted by Keeper
Do explain what happens to great, kind, honestly loving people that defy the holy spirit.Quote:
not necesserally
[/b]
I dont think blaspheming the Holy Spirit should be taken as such a literal meaning as insulting the Holy Spirit with words. I think its more than that, I think its blaspheming AGASINT the Holy Spirit, and actions are much louder
A good reason not to pray, at the very least.
Well, no.Quote:
Originally Posted by juroara
Mark 3:29
Jesus becomes angry at those who said that he had "an unclean spirit," so he announces the unforgivable sin: "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost."
I think that if Jesus was actually followed as much in those days, that be was a conman, using tricks to let people follow him. Thus, I see the 'powers' of Jesus, aka the holy ghost/spirit, to be unclean, vile, evil, ect.
Really, according to the bible, not even the old testament but the more 'kind' new testament, I am going to hell or at least suffer in Someway from my eternal sin :) Besides that, I never really hurt anyone by the way :)
Well you see Neuro, there is my personal schism. I don't believe in ETERNAL damnation, only thousands and thousands of years of it. I say that since God loves us and we can never lose his love, only his friendship, then he wouldn't abandon us at the end of time.
So even if you did go to hell for "blaspheming the holy spirit" you wouldn't be there forever. That's like telling an obscure person who lives on Christmas Island in the Antarctic Circle that he's going to hell when he doesn't even know what Christianity is.
Haha, nice reading selective reading of the bible. How much more clear can "ETERNAL" be? I find it both sickening and hilarious that Christians all have their very own idea of Christianity and the bible, that isn't based on any facts, but they need it to make their religion sit into the real world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arachanox
You're right Neruo! Just like you HAVE to sit there and make YOUR religion sit in the real world.
Since he loves me so much, I'm only going to spend a few short thousands and thousands of years in Hell. What a great guy!Quote:
Originally Posted by Arachanox
Try looking up religion in a dictionary, if you have one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arachanox
Hitler was much nicer. This God character makes Stalin look like Mr. Rogers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark75
When people talk about how God loves people yet created Hell and allows people to go there because he has a purpose and loves them, it reminds me of battered women. They will say things like, "Well, he loves me very, very much. He promises me he does. He just slams my head into the stove and knocks out my teeth and breaks my jaw because he cares about me and wants to show me that I'm not acting right according to what he demands. He is teaching me to improve." Some of them will talk like that when they are in intensive care with an IV in an arm and wearing an oxygen mask. These are not situations of love. They are situations of narcissism, control, and evil.
lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal
But you I think you are pretty much right. Only in the case of Christianity, it isn't seen as insanity/delusional, because it is common. Just think of Christianity not existing and some one claiming god send his son to get crucified to then be resurrected a few days later. It would be ridiculous.
Anyhow. "He (abusive husband/god) does love me, I just deserve to be beaten, I shouldn't have dropped that plate, it was my own fault. It's my free-will after all to make a mistake like that."
so ... are there no more questions?
Why does God have to obey rules of reality, such as, "You can't create free will without suffering," if he is infinitely powerful?Quote:
Originally Posted by Keeper
It depends on what infinitly powerful meansQuote:
Originally Posted by Universal
some people interpret it to mean that God can do anything, logical or not, well others say that God can only act within certain rules and laws. As I dont know wich is real, I cant give a good answer, but I'll try ...
If it is the latter, then it would mean God is constrained, and it is only "natural" that Man can act evily, because it is part of the flaw in the system.
If this is the case, it could also mean that - if we really do have free wills - then it is impossable for us to have free will and not have the option of going against Gods will.
Well I was righting in my novel, I realized something that might explain why life is the way it is: To my book characters, I am there creator, and I put them in harms way and "save" them on a reguler basis. Do you see where I am going with this?
anyhow, I think I answered your question (I hope I did and didn't just prattle on)
What's the most supported thing in biology, just out of interest?Quote:
Originally Posted by becomingagodo
And also a question about free will: What about divine intervention? Couldn't god just make a nuclear bomb malfunction and not explode? And obviously there's the argument about natural disasters that are nothing to do with humans....?
a lot of people do believe in divine intervention - and believe it happens all the time. you can search google for what others have claimed to be divine intervention concerning 9-11 and other political issues. The same thing goes for miracles. They are still happening today. Problem is, there is nothing that can make a non-believer believe. Even if an athiest were to see a dead man raise from the grave they would come up with some 'logical' explanation currently found through science to explain it, like "I hallucinated" rather than questioning that just maybe, science has not been able to explain what science can not study (a higher dimension). A 4d tool simply can not study the 5d. We can only study the effects of the 5d, and higher realities unto our own.
But for science to do that it would have to admit there are phenomenons that do not have to adhere to any law of science for our dimension, and it would have to embrace the reality that there are higher dimensions. Currently science is TOO PROUD to do this becuase it made fun of religious and spiritual people alike for believing in the spiritual realm, which could very well be, just one of those higher dimensions that CAN be studied through science. Concider how science has studied atoms that appear out of no where and disappear the next moment. Where did those atoms come from, and where did they go?
as for natural disasters, mainstream christianity can not answer that question without bringing up the image of a judgemental and angry God that would also go against the image of an unconditional loving and forgiving God. Currently, mainstream christianity simply can not answer all questions. Its problem is that it is attached to the bible instead of the Living Word. the bible is not alive. the Word is.
As the bible doesn't talk about dinosaurs, bacterium, other galaxies, black holes, abortion, or mental illnesses. Things get out of hand when we start to use the bible to address current day issues. Why doesnt creation mention dinosaurs? Why doesn't creation mention bacterium? Or galaxies? Abortion, contraceptives? Evolution? Did Jesus know about mental illnesses, and were those the demons he casted out? Or they one and the same, or are they different? Is taking anti-depressents ok? Or is it a form of spiritual denial?
The point is the list goes on. Mainstream Christianity, especially the Catholic Church does not want to adopt to the modern world, believing it would lose value in the Word. It will only make the bible begin to lose its value. The bible hugging culture world wide is going to die within the next century. It simply can not talk about current issues and give insight. What will happen if in the future there are androids? How will bible humpers use the bible to give insight and what to think about these androids, when clearly the bible says NOTHING about it???
The Word is Living and can not be confined to a time period, or a little mental box, especially a book. Like the Holy Spirit, it goes where it pleases, you dont tell it where to go and you dont tell it what to say. Whether that mental box is an atheist approach to science, or dogmatic religion. For the record, as a Christian, I believe science should hold an agnostic approach. Never knowing, and remaining open minded to any and all possibilities. If it approaches with an atheist point of view, becuase most atheist scientists have an agenda against anything spiritual, the science will reflect their agenda to disprove all spirituality rather to study reality. And if that scientist is a theist, the problem here is theist's understanding of God will be a biased one, and not to mention a human one. This would go against the scientific method has the theist has formulated a theory of God without something to base that theory on, not to mention it has built a graven image of God which is against Gods command.
Science can not have an agenda.
Thanks. But I am talking about omnipotence as the ability to do ANYTHING, like change the laws of logic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keeper
He could, and possibly has in some circumstance or another, but you cant say God will always stop a nuke, or He will always do something. You cant predict what God will do because when He does something, its for a reason, and we may not be able to see the full picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord
That I honestly don't know. As a human, I would think that that means God could make a world with no pain, but I cant think on Gods level, so I really cant sayQuote:
Originally Posted by Lord
any more?
Holy dead thread, batman. I read the first post and the last one. So the premise of this thread is to ask you stuff cause you dodge in other threads? Just stop dodging in other threads, and if they say you dodged, quote them the exact answer to their question that they claim to have dodged.
... I dont intend to dodge. People can ask me questions here they think I've missed.
I guess they can just remember to update this thread if/when it happens in some other thread haha.
God doesn't send people to Hell, they choose that path.Quote:
Hitler was much nicer. This God character makes Stalin look like Mr. Rogers.
When people talk about how God loves people yet created Hell and allows people to go there because he has a purpose and loves them, it reminds me of battered women. They will say things like, "Well, he loves me very, very much. He promises me he does. He just slams my head into the stove and knocks out my teeth and breaks my jaw because he cares about me and wants to show me that I'm not acting right according to what he demands. He is teaching me to improve." Some of them will talk like that when they are in intensive care with an IV in an arm and wearing an oxygen mask. These are not situations of love. They are situations of narcissism, control, and evil.
See, God is just and pure, so He can't allow anything unpure into Heaven. However, since we have all sinned, that makes us all unpure. That's why He sent Jesus to earth to die for our sins. Since He did NOT sin, His death on the cross stands as punishment for OUR sins. So, if we accept Him as our savior, then our sins are washed away. As long as we remain a Christian, and repent of our sins, then we will not go to Hell.
But, if you choose not to accept Him as our Savior, then God cannot allow you into Heaven. But YOU were the one who chose the path, so it is your own doing.
Also, those people who have never heard of God obviously won't be sent to Hell, because they never got a chance to learn about Him.
... is there a question attached?
If god obeys logic then he must either be able to make the stone or not able to make the stone, either way both lead to god being not all powerful. god must act illogically to be able to exsist as logic says god can't. Logic is truth so god does not exsist 'see below.'Quote:
Either god obeys logic or god does not obey logic? Which one keeper
I could easily stop arguing with you. However, if everything was good then everything will stay still, even myself.Quote:
Why do I even bother arguing with you?
Does that even matter.Quote:
WE are coming from two completely opposite viewpoints
The person who has a logical proof.Quote:
However, if one person saw one thing as illogical, and another saw it as logical, who is right?
See mathematics don't agree with each other all the time, however if one had a proof or found a contradiction in logic then the other person is wrong.
God is contradictory
Okay, this is the no dodge question zoneQuote:
It actually isn't, but I don't think you are going to listen, so
How does 2+2=5
to make it more clear let the number represent apples
so 2 apples plus 2 apples equal five apples!
How can 2 apples plus 2 apples equal five apples?
Now logic is just what is true, like 2+2=4 is always true. Logic has nothing to do with laws or theories e.t.c. Logic is too do with truth. As mathematician say if you prove something it always exsist.
This statement is false
Now this is a paradox kind of like the god stone paradox. "The statement is false" can never be true or false. Now something has to be true or false, now how can god get out of this paradox?
as a paradox is about truth not laws or net.
Keeper I understand your question. Can god be kept down by a net, the anwser is this. Logic is truth thats why mathematician use it e.g. the apple example. If their is a paradox then it must be non exsistant as their is no anwser..
On one of Turing paper, Turing came up with the idea of a infinty machine. See paradoxes are loops. He proposed that these infinty machine could possibly anwser a paradox or go beyound logic. However, their is still no solution, ironically the proof came from some strange numbers, which code back into Goedels number theory. So we have proof that paradoxes are non exsistent and they can't be solved, god is stuck with a unsolvable problem and that problem is god can't be all powerful as the stone paradox clearly shows.
Plus god would have to solve another paradox to be all knowing, which is the halting paradox and uncertainty. The halting paradox has been proved i.e. it is as true as 2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples and the uncertainty prinicple is produced by logic.
Logic=truth
Illogical i.e. paradox=not truth
Then he is not infinitely powerful.Quote:
Originally Posted by weelilhazel
People don't decide not to make Jesus their savior. They simply don't believe that he is a savior, and belief is not a choice. Lying to yourself is a choice, but actually believing something is not a choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by weelilhazel
and the path you've chosen, which is entirely your choice, is selfishness. 100% selfishness is pure suffering. if you close your mind completely on any idea, that is selfish. if you, while still holding a belief, were at least willing to listen to other ideas and discuss them with another, that is selfless. I believe in God, but I'll gladly listen to anyone who wants to share why they don't. and being open to discussion, to others, is a manifestation of selflessness.Quote:
Originally Posted by weelilhazel
it is a choice. you can choose to be a complete atheist, 100%, who will not listen to any argument. or you can choose to be an agnostic atheist, who, while not believing in God, is still open to the possiblity, and therefore discussion. saying that believing in something isn't a choice is ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
no its not, you cant choose to believe in the tooth fairy, its illogical for you. For logical, sensible people, God is that illogical.
I can choose whether or not to believe in the tooth fairy. I make up my mind based on evidence. you're right, it's illogical, and I'm not the only one who thinks so. I've chosen to not believe in the tooth fairy. but, if someone were to say they had evidence to support the exsistence of the tooth fairy, I'd be more than happy to listen to their argument. then, afterwords, I must choose whether or not to believe them.
no you dont choose, you make a judgment based on evidence.
Weve seen that its illogical for god to exist as atheists, we cant just decide we want to belieeve in jesus so we can go to heaven.
If you check out enough of this forum, you will see just how open to discussion I am. I would say I am having a discussion right now. I am exploring your ideas.Quote:
Originally Posted by paperdoll
Oh, it is? Well then, please do something for me so I can explore that idea. Go the next three days with the totally sincere belief that 2 + 2 = 5, since belief is a choice. Then come back here and tell me what it was like to in all honesty believe that 2 + 2 = 5. Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by paperdoll
While you are at it, believe that you are the richest person in the world and that you are married to a supermodel. It would be a lot of fun to believe that, so go for it.
Would you choose to believe in the Tooth Fairy if the evidence didn't seem to add up? No, you would have no choice but not to.Quote:
Originally Posted by paperdoll
before hearing the evidence, I don't believe. but I'm aware that there is new information, which is supposedly evidence supporting the exsistence of the tooth fairy. I become (or remain) open to the possibility of the tooth fairy. ok, let's hear this evidence. I hear it, think about it, compare it to prior knowledge, and after consideration, I decide, no, I still do not believe in the tooth fairy. this is making a judgement. this is choosing.
of course not, because if the evidence did not add up, it would clearly be a bad choice. understand?Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
yes but thats not the like the situation we are relating our analogy to. At the moment its illogical, so we dont have a choice but to use our brains. so we dont have a choce.
You are only arguing that you can choose to think about evidence. That is not what you said a few posts ago. You said belief itself is a choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by paperdoll
Could you choose to believe in the Tooth Fairy if the evidence did not seem to add up?
we believe it's illogical because we've already decided that it is, based on evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by imran_p
because we added it up, and we decided, but we didnt choose, lyk universal said, we considered it. now there is no choiuce because the evidence doesnt add up
We can always reconsider but not choose.
We posted at the same time, so please see my question.Quote:
Originally Posted by paperdoll
but you can choose to hold onto a beliefe despite evidence, can't you?
I guess the only thing you can choose when it comes to belief is whether or not to hold onto a belief steadfastly, and refuse to hear evidence that contradicts what you believe. but that means you can choose, right?
That's what UM is asking. Can you really? Can you actually get yourself to believe something you know to be false?Quote:
Originally Posted by paperdoll
not really, if you are conviced your convinced, you can prtend you still believe otherwise, but if the evidence convinces you, it convices you.
Considering the existence of God is a choice. Believing in the existence of God is not a choice. Right?Quote:
Originally Posted by paperdoll
ok...the only thing you can choose then, really, is to be open to possibilities, or not. you can only come to a new belief if you've chosen to remain open to evidence. I think we're just getting technical, and I think, technically, you guys are right.
I actually had creationists in mind when considering this. they have chosen to hold onto their belief that the earth was created (in 6 days?) despite evidence of evolution. but what they've chosen is to close their mind and not consider the thoughts of others. they've chosen not to consider. so, yes, you're right, I was wrong.
They have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keeper
I gotta question for you Keeper, whats a polar bear in a jungle called? LOL.
AAHH!! Indoctrination!Quote:
Originally Posted by weelilhazel
Ugh, reminds me of sunday school all over again *shivers*
keeper above
read my post
I have already mentioned to you why I disagree. Our problem comes from this: We both have very different ideas about what is logical and what isn't. To you, a being that can do anything and everything can't escape from something (the paradox). Thus, The being is not OP. To me, that seems illogical, as an OP being can escape. i.e. and OP being (being OP) can violate the laws of Logic (by its very definition this is so.)Quote:
Originally Posted by wendylove
However, this is entirely dependent on whether God is OP, or if OP truly means "All-powerful and All-Capable".
I don't quite follow you ...Quote:
I could easily stop arguing with you. However, if everything was good then everything will stay still, even myself.
As I mentioned, we both see the same issue from two very different sides. What you see as a contradiction I do not. And well we both know the others reasons for seeing their view this way (I think you see my reasons and I am sure I see yours) we still disagree. In my experience, no amount of debating can change this, and attempts to try will always turn into insults.Quote:
Does that even matter.
But who's Logic? Mine or yours?Quote:
The person who has a logical proof.
In Maths, this is always so , but not in philosophy.Quote:
See mathematics don't agree with each other all the time, however if one had a proof or found a contradiction in logic then the other person is wrong.
To your logic, but not mine.Quote:
God is contradictory
I originally gave you that because I was trying to be difficult. With your (current) known laws of the universe, that can never happenQuote:
Okay, this is the no dodge question zone
How does 2+2=5
to make it more clear let the number represent apples
so 2 apples plus 2 apples equal five apples!
How can 2 apples plus 2 apples equal five apples?
However, if you have two apples (plus a forth) and you have the same again, you then have four apples and a half. Mathematicly, that rounds up to five :P
However, as I said above, in this reality (as long as you aren't near a Naked Singularity (so I have been told)) you will have the normal laws.
However, mathematical logic doesn't effect metaphysical logic.
And when I get the time I will put forth a few logic-based questions to you about your beliefs, but not now.Quote:
Now logic is just what is true, like 2+2=4 is always true. Logic has nothing to do with laws or theories e.t.c. Logic is too do with truth. As mathematician say if you prove something it always exsist.
By being able to do anything. By your own admission, such a being can do anything, even break logics laws. However, only if God is OP as we define it.Quote:
This statement is false
Now this is a paradox kind of like the god stone paradox. "The statement is false" can never be true or false. Now something has to be true or false, now how can god get out of this paradox?
Not so. You will see when I answer your last point.Quote:
as a paradox is about truth not laws or net.
Keeper I understand your question. Can god be kept down by a net, the anwser is this. Logic is truth thats why mathematician use it e.g. the apple example. If their is a paradox then it must be non exsistant as their is no anwser..
See the end of this post (remember, this is only one definition of OP and OS).Quote:
On one of Turing paper, Turing came up with the idea of a infinty machine. See paradoxes are loops. He proposed that these infinty machine could possibly anwser a paradox or go beyound logic. However, their is still no solution, ironically the proof came from some strange numbers, which code back into Goedels number theory. So we have proof that paradoxes are non exsistent and they can't be solved, god is stuck with a unsolvable problem and that problem is god can't be all powerful as the stone paradox clearly shows.
Plus god would have to solve another paradox to be all knowing, which is the halting paradox and uncertainty. The halting paradox has been proved i.e. it is as true as 2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples and the uncertainty prinicple is produced by logic.
Have you looked up paradox at your belovid Wikipedia? There is a section showing a list. On that list, I think you may want to see this one in particuler. However, there are others.Quote:
Logic=truth
Illogical i.e. paradox=not truth
A part I would like to quote:(emphasis mine)Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Are you sure that a Paradox is always false?
Even if you see a paradox, others may not.
It is true you cannot choose what you believe, but many Logical, sensable people believe in God and don't believe that God is a contradiction. Do only fools believe, and does no-one of intelligence from an Atheist or agnostic background convert?Quote:
Originally Posted by imran_p
A polar bear.Quote:
Originally Posted by secret_neo
No this is a problem. See Russell paradox, well can a set of everything exsist the anwser is no because it is self refrencing. Let me state the other paradox can god create a more powerful god, if the anwser is yes then he is not all powerful as their is another powerful god if the anwser is no then he is all powerful because he can't create something more powerful then himself.Quote:
To me, that seems illogical, as an OP being can escape. i.e. and OP being (being OP) can violate the laws of Logic (by its very definition this is so.)
Do you believe in true and false? If so how can you break the truth? and if so how can god defy truth?
Their is only one logic. You don't use any logic, look at maths. Especially the work of Russell. In mathematics their is only one logic which basically makes up set theory.Quote:
But who's Logic? Mine or yours?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiomatic_set_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-order_logic
This is logic, maths is logic. You can read the articles I can give you more if you want, however their is only one logic, which is mathematical logic.
I'm talking about maths not philosophy.Quote:
In Maths, this is always so , but not in philosophy.
I'm using mathematical logic.Quote:
To your logic, but not mine.
Keeper, keeper, keeper. I said two apples, not two and forth apples. Do I really need to go back and change two too 2.000 apples, or will you act seriously.Quote:
However, if you have two apples (plus a forth) and you have the same again, you then have four apples and a half. Mathematicly, that rounds up to five
Logic is truth, once something is proved in mathematics it always is 2.00 apples plus 2.000 apples always equals 4.000 apples. Now if something metaphysical has been shown to be a contradiction in logic i.e. the truth, it must be non exsist. Do you want me to give lots of example where mathematics has been used to describe the universe and how it describes the universe, quantum uncertainty itself stems from mathematical logic since logic is the truth.Quote:
However, mathematical logic doesn't effect metaphysical logic.
No keeper. A infinte being can only work in logic since logic is the truth, now can you break the truth?Quote:
By being able to do anything. By your own admission, such a being can do anything, even break logics laws. However, only if God is OP as we define it.
No you can't and no god can change the truth i.e. no god can make 2.00 apples plus 2.000 appless equal 5.000 apples. See logic says god can't exsist as their is a contradiction, since logic is the truth then god must be false or not true.
No a paradox does not exsist.Quote:
Are you sure that a Paradox is always false?
Example
http://www.homeschoolmath.net/teachi...irrational.phpQuote:
The proof that square root of 2 is irrational:
Let's suppose √2 were a rational number. Then we can write it √2 = a/b where a, b are whole numbers, b not zero. We additionally make it so that this a/b is simplified to the lowest terms, since that can obviously be done with any fraction.
It follows that 2 = a2/b2, or a2 = 2 * b2. So the square of a is an even number since it is two times something. From this we can know that a itself is also an even number. Why? Because it can't be odd; if a itself was odd, then a * a would be odd too. Odd number times odd number is always odd. Check if you don't believe that!
Okay, if a itself is an even number, then a is 2 times some other whole number, or a = 2k where k is this other number. We don't need to know exactly what k is; it won't matter. Soon is coming the contradiction:
If we substitute a = 2k into the original equation 2 = a2/b2, this is what we get:
2 = (2k)2/b2
2 = 4k2/b2
2*b2 = 4k2
b2 = 2k2.
This means b2 is even, from which follows again that b itself is an even number!!!
WHY is that a contradiction? Because we started the whole process saying that a/b is simplified to the lowest terms, and now it turns out that a and b would both be even. So √2 cannot be rational.
Now assuming god is all powerful leads to a contradiction or paradox. Basically god can't be all powerful as if we assume he is all powerful then we end up having a paradox, like when we assume square root of 2 is a rational number.
It is mathematics, you can argue or close your eyes and say god is allpowerful however you can't escape it like the greek mathematics couldn't escape the fact that the square root of 2 is irrational. You can't argue with mathematics i.e. 2.00 apples plus 2.00 apples always equals 4.00 apples.Quote:
Even if you see a paradox, others may not
I won't dodge, you don't dodge.
What does OP mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by wendylove
And, as I have said before, this is only the case if God is OP as you define it.
I ask you again: What does Omnipotent mean?
You seem to say: An OP being can do anything. Anything at all. I mean that is what OP means. But ... there is one thing it can't do: Escape a paradox.
That is not logical.
Quote:
Do you believe in true and false? If so how can you break the truth? and if so how can god defy truth?
True, but also many different people. What is logical to you may not necessarily be logical to me. Who is right? I have pointed out the lack of logic in your posts, so tell me how you are being logical by saying an OP being can't do everything (and As I have been saying (and you ignoring) this only counts if we are talking about a God who can do everything. Something we haven't establishedQuote:
Their is only one logic.
No, you don't. I have pointed that out. Or have I? You see: what you see isn't.Quote:
You don't use any logic,
And would you expect God to operate on a human level of understanding? Can we know the Deep Mysteries?
What on God's green earth does Maths have to do with Metaphysical and Spiritual logic?Quote:
look at maths. Especially the work of Russell. In mathematics their is only one logic which basically makes up set theory.
Yes, but Science doesn't equal maths, Art doesn't equal maths, Thought doesn't equal maths, etc. Yet they also employ logic. You are trying to compare apples and oranges.Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiomatic_set_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-order_logic
This is logic, maths is logic.
Guess scientific logic (which doesn't equal mathematical logic) doesn't count.Quote:
You can read the articles I can give you more if you want, however their is only one logic, which is mathematical logic.
Your mixing your fruits.
Then Mathematically, you are not logical. Explain how you can exist mathematically.Quote:
I'm talking about maths not philosophy.
And that is why you are wrong. You can't prove or disprove the presence of an atom with maths, nor can you prove thought with maths. YET both are LOGICAL.Quote:
I'm using mathematical logic.
Do you like my name? :PQuote:
Keeper, keeper, keeper.
Call me Luke :)
I concede this point. You are right (at leas in part)Quote:
I said two apples, not two and forth apples. Do I really need to go back and change two too 2.000 apples, or will you act seriously.
In this universe, away from Naked Singularities.Quote:
Logic is truth, once something is proved in mathematics it always is 2.00 apples plus 2.000 apples always equals 4.000 apples.
So by your argument, unless I can mathematically prove you, you aren't real?Quote:
Now if something metaphysical has been shown to be a contradiction in logic i.e. the truth, it must be non exsist.
The Greeks who mocked the guy who thought of the Atom said it was illogical. How could you prove them wrong?
Okay.Quote:
Do you want me to give lots of example where mathematics has been used to describe the universe and how it describes the universe, quantum uncertainty itself stems from mathematical logic since logic is the truth.
So does logic work outside the universe?Quote:
No keeper. A infinte being can only work in logic since logic is the truth, now can you break the truth?
He can if he is:Quote:
No you can't and no god can change the truth i.e. no god can make 2.00 apples plus 2.000 appless equal 5.000 apples.
a) The author of Reality (Maker of Logic) and/or
b) Omnipotent.
Would a being from outside the universe be understandable by humans? Could a being who lives where logic does not be a servant of it?
But your form of logic tells me that you aren't real.Quote:
See logic says god can't exsist as their is a contradiction, since logic is the truth then god must be false or not true.
I don't think you read my links ...Quote:
No a paradox does not exsist.
Example
http://www.homeschoolmath.net/teachi...irrational.php
Now assuming god is all powerful leads to a contradiction or paradox. Basically god can't be all powerful as if we assume he is all powerful then we end up having a paradox, like when we assume square root of 2 is a rational number.
Do you know of Zeno's paradox? It states that nothing can move.
But we can: the logic behind the paradox was either deliberately or intentionality flawed.
Just because you see a paradox doesn't mean that there is one. Just because someone things it is logical to use blue paint or orange doesn't mean that others don't think that it is so.
So you say, but you are forgetting what OP means.Quote:
It is mathematics, you can argue or close your eyes and say god is allpowerful however you can't escape it like the greek mathematics couldn't escape the fact that the square root of 2 is irrational. You can't argue with mathematics i.e. 2.00 apples plus 2.00 apples always equals 4.00 apples.
And as I have said, we are taking into account the fact that OP may not actually mean what it implies.
If youre the paradox then you can't escape it.Quote:
Anything at all. I mean that is what OP means. But ... there is one thing it can't do: Escape a paradox.
Mathematical logic is true always. I use mathematical logic.Quote:
True, but also many different people. What is logical to you may not necessarily be logical to me.
If god can't do everything then he is not all powerful.Quote:
this only counts if we are talking about a God who can do everything. Something we haven't established
Their is only one true logic, which is mathematical logic. Maths is too do with truth a pattarn, so maths is truth like 2.00 apples plus 2.00 appless will always equal 4.00 apples.Quote:
What on God's green earth does Maths have to do with Metaphysical and Spiritual logic?
First off all art is about emotions and science is about testing stuff. Now, what does this have to do with truth, art is not higher truth a artist will never solve a paradox by drawing it on a piece of paper. It something is true you can prove it using maths.Quote:
Yes, but Science doesn't equal maths, Art doesn't equal maths, Thought doesn't equal maths, etc. Yet they also employ logic. You are trying to compare apples and oranges.
Well, thought can be classed in artifical intelligence if you want to know how maths handles thought then read this book http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del,_Escher,_BachQuote:
And that is why you are wrong. You can't prove or disprove the presence of an atom with maths, nor can you prove thought with maths. YET both are LOGICAL.
You can prove atoms with mathematics. Firstly look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dirac now he predicted the exsistance of a antiparticle using only mathematics, again the greeks used mathematics of infinty to prove atoms or quarks. Paul Dirac only used mathematics to make one of physics best theories to date, it is the most precise and all off this came from logic.
Quantum gravity makes sure naked singularities don't exsist.Quote:
In this universe, away from Naked Singularities.
No this is wrong. See god has certain properties like being all powerful, now being all powerful is the paradox. If I said their is a person that exsist if this statement is false, then the person does not exsist as the property he has is impossible. Now god has a impossible property.Quote:
So by your argument, unless I can mathematically prove you, you aren't real?
Of course, 2.00 apples plus 2.00 apples equals 4.00 apples exsist outside the universe. Truth exsist.Quote:
So does logic work outside the universe?
The zeno paradox is not a paradox, now less able people who don't know mathematics would proberly see it as a paradox. Do you know calculus, if you do then you would now that he constantly moving and so it infintly sums up to the real value. Again no paradox, it just some fun for mathematical lazy to think about.Quote:
Do you know of Zeno's paradox? It states that nothing can move.
But we can: the logic behind the paradox was either deliberately or intentionality flawed.
Also the zeno paradox was not based on logic, but some philosophy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides
Now any person with basic logic can see the zeno paradox is nothing but rubbish philosophy.
Logic is the truth, so your basically anwsering can god exsist outside of truth. I agree god does exsist outside the truth, he doesn't exsist that the truth.Quote:
Could a being who lives where logic does not be a servant of it?
Keeper, let's cut to the chase. The point is that the concept of an infinitely powerful being, which you yourself in this very thread have said is a being that "can do ANYTHING", contradicts itself. It is an illogical concept. An infinitely powerful being would, by definition, be able to create a being more powerful than itself, but also by definition, not be able to create a being more powerful than itself. That concept contradicts itself. An infinitely powerful being would be able to create a stone so heavy it cannot lift it, yet be able to lift what it cannot lift, even though it can. The idea does not make sense.
When will people realize that math is not some "law of the universe?" Math can be used to describe any phenomena and can be set up to represent any situation. Mathematics are a language and nothing more. I can show you a case in which 2.00 apples plus 2.00 apples is equal to 11.00 apples. Math means absolutely nothing without a context and the context you are using it in is observed physical phenomena in our perceived locale. The maths you are using can just as easily be used to describe a completely contrary set of observed physical phenomena under a different set of physical laws and will still hold up just as well.
This is in response to Wendylove.
True, however I was using something really easy so Keeper can understand. In reality maths is infintely more complex, however for argument reasons this will do. However you wouldn't call them real numbers, I am only talking about real numbers. Also I like to add apples follow only real number mathematics.Quote:
The maths you are using can just as easily be used to describe a completely contrary set of observed physical phenomena under a different set of physical laws and will still hold up just as well.
Yes I would actually. Real numbers 2+2=11Quote:
Originally Posted by wendylove
Humans made up the language, not the facts they represent. With everything else being represented the way it is, Pi could not be 5, and neither could 2 + 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
No that would be called hyper real numbers. That above is basically non standard analysis, which use numbers like 2+2=11 however 2 is infintly large. Mathematics is more then just fancy symbols, however you do raise a good point.Quote:
Yes I would actually. Real numbers 2+2=11
Yeah, universal minds point.
The facts, as you call them are actually only what I called them; Observed physical phenomena. The only thing factual about them is that they remain constant under the specific circumstances that we are capable of observing them. There is really no way for you to know whether or not our physical laws behave completely differently when you are under the influence, lets say, of a different gravitational field. It is entirely possible (and likely) that our observed phenomena would be different if we were to get significantly closer to the center of our galaxy for instance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
No, actually, 2+2=11 is an example of an equation using a base 3 number system. There is nothing hyper about them and I doubt you have much knowledge concerning what you are talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by wendylove
Look up mathematical proof. Mathematics is pattarns, I don't see how truth can change.Quote:
There is really no way for you to know whether or not our physical laws behave completely differently when you are under the influence, lets say, of a different gravitational field.
So you think there is a possibility that in another setting **** could be *** + ***? I don't. If you add *** to ***, you have ******.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
"truth" changes on a fairly regular basis. Whenever new scientific evidence is uncovered, the common "truths" undergo a change to better fit the new set of observed phenomena. This is the reason why science is valid. Not because it is capable of describing any ultimate Truth, but because its truths are subject to revision and therefore will continue to be better at describing our observed physical universe.Quote:
Originally Posted by wendylove
Some might say that if you add *** to *** you'd have;Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
***
***
The difference is subtle, yet significant to my argument. The reason for this is because the math that we use seems so universal, only because we follow certain rules of organization instilled by its creators. I'm assuming you are taking the dots to represent 3, 3 and 6 but they could easily be taken to represent 1, 1 and 2, as I have shown them. they could also be taken to represent 3/2, 3/2 and 3, if you assume one column of 2 dots is equal to 1 and 1 column of 1 dot is equal to 1/2.
I was only saying that three dots plus three dots equals six dots. But you could of course treat each three set as a single unit and use it to conclude that one unit plus one unit equals two units. The point is that three plus three does not equal four or eight or a thousand or anything other than six. If there were some strange realm or situation where three dots plus three dots equals four dots, two dots would not be present where they are present, which would be a self-contradicting concept. It is therefore an impossible situation. The laws of math are absolute even though the language of math is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
And this is the point we keep disagreeing on. The main problem, I think, is that we are thinking in limited terms. Your thinking is istricktly in the "here-and-now": Current physics/Your Logic stat this this and this. That is that.Quote:
Originally Posted by wendylove
Mine may be far to "Trancendent" (though to me I doubt it) if I may use that word. I am looking that things from a vastly different perspective, for I feel that the human can't understand everything. Our minds aren't capable of seeing things that it has never experienced.
There within lies the problem.
I'm sorry wendy, but you will have a very hard time convincing me that we as humans can know everything, and that our "laws" govern everything. WE may know a little, but we will never know all the Mysteries.
Prove yourself to me mathematically.Quote:
Mathematical logic is true always. I use mathematical logic.
Define "All". Does it mean He can escape from a Paradox?Quote:
If god can't do everything then he is not all powerful.
Once again, I ask you to prove yourself to me Mathematically.Quote:
Their is only one true logic, which is mathematical logic. Maths is too do with truth a pattarn, so maths is truth like 2.00 apples plus 2.00 appless will always equal 4.00 apples.
Prove that there was a yesterday mathematically. Do the same for the existence of Apples. Prove existence using maths. If you can disprove God with maths, then proving everything else should be easy, no?Quote:
First off all art is about emotions and science is about testing stuff. Now, what does this have to do with truth, art is not higher truth a artist will never solve a paradox by drawing it on a piece of paper. It something is true you can prove it using maths.
I will look into it.Quote:
Well, thought can be classed in artifical intelligence if you want to know how maths handles thought then read this book http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del,_Escher,_Bach
You can prove atoms with mathematics. Firstly look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dirac now he predicted the exsistance of a antiparticle using only mathematics, again the greeks used mathematics of infinty to prove atoms or quarks. Paul Dirac only used mathematics to make one of physics best theories to date, it is the most precise and all off this came from logic.
That is actually still not proven, but okay.Quote:
Quantum gravity makes sure naked singularities don't exsist.
But as I have said before, being OP means you can escape from a paradox. Also, if logic is only confined to this reality, then a being who exists outside. But how can we know that without evidence, you no-doubt ask. True, we can't, but we also cannot dismiss the possibility out of hand. That is not the way of science or logic.Quote:
No this is wrong. See god has certain properties like being all powerful, now being all powerful is the paradox.
See aboveQuote:
If I said their is a person that exsist if this statement is false, then the person does not exsist as the property he has is impossible. Now god has a impossible property.
I'm glade to hear that.Quote:
Of course, 2.00 apples plus 2.00 apples equals 4.00 apples exsist outside the universe. Truth exsist.
Yet it has been called a paradox by mathematicians for a very long time. Yet you just proved my point: Where one person sees a paradox, other do not. Zeno would argue with you that this is a paradox, and that this is logic, yet you argue the opposite. Who is right?Quote:
The zeno paradox is not a paradox, now less able people who don't know mathematics would proberly see it as a paradox.
Little doubt that you will say you, but only because you see the answer and he didn't
I know basic calculus, yes.Quote:
Do you know calculus,
I know this, the whole "limit" thing, correct? Yes, you don't see a problem, neither do I, for that matter. But others do.Quote:
if you do then you would now that he constantly moving and so it infintly sums up to the real value. Again no paradox, it just some fun for mathematical lazy to think about.
Oh, and it actually doesn't ever reach infinity :)
That is the origin of Logic.Quote:
Also the zeno paradox was not based on logic, but some philosophy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides
Now any person with basic logic can see the zeno paradox is nothing but rubbish philosophy.
To each his own. I have little left to say on this matter that I haven't already.Quote:
Logic is the truth, so your basically anwsering can god exsist outside of truth. I agree god does exsist outside the truth, he doesn't exsist that the truth.
Only if you think that a Infinitely powerful being is not infinitely powerful enough to escape a logical paradox, in which case it is not infinitely powerful. However, as I have mentioned, that may not be what God is. How would we ever know?Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
As I have said, there are two answers.Quote:
It is an illogical concept. An infinitely powerful being would, by definition, be able to create a being more powerful than itself, but also by definition, not be able to create a being more powerful than itself. That concept contradicts itself. An infinitely powerful being would be able to create a stone so heavy it cannot lift it, yet be able to lift what it cannot lift, even though it can. The idea does not make sense.
I just realized that this isn't a "Ask Me" thread anymore :P
So, any other Questions? :)
Yes, an infinitely powerful being would hypothetically be able to escape a logical paradox. That is why I think the concept of infinite power is illogical. There is no way to escape a logical paradox, so infinite power is impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keeper
And for that reason arguing the matter is pointless, as we will in all likelihood never know. Also, I can't make you see things the way I see them when to you - knowing my argument on the subject - feel it is illogical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Shall we agree to disagree? :)
No, I think we should disagree to disagree. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Keeper
Similar to what I said in my example to Wendy, 3+3=11 in a base 5 number system. Just like any language, you can only communicate successfully with mathematics when you define all terms, conditions and their relevance to the phenomena you are trying to explain. Without context math is meaningless and all contexts are subjective in regards to the observer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
So I need to specify that I am dealing with base 10? Okay, I am dealing with base 10. I think you know what meanings my words have without my defining every single one of them. My point is that the reality behind the symbols as they are intended is objective reality that is absolute. If you have this many :boogie::boogie: and you add this many :boogie::boogie:, you have this many :boogie::boogie::boogie::boogie:. There are no exceptions to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
When using such blanket statements as, "The point is that three plus three does not equal four or eight or a thousand or anything other than six," you better specify; otherwise you'll be shown to be wrong time and again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
This could go round and round all day. I've seen it happen before. One more counter-example, and then I'm done.
squareroot4+squareroot4+squareroot4= 6, 2, -2, or -6. Thats 4 different possible outcomes, none of which could you actually say is the "right" one. Whats more, it would even be valid to say that simplified, this equation shows how 3=4;
3(integers) = 4(possible outputs)
Every positive real number has a negative and a positive square root.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
It is always understood that people are using base 10 unless stated otherwise. Does your post number need to have "using base 10" beside it? What about the national debt or number of new immigrants per year? I know algebra and geometry books don't specify it. I also specified it in my last post. My point that the realities behind the symbols are absolute stands.
The inherent problem with speaking in absolutes as you so often do is that you must cover all your bases if you hope to not be so easily proven wrong. The post count does not claim to be an absolute truth. The statistics you mentioned do not claim to be absolute truths. You did, and so you will be held to higher standards; standards you are incapable of meeting.
I did meet the standards, and the post count and the statistics I mentioned are absolutes. This is the 125th post in this thread, and that number does not depend on perspective or gravity or anything else. There were 124 posts before it. I don't have to define every word in this paragraph to legitimately make that point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
This conversation, like our triangle one, is getting away from the point. The topic is the objective and absolute nature of mathematical reality, in terms not of the symbols but in terms of what the symbols are used to represent. You are not addressing the major point I keep making. The mathematical realities behind the intended symbols are objective and absolute. If you disagree with that, why?
As you I should have known, Universal gets to dictate the subject of discussion. You win dude. You will continue to lead the topic astray until you find ground that you are comfortable on and then when beaten on that ground you will accuse me of going off topic so, you win. You are right, I am wrong;
Keeper, I return the thread to you. I've lost my stomach for these circular arguments against people claiming to know the true nature of the universe. They obviously know more than I; for I am a lowly human.
:( I was hoping you would actually counter my major point, which is extremely relevant to the discussion we were having with Keeper about how the absolute nature of logic relates to the existence of God, instead of running away with false tangents the whole time. Too bad. I guess your absurd personal insults against me make perfectly good subsitutes. :roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
May I ask you a question: Why would God conform to Logic?
"God" doesn't conform to logic because logic requires time and for time to exist "God" must exist FIRST. I mean "God" as in a thing, THE thing, that MUST have existed FIRST before anything else could possibly exist.
Xaqaria, just listen, always always always remain open. always listen. always hear what others have to say. the only thing that would make you LOW, is if you chose to stop trying to learn altogether. that makes you selfish and low. I, if only I, would LOVE to discuss existence with you. I would LOVE to hear what you have to say, and I'd love to share my own views with you. the only thing that can make you LOW, is closing yourself up entirely.
The idea that the laws of logic can be broken is illogical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keeper
I don't see it as "before". The source of our universe is timeless, and the word "before" implies time chronology. I also don't think logic requires time. "If A, then B. A, therefore B," is a timeless truth of reality and does not depend on time, for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by paperdoll
so it's more like a never-ending loop?
It's more like a still picture that can't possibly not exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by paperdoll
I think I see it.
I don't see anything as being "before" or "outside of time" anymore. I see it more as one instance. 1 wasn't first, but it existed at the same instance 0 did, not before it. the 1 would have to be consciousness itself, because it would have to be aware of itself, and the 0 would have to be there at the same instance (not after) for it to be aware of itself. the 1's awareness would be like "I exist" "Nothing exists" and the alternation between the two different states of existence would be change, and the change would be time. I think that the first change was pure energy, and isn't the big bang explained as everything coming from pure energy?am I right?Quote:
Originally Posted by wikipedia
Time is just the flow of events, it's not really a thing. It's like events in chronological order, and never ending. Everything happens in time, time was the first thing to exist, but it doesnt really exist... Don't know how to explain it. The first thing to exist was time for sure, but I think something else co-existed with it for sure. Somehow.
Yea, the big bang states everything came from energy. But it came from something in space that exploded causing that energy and causing the universe to expand rapidly. So, how did that thing get there that exploded or w/e? Or how did space get there to hold that thing in?
that "thing" was all there was at first. there was no space yet, space came from it.
edit: no, no, I get it now. space is uncertainty, or unawareness. the first consciousness was of course surrounded by uncertainty, unawareness. space is expanding, right? I think energy is constantly expanding, out into space, in every direction. consciousness is expanding out and it will never stop because space is infinite. if it weren't, there'd be no consciousness in the first place.
I see it like this:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...ll/figure1.jpg
there is the first consciousness, it is aware that it exists and that unawareness exists. it is surrounded by unawareness (space).
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...ll/figure2.jpg
it had to have spread, somehow. if it didn't, there would be nothing. but it couldn't have converted ALL of space at once, because if it did, there would be nothing.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...ll/figure3.jpg
so it continued, and continues, to expand, forever. space is infinite. no one can ever know everything, consciousness cannot exist without unconscioussness, but it can't exist without (forever) converting space either.
I'm here again, hopefully to stay, so ...
Open again for buisness