|
|
8 Jan 2005, 16:25
|
#151
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
To reply randomly to something inferno claimed earlier, namely that god must exist due to the fact we do not encounter things that are omnipotent, omniscient, immortal in real life and therefore the idea of god could not be formed without the original existence of god.
He then responds to the argument that goblins or unicorns from Mars don't exist but we can conceive of them by stating that these are just combining attributes of various creatures (horses, things with horns, the planet mars etc). Forming the idea of god is just another step up in combining attributes. You're combining the idea of knowing everything about one particular thing (this would have to be something like addition as opposed to something like a glass of water) with the idea of all things.
(I'd really like someone to reply to that argument as I just made it up myself and I tried looking for it on the internet but I couldn't find it so I don't know if there are any convincing objections )
Also calling god utterly unknowable and undefinable and then asking people to believe in god is ridiculous. "Hay guys I'm not going to tell you what X is but believe in it anyways!!!"
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 16:38
|
#152
|
share the <3
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 2,709
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
Thats why i don't like the word belief in all this, i prefer faith. This appears to me to be less about 'god' in whatever manifestation you wish to take that word and more about theology. Surely this should all be 'i define, i have faith' instead of 'i define, you defend'.
To clarify my position i am an agnostic. There may or may not be a god, even if it existed i would choose not to worship it.
__________________
Sophie is hotter than you
though ive gone off her now; the way Susanna Reid squirms around on sml is, however, awesome
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 16:38
|
#153
|
The Twilight of the Gods
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
It seems to be fine to me; of course, this opens up another question.
The definition of god's omniscience.
What I mean by this is fairly straightforward. If god is omniscient, does he know all of what can be known, or all of what is known. The latter one would work fairly well with omniprescence, and would also allow for free will.
Yowzah!
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 16:40
|
#154
|
Next goal wins!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: London
Posts: 5,406
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Also calling god utterly unknowable and undefinable and then asking people to believe in god is ridiculous. "Hay guys I'm not going to tell you what X is but believe in it anyways!!!"
|
Its not about not telling people what it is, its accepting that there are things which are far beyond our comphrehension, in the same way that the inner workings of an internal combustion engine are beyond the comphrehension of an ant, the exact facts and the way "god" works could be beyond human comphrehension, and it probably is.
__________________
bastard bastard bastard bastard
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 16:43
|
#155
|
The Twilight of the Gods
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deepflow
Its not about not telling people what it is, its accepting that there are things which are far beyond our comphrehension, in the same way that the inner workings of an internal combustion engine are beyond the comphrehension of an ant, the exact facts and the way "god" works could be beyond human comphrehension, and it probably is.
|
Yeah, but that doesn't change J's argument.
'There's this thing.'
'What's it like?'
'It's ineffable!'
'What?'
'We can't know what it's like!'
'Why should I believe in it then?'
'Because we'll burn you if you don't!'
Yes, I know this is a stereotyped and trivialised version of the argument, but the point remains.
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 16:44
|
#156
|
cynic
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bishop Auckland Co. Durham
Posts: 8,809
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
the only definitions i can find for it state 'total or infinite knowledge' which would assume that it would be all that can be known, which is what i always assumed omniscience to mean
omniscience cannot work will free will, as ultimately, god knew you were going to do that, therefore you did it due to gods will, therefore there is no free will
which is one of the gaping errors in religion if you ask me
__________________
lazy
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 16:46
|
#157
|
Next goal wins!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: London
Posts: 5,406
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri
Yeah, but that doesn't change J's argument.
'There's this thing.'
'What's it like?'
'It's ineffable!'
'What?'
'We can't know what it's like!'
'Why should I believe in it then?'
'You don't have to, i choose to though, because it makes me feel better'
|
fixed...
that would be the more 'modern' way the conversation normally goes.
I would never dream of preaching my own personalised religion, i choose to believe what i believe and others can choose to believe what they want to. Im pretty sure even if god does exist he probably doesn't care if you believe in him or not, so it doesn't really matter.
jeez, if everyone were more like me the world would be a much better place
__________________
bastard bastard bastard bastard
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 16:48
|
#158
|
The Twilight of the Gods
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
Quote:
Originally Posted by roadrunner_0
the only definitions i can find for it state 'total or infinite knowledge' which would assume that it would be all that can be known, which is what i always assumed omniscience to mean
|
The total sum of knowledge is all that IS known, however. It depends how you interpret it; it obviously comes from the latin words omnia ('all, total') and scire ('to know'). Modern connotations can **** off.
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 16:49
|
#159
|
The Twilight of the Gods
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deepflow
that would be the more 'modern' way the conversation normally goes.
|
That way's not as assuming, stereotypical or amusing though.
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 18:21
|
#160
|
a new low in getting high
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,810
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deepflow
jeez, if everyone were more like me the world would be a much better place
|
this is true
__________________
There’s trouble on every corner,
And you need a place to hide,
All the bad things follow us down,
I want you by my side.
We’re hitting a new low.
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 18:52
|
#161
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
The question is meaningless until you give some kind of definition of what you mean by "God" - it's like asking if you beileve in zyspinxmityo or something similar. If you mean 'do you believe that the supernatural entity described in the Bible exists, as described there?', then no.
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 19:19
|
#162
|
I dunno...
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: manchester
Posts: 1,502
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri
|
I'm not that foolish. You need to brush up on your theology.
I'll summarise: there was this bloke who was God called Jesus. He changed things.
Don't stop at Leviticus. Go on to read the New Testament, please.
__________________
He shall drink naught but brine, for I'll not show him / Where the quick freshes are.
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 19:26
|
#163
|
I dunno...
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: manchester
Posts: 1,502
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri
I'm sorry if you don't find this amusing, but given the amount of evidence that anything that approaches scientific theory has going for it, this opinion is laughable. Fine, say that evolution was guided by god's hand; fine, say that the opening of Genesis is a metaphor for the big bang. But to deny the findings of science as incredible, that takes a specific kind of ignorance.
|
I completely disagree.
Evolution has not been proved. Neither has God.
I could give accounts of things that cannot be explained by science, and that seem to be evidence of a God. Why is this any less evidence than scientific hypothesise, especially considering the supernatural nature of the enquiry?
__________________
He shall drink naught but brine, for I'll not show him / Where the quick freshes are.
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 19:36
|
#164
|
I dunno...
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: manchester
Posts: 1,502
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
To reply randomly to something inferno claimed earlier, namely that god must exist due to the fact we do not encounter things that are omnipotent, omniscient, immortal in real life and therefore the idea of god could not be formed without the original existence of god.
He then responds to the argument that goblins or unicorns from Mars don't exist but we can conceive of them by stating that these are just combining attributes of various creatures (horses, things with horns, the planet mars etc). Forming the idea of god is just another step up in combining attributes. You're combining the idea of knowing everything about one particular thing (this would have to be something like addition as opposed to something like a glass of water) with the idea of all things.
|
This relates to Cartesian theory: The Causal argument.
I quote (from http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/DA026SECT6):
"In Meditation III, Descartes discusses various classes of ideas, one by one, and concludes that, as a finite substance, he can conceivably be the cause of all the ideas he has in his mind except for one: the idea of God. Since the idea of God is an idea of something that has infinite perfection, the only thing that can cause that idea in my mind is a thing that formally (actually) has the perfection that my idea has objectively – that is, God himself."
Let's not go into formal and objective reality - I've had enough of the stuff last term.
Quote:
Also calling god utterly unknowable and undefinable and then asking people to believe in god is ridiculous. "Hay guys I'm not going to tell you what X is but believe in it anyways!!!"
|
Faith. It's like faith in evolution.
__________________
He shall drink naught but brine, for I'll not show him / Where the quick freshes are.
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 19:40
|
#165
|
I dunno...
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: manchester
Posts: 1,502
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri
It seems to be fine to me; of course, this opens up another question.
The definition of god's omniscience.
What I mean by this is fairly straightforward. If god is omniscient, does he know all of what can be known, or all of what is known. The latter one would work fairly well with omniprescence, and would also allow for free will.
Yowzah!
|
There is little difference between the two, if you reword it:
All that is to be known.
All that can be known.
__________________
He shall drink naught but brine, for I'll not show him / Where the quick freshes are.
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 19:40
|
#166
|
Twisted
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Down with the sickness
Posts: 2,484
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
Boogster, Are you saying that there is equal supporting evidence for the existence of a god as there is for Darwins theory of evolution?
__________________
Me
In my sleep I grind my teeth.
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 19:41
|
#167
|
Aardvark is a funny word
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: I'm No Nino Rota
Posts: 5,923
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boogster
I completely disagree.
Evolution has not been proved. Neither has God.
I could give accounts of things that cannot be explained by science, and that seem to be evidence of a God. Why is this any less evidence than scientific hypothesise, especially considering the supernatural nature of the enquiry?
|
give an example of something 'unexplainable by science' which you consider to be the work of a higher power then. Go.
__________________
Efficiency, efficiency they say
Get to know the date and tell the time of day
As the crowds begin complaining
How the Beaujolais is raining
Down on darkened meetings on the Champs Élysées
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 20:02
|
#168
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phang
give an example of something 'unexplainable by science' which you consider to be the work of a higher power then'
|
there you go
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 20:15
|
#169
|
Twisted
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Down with the sickness
Posts: 2,484
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nodrog
|
An argument against evolution?
__________________
Me
In my sleep I grind my teeth.
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 20:24
|
#170
|
Ball
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,410
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boogster
I completely disagree.
Evolution has not been proved. Neither has God.
I could give accounts of things that cannot be explained by science, and that seem to be evidence of a God. Why is this any less evidence than scientific hypothesise, especially considering the supernatural nature of the enquiry?
|
"God of the Gaps"
*googles*
http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/gaps.html
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 20:50
|
#171
|
The Arson Specialist
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The Deep Shores of Hell
Posts: 524
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
Can I state that I am not Christian and that I dont know why idimmu hates me?
This is a book i read earlier and really puts questions in your mind. There is more you look for them:
http://www.islam-guide.com/
And try to be open minded when reading these things.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dace
i like infernos avatar
|
Please dont laugh at me. I'm not trying to be funny.
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 20:53
|
#172
|
Twisted
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Down with the sickness
Posts: 2,484
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inferno
Can I state that I am not Christian and that I dont know why idimmu hates me?
|
I imagine it was you puritanical view on his and others avatars, which basically meant you rejected the idea of you avoiding them and that he should be punished for it.
That and he thinks your a complete twat, but that is just a guess.
__________________
Me
In my sleep I grind my teeth.
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 21:02
|
#173
|
The Arson Specialist
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The Deep Shores of Hell
Posts: 524
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
As for the arguments as to why people are suffering if God exists, I say that if the world is perfect and everyone is rich and living a good life there would be no need for religion. The world was created with good and bad therefore religion exists.
People suffer as a direct and indirect result of man's actions. It is down to us rectifying it. Just like when people are suffering because of the tsunami we donate our wealth and time and they will soon be able to live a good life. If we did this all the time there will be little or no suffering.
How many times did you go by a beggar on the street and you ignored him/her and your stomach and pockets are full? Is it God's fault the beggar suffers or yours?
Another point raised is that 'if God knows all then do we have free will?' Ofcourse you have free will. God knows where you will end up in life and the decisions you make just as similarly a teacher can predict your results in an exam. But does it make a difference whether God knows the choices you make in life? No, because as far as you are concerned you are making your own choices and those choices you make have consequences to match your choices.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dace
i like infernos avatar
|
Please dont laugh at me. I'm not trying to be funny.
Last edited by Inferno; 8 Jan 2005 at 21:11.
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 21:05
|
#174
|
Guy next door
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 4,745
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
You really aren't making any sense.
__________________
..look
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 21:11
|
#175
|
The Arson Specialist
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The Deep Shores of Hell
Posts: 524
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
Just a few errors. Fixed now.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dace
i like infernos avatar
|
Please dont laugh at me. I'm not trying to be funny.
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 21:16
|
#176
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri
I'm an agnostic at heart, simply because doubt is always the way forward.
|
Since when? Rational doubt is all very, but not all doubt is rational. If I were to make a statement such as "you cannot prove that the universe began 10 minutes ago" or "maybe water no longer boils at 100 degrees celcius", or something similarly ridiculous, then it's unlikely you would think "that could very well be true since it cannot be either proven or disproven!" - you'd correctly dismiss the claims with very little thought, due to their sheer arbitraryness. Why do you think the God hypothesis is worthy of more serious consideration? I doubt you're agnostic about the possibility of there being a unicorn on your roof at this very instant, so why bother saying you're agnostic about the existence of God? It seems like a cheap copout - if you don't believe in God, just say you're an atheist.
Last edited by Nodrog; 8 Jan 2005 at 21:21.
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 21:31
|
#177
|
The Arson Specialist
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The Deep Shores of Hell
Posts: 524
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flavius
Look! I found another loophole in your reasoning:
If people were generous and correct, then everyone would have a good life. If everyone lived a good life, there would be no need for religion, and thus no God.
As such, having no God -> perfect life
|
People can be generous and good but most cant be without God. If God doesnt exist then most people would drop their morals and there cant be good life and thus God would still be needed.
As such, having no God -> shitty life.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dace
i like infernos avatar
|
Please dont laugh at me. I'm not trying to be funny.
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 21:39
|
#178
|
a new low in getting high
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,810
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inferno
If God doesnt exist then most people would drop their morals and there cant be good life and thus God would still be needed.
|
there are people today who don't believe in god but still have morals, there are believers who seemingly have none; so that really doesn't seem to work.
__________________
There’s trouble on every corner,
And you need a place to hide,
All the bad things follow us down,
I want you by my side.
We’re hitting a new low.
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 21:44
|
#179
|
The Arson Specialist
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The Deep Shores of Hell
Posts: 524
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Embroglio
there are people today who don't believe in god but still have morals, there are believers who seemingly have none; so that really doesn't seem to work.
|
And how representative is your statement? I'm not trying to undermine your point. Its because the last time I saw some figures on participating christians, muslims and jews its quite against your argument.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dace
i like infernos avatar
|
Please dont laugh at me. I'm not trying to be funny.
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 21:47
|
#180
|
Twisted
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Down with the sickness
Posts: 2,484
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
What exactly is it that you mean by morals?
You seem to be saying that if people do not believe in a deity then they are incapable of forming or following a moral code.
__________________
Me
In my sleep I grind my teeth.
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 21:50
|
#181
|
Guy next door
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 4,745
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
I believe, or better said, feel there is some force or power that holds moral standards and might judge us in some way.
But church and religion can burn in hell for all i care.
__________________
..look
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 21:59
|
#182
|
a new low in getting high
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,810
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inferno
And how representative is your statement? I'm not trying to undermine your point. Its because the last time I saw some figures on participating christians, muslims and jews its quite against your argument.
|
i don't really see how figures could prove anything at all in this context (how do they somehow statisticly record which of the people in the study are moral people without following them around for years to see if they are?).
what i'm saying is that there is really no correlation between believing in god and being a moral person; the former doesn't make the latter, equally the same is true for people who don't believe.
__________________
There’s trouble on every corner,
And you need a place to hide,
All the bad things follow us down,
I want you by my side.
We’re hitting a new low.
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 22:05
|
#183
|
Aardvark is a funny word
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: I'm No Nino Rota
Posts: 5,923
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Embroglio
i don't really see how figures could prove anything at all in this context (how do they somehow statisticly record which of the people in the study are moral people without following them around for years to see if they are?).
what i'm saying is that there is really no correlation between believing in god and being a moral person; the former doesn't make the latter, equally the same is true for people who don't believe.
|
for the purposes of this study, morality is described as the belief in the God of Moses.
__________________
Efficiency, efficiency they say
Get to know the date and tell the time of day
As the crowds begin complaining
How the Beaujolais is raining
Down on darkened meetings on the Champs Élysées
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 22:29
|
#184
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boogster
This relates to Cartesian theory: The Causal argument.
I quote (from http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/DA026SECT6):
"In Meditation III, Descartes discusses various classes of ideas, one by one, and concludes that, as a finite substance, he can conceivably be the cause of all the ideas he has in his mind except for one: the idea of God. Since the idea of God is an idea of something that has infinite perfection, the only thing that can cause that idea in my mind is a thing that formally (actually) has the perfection that my idea has objectively – that is, God himself."
Let's not go into formal and objective reality - I've had enough of the stuff last term.
|
I've read Descartes' Meditations. He was not right. At least try and keep up to date on arguments for god's existence.
Quote:
Faith. It's like faith in evolution.
|
I have no faith in evolution. I believe in myself and that's about where it ends.
Also are you claiming that god really does exist and this can be shown to be necessarily true or that "believing in evolution" and "believing in god" are not really any different and you have just chosen the first one?
It's nice to see inferno has reverted to morality through fear though
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 22:34
|
#185
|
share the <3
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 2,709
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
Hey the Quran seems pretty ace at linking retrospectively and through the use of allegories, vague metaphors, and prose to theories based on the scientific method. Starting a section with scientific miracles wasn't really the way to get me on side. The best, the very best i can say about those revelations is that the quran may be on par with a mediocre science fiction novel. Asimov and Clarke had far more accurate predictions of future technology and discoveries, you don't hear them claiming godly status.
As i said above and in responce to Nod's take on Jakiri's agnostism, all this to me is to do with faith not belief, if you take 'god' in the most general sense of the word as an omnipotent omnipresent being you can 'believe' in god and take the strong anthropic. Thats it. Nothing else no theology no organised religion just 'there is a god and the universe was formed by it'. This debate is about faith, about accepting as truth something that you have no credible evidence for ie the specifics written in the quran/bible/torah.
Im all for people practising their faiths as they see fit (as long as it doesn't infringe on me) but the irritation occurs when faith based ideologies try to hijack the scientific method and its theories to 'back themselves up'. Science as a form of philosophy doesn't 'care' about faith. Faith based ideologies seem to care a great deal about science.
__________________
Sophie is hotter than you
though ive gone off her now; the way Susanna Reid squirms around on sml is, however, awesome
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 22:41
|
#186
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nusselt
As i said above and in responce to Nod's take on Jakiri's agnostism, all this to me is to do with faith not belief, if you take 'god' in the most general sense of the word as an omnipotent omnipresent being you can 'believe' in god and take the strong anthropic. Thats it. Nothing else no theology no organised religion just 'there is a god and the universe was formed by it'. This debate is about faith, about accepting as truth something that you have no credible evidence for ie the specifics written in the quran/bible/torah..
|
You can't believe, or have faith, in something if you don't have any idea what it is. This isnt even a point about belief vs faith or the "existence of God" - its just a basic fact about what the words 'belief' and 'faith' mean in the English language. You can certainly use your mouth to make the sounds "I believe in God but I can't define what I believe in" just like you can say the words "I believe in xipos but I dont know what a xipos is", but in both cases you would be talking utter nonsense, unless you are using the words in a completely different way from their standard English usage. Maybe saying "I believe in God" makes people feel better for some psychological reason, but as far as I can tell, the words have no meaning in most usages due to the undefined terms.
Perhaps you can say (and mean) "I believe that event X in the Bible occurred" (such as a man being crucified and coming back to life), or "I believe that Zeus exists" (since Zeus is actually semi-well defined), but that's about it.
edit: I'm not convinced that the words 'omnipotent' or 'omnipresent' make sense either to be honest, except when being used to define a limiting case (ie, their standard usage). "Being everywhere" is a hideously vague notion, as is "knowing everything" - both are too ambiguous to really make sense without a fair bit of clarifying.
Last edited by Nodrog; 8 Jan 2005 at 22:56.
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 22:58
|
#187
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
Ah but God is unknowable nodrog so nobody expects you to understand.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 23:00
|
#188
|
share the <3
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 2,709
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
I believe in life on other planets but i can't define what it is. Lets take xipos as being the creator of this universe. I believe* that xipos exists (because the universe exists) but know nothing about the nature of xipos.
*for the purpose of this thread.
__________________
Sophie is hotter than you
though ive gone off her now; the way Susanna Reid squirms around on sml is, however, awesome
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 23:06
|
#189
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nusselt
I believe in life on other planets but i can't define what it is.
|
Yes you can. You have a fairly decent idea of what the concept life involves, since you are capable of distinguishing between living and non-living things on earth. When saying there is life on other planets, you just mean that there are entities there which would fall under the concept of life, by whatever decision procedure you are using. The key difference is that many theists dont seem to have any idea of what the concept/name 'God' even means.
Quote:
Lets take xipos as being the creator of this universe. I believe* that xipos exists (because the universe exists) but know nothing about the nature of xipos.
|
In that case xipos means "the creator of the universe" and nothing else. This would make sense but you wouldnt really be able to go on to make any further assertions about xipos. The sentences "xipos exists" and "the universe was created" would be absolutely equivalent - neither woud contain more information than the other. If you were to directly substitute the word "God" with the phrase "the creator of the universe" in the sentences uttered by a lot of theists, they would become fairly nonsensical, hence they probably arent using the word in that way.
What does 'universe' mean in this context out of interest? If it means 'all that exists' (as it does in standard usage), you're going to run into another slight linguistic problem since it doesnt make sense to say that something that exists created all that exists..
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 23:08
|
#190
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nusselt
I believe in life on other planets but i can't define what it is. Lets take xipos as being the creator of this universe. I believe* that xipos exists (because the universe exists) but know nothing about the nature of xipos.
*for the purpose of this thread.
|
So you believe in a "creator of the universe"? Does it have any other properties or is that it?
Maybe the act of creation is limited to our universe
So God's walking down the street right, just walking along minding his own business and then BAM universe. Being a fairly curious sort of chap, God has a peek inside. He then notices it's 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 degrees celsius AND ****S OFF.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 23:13
|
#191
|
J to the C to the A G E
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Scúnthorpe
Posts: 5,583
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
You people only believe this because the machines programmed the Matrix that way.
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 23:16
|
#192
|
share the <3
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 2,709
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
Er no thats the point you believe that xipos created the universe but you don't know anything about xipos. Its the definition of the word. If you insist Xipos was a quantum instability a long long time ago or something
Anyway i agree with nod.
Edit beaten to new page, **** you xipos!
__________________
Sophie is hotter than you
though ive gone off her now; the way Susanna Reid squirms around on sml is, however, awesome
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 23:21
|
#193
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
Just out of curiousity if the universe didn't exist what else would you expect it to be doing? Hosting a tea party?
Nusselt seems to be off on one hell of a random tangent
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 23:23
|
#194
|
share the <3
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 2,709
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
If the universe didn't exist we wouldn't be here asking what **** we're doing here and how it came to be. But we are here and its an almighty (lol) headache.
We could be here because we lucked out.
We could be here because xipos arranged it.
I was just trying to show you can have a belief in 'that something' devoid of theism.
__________________
Sophie is hotter than you
though ive gone off her now; the way Susanna Reid squirms around on sml is, however, awesome
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 23:26
|
#195
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
What something?
Frankly I was disappointed that I wasn't here when this thread was created so I could reply "who?" and close it
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 23:26
|
#196
|
share the <3
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 2,709
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
xipos
__________________
Sophie is hotter than you
though ive gone off her now; the way Susanna Reid squirms around on sml is, however, awesome
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 23:29
|
#197
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nusselt
Er no thats the point you believe that xipos created the universe but you don't know anything about xipos. Its the definition of the word. If you insist Xipos was a quantum instability a long long time ago or something
|
Ok, fair enough. I do think its nonsense to talk about the universe being created (assuming universe means 'all that exists' and not some alternative definition), but it does make a bit more sense than saying God is some ineffable being with no properties or whatever.
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 23:29
|
#198
|
Bored
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Nottm ->Shef ->Croydon ->Manc ->Durham ->Sheffield
Posts: 6,506
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
Well, it's got to the first page of most replied to threads...
Does that make it controversial?
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 23:29
|
#199
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
Is xipos a definition or a description?
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
8 Jan 2005, 23:33
|
#200
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: [Controversial Discussion] GOD
Including the refutation of xipos being everything?
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:18.
| |