Monotheists, explain this one.

[rustyslacker]

This post is addressed as a sort of challenge to the folks who believe in a traditional omniscient, benevolent god.

Explain the Holocaust.

In total, 11,000,000 [of which 6 million were Jews] Jews, homosexuals, disabled/crippled people, Soviets, political enemies, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Catholic Poles were imprisoned and slaughtered by Adolf Hitler's regime. They were worked as slaves, beaten, randomly executed, and starved.

So. While these ELEVEN MILLION murders were happening, where was your "God"? Why was he turning a deaf ear to their prayers? Why did he allow Hitler to reign so completely and for so long?

[blood imp]

He in his infinite wisdom knew it would teach us a lesson. Or at least hoped it would.
And by the way, my great-grandfather (I think, or it may have just been my grandfather...) was in a Nazi concentration camp, but my great-grandmother (or grandmother...) traded him for a cow, as the Nazis needed food.
I hate Hitler...

[+Acyclitor+]

you won't get anybody to answer this, of course. the cliche will turn up, that "nobody can know why God does what he does."

[PumpkinSmasher]

I'll agree with acyclitor, but I'll add a few things for you to think about dealing with this argument:

1. Satan does exist
2. God gave us (including Hitler and the Nazis) free-will
3. While God does answer all prayers, many times he says No. If God gave everyone what they prayed for, then it would defeat the purpose of faith.
4. God Tests our faith, maybe he was seeing if these people would stand-up for their faith when facing death.

[rustyslacker]

1. Satan does exist
"God" created him and has given him free will as well? Why does he allow Satan to run free? Why create him in the first place?
2. God gave us (including Hitler and the Nazis) free-will
Then how do you explain natural disasters?
3. While God does answer all prayers, many times he says No. If God gave everyone what they prayed for, then it would defeat the purpose of faith.
The answer that was given was silence. That doesn't count the same as a direct "No."
4. God Tests our faith, maybe he was seeing if these people would stand-up for their faith when facing death.
And when they did, "God" killed them anyway? *confused*

[Giftmacher]

I'll agree with acyclitor, but I'll add a few things for you to think about dealing with this argument:

1. Satan does exist
2. God gave us (including Hitler and the Nazis) free-will
3. While God does answer all prayers, many times he says No. If God gave everyone what they prayed for, then it would defeat the purpose of faith.
4. God Tests our faith, maybe he was seeing if these people would stand-up for their faith when facing death.

I can understand that he would want to test their faith (although shouldn't he know how faithful they are anyway if he knows everything?), but I think letting so many people die for no reason is just cruel. I agree with Rusty, is there was a god, he would have done something.

"God" created him and has given him free will as well? Why does he allow Satan to run free? Why create him in the first place?

I think it was supposedly an "accident" (Which god must have known would happen, so why the heck DID it happen?). But you'd think, with the way he's described as being all powerful, he'd be able to do SOMETHING. Not just sit there and say "oh, poor misguided Satan. Not like HE'S causing any harm though".

[Doom_Dude]

And when they did, "God" killed them anyway? *confused*God didn't kill all those people, humans did. God didn't put humans in space, humans did. God didn't tell Gheghis Khan to go on a rampage, he did that himself. Until humans can figure out how to stop making wars and learn from past mistakes, we will continue to do that stupid shit. We have the intelligence to stop making wars and to stop polluting shit but we continue to do so. Plus we created money and abuse it's use to no end... God didn't tell us to do that. None of this stuff is Gods fault, unless we want to blame him for making us in the first place, but in that case, are we just saying he should have made us perfect?

[rustyslacker]

God didn't kill all those people, humans did. God didn't put humans in space, humans did. God didn't tell Gheghis Khan to go on a rampage, he did that himself. Until humans can figure out how to stop making wars and learn from past mistakes, we will continue to do that stupid shit. We have the intelligence to stop making wars and to stop polluting shit but we continue to do so. Plus we created money and abuse it's use to no end... God didn't tell us to do that. None of this stuff is Gods fault, unless we want to blame him for making us in the first place, but in that case, are we just saying he should have made us perfect?
Such is not the point. Such atrocities are horrifying and heartbreaking and if "God" was there, surely he would help us?

At any rate, so many of these atrocities could be stamped out with the disappearance of religion. Next would be race, but I think that the gene pool will be significantly stirred in a few thousand years or so.

[PumpkinSmasher]

Explain the Holocaust.

In total, 11,000,000 [of which 6 million were Jews] Jews, homosexuals, disabled/crippled people, Soviets, political enemies, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Catholic Poles were imprisoned and slaughtered by Adolf Hitler's regime. They were worked as slaves, beaten, randomly executed, and starved.

So. While these ELEVEN MILLION murders were happening, where was your "God"? Why was he turning a deaf ear to their prayers? Why did he allow Hitler to reign so completely and for so long?
How about this for an answer. 11 Million did die, but there were many more people that didn't die because God allowed the Allies to defeat Hitler and he allowed the war to come to an end.

[blood imp]

God didn't kill all those people, humans did. God didn't put humans in space, humans did. God didn't tell Gheghis Khan to go on a rampage, he did that himself. Until humans can figure out how to stop making wars and learn from past mistakes, we will continue to do that stupid shit. We have the intelligence to stop making wars and to stop polluting shit but we continue to do so. Plus we created money and abuse it's use to no end... God didn't tell us to do that. None of this stuff is Gods fault, unless we want to blame him for making us in the first place, but in that case, are we just saying he should have made us perfect?
Yes, but we're asking the theists to explain it from a "God does exist" point of view. I personally agree with that argument (although it's not learning from the past that helped stop Hitler, me thinks). So what we're asking is "If God is real then why did he let this happen?". And yes, I would personally agree with your post.

[FATAL]

How about this for an answer. 11 Million did die, but there were many more people that didn't die because God allowed the Allies to defeat Hitler and he allowed the war to come to an end.
God allowed the Soviets to conquer half Europe, killing way more people than Hitler ever did in the process, cause misery to the countries it assimilated to its regime AND get away with it all. *cheers*

I am very certain that this all leads to the "passive aggressive" humour in the end. If we assume that some god exists, and that we can apply some human traits to the being, he is either very lazy or just cruel. Considering that he would have the capability to end all misery on earth and come talk to us to convince us that he exists, this is the only conclusion one is able to meet.

[Doom_Dude]

Well I was responding to the 'god killed them anyway?' comment.

and I think PumpkinSmasher made a good point. I gotta go for a coffee. :p

[rustyslacker]

and I think PumpkinSmasher made a good point. I gotta go for a coffee. :p
I honestly didn't know you drank anything other than beer. *cheers*

[Nomad]

How about this for an answer. 11 Million did die, but there were many more people that didn't die because God allowed the Allies to defeat Hitler and he allowed the war to come to an end.

God 'allowed' them to defeat the axis? As if god would have 'allowed' the opposite--No, no, we can be sure that god isn't that sadistic, can we?

This implies, really, that the Allies didn't even have to try, since God 'allowed' them to win since they were the good guys. Yeah, right. The allies had to sacrifice a lot of people to win the war, and it wasn't so simple as just god 'allowing' them to win.

If you take "god" out of the equation, and chalk it up to superior planning and execution of those plans, who do you think would have won?

This really brings up what I said in a previous thread:
Another thing that pisses me off is "Thank God!" People put the achievements of Man onto the shoulders of a nonexistent being. The impressive feats that we have achieved are casually tossed aside as "gifts" to us. Never mind the countless hours, days, months, years, decades, centuries, and millenia that we have spent learning and progressing our knowledge to get where we are today. "God" did not get us this far--WE did.

Never mind the countless hours of studying the geography of Normandy's beaches, the days on end the troops trained for D-Day, the months of planning that perfect strike, the countless years the battle planners took studying war tactics, never mind the centuries of technological progress to get the equipment they used on the battlefield.

Never mind all that, because God let them win the war.

[+Acyclitor+]

At any rate, so many of these atrocities could be stamped out with the disappearance of religion.um, no. where you accuse some of using an unknowable and infallible deity to free themselves from responsibility and thought - you are blaming the religion and suggesting it is the cause of tragedy. simply using religion as a tool to confirm your opinion.

the truth is WW2 and the holocaust were caused by racism and nationalism, not by religion. the very negligible influence of religion on the matter was little more than an afterthought justification - one that easily could have been replaced by any other matter of philosophy twisted into the intentions of the Nazis. a lot like "Christian science" (where the conclusion comes first, and evidence in support of this conclusion is sought out specifically).

[Chilvence]

I am disappointed. I was expecting this thread to offer proof of Gods.

[Aliotroph?]

God allowed the Holocaust to happen because Sim Universe was getting boring -- same reason everything else scary happens. :D

[Giftmacher]

God allowed the Holocaust to happen because Sim Universe was getting boring -- same reason everything else scary happens. :D

...My hunger meter's getting low.

[Looney]

I for one am quite sick of the God and Christian bashing that has been going on. E-Fucking-nuff already.

Have none of you heard of FREE WILL?

[rustyslacker]

I am disappointed. I was expecting this thread to offer proof of Gods.
That's what I was hoping for. A decent debate. Hmph.

I should have known better than to try this approach.

[Kristian]

This again!?
I made a post in "The Death Thread" (reply #329 for reference), after you brought up the same topic. Did you read it? Excerpts from my post there:

The "why does God let evil exist if God controls everything" is called the theodicy problem, a classic topic of discussion. There exist theories, though they are not commonplace, within Christianity and other monoteistic religions about an "indifferent God" (i.e. God created everything and then left us to our own devices). The theory of an indifferent or apathetic supreme being is also found (as a sub-category, if you will) in agnostic theism.

There is lots of material online on the theodicy problem and agnostic theism if you care to read a bit on this topic. Another belief system is called Dystheism, which basically says that God is evil. :-)

The Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy) article on the theodicy problem might be a good place to start (but, again, it's just a suggestion).

[Kelthan]

That's what I was hoping for. A decent debate. Hmph.

I should have known better than to try this approach.


Or... y'know... we could all fucking drop it, hold hands, and skip?
And make giant erect phalluses out of LEGOs....

[Aliotroph?]

Geeky side note: when I'm in the politics forum all the Google ads at the top are now for things talking about the fallacy of Christianity. I don't think I've seen banners liket hat anywhere else on the web.

[PumpkinSmasher]

Have none of you heard of FREE WILL?
I believe that was part of my argument
God allowed the Holocaust to happen because Sim Universe was getting boring -- same reason everything else scary happens. :D
So It's kind of like Sim City, sometimes you get bored and go hit that disaster button. Then it costs the lives of many sims and much money to get the disaster under control and everything back to normal.

[Nomad]

I for one am quite sick of the God and Christian bashing that has been going on. E-Fucking-nuff already.

If you don't like it, don't read it. No one is forcing you to. I'm sorry Looney, but surely it takes less than 40 some odd years to figure that out.

Have none of you heard of FREE WILL?

I would possibly take that as a valid answer, but Christianity hinges around the idea of god being omnibenevolent--all loving--and is the embodiment of pure goodness. There is a certain point where our free will shouldn't be tolerated. Surely if you had children of your own, and they started trying to kill each other, you would intervene wouldn't you?

This again!?
I made a post in "The Death Thread" (reply #329 for reference), after you brought up the same topic. Did you read it? Excerpts from my post there:

The "why does God let evil exist if God controls everything" is called the theodicy problem, a classic topic of discussion. There exist theories, though they are not commonplace, within Christianity and other monoteistic religions about an "indifferent God" (i.e. God created everything and then left us to our own devices). The theory of an indifferent or apathetic supreme being is also found (as a sub-category, if you will) in agnostic theism.

There is lots of material online on the theodicy problem and agnostic theism if you care to read a bit on this topic. Another belief system is called Dystheism, which basically says that God is evil. :-)

The Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy) article on the theodicy problem might be a good place to start (but, again, it's just a suggestion).

A few of the things in the list of Theodicy examples are both amusing, and a little frightening:
Evil is the consequence, not cause, of people not observing God's revealed will. Universal reciprocated love would solve most of the problems that lead to the evils discussed here.
I'd like to note this quote by Stephen Weinberg, "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." Take, for example from the bible itself, Numbers 31, in which God himself tells Moses to amass an army to slaughter hundreds of thousands of people, innocent or not. I don't think this god cares much about universal reciprocated love.
God is a righteous judge; people get what they deserve. If someone suffers, that is because they committed a sin that merits such punishment. (This is also known as the just world hypothesis.)
Surely all of the starving and dying children in Africa have done nothing to deserve punishment.

But of course, I don't want to go through all of them. Surely if this god exists, it is neither omnibenevolent, nor is pure good. If these two things were true, I find it hard to believe that such a being would let such atrocities happen. Much like I mentioned before, if you had children, and they began attempting to kill each other, would you not try to intervene in some way?

When I ask that question, my conscience asks me, "Does this make me better than god, that I would choose to forsake my children's free will to save their lives?"

But I suppose that is blasphemous to ask.

[blood imp]

Surely if you had children of your own, and they started trying to kill each other, you would intervene wouldn't you?
Yes, I probably would. But can we be really seen as God's children? Perhaps we're an experiment. But in that case, we shouldn't even care about God, since we're not really connected to him/her/it.
This also gets rid of the argument I have seen somewhere, that "If you were a loving father, and saw your child make a mistake, would you fix it for it? Or would you allow it to learn from it's mistake?" Clearly, if the child kills itself with the "mistake", then it can't really learn from it's mistake, can it?

[PumpkinSmasher]

This also gets rid of the argument I have seen somewhere, that "If you were a loving father, and saw your child make a mistake, would you fix it for it? Or would you allow it to learn from it's mistake?" Clearly, if the child kills itself with the "mistake", then it can't really learn from it's mistake, can it?
But are the individuals learning from the mistakes or is humanity as a whole learning from the mistakes.

[blood imp]

It really depends on the scale of the mistake. For example, if there was some idiot (but not idiot enough not to learn) who checks if a shreder is working by putting his hand in it, civilization as a whole may not learn from it, but he certainly will. If we make a nuclear war that nearly wipes out humanity, then we might very well learn not to attempt it again. That is of course unless we do it again anyway.
Now, by mistake in my previous remark I meant something more along the lines of world-wide war with apocalyptic consequences. This is more relating to Nomad's statement of "his sons killing each other". Anyway, if we wipe ourselves out, we can't really learn to not do it again, can we?

[+Acyclitor+]

There is a certain point where our free will shouldn't be tolerated.you mean just like the govornment tries to ban gay marriage, abortions, etc etc? perhaps "God" cares more about leaving people free than being a tyrant.

just playing devils advocate.

[Nomad]

There is a huge difference between being a tyrant and being a caring father.

[Pieter Enis]

Some parents seem to think there isn't

[xbolt]

I was going to stay out of the argument, but I can't help myself. One more argument...
Once more into the breach, dear friends!(Couldn't help it, first thing that came to mind. :D )


Anyway... I cannot give an answer. We all obviously would have liked God to stop the killing, but He didn't. I do not understand why.

Now, if I anticipate you correctly, your next argument will be that my faith is unfounded, because I don't understand what's going on. I have a pretty good foundation on which my faith rests.

Let's look at the foundations on which both of our belief systems rest for a second. Answer this: Where did the universe come from?

[Nomad]

Now, if I anticipate you correctly, your next argument will be that my faith is unfounded, because I don't understand what's going on.

While I can't really speak for Rusty, but I am fairly sure that this is not the case. He merely wishes to present that your god (the judeo-christian/abrahamic god) isn't all that benevolent.

Let's look at the foundations on which both of our belief systems rest for a second. Answer this: Where did the universe come from?

Science has yet to come to a conclusion on this. If you wish to take that as something that makes our beliefs "unfounded," I would like to reciprocate that question: Where did the universe come from?

Your answer, likely, is that "god created it". That is not really an answer--more so a cop-out if I've ever seen one.

[+Acyclitor+]

you guys going to start that one again?

let me point out something if either of you haven't noticed yet. when a Christian admits to not understanding the will of God, it isn't really all that different of a situation as when an Atheist says that science does not yet have an answer to question X.

both camps in this ongoing "debate" have a serious problem - your letting yourself be defined by what you don't believe (proof of point being this thread). Atheists main contribution to the argument being the falsities of religion, and Monotheists main contribution being the lack of scientific answers for every little thing in the universe. quit defining your understanding of the universe beyond yourself and your little lives by what you don't believe in, and focus on what you do believe in. by all means defend yourself from each other when appropriate, such as when an extremist tries to cause you harm or directly insults you, but really why do you care about disproving each other so much?

now I'll admit I've talked my share against Monotheism, but looking back at the other threads you have to admit my posts rarely involved the usual run around. what I've come to realize in the last month or so, especially after a long conversation with some old friends, is that letting yourself be totally reactionary to what you don't agree with only leads to bad things. if your really a believer and not just a fool desperately trying to confirm your religion (points finger at "Christian science"), or lack of in the case of Atheists, than you shouldn't feel the need to answer to anybody for your beliefs.

Atheists, let science speak for itself. if somebody wants to stay ignorant, let them.
Christians, let the Bible speak for itself. if somebody doesn't want to believe, let them.

sure it can be healthy to challenge your own paradigm, but as we've seen the constructive elements of such a debate wither quickly and we are left with... well, an unending and pointless argument that goes nowhere.

we are all still fulling entitled to our opinions of course. I still think Christianity is a horrid influence on the world, and XBolt probably thinks I'm a devil-worshiping maniac. doesn't bother me anymore though, because I know whats more important is what I think about my own religion. by now we all know what everybody else thinks on the subject at hand. the continuation of this argument has only led to the same old meandering and pointless expression of opposed opinions that we are all already familiar with.

[Giftmacher]

And make giant erect phalluses out of LEGOs...

We've gone through this before...

So It's kind of like Sim City, sometimes you get bored and go hit that disaster button. Then it costs the lives of many sims and much money to get the disaster under control and everything back to normal.

Dang, then we're all totally screwed. :D

[Nomad]

+Acyclitor+, the main point is that there is a big difference between saying "I don't know (yet)", and going, "OH! There is a gap where scientific understanding has not yet been able to fill--it must be GOD's doing!"

I must bring up the parallel again about disease--a few hundred years ago before the microscope was invented, disease was routinely blamed on curses and evil spirits. Of course, we know now that disease is caused by viruses, bacteria, and genetic defects.

I do believe that the answers that we seek will be uncovered, including the origin of life, and the origin of the universe. And I find it unlikely that either are from a supernatural cause.

[rustyslacker]

Atheists, let science speak for itself. if somebody wants to stay ignorant, let them.
Christians, let the Bible speak for itself. if somebody doesn't want to believe, let them.
Like Nomad says, the difference is that science progresses. Christianity stagnates.
Let's look at the foundations on which both of our belief systems rest for a second. Answer this: Where did the universe come from?
We've been over this before. Where did "God" come from?
you mean just like the govornment tries to ban gay marriage, abortions, etc etc? perhaps "God" cares more about leaving people free than being a tyrant.
No, it's like the government outlawing rape, murder, robbery, torture, and so forth. Free will, in this case, is limited, hopefully for the better.

[Aliotroph?]

+Acyclitor+, the main point is that there is a big difference between saying "I don't know (yet)", and going, "OH! There is a gap where scientific understanding has not yet been able to fill--it must be GOD's doing!"

I must bring up the parallel again about disease--a few hundred years ago before the microscope was invented, disease was routinely blamed on curses and evil spirits. Of course, we know now that disease is caused by viruses, bacteria, and genetic defects.

I do believe that the answers that we seek will be uncovered, including the origin of life, and the origin of the universe. And I find it unlikely that either are from a supernatural cause.

The problem with the Christian view of this is it basically says we don't have a right to know and if we keep looking we're going to get punished like an annoying child who asks too many questions. The only real reason people are so willing to suck up to gods is because they're so afraid fo them. I don't like belief systems based on fear.

That said, I doubt we'll solve the origin of the universe problem. Science will look and look and look and come to the annoying conclusion that there's insufficient data for a meaningful answer. Probably end up narrowing it down to a few neat ideas.

[blood imp]

Nah, we'll figure it out eventually. It might indeed take a while, but we'll know. Although if we ever expand beyond the Solar System, or maybe even throughout most of the galaxy, we may forget where we originated... unlikely, though.

[Aliotroph?]

Your faith in us figuring it out may be unfounded though. Knowing how the universe got here may require information that existed prior to the universe's creation, which could have either been destroyed or could be completely inaccessible by now. Or the universe really may have just blinked into existence, in which case there is no answer.

[blood imp]

Well, I suppose you have a point... If the information needed still exists and is accessible, then we have high chances of figuring it out. If, however, we cannot in any way access information that we need, we are at best making educational guesses that might hold some truth. So yeah, if the information isn't there, we're screwed (knowledge-wise).

[+Acyclitor+]

+Acyclitor+, the main point is that there is a big difference between saying "I don't know (yet)", and going, "OH! There is a gap where scientific understanding has not yet been able to fill--it must be GOD's doing!"actually that isn't what I meant, exactly. I meant that both sides in the argument can ask a question that have no answers, and its essentially the same situation. for example:
Atheist: "why does your alleged god let bad things happen to good people?"
Christian: "I don't know, maybe I'll learn when I get to Heaven. Why doesn't science know how the universe started?"
Atheist: "I don't know, maybe we'll have that figured out in a few decades."

I do believe that the answers that we seek will be uncovered, including the origin of life, and the origin of the universe. And I find it unlikely that either are from a supernatural cause.there you go, why answer to XBolt's ridiculous questions and accusations then? I think we've milked every bit of positivity out of the religious debate by now, maybe its time to move on. as Looney pointed out, its just turned into bashing at this point.

[xbolt]

Your answer, likely, is that "god created it". That is not really an answer
Why not?

Where did "God" come from?
God has always existed. This is possible for Him, because He exists outside of space and time. He created them both.

[Nomad]

actually that isn't what I meant, exactly. I meant that both sides in the argument can ask a question that have no answers, and its essentially the same situation. for example:
Atheist: "why does your alleged god let bad things happen to good people?"
Christian: "I don't know, maybe I'll learn when I get to Heaven. Why doesn't science know how the universe started?"
Atheist: "I don't know, maybe we'll have that figured out in a few decades."

All right, then the point is that "truth through revelation" is worthless in this life, whereas truth through careful observation and meticulous study is much more valuable to us and is what truly gives our race progress. Obviously the transition from the dark ages to the Renaissance hasn't taught anyone about religion's stagnation.

there you go, why answer to XBolt's ridiculous questions and accusations then?

Maybe because he's answered mine? This debate isn't one sided, you know.

I think we've milked every bit of positivity out of the religious debate by now, maybe its time to move on. as Looney pointed out, its just turned into bashing at this point.

You're getting soft on me, Kyle. Aside from rusty's starting this thread as more of a challenge than a debate tactic, which could possibly be considered trolling, the tone of the discussions hasn't changed any. I fail to see how there is any "bashing" going on.

However, you are more than welcome to not participate if you don't want to anymore. That goes for anyone, obviously. As for me, as long as there are takers, I wish to continue the discussion. :P

Why not?

I refer to this post of mine:

+Acyclitor+, the main point is that there is a big difference between saying "I don't know (yet)", and going, "OH! There is a gap where scientific understanding has not yet been able to fill--it must be GOD's doing!"

[xbolt]

"OH! There is a gap where scientific understanding has not yet been able to fill--it must be GOD's doing!"
And there's a difference between that, and the possibility that it really WAS God's doing.

[Nomad]

Possibility? Maybe. Probability? Eh.

[xbolt]

Possibility? Maybe. Probability? Eh.
Maybe possibility wasn't the correct word to use... But anyway, you know full well what I meant, and your post gives no answer.

[rustyslacker]

And there's a difference between that, and the possibility that it really WAS God's doing.
So far it seems that "God" has covered up all of his work with natural causes that can be observed by science. For example, storms, erosion, sunrises/sunsets and disease were all once thought to be caused solely by "God", but are now empirically explained.

So, the present things that look like obvious acts of "God" will soon also be explained by natural causes, right?

If God put all these natural causes in place, why would he even bother to stick around and exist anyway? *confused*

[Nomad]

Maybe possibility wasn't the correct word to use... But anyway, you know full well what I meant, and your post gives no answer.

The answer was "No". Perhaps I was wrong to assume that in its context, "eh" would be synonymous with "no". :P

[xbolt]

So far it seems that "God" has covered up all of his work with natural causes that can be observed by science. For example, storms, erosion, sunrises/sunsets and disease were all once thought to be caused solely by "God", but are now empirically explained.

So, the present things that look like obvious acts of "God" will soon also be explained by natural causes, right?

If God put all these natural causes in place, why would he even bother to stick around and exist anyway? *confused*
Well then, let me ask another question.

Where did life originate? I see only two options:

A: It came about through entirely natural causes, through various chemicals coming together.

B: It was created by a Creator.

If there are any more options, please name one.

[rustyslacker]

Maybe life has "always existed". *rolleyes*

[Nomad]

Er. Rusty, are you shooting yourself in the foot? He asked how LIFE originated, not the Universe. I'm fairly sure that life has not always existed.

Those would be the two things I am most aware of, xbolt--only, I would like to append to the first that it was not an instantaneous affair--the chemicals did not just bond together out of the blue. The optimal conditions had to exist in the first place, and even then it surely took a long time for the right chemical chains to result in some sort of primitive lifeform.

[rustyslacker]

Er. Rusty, are you shooting yourself in the foot? He asked how LIFE originated, not the Universe. I'm fairly sure that life has not always existed.
Edited.

Xbolt is stale! *wacky*

[xbolt]

xbolt--only, I would like to append to the first that it was not an instantaneous affair--the chemicals did not just bond together out of the blue. The optimal conditions had to exist in the first place, and even then it surely took a long time for the right chemical chains to result in some sort of primitive lifeform.
Yes, yes, that is what I meant, I just didn't take the time to explain it thoroughly.

Now, life could not have formed this way. The Miller experiment tried to prove that it could, but it failed. He created amino acids, true. But, he created both left handed and right handed amino acids. The presence of the right handed amino acids would have destroyed any life.

Also, he did not include oxygen in his 'atmosphere', because the oxygen would have likewise destroyed things. But, there is a problem with that. Without oxygen in the atmosphere, there is no ozone layer. Without an ozone layer, life would be fried to a crisp.

So life couldn't have formed with oxygen, and it couldn't have formed without it. I see a problem here...

[Nomad]

Yes, yes, that is what I meant, I just didn't take the time to explain it thoroughly.

Now, life could not have formed this way. The Miller experiment tried to prove that it could, but it failed. He created amino acids, true. But, he created both left handed and right handed amino acids. The presence of the right handed amino acids would have destroyed any life.

Also, he did not include oxygen in his 'atmosphere', because the oxygen would have likewise destroyed things. But, there is a problem with that. Without oxygen in the atmosphere, there is no ozone layer. Without an ozone layer, life would be fried to a crisp.

So life couldn't have formed with oxygen, and it couldn't have formed without it. I see a problem here...

I don't recall any of us mentioning the Miller experiments to explain abiogenesis. You are putting words in our mouths.

[rustyslacker]

So life couldn't have formed with oxygen, and it couldn't have formed without it. I see a problem here...
WRONG. There was water inside the Miller-Urey contraption. Water. H2O. H2O.

Wanna guess what O is?

[xbolt]

I don't recall any of us mentioning the Miller experiments to explain abiogenesis. You are putting words in our mouths.
Not here, but in a previous argument that we had.

WRONG. There was water inside the Miller-Urey contraption. Water. H2O. H2O.

Wanna guess what O is?
...Oreos? :D

Seriously, we all know that water likes to break things up. Catch my drift?


(Water, drift, I do believe I have made a pun.)

[rustyslacker]

Seriously, we all know that water likes to break things up. Catch my drift?
Pun failure -10000.

Also you were wrong.

[xbolt]

Pun failure -10000.
That's what I thought...

Also you were wrong.
I'm sure I heard something like that somewhere...

And anyway, how do you account for the right handed amino acids?

[blood imp]

How do you account that the Miller experiment was entirely accurate (did I say it right?)?

[rustyslacker]

<<< never mind. >>>

[KuriKai]

You guys are not very nice / politically correct to use the word Christian when you actually mean religion as you are telling Christians that it is their belief that is wrong and not all beliefs.

[blood imp]

That's basically because mostly all those that are arguing are Christians (with the exception of +Acyclitor+). And I'm sure we all have other reasons...

[KuriKai]

No, It's because most of you guys have not even bothered to learn about that which you say is not true. And you have something specifically against Christianity.

[Nomad]

No, no. Now who is making accusations? What purpose would it serve for us to discuss other religions in this debate when no one here subscribes to those other religions? There's no point. Can't debate something when there's no one to take a position for it.

Although, you are not completely unfounded claiming some of us may have something specifically against Christianity. It's not difficult to resent having it shoved down your throat most of your life when you do not subscribe to it.

[Aliotroph?]

Now, life could not have formed this way. The Miller experiment tried to prove that it could, but it failed. He created amino acids, true. But, he created both left handed and right handed amino acids. The presence of the right handed amino acids would have destroyed any life.

By that logic, nobody would have tried to go to space after the first satellite-launching rocket exploded. That experiment probably did more to support their theories about the origins of life than refute them.

[rustyslacker]

And you have something specifically against Christianity.
I will admit that having to deal specifically with extremist Christians at school on a daily basis has made me biased.

[Giftmacher]

And my going to a school that's IN a church next year is going to give me just another reason to have something specifically against it.

They'd better not deny my right to wear my Metallica shirt.

[blood imp]

And you have something specifically against Christianity.
Quite so, as that is the most major religion around where I live, and a lot of my friends are Christians.

[xbolt]

Hmm... So y'all are basically saying that since Christianity is the biggest religion around, you feel compelled to hate that the most?


Another problem for the Miller experiment, Miller used a 'cold trap' to isolate the amino acids he had made. If he had not done so, the amino acids would have been destroyed. I seriously doubt that this particular piece of equipment was around in the early Earth.

[rustyslacker]

Hmm... So y'all are basically saying that since Christianity is the biggest religion around, you feel compelled to hate that the most?
No. It's the one we have to deal with. Not necessarily the biggest.

If I was constantly under attack from Muslims, I would be biased more against Muslims.

Another problem for the Miller experiment, Miller used a 'cold trap' to isolate the amino acids he had made. If he had not done so, the amino acids would have been destroyed. I seriously doubt that this particular piece of equipment was around in the early Earth.
The "cold trap" is mostly analogous to underwater pressure systems. Look it up. You're just nitpicking now.

Anyway, the experiment is old. It needs an update.

[xbolt]

Anyway, the experiment is old. It needs an update.
What new features would the device include?

[rustyslacker]

What new features would the device include?
Why ask me? I'm not a geology/biology specialist. [yet? OH SNAP]

[xbolt]

Why ask me? I'm not a geology/biology specialist. [yet? OH SNAP]
Any biologists around who can assist Rusty?

[+Acyclitor+]

the Anuaki / Shining Ones / Nephilim might be able to give you some answers *winkness*

[Jethro]

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay [them] before me.
EDIT: curse my habit of having two tabs open in this forum!

What say you to this, xbolt? All good and caring? Benevolent? My ass.

[blood imp]

Well yeah dude, it's natural that you want to kill your enemies, although I'm not sure if it's exacly "benevolent".

[Jethro]

That's CHRIST talking.*ohh*

[xbolt]

He wishes to forgive everyone, but He won't bring into Heaven those who hate Him.

[Jethro]

He wishes to forgive everyone, but He won't bring into Heaven those who hate Him.
He's saying to KILL them. Christ, your lord and god, is telling you to go out and to kill people. This has NOTHING to do with heaven, this is simply murder.

Or, try this one.
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)

God made evil, and he's perfect?
EDIT: So much for omnipotence.
"And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." (Judges 1:19) Can't repel iron chariots?

[blood imp]

I remember, a LONG time ago, when I watched the movie "Prince of Egypt". They dropped babies to the crocodiles. It wasn't until about a year back, when I rewatched it from curiosity, that I realized the main character was Moses :D

[PumpkinSmasher]

Good thing I'm polytheist and believe that sometimes the Gods just don't get along, and we sometimes get caught up in the crossfire.

[+Acyclitor+]

I'm curious PS, do you hail any particular pantheon of Gods?

[BeTaNoL]

Every one talks about that "God created all..." and stuff..
But who created... uh.. God? He created a perfect thing that was the human being, right? So, he is more perfect than us.. therefore he had to be made also, right? So there is, from now on, the UberGod! He created God, that created all that exist..!
See? It's simple! That's why God exists... *smirk*

[blood imp]

Human beings are anything but perfect, and the "who created God/where does God come" argument is olde, just to let you know ;)

[Aliotroph?]

That may be, but it's really the argument.

[Jethro]

Simple, he has always been.

[blood imp]

That may be, but it's really the argument.
Oh, I know. But I'm just pointing out that it's been mentioned before.

[BeTaNoL]

Simple, he has always been.
See? It's easy with religion!

"Dad, why does it rains?"
"Because God is crying"

See? I just explained why does rain occurs..

[blood imp]

I hope you know Jethro was being sarcastic... ;)

[Jethro]

Actually, that IS a common religious standpoint. Just not mine.

[BeTaNoL]

Lol, I know that he was sarcastic

[blood imp]

Actually, that IS a common religious standpoint. Just not mine.
That's what I meant. That it's not yours. And alright then, Betanol.

[Sigma]

God does not exist. It really is this simple. The very thought of an entity capable of anything and everything in contradiction to laws, time, space and consciousness while snapping a seemingly infinite universe into existence in such a manner that it does not completely implode in on itself while still being completely cognisant of every action, reaction, thought and variantion of as much throughout all time (before time, as before even concieved by humankind) in all things this being supposedly created is entirely ridiculous.

If we are to assume such a being exists, it would be a direct contradiction to the free-will argument as the being is and has been fully aware of every detail, regardless of how big or small, in all things, forever (not to mention every change, mutation and evolution of each detail throughout all existence-- both past, present and future). The extent of the free-will he offers us would be executed in his choice not to intervene, which would at this point contradict the belief he is benevolent and "good." Even so, this supposed "free-will" is not entirely free-will at all, but a loose set of probabilities he would have designed within the traits he gave to us, with due consideration to our enviroment and the mechanics of thought and rationalization, further hindered with his creation of Satan, an entity that is supposed to personify the exact opposite of this God, while still being allowed to exist by God and continue his corruption of humankind.

Religion is nothing more than fanatical propaganda. All forms of life with a brain demonstrate a form of political system, whether that be wolves, ants or humans. We're really not as amazing as people believe. As a matter of fact, if it weren't for science, our imagination and our ability to rationalize, we'd be really nothing at all-- nothing more than those things we supposedly evolved from.

At any rate, regardless of what you believe, I do not care since it is all subjective anyway. No one truly believes in the exact same thing, whether religiously or scientifically. We all draw our own pictures based on the particular mechanics of our mind, experiences and environment. The difference is, science attempts to specificy and produce something, while religion does nothing more than boil. Regardless, if you choose to believe in God-- fine, that is your prerogative, but keep in mind that God knew you would make this choice all along. He knew who would go to hell and heaven, who would be "naughty and nice" if you will, far before you were ever conceived. Furthermore, if you believe in such a being, this conversation/debate is justified as it would have been meant to be (God knew of it, he chose to do nothing-- big surprise, he's testing your faith, et cetera, et cetera). What kind of free-will is this?

It's not free-will.

As I have said, it is a matter of politics, philosophy and (elsewhere) memetics. There is really no debate to be had. Faith is little more than stagnation; the choice to remain in the naivety and the comfort of a loving home. It's a dream. A beautiful dream but still a dream. And when all of your wishes are granted, many of your dreams will be destroyed.

[blood imp]

God does not exist. It really is this simple. The very thought of an entity capable of anything and everything in contradiction to laws, time, space and consciousness while snapping a seemingly infinite universe into existence in such a manner that it does not completely implode in on itself while still being completely cognisant of every action, reaction, thought and variantion of as much throughout all time (before time, as before even concieved by humankind) in all things this being supposedly created is entirely ridiculous.

If we are to assume such a being exists, it would be a direct contradiction to the free-will argument as the being is and has been fully aware of every detail, regardless of how big or small, in all things, forever (not to mention every change, mutation and evolution of each detail throughout all existence-- both past, present and future). The extent of the free-will he offers us would be executed in his choice not to intervene, which would at this point contradict the belief he is benevolent and "good." Even so, this supposed "free-will" is not entirely free-will at all, but a loose set of probabilities he would have designed within the traits he gave to us, with due consideration to our enviroment and the mechanics of thought and rationalization, further hindered with his creation of Satan, an entity that is supposed to personify the exact opposite of this God, while still being created and allowed to exist by God.

Religion is nothing more than fanatical propaganda. All forms of life with a brain demonstrate a form of political system, whether that be wolves, ants or humans. We're really not as amazing as people believe. As a matter of fact, if it weren't for science, our imagination and our ability to rationalize, we'd be really nothing at all-- nothing more than those things we supposedly evolved from.

At any rate, regardless of what you believe, I do not care since it is all subjective anyway. No one truly believes in the exact same thing, whether religiously or scientifically. We all draw our own pictures based on the particular mechanics of our mind, experiences and environment. The difference is, science attempts to specificy and produce something, while religion does nothing more than boil. Regardless, if you choose to believe in God-- fine, that is your prerogative, but keep in mind that God knew you would make this choice all along. He knew who would go to hell and heaven, who would be "naughty and nice" if you will, far before you were ever conceived. Furthermore, if you believe in such a being, this conversation/debate is justified as it would have been meant to be (God knew of it, he chose to do nothing-- big surprise, he's testing your faith, et cetera, et cetera). What kind of free-will is this?

It's not free-will.

As I have said, it is a matter of politics, philosophy and (elsewhere) memetics. There is really no debate to be had. Faith is little more than stagnation; the choice to remain in the naivety and the comfort of a loving home. It's a dream. A beautiful dream but still a dream. And when all of your wishes are granted, many of your dreams will be destroyed.
Sigma, that was beautiful. One of the best things I have read.

[Johanbeyl]

All well said, but I'd still like to know what happend in the 10 or so seconds before the Big Bang. What triggered it? I'm listening.

[blood imp]

Where did God come from? I'm listening.

[FATAL]

If I didn't know better, I'd say that Johanbeyl was trolling. *weird*

[Kristian]

Uh, this whole thread is pretty much one trolling after another. ;-)

[Johanbeyl]

From wikipedia : Internet trolling involves a user making comments intended to provoke an angry response.

I don't see where I'm trolling. I've asked a valid question. Based on my perception of what faith is, and the deliverance that come thereof, I believe that my question should be seriously answered. Come on blood imp, you can do better than just give one sentence answers / comments. And I don't know where God came from. But does that answer my question? I just saying that for there to have been a big bang, something or someone should have triggered it. I can't prove that I'm right, but you can't prove that I'm wrong. That's where faith comes in. Not seeing, but believing because of what you are experiencing.

No trolling here :-)

EDIT - typo

[Nomad]

"Faith is believing what you know ain't true" ~ Mark Twain. ;)

[Sigma]

All well said, but I'd still like to know what happend in the 10 or so seconds before the Big Bang. What triggered it? I'm listening.

That is a good question. The answer simply being, "I don't know." No one does. Scientists do not pretend to know and do not listen to them if they state they do as fact (you will not find a true scientist who does as much however). There are various theories, but within our limits in terms of technology and understanding at the moment, they're impossible to put to any real and rigorous test.

However, this in no way, shape or form means it was the product of God. The only reason anyone even suggests as much these days is because various religious scriptures such as the Bible say so. Forgive me, but considering people (scientists, atheists and religious individuals alike) have disproved every other statement within the Bible, it's credibility is that of garbage. The Bible is a collection of parables written by those individuals in power and/or hungering for power; used to incite fear and damnation into people who did not accept their bastard and pious ideals. Some of the parables are good and still apply to modern society. Others are ridiculous and in any semi-decent community or nation have been abandoned long ago. The terrible and sad truth is politicians are still using said religious scriptures and/or what they imply to torment and twist the masses and people. Such as what the Nazi's and German's of that era did or the "God-fearing" Islams and Americans of modern day are still doing, and people keep falling for it!

Poor little Johnny joined the Army and had his head, arms and legs blown off, but that's okay! He's with God now in heaven. You can as easily replace Johnny with an Arab or Judaic name, it makes no difference. It's still paints the same demented and macabre picture-- a picture this collection of driveling and oftentimes pointless parables started.

Of course, couple this with rampant nationalism and "us versus them" propaganda and you have a complete and utter waste of pure human potential-- replaced with hundreds of body bags or pieces of people. This is the kind of madness I believe 'rustyslacker' wanted to illustrate when creating this thread.

Quite frankly, I'm beyond this "us versus them" "I win, you lose" bullshit. As I stated above, there is no debate to be had. You may believe whatever you wish. Unfortunately for me, I do not have a nice shiny book that I've only read half of to summarize all of my ideals, so here I am on a forum-- explaining them. Not necessarily because I came looking for a fight but because I was attracted to the Doom community.

I do this because deep down, somewhere in the deepest reaches of your mind, I know that you do not know God even exists, much less created the entire universe. I don't know. Johnny didn't know. Nomad doesn't know. Einstein didn't know. How could you?

Because you have faith? Well, maybe it's about time you start taking a look around the world and observing first hand the dangers of magical thinking.

Scientists have hundreds of thousands of pages of recorded data collected over years and years to design and build their theories on. You have magical thinking. I suppose that would be the difference. Regardless:

Where did God come from? I'm listening.

This still applies. If we are to assume he popped out of nowhere, why can't the same be said for us? Why even involve a God at all? Because of religious scriptures that cannot be tested because of their ridiculous proclamations and those that have been tested have proven to be false (or at the very most, improbable)?

I happen to like and often use a certain philosophical question whenever it's applicable because it really is an end-all to the stereotypical idea of God:

"If God is all powerful, can he create a stone that not even he can lift?"

I would like you to seriously consider this. Beyond this, what we're doing is stagnating-- this is not a debate. You had better check the stove, religion and God are boiling over.

EDIT: If anyone is trolling, it's probably me. It's not intentional, but I've missed a lot and have work to do. ;)

[blood imp]

From wikipedia : Internet trolling involves a user making comments intended to provoke an angry response.

I don't see where I'm trolling. I've asked a valid question. Based on my perception of what faith is, and the deliverance that come thereof, I believe that my question should be seriously answered. Come on blood imp, you can do better than just give one sentence answers / comments. And I don't know where God came from. But does that answer my question? I just saying that for there to have been a big bang, something or someone should have triggered it. I can't prove that I'm right, but you can't prove that I'm wrong. That's where faith comes in. Not seeing, but believing because of what you are experiencing.

No trolling here :-)

EDIT - typo
Well, fine. I really don't know what may have triggered it. Who knows? Perhaps the universe used to be a tiny sphere of matter that eventually got so dense it broke some laws of physics and expanded all the matter in it. Perhaps the universe was always here (which is doubtful) and there is no Big Bang. Then again you have to consider all the other theories apart from the Big Bang.
As for God, I can't disprove his being, no, and you can't prove it. However, so far we have been able to explain many things that used to be blamed on spirits and such (i.e. Disease and Thunder). Most likely, we will eventually find out the secret of the universe. I don't know.
Even if God has existed forever, then what is to stop us from saying that the universe has also? And as for faith, that is a rather bad argument. Just because you have faith in something doesn't make it any more likely. If I had "faith" that a five-year-old friend of mine with no education and experience whatsoever could disarm an invisible anti-matter bomb in 3 minutes, would that make it more likely? And it it does, than I can have "faith" that God is non-existent, and so our faiths would cancel eachother out.

And you're not trolling ;)

Sorry Sigma, you posted while I was typing. And I must say, once again I love it.

[Johanbeyl]

Your answers are well thought of Sigma, and also thank you blood imp. Also Nomad, you're views are always appreciated. I'm glad that we've corrected the trolling aspect of this discussion. :-)

I agree that this debate will stagnate until such time that the universe collapses or God comes down to Earth. I appreciate your opinions and comments immensely, as I'm still finding myself in the bigger scheme of things and it helps to have other people's views on such an important issue - although I think it is almost impossible to prove each other wrong.

As for faith being a bad argument - well, I'd like to define it as follows: belief based upon personal hopes. I hope, and therefore believe that there is something after this life. And if there is no reason to hope for better things, then there is no reason to live.

[FATAL]

Ach! What is ze meaning of life!?

As I've expressed multiple times along my Newdoom existence, I like to do things that are fun.

However, not being completely (right?) self-centered, I try to make sure that others' jolly good time isn't ruined either by my actions (we shall not count that just by using this computer and other luxury products of today, I'm probably killing 1 poor African every day. However, this area shall be discussed in some political thread in the future, not now).

I find it weird to see that for some people god is the meaning of life. Not that I do not believe or care to appreciate such views. For me, having good time is a prize enough. There does not need to be any high goals in life. Living a good life is goal-like enough for me.

There aren't really any higher goals that could be thought realistic. Human race's biggest goal is ensuring its survival. Despite the earth becoming more and more uninhabitable for us, I can't see how human race could disappear even in a nuclear war or similar drastic events. Improving the quality of life globally is what I personally hold important. However, it's somewhat opposing to the goal of survival, as the majority of our problems come from people breeding too much (again religions' harmful effects come into play). It is unlikely that anyone can have a dramatic impact on these things with the powers that be, but every little helps.

Specifically searching for a meaning of life isn't really worth it in my opinion. Do what you like doing and enjoy what little happiness life has to offer. Live doing fun things and try to make those fun things available to other people too.

Heaven on earth, eh?

[Aliotroph?]

I read a surprisingly good sci-fi version of the big-bang idea earlier. Too bad I don't have time to retype it now and provide context for the excerpt to make any sense. The fact that it was written 50 years ago probably means some stupid little point of physics it was using doesn't work at all anymore but it was more plausible than anything I've seen in a religious book.

Since it seems there is no God and no meaning to our existence other than to survive, then perhaps our ultimate goal should be to gain the power of gods and have as much fun doing it as possible. I'm not saying I believe this is at all likely, or even possible. Hmm, I'd go on more but I just got called out the door. Crap. Gotta run.

[blood imp]

Specifically searching for a meaning of life isn't really worth it in my opinion.
I'm not sure if this is true, and it is in part what I believe in, but I think that it is in human nature to want to know everything we possibly (and sometimes impossibly) can know. Sure, some of us (perhaps most) don't give a crap to why we're here when we think about it, but I think that its part of sub-consciousness.
That was slightly off-topic, but I just wanted to point it out.

EDIT: Goddamit, first Sigma, then Alio. People keep on posting when I'm typing! Anyway, I also wanted to add, that if our existence has a meaning, then the world is a sicker place than ever. For, if certain scientists' calculations are correct, once the Universe expands enough, matter inside it won't be able to hold, and every bit of matter, down to the quarks and perhaps something even smaller, will be ripped apart. So unless we manage a way to lock ourselves in a time bubble, escape the universe, escape existence, or something else, we're fucked anyway.

[Giftmacher]

"Faith is believing what you know ain't true" ~ Mark Twain. ;)
Mark Twain is my new hero. :D

There does not need to be any high goals in life. Living a good life is goal-like enough for me.
Amen.

There are some amazingly good points here. Glad this thread is back alive.

[eX_Do0mY]

Aw, can't believe I missed this whole thread. Shows how much I come around here anymore, I guess.

Well, to spark something, it all goes back to the Adam and Eve argument. I'll try to keep a "neutral" nature to these arguments. And please, one person post an argument at a time. It's a little discouraging to answer EVERY argument at one time, and can offset the results.

Note, according to this, man is in a fallen state due to the actions of Adam and Eve, and is has continued the decline since. Read some of the bible, you'll notice God speaks more during the old testament. The New Testament is now your main doctrine for your modern denominations. There the rules are laid out, no stories or interpretations to be made.

Also the rules of karma apply. You get what you deserve. Going to the numbers argument someone put in place.


31:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
31:2 Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people.

Avenge is the key word here. The Midianites apparently did something something to God's chosen people. Here God commands Moses to avenge the Jews.

[Nomad]

There is no reason God should command the Israelites to murder the Midianites. They're all going to hell anyway (according to post Christ mythology, anyway), so expediting the process by murder is superfluous. Two wrongs does not make a right. But three lefts do, lololo

Or in this case, tens of thousands of wrongs don't make any rights.

[eX_Do0mY]

I agree that war and violence doesn't solve any problem, but it does teach lessons. Maybe God was trying to teach them a lesson? Although at the "expense" of the Midianites, they went to Hell anyways.

[Nomad]

I just don't remember there being any fine print under "Thou shalt not kill".

[rustyslacker]

I agree that war and violence doesn't solve any problem, but it does teach lessons. Maybe God was trying to teach them a lesson? Although at the "expense" of the Midianites, they went to Hell anyways.
Massacre for the sake of instruction doesn't fit well with the idea of a loving and forgiving god.

Edit: JINX YOU OWE ME A SODA

[Pieter Enis]

So we can safely assume some war-thirsty leader from 10 AD wrote the bible.

[FATAL]

A part of it. Bible has been written over time, and sometimes changed later to suit some king's goals at the time.

[+Acyclitor+]

Constantine had nearly all of it rewritten to suit him

[Giftmacher]

I agree that war and violence doesn't solve any problem, but it does teach lessons. Maybe God was trying to teach them a lesson? Although at the "expense" of the Midianites, they went to Hell anyways.
Well war did get rid of the Nazis, and slavery. But that's about it.

I always thought it was funny that around 65% of the Bible (or maybe I should read it first, if only for the sake of validating future critisizims *bug*) contradicts some Christian rule or another part of the Bible in some way or another.

[Jethro]

65%?
Ya'll crazy. It's more like.... 98%? From what I've read.

[Giftmacher]

65%?
Ya'll crazy. It's more like.... 98%? From what I've read.
I just haven't read it yet, so I didn't want to overestimate the percentage and risk looking like an idiot if I was wrong. *wacky*

[Pieter Enis]

You were wrong and you've always seemed as much an idiot as we are. A big one.
But really, everything one is allowed to do according to the Bible has, at some point, the same thing forbidden.
You could make two books out of it and call the first one: The Bible and the other one Elbib Eht!

[Giftmacher]

You were wrong and you've always seemed as much an idiot as we are. A big one.
But really, everything one is allowed to do according to the Bible has, at some point, the same thing forbidden.
You could make two books out of it and call the first one: The Bible and the other one Elbib Eht!
Yeah, you're right. *weird*

That reminds me... I have a friend who wants to rewrite the bible in l337 speek. *roflmao*

[+Acyclitor+]

this guy I knew in high school redid his entire senior thesis paper in 1337 out of boredom. as you might have guessed, he was a loser.

[Sigma]

"The New Testament" is hardly something worth debating or even really thinking about because of it's origin; most of it being allusions to circumstance or political situations of the time it was conceived.

Much of "The Old Testament," being more direct and thus, more "credible" among religious people is still hardly worth debate because of apparent influences from ancient Egyptian religion, Zoroastrianism and it's incredible claims. These incredible claims are truly laughable as a subject of non-fiction to anyone with a sense of reason, but this is strongly countered with faith.

At any rate, there are only four real arguments for the existence of God.

The "If God is God, God must exist" argument. The "It all had to start somewhere" argument. The "How can a watch exist without a watchmaker" argument and the "God must exist for people to be moral" argument.

The "If God is God, God must exist" (or ontological) argument goes something like this:

The word "God" means "the greatest being that we can conceive of." If we conceived of something greater than God, that something would in fact be God. Our original idea of what was God would have been wrong.

The argument goes, "what is greater, a God that we only imagine or a God who actually exists?" Clearly a God who actually exists would be greater, thus it would be wrong to state that God only exists in people's imaginations. We can easily conceive of a being greater than God, namely, a God who actually exists and therefore God must exist.

There are so many problems with this philosophical Dadaism, it's not even really worth debating but we will anyway. First of all, this obviously has a word trick associated with it, much like my "can God create a stone so heavy not even he can lift it?" argument. The problem is, my word trick is actually better conceived than the ontological argument, because it negates the ontological argument the moment God is defined. If "God" is defined as "the greatest being that we can conceive of," he would be able to create such a stone without a problem as our imaginations would expand further and further beyond rationality to allow for it to happen. However, with consideration to the conclusion of my argument, we realize it is not possible and our imagination is immediately halted. Or in other words, it is impossible to conceive of such a being while confined to the restrictions designed by that statement.

Another argument also comes up; the very definition of existence. This imagined God would still not have truly achieved existence, because he was still conceived, even in the conclusion of the argument, in our imagination.

Another problem is, since God is subjectively created, which is the true God? Which one must faith, loyalty and belief be placed in to not go to hell?

There are many problems with this argument and in terms of any real debate, is worthless.

The second "It all had to start somewhere" (or cosmological) argument is rather self-explanatory and has been dealt with on these forums quite well. Popular contradictions include: "what created God?", "where did God come from?", the omnipotent and omniscient arguments, et cetera. Even different religions themselves play a role in sabotaging this argument, as every religion defines God differently-- leaving it to a matter of subjective (that is, personal) definition.

The third argument, the "How can a watch exist without a watchmaker?" or teleological argument is rather popular in America today. It's relative to "creative design"; that being the argument that nature is not chaos. It has it's own set of rules, orders, patterns and designs and the more complex an order is, the greater the intelligence that is required to make it. The teleological arguments states that such magnificient order shows that the highest intelligence was at work and immediately concludes this intelligence is God, therefore supposedly proving his existence.

The teleological argument is the most difficult to approach because it's based largely on faith. Coupled with Lutheran-esque thinking, it also becomes the strongest argument. It is not without several flaws however. First of all, the argument is based on an assumption without any true scientific or reasonable backbone to it. This order can be attributed to any number of things and the teleological argument really only works because of popular opinion.

The argument also relies heavily on science being unable to provide conclusive answers with due consideration to our knowledge of the universe and limited technology at the moment. It is a popular belief however, in retrospect to the past and thus future probability, that more and more answers will be uncovered. Furthermore, this argument does not necessarily coexist with any traditional belief of what God is or supposedly did (or does) other than create the universe.

And in conclusion, this argument actually sabotages God in several ways. If we are to assume such a being did in fact create the universe, it could then be taken to two different levels (or even both!). One; God is not omnipotent, as he could have created a much greater universe or Two; God is not omniscient for the same reasons. The problem with the definition of God can and will always be sabotaged in wording and probability, even with our so-called "limited knowledge." This argument is also easy to combat with opposing "free-will" arguments.

The final argument is the moral argument. It states "God must exist for people to be moral." It is subtle in it's approach and rather different than the other three, but it still has several flaws.

First of all, it assumes that good people are influenced in some way by God. Considering many people throughout history have believed in different Gods (oftentimes, tyrannical and malicious ones), not known or even believed in God while still remaining moral, this argument is rather worthless. It assumes such things as "even if every human being in our community believed murder was acceptable, people would still want to state murder is wrong" is a reasoning for God's existence.

There are many ways to approach this and I refuse to believe any of them point to God. I'm rather comfortable concluding it at empathy. Furthermore, this argument cries "hyprocisy!" on so many levels with many religions. And finally, this argument is especially crippled when used in juxtaposition to the Abrahamic God-- specifically the story of "Adam and Eve." It simply does not stand very well in an actual debate.

While many arguments exist, these are the most prominent. As you can see, they still have big problems, even before including specific examples (or even the religion itself!) into the equation. I will state however, that I believe the fourth argument actually does help some people achieve morality. This is rather quickly countered by people performing heinous acts in the name of God however. Furthermore, this does not necessarily mean God exists in reality. The argument seems to accept the fact that God may only exist in the imagination (and thus, for some people, validates the argument-- but still fails as an actual proof of God's real and actual existence).

Now if I may go back to the actual point of the thread, the Holocaust itself to many religions was concluded in several ways-- most of which being devastating to religious assertions. Many Jews and Christians have seen the Holocaust as a challenge to faith. It seems to call into question many of their cherished beliefs about God. Some of them have found resources in their traditions to deal with these atrocities. Others have felt it necessary to modify or abandon traditional assertions.

For example, many Jews and Christians have concluded that God cannot be omnipotent. Others have even gone as far as concluding that after the Holocaust, it is no longer possible to believe in God.

[Giftmacher]

Others have even gone as far as concluding that after the Holocaust, it is no longer possible to believe in God.
And how could it be? I mean here they are, being gunned down and mutilated (ANGEL OF DEAAAAAAAATH!), and their god can't be bothered to help his own followers out. And if he really was "testing their faith" like the holocaust was no big deal, I really doubt he would have gone as far as to let them die.

[blood imp]

Others have even gone as far as concluding that after the Holocaust, it is no longer possible to believe in God.[/FONT]
Yes, for if God had been "teaching them a lesson", which is a common answer to questions such as "Why did God allow the holocaust?", then what lesson was it? Not to start wars? To be kinder? I doubt that this would teach power-hungry psychos who are in a position to start wars.

I might also add that the "God gave us free choice" argument is not a good one either. If God had indeed gave us free choice, then why call him God? He doesn't do anything in our lives. He doesn't affect us in any way. Why is he God then? Because he created the universe? But Sigma's argument contradicts that.

However, looks like we're not so free after all. Since it is every Christian's goal to go to Heaven, then they [mostly] act in manners that would, according to the Bible, get them there. So in fact, what we are given is the Illusion of Free Choice, because if we don't act in a "good" manner, we will burn in eternal damnation. So while technically we are free to do whatever we want, for some things we will be horribly punished, while for others not.

Also, almost everything you do pretty much lands you in Hell. Baptism is pretty much "purification". For what? For being born? Also, the damnest sin of all, is swearing. How this is a sin, I do not know. I have pointed out before, WORDS ARE FUCKING HARMLESS. So why consider them bad? Because they're insults? Slang? SO WHAT?

[rustyslacker]

I have pointed out before, WORDS ARE FUCKING HARMLESS.
*directs you to my signature*

[JohnnyRancid]

Maybe to you.
hahaha

[blood imp]

*directs you to my signature*
I hope that's sarcasm...
Maybe to you.
hahaha
Was that directed at me or Rusty?

[JohnnyRancid]

Ha. good ol' rusty.

[blood imp]

I've been thinking... what if God's fake?

[Aliotroph?]

Ahh, so you mean what if the truth was true? Well, it's pretty cool knowing we can spend our time doing better things than escaping God's tyranny. :D

[rustyslacker]

I hope that's sarcasm...
Yes, it is. It's stolen/quoted from a website which I found amusing, although it was used seriously at its original source.
Maybe to you.
hahaha
I'm using the quote in a mocking way, silly. pull your head out of your ass, imbecile

[+Acyclitor+]

Yes, for if God had been "teaching them a lesson", which is a common answer to questions such as "Why did God allow the holocaust?", then what lesson was it? Not to start wars? To be kinder?the lesson is simple: beware nationalism; beware the silver tongued and charismatic, the ones who wield political power like a hammer; beware any person or party who appeals to your fears, prejudices, and pride.

[FATAL]

I have to disagree about words being harmless. You can cause great emotional stress (which very likely translates into physical stress later on) to someone by badmouthing. To some extent, words can be used to crack people just like violence. You can't say that you don't feel bad in one way or another after someone has flinged shit at you enough.

[Giftmacher]

Especially if they are things you know may or may not be threats, such as creepy emails/messages that I'm sure we've all gotten at one time or another.
Like those wierd blog comments (they were in the form of poems, which is very disturbing to me) a friend of mine got from some alchoholic guy after she helped his wife move away from him, because he was a total abusive scumbag.

I still think about those, and they were words, and it sorta scares the heck out of me. Especially because I'm confident that he's crazy enough that he wouldn't hesitate to do something drastic.
And to make it worse, I LIVE with that friend. So if he comes a'knockin, she's not going to be the only one who's going to have to deal with him.
Also, almost everything you do pretty much lands you in Hell.
I always thought that was unfair of "god." Too many rules, and impossibly high standards.

Playing Doom are we? Condemned.
Reproducing are we? Have fun in hell.
Don't fall in with my views? you're screwed.
Listening to Slayer? Ur banned from teh heven server.!!!1

You really can't live a day without breaking some rule that even bible characters broke all the time. I mean, you could, but it would hardly be living. That doesn't mean go and steal stuff and kill people, I mean it's just better to do what you want to do as long as it doesn't kill you or negatively affect anyone around you.
The third argument, the "How can a watch exist without a watchmaker?" or teleological argument is rather popular in America today. It's relative to "creative design"; that being the argument that nature is not chaos. It has it's own set of rules, orders, patterns and designs and the more complex an order is, the greater the intelligence that is required to make it. The teleological arguments states that such magnificient order shows that the highest intelligence was at work and immediately concludes this intelligence is God, therefore supposedly proving his existence.

But the great flaw in this argument is "who created god?", because if we could not have possible just popped into existence by ourselves, then surely god couldn't have either.

Also, I'd heard about this and finally found an article on it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/29/earlyshow/living/main1081235.shtml
What do you guys think of it? Before seeing this I thought it was multiple statues, but I guess it was just this one.
Heh, "but for those seeking guidance, there is no need for proof." That's probably because they can't find any.

[blood imp]

I have to disagree about words being harmless. You can cause great emotional stress (which very likely translates into physical stress later on) to someone by badmouthing. To some extent, words can be used to crack people just like violence. You can't say that you don't feel bad in one way or another after someone has flinged shit at you enough.
I'm not saying that people don't care what is said to them. I'm saying that people who are afraid to say/type "swear words" are being really paranoid. And also, people can take words badly, although different people take the same thing differently. For example, someone can be told they are nature's little scumbags and they can feel abused, while others might feel amused at such shallow insults. But for the most part, I'm talking about how people flinch or let out long "ooohs" when you say a "bad" word.

Yes, it is. It's stolen/quoted from a website which I found amusing, although it was used seriously at its original source.


I'm using the quote in a mocking way, silly. pull your head out of your ass, imbecil
That's what I thought :D

[Giftmacher]

Ahh, so you mean what if the truth was true?
(Imagine this in a Shaggy voice for full effect) Yeah, that would be awesome. :D

[BeTaNoL]

I've been thinking... what if God's fake?


For me, God was a brilliant invention of someone who saw a great deal to take other people's land and fortune.. Hey, it worked!!!

I remember someone said to me (or I read in some place):
"If God isn't real, someone would invent it."


Anyway, blood imp, where the hell you and other ppl get this signatures? these bars with (blablabla fan or blablabla player)? I wanted these so much *uhh* )

[Giftmacher]

Clicking on one of the bars should take you to the website.
Maybe I should get some of thems... *weird*

[FATAL]

Bars are the scourge of interwebs.

[Giftmacher]

Bars are the scourge of interwebs.
oh Gnoes! u foiled my plan too spam teh sight with govurment creeated propohganda bars! *bawl*

[blood imp]

Anyway, blood imp, where the hell you and other ppl get this signatures? these bars with (blablabla fan or blablabla player)? I wanted these so much *uhh* )
http://www.userbars.org
Or you can just click the bars as Giftmacher said.

[CrazedImp]

One day if somebody does manage to prove that God isn't real, then somebody will come along with a new theory about some other kind of God until such a day that it is proved to be false as well, and then somebody else will come along with another God theory... It will go on and on. Anything to fill in the gaps that science hasn't filled.

Really, people will believe in anything until its proved to be false. And even then, some people will still keep believing in such things.

[blood imp]

Pretty much. All those funnies that believe the UFO videos are an example (except that UFOs might exist...).

[Nomad]

Of course UFOs exist. Anything in the sky that is not identified, is obviously an unidentified flying object. :P

But I know what you mean--extraterrestrial aircraft.

[Giftmacher]

I'm 90% sure aliens exist. It bugs me when people say there "couldn't possibly be", have you seen everything in the universe? Have you seen how small we are compared to even smaller space objects? If there's all this space then how couldn't there be another planet similar to ours? There's enough planets out there that at least one of them has to be inhabitable, or at least in comparison to other planets.

Also, I'm sure most UFO "sightings" are fake, just a free way to get on TV and tell your story. But there was that one sighting (was it in Arizona? I forget) where a ship with a pattern of lights on it in the shape of an arrow flew over a city in America, and thousands of people saw it. A lot of people dismiss that as a Goverment plane, and maybe it was, but why the heck would the goverment fly a top-secret expiremental (or maybe it wasn't) plane over some city where all these people could see it?

That coupled with the fact that the Goverment can't make up it's mind what to say when a major UFO sighting happens, which seems to give the impression they know a heck of a lot more than we do on the subect.

[Nomad]

This is a completely separate subject. Start a new thread, maybe?

[Giftmacher]

This is a completely separate subject. Start a new thread, maybe?
Sure. Awesome subject anyway.

[Sigma]

One day if somebody does manage to prove that God isn't real, then somebody will come along with a new theory about some other kind of God until such a day that it is proved to be false as well, and then somebody else will come along with another God theory... It will go on and on. Anything to fill in the gaps that science hasn't filled.

No doubt. And thus begins the argument FOR God.

EDIT: Let me elaborate. Due to the fact that these debates have become rather one-sided, I will argue for the God-team. This is granted anyone even cares anymore...

[FATAL]

I tried to start writing something, but it felt so awkward that I had to stop. Sorry mate!

[Pieter Enis]

I know one thing for sure: Jesus existed, chewed bubblegum, kicked ass and takes only half damage.

[+Acyclitor+]

oh yeah I bet Jesus has a constitution score of like 30.

I'll contribute some random arguments.
PHI, aka the "golden ratio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio)," is repeated throughout the universe just about everywhere you look. the swirl of galaxies, most obviously, but also in the build of human and animal anatomy. it makes one wonder, how could this phenomena occur with such regularity in a universe that formed in a crucible of chaos?

[Sigma]

Well, before I begin, let me state I am not arguing for the traditional, stereotype of God. This in no way, shape or form supports the reasoning of religion. It is a matter of advanced perception, memetics and word tricks.

Some of you are aware that in my free-time I write. My goal is to collect a great deal of observations, ideas and whatnot of mine into an accumulated text and release it in some fashion. A central idea of these scribbles that I call a book is, in all actuality, God. In this sense, I will state I believe in God. However, I do not expect much of this to make sense to many of you. For it to make sense would require me to go quite a bit further into it than I wish to.

We'll start with defining God.

I define God as the sum of consciousness, time and space; matter, action, reaction in the entire universe. God is everything and everywhere at once. God created the universe. God is benevolent, malicious and inbetween. God is cognisant. God is omniscient. Simply put, God is all things.

In this definition, God is also 100% probable. God created Satan. God created God.

Your turn.

[FATAL]

I assume that you abandon the bible in this argument. In that case god is merely imaginary, in your head. In this scenario, we could replace god with any other entity, that exists (and doesn't exist at the same time). It would just be. (Dis)proving such thing would, of course, be impossible, but if this god is merely an idea, then what would the point be anyway?

If god merely is, we don't need to think about it. Also when we remove the idea of god from our thoughts, wouldn't it mark the death of this god you described?



This conversation took a great turn.

[blood imp]

Well, before I begin, let me state I am not arguing for the traditional, stereotype of God. This in no way, shape or form supports the reasoning of religion. It is a matter of advanced perception, memetics and word tricks.

Some of you are aware that in my free-time I write. My goal is to collect a great deal of observations, ideas and whatnot of mine into an accumulated text and release it in some fashion. A central idea of these scribbles that I call a book is, in all actuality, God. In this sense, I will state I believe in God. However, I do not expect much of this to make sense to many of you. For it to make sense would require me to go quite a bit further into it than I wish to.

We'll start with defining God.

I define God as the sum of consciousness, time and space; matter, action, reaction in the entire universe. God is everything and everywhere at once. God created the universe. God is benevolent, malicious and inbetween. God is cognisant. God is omniscient. Simply put, God is all things.

In this definition, God is also 100% probable. God created Satan. God created God.

Your turn.
Fatal has a point here. If God is everything, malicious, benevolent, and everything in between. If it is EVERYTHING, then why think about it?

The Christian version of God is an all-knowing entity who made everything but isn't everything. So therefore, he can be considered a seperate object, even if he exists outside space and time, he is still an object somewhere (and sometime).

This God is Everything, Everywhere, Everytime. So it is not really a seperate object, rather, everything is a sub-object of it. Or vise-versa, it is a super-object, made of all other objects. In any case, it is already made of everything, not a seperate entity on its own. Therefore, if there was nothing, no time, no space, no energy, then this God wouldn't exist. So why think about it, if it can't be seen, found, whatever?

[Sigma]

Let me ask a question: what if the entire universe is nothing more than a star-- our solar system a mere atom in this star-- in relativity to time and space, expanding much as our sun supposedly will one day, only to collapse in on itself into one all-encompassing mass and explode (big bang) to create another, possibly different universe? In other words, what if our entire universe is much like a black-hole?

What would you call this mass? Honestly-- if we were to choose a name from our vocabulary, which name would fit best?

God would be the "creator" of the universe. Furthermore, our existence is a mere chance, as far as we will ever understand of it's possibilities. Our consciousness, all consciousness would truly be God's. Our individual feelings, thoughts and opinions at the same time being feelings, thoughts and opinions of God. It would really be omniscient, regardless of whether or not it's pieces were all cognisant due to the fact all probabilities exist within limits pre-defined to it.

The reason one would consider it is because it is the end-all macrocasm. Perhaps the point of life is to truly re-unite with God and create a new universe. We use parables, stories and salvation as a means to better our existence. Since we are mere pieces of this God, we want to be good people. Last time I checked, no one wanted to be entirely miserable their entire lives.

Furthermore, our will is the same as God's. Satan may not physically exist, but his existence is known in one of the sephira-- consciousness. The mind is capable of very powerful things; sometimes so much so that people are unable to differentiate between our statistically accepted perception of reality and their own subjective spin on it.

Why bother thinking about it? Well, why does anyone think about anything? Who the fuck cares what people think about extraterrestrial life existing somewhere in the universe? Why even bother debating religion?

---

Keep in mind I am not, in truth, arguing for religion. The difference between their God and the God I am describing is rather significant. Religion's God is merely a part of mine, therefore, mine is greater.

I assume that you abandon the bible in this argument. In that case god is merely imaginary, in your head. In this scenario, we could replace god with any other entity, that exists (and doesn't exist at the same time). It would just be. (Dis)proving such thing would, of course, be impossible, but if this god is merely an idea, then what would the point be anyway?

If god merely is, we don't need to think about it. Also when we remove the idea of god from our thoughts, wouldn't it mark the death of this god you described?



This conversation took a great turn.

We do not necessarily have to abandon the Bible completely. Much of it we will though, yes. There are many, many problems with every religion, but we're ignoring those now.

However, I am not stating the God I defined is merely in our head. I am stating he is the collection of everything in terms of space, time, consciousness; matter, action and reaction. We are, as human beings, pieces of this God. In other words, human beings, stars, planets, et cetera are to this God what cells, organs, bones, et cetera are to us. Due to the pieces that compose this God, it would include our thoughts and consciousness as being a part of it. Afterall, what is a thought on a biological / chemical level?

Fatal has a point here. If God is everything, malicious, benevolent, and everything in between. If it is EVERYTHING, then why think about it?

The Christian version of God is an all-knowing entity who made everything but isn't everything. So therefore, he can be considered a seperate object, even if he exists outside space and time, he is still an object somewhere (and sometime).

This God is Everything, Everywhere, Everytime. So it is not really a seperate object, rather, everything is a sub-object of it. Or vise-versa, it is a super-object, made of all other objects. In any case, it is already made of everything, not a seperate entity on its own. Therefore, if there was nothing, no time, no space, no energy, then this God wouldn't exist. So why think about it, if it can't be seen, found, whatever?

We think about it because God is the final macrocasm. Our greatest chance of understanding the universe will come from breaking things down to the final microcasm and developing a set of probabilities from it.

Yes and no. God is technically a sum of all parts, not necessarily pieces. However, these parts are ultimately pieces of God.

I put two sentences in underline because I wished to address those in particular without being too confusing. Let's start with backward engineering your first sentence.

In the circumstance this God did not exist, nothing would exist. Therefore, we couldn't be having this conversation. It would be impossible. However, we do know that we exist, so that can't really work as an argument against God.

Now the second sentence underlined.

This God can be seen in everything however. You are a part of God, so by you merely observing yourself, you are observing the God I defined. God "exploded" to allow for your creation. You and I will never completely understand God because we aren't meant to. It's impossible for a piece of something to fully understand or comprehend the greater whole in which this said piece is a part of. However, that doesn't mean you're not aware of it.

[Pieter Enis]

I'd like to point out that:
"You backwards engineering" doesn't hold against "What if we exist ... seperately?"
and if "It's impossible for a piece of something to fully understand or comprehend the greater whole in which this said piece is a part of. However, that doesn't mean you're not aware of it." how can you be discussing this at the moment? You are even contradicting yourself in those two sentences. How can something be aware of it's exact place in the universe and the whole 'fate' thingy without fully knowing where that fate is headed? It's like working on board the ship of Columbus and not knowing you're out to discover a new route to India. You'll keep working on, not knowing what the hell for since anyone else can take your place until you finally hit land (i.e. You die). Why it is that it's you at that particular time at that particular place is beyond you.

[FATAL]

I'd like to point out that:
"You backwards engineering" doesn't hold against "What if we exist ... seperately?"
and if "It's impossible for a piece of something to fully understand or comprehend the greater whole in which this said piece is a part of. However, that doesn't mean you're not aware of it." how can you be discussing this at the moment? You are even contradicting yourself in those two sentences. How can something be aware of it's exact place in the universe and the whole 'fate' thingy without fully knowing where that fate is headed? It's like working on board the ship of Columbus and not knowing you're out to discover a new route to India. You'll keep working on, not knowing what the hell for since anyone else can take your place until you finally hit land (i.e. You die). Why it is that it's you at that particular time at that particular place is beyond you.
If we continue using analogies, military is a fine example. A single soldier (or even a squad leader) doesn't know pretty much anything except that "tomorrow we must capture this particular enemy position". They do not necessarily know how the war is going on around them, but they know that they are a part of it. We can apply this to animal and plant cells, many insect species, and numerous other things as well.


Indeed, Sigma, your god is much harder (impossible? I don't know!) to falsify than any of the currently renowned gods. In fact, even the few lines I wrote in my last post took me a great effort. Maybe I'll have more stuff tomorrow after a well slept night, maybe not. Right now I've got nothing.

[Nomad]

I think Sigma already gave us the answer--word tricks. It is easy to call "everything" God. Buddhists do. Many Pagans do. They just have different words for it. You can call it God, The Rolling Stones, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Dimensional Panda, or what have you. "God" is just an easy memetic term to use.

[Jethro]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Prove to me that your god, the god of good and evil, (shall I call him, simply, Omni? I think I shall) exists. Using the soldier analogy, The soldier can see a fight, experience shooting another, but might not understand the war as a whole. I have yet to see any evidence of your god.

[rustyslacker]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Prove to me that your god, the god of good and evil, (shall I call him, simply, Omni? I think I shall) exists. Using the soldier analogy, The soldier can see a fight, experience shooting another, but might not understand the war as a whole. I have yet to see any evidence of your god.
I think Sigma is applying the name "God" to the sum of existence.

Such a "God" exists because it is the total of everything that exists already.

[+Acyclitor+]

"what is, is"

this actually brings up something. I think the root philosophical difference between monotheism and everything else is that monotheists (increasingly) deny what is, and substitute their own idea of reality - rather than open up their religion to metaphorical interpretation. ultimately, it can be said that monotheistic religions (of today, at least) are down right nihilistic, and therein lies the conflict. monotheists are the forces of decay and intellectual destruction, the ones who would prefer mankind live in blackened ignorance in subjugation to an unprovable idea of holiness. in contrast, pantheism as being discussed here at the moment is simply an abstract of thought and a rationalization of humankind's quest for discovery - discover divinity by learning about the universe because the universe and everything in it is "God." and why not? creation and existence really are amazing, no matter how you look at it. by understanding the origins of life and matter, we could achieve knowledge that has always been, in times past, roped off for nebulous deities. to change and advance our understanding of the universe - that is the exact opposite of the nihilistic monotheism ideal.

[Jethro]

I think Sigma is applying the name "God" to the sum of existence.

Such a "God" exists because it is the total of everything that exists already.
What proof is there that Omni IS existence?

[rustyslacker]

Depends on your definition of existence.

[blood imp]

What proof is there that Omni IS existence?
If there IS existance, then there pretty much IS Omni. You're getting this whole thing wrong. Omni isn't bigass creature who's stomach is the universe. It simply IS. It's basically a way of saying "everything" with some theological views behind it. Therefore, if Omni is indeed existance, than looking at yourself, at your monitor, thinking, is proof that it exists.
Then there's the chance the Omni is a false idea, and that wouldn't change much, because there still IS everything, you, your monitor, your thoughts, are still there, except with no theological views behind them.

[Aliotroph?]

Crap, now I'm gonna think of Obi-wan whenever you talk! ;)

[Sigma]

I'd like to point out that:
"You backwards engineering" doesn't hold against "What if we exist ... seperately?"
and if "It's impossible for a piece of something to fully understand or comprehend the greater whole in which this said piece is a part of. However, that doesn't mean you're not aware of it." how can you be discussing this at the moment? You are even contradicting yourself in those two sentences. How can something be aware of it's exact place in the universe and the whole 'fate' thingy without fully knowing where that fate is headed? It's like working on board the ship of Columbus and not knowing you're out to discover a new route to India. You'll keep working on, not knowing what the hell for since anyone else can take your place until you finally hit land (i.e. You die). Why it is that it's you at that particular time at that particular place is beyond you.

We exist seperately of the God defined in the same way that a skin cell on your arm can be observed seperately of you. However, the skin cell is relevant to you-- as it is part of your design. As a human being, this is not to state you are relevant to the entire earth around you however. You are only relevant as a collection of microcasms that can be observed in everything on the earth (or universe); these microcasms ultimately illustrating the final macrocasm being the God I defined.

I am not stating that fate had anything to do with this. It is highly improbable such a thing exists. In the terms defined, all probabilities exist within the microcasms and final macrocasm and are therefore, completely coincidence. Such striking occurrences are bound to seem like fate to us, but only because we don't understand the relativity of these micro and macrocasms around us.

As of the time being, regardless of the issue we're speaking about, people have no idea why they ultimately do the things they do or what purpose in the grand scheme of things any of what we do has. Perhaps if a cell in your body was cognisant, it would be much the same way? If you can develop the analogy of sociology, religion and politics to that of biology, perhaps the goal of society is to simply reach homeostatis?

At any rate, the God I defined would exist regardless if human life existed or not. I state this because I feel the earth would exist regardless of human life existed or not (afterall, it had to, no? Dinosaurs, pre-homo-erectus life, etc.). The argument can be made then, "how can the God you defined be cognisant?" The God I defined is not cognisant as a being or something that has a will (it isn't necessarily alive). It is cognisant because regardless of whether or not anything reaching the criteria established to be defined as life, the matter in which this life would otherwise be created from is part of it. As I stated, all probabilities exist within it.

Let us suppose through some ridiculous mechanism it somehow managed to create an omniscient being (admittedly, this is very likely impossible, but I am speaking hypothetically), the God I would have defined would also be omniscient by default. Does this make any sense? This is not to be confused with us however. We do not share this statement with say, our cells, or mechanisms that compose us, because we are still ultimately merely pieces of something else. Regardless if this ultimate macrocasm is divided or accumulated, it still exists.

I think Sigma already gave us the answer--word tricks. It is easy to call "everything" God. Buddhists do. Many Pagans do. They just have different words for it. You can call it God, The Rolling Stones, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Dimensional Panda, or what have you. "God" is just an easy memetic term to use.

God is an easy term because of what it implies. Buddhist and Pagan "God's" are still prone to subjective / personal views, even if only through nuances of the seemingly unrelated teachings of the religion itself.

The biggest difference, or at least the one that most immediately comes to mind, is the fact regardless of whether or not their God exists, it would have nothing to ultimately do with the religion itself save it's engineered involvement with such. This is rather completely opposite with Islam, Judaism and Christianity which is designed God-centric and expands outward like a tree (as taught in Kabbalah). The God I defined would be somewhere inbetween.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Prove to me that your god, the god of good and evil, (shall I call him, simply, Omni? I think I shall) exists. Using the soldier analogy, The soldier can see a fight, experience shooting another, but might not understand the war as a whole. I have yet to see any evidence of your god.

It does not matter whether or not you "believe" in the God I defined. The proof of it's existence is rather simple. It is synonymous with everything in the most complete and final respect possible. In other words, whether or not you call this God is of your discretion, but that is what I am defining it as. This God is only good and evil because elements contained within it's probabilities are defined as such and thus inherits those characteristics to us.

"what is, is"

this actually brings up something. I think the root philosophical difference between monotheism and everything else is that monotheists (increasingly) deny what is, and substitute their own idea of reality - rather than open up their religion to metaphorical interpretation. ultimately, it can be said that monotheistic religions (of today, at least) are down right nihilistic, and therein lies the conflict. monotheists are the forces of decay and intellectual destruction, the ones who would prefer mankind live in blackened ignorance in subjugation to an unprovable idea of holiness. in contrast, pantheism as being discussed here at the moment is simply an abstract of thought and a rationalization of humankind's quest for discovery - discover divinity by learning about the universe because the universe and everything in it is "God." and why not? creation and existence really are amazing, no matter how you look at it. by understanding the origins of life and matter, we could achieve knowledge that has always been, in times past, roped off for nebulous deities. to change and advance our understanding of the universe - that is the exact opposite of the nihilistic monotheism ideal.

Quoted for truth.

[Johanbeyl]

I don't have anything to add at this stage, but well said Sigma.

[Jethro]

It does not matter whether or not you "believe" in the God I defined. The proof of it's existence is rather simple. It is synonymous with everything in the most complete and final respect possible. In other words, whether or not you call this God is of your discretion, but that is what I am defining it as. This God is only good and evil because elements contained within it's probabilities are defined as such and thus inherits those characteristics to us.
Oh. You're not saying existence is an entity, you're saying existence is existence, and you named it god. Hm... I'd name him bob.

[Sigma]

Oh. You're not saying existence is an entity, you're saying existence is existence, and you named it god. Hm... I'd name him bob.

No, this is not what I am stating. Perhaps you do not know the definition of "entity?" Perhaps you mean a "being," as defined conscious existence; life? This is not necessarily true either. In terms of space, this idea is without scope.

Entity (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/entity)

At any rate, the reason for my epithet of God rather than Bob or Dawkin's silly Flying Spaghetti Monster is a matter of memetics. The alternative names provided are far too short-sighted for reasons etched deeply in many forms of memetics or even more broadly in linguistics. Furthermore, in terms of connotations and denotations, these "word-tricks" I spoke of can be weaved in any such way to twist any argument. Many times the best outcome in a debate is a stalemate in the form of a paradox.

[Pieter Enis]

That dictionary thing didn't do itself any good:

1. something that has a real existence; thing: corporeal entities.
2. being or existence, esp. when considered as distinct, independent, or self-contained [example]
3. essential nature: The entity of justice is universality.
The first and third ones seem to be in conflict.

Oh and I'd prefer Bob over God as well. God has already been 'defined' to be a real existing thing by Christian belief. Bob is just a name, let's go with Bob. It would be like you saying you want rocks to be called Duck. Makes for a lot of confusion when someone would say "My Duck got ran over!" for example.

[Sigma]

I have absolutely no idea what it is you are attempting to state here Pieter Enis. I tend to think you have no idea what it is I am stating. You seemed to completely miss my reasoning for defining God the way I did (the post above yours). Reading would be helpful here.

Despite this, the cause of my redefining God was to make a point; the point being many of you arguing against God are as ignorant as those arguing for God.

God has no true definition. It is a purely subjective matter. While Christians or Jews may believe in a relative definition, even these have a per person basis. The obstacle with my definition is that it actually complies with science.

At any rate, I'm rather tired of my arguments being ignored or written off from both parties of this debate. Few of you really have a clue as far as I'm concerned. Think what you will.

[Pieter Enis]

As far as I've understood so far, you're saying that this 'being' you call God, well not really a being, but actually it is a being that comprises all of us and actually it's not a being in that it can think for itself, it just 'is'.

That screwed over my sentence, but it got my point made.

You seem to have missed that I'm merely stating that this being you would call God has already been defined as a being inside your God and that it would actually be smaller than your being. That's why I'd prefer the term of Bob for your being.[insert rant on how it's not really a being, yet it is]

[Nomad]

He has not said his "god" is a being at all. Rather, all of existence. Think Pantheism.

[Pieter Enis]

So that would just be calling existence by another name then?
I'm most likely missing out on a lot of background philosophical stuff aren't I?

More on the God matter, I wonder why no believer ever used the argument that God exists in those who believe in him so therefor he exists, if only as a thought. There to lead people and give them a greater goal in life, filling a gap which they cannot fill for themselves.
They probably have and it got hammered, but I'd like to know.

[blood imp]

God has no true definition. It is a purely subjective matter. While Christians or Jews may believe in a relative definition, even these have a per person basis. The obstacle with my definition is that it actually complies with science.
Ah... I think now I'm beginning to understand this better...

[Jethro]

Ah... I think now I'm beginning to understand this better...
Lucky bastard. I'm still lost.
@sigma: I'm not saying no god exists, all I know the Christian god is total bullshit.