| There's actually the concept of the 'holy fool,' one who's knowledge only made him act less intelligent, but still his antics come from a place of enlightenment so it's like everything he does causes great change. Of course a God can forget himself. This is the cycle of realization. |
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
BlakexEkalb said: Except there is plenty of historical readings of miracles happening that correspond with the Bible. Jesus is confirmed by historians to have existed. Creating things=drivel, Big Boom=Creation of every simplistic and specific thing in the universe that will possibly be unexplored by humanity. Makes sense 🤔 miracles as evidences is more god of the gaps argument that says if something is unexplained by science then god did it, mysteries are getting fewer and fewer as long as science progresses that claims if something is unexplained then science humbly says we do not know so lets find out Jesus historical evidence are more about in writing, yes high chance a person named Jesus existed but that does not mean all the things the bible says happened to him especially those miracles |
| can your so-called "Omnipotent God" create and maintain at the same time both a spear that can pierce through anything AND a shield that can block anything without being pierced ? If not then he's not omnipotent, right? This present request does not involve him doing anything, mortal can use them just fine. so him having no body is irrelevant. It doesn't either involve him being superior to his creation. If he cannot maintain both at the same time then he cannot do everything. |
 |
BlakexEkalb said: deg said: miracles as evidences is more god of the gaps argument that says if something is unexplained by science then god did it, mysteries are getting fewer and fewer as long as science progresses that claims if something is unexplained then science humbly says we do not know so lets find out Jesus historical evidence are more about in writing, yes high chance a person named Jesus existed but that does not mean all the things the bible says happened to him especially those miracles The Bible can't be used as evidence, as it could've been biased. However, writings can/do exist that prove these theories that are in The Bible. so the miracles of Jesus have historical evidences then? why are this evidences not widely popular or accepted then |
BlakexEkalb said: Except there is plenty of historical readings of miracles happening that correspond with the Bible. Translation: Ancient people made wild claims and you actually believed them. Classic. This is why I keep emphasizing the necessity of scientific evidence. BlakexEkalb said: Jesus is confirmed by historians to have existed. Nope. BlakexEkalb said: Creating things=drivel, Big Boom=Creation of every simplistic and specific thing in the universe that will possibly be unexplored by humanity. Makes sense. Never heard of the Big Boom before...perhaps you meant the Big Bang. Most scientists don't consider it creation in the sense you're thinking. BlakexEkalb said: There isn't even a point in arguing about this, truthfully. Both theists and scientists both don't know the answers to life's biggest mysteries, I suppose you're right about that. Some scientists are theists, anyway. For the record, I think it would be amazing if there was some sort of god...but I require conclusive evidence before deeming it worthy of consideration. BlakexEkalb said: besides it's just an argument between 2 inexperienced kids. I am most certainly not a kid. |
 |
| @BlakexEkalb have you heard about the simulation hypothesis/argument? that is a better theory of a god according to modern philosophy considering that technology is about to headed that way and starts with games being more realistic or more of a simulation being a computer science graduate i kinda approve of that argument but its just another god of the gaps scenario no doubt, fact is as long as science cannot have a working theory of everything then god as first mover will not die |
| My favourite christian miracle are all the people that lived to age 200+ (god is great), who all conveniently disappeared once various governments started keeping track of peoples biological age. demographics kills! Spread the word |
| "my life at this state could be transposed into a pretty massive biography" - Cneq, "the guy who was literally using BTC in 2012 to make deals in the first main instance of a digital itemized economy forming naturally in all human history (also the precursor of NFTs) and who had 20k+ total trades.", 23 years old MAL's most prolific antivaxxer, Noboru. |
| My bet is on some sort of greater force (ie God) creating the big bang that started the Universe then just mostly being hands off ever since then like the universe is its little experiment it's watching unfold only on small occasions intervening. Those interventions resulting in some really weird coincidences so impossibly unlikely that they lead me to believe there probably is some sort of greater force out there and that even if there isn't worst case I die happy and at peace thinking I'm going to heaven or something. Until I realize nobody who watches anime is allowed in Heaven so I get sent to Hell oops. |
| Basically: "If we start with the assumptions that prove my point, my point will be proven". Next time, try without making massive leaps of "illogic". |
Kyotosomo said: My bet is on some sort of greater force (ie God) creating the big bang that started the Universe then just mostly being hands off ever since then like the universe is its little experiment it's watching unfold only on small occasions intervening. Those interventions resulting in some really weird coincidences so impossibly unlikely that they lead me to believe there probably is some sort of greater force out there and that even if there isn't worst case I die happy and at peace thinking I'm going to heaven or something. Until I realize nobody who watches anime is allowed in Heaven so I get sent to Hell oops. the simulation hypothesis/argument says something like that, this whole universe/multiverse/omniverse is just one giant video game or simulation and that a simulator or video game creator is behind all of this, its modern philosophy's take on the existence of god/s but the good thing is that if we believe in this modern religion then we can forget about all the old religions especially christianity and islam |
| @deg I totally get why it makes so much sense to people and is so believable but I'm not a fan of the whole simulation theory; the amount of processing power that would take is unfathomable. But if within my lifetime by some magic we got to the point where we actually have the technology to do that because we're harvesting stars for energy and building computers the size of planets then yeah sure I'll go along with it since at that point it'd be undeniable. |
Kyotosomo said: @deg I totally get why it makes so much sense to people and is so believable but I'm not a fan of the whole simulation theory; the amount of processing power that would take is unfathomable. But if within my lifetime by some magic we got to the point where we actually have the technology to do that because we're harvesting stars for energy and building computers the size of planets then yeah sure I'll go along with it since at that point it'd be undeniable. humanity is about to build star energy with nuclear fusion (being close to unlimited energy resource too) so that at least is not far away |
| Well they better finish up the eternal life serum too otherwise I'm gonna be real pissed off when I'm not around for all the cool shit. |
deg said: humanity is about to build star energy with nuclear fusion (being close to unlimited energy resource too) so that at least is not far away They broke apart entire barren planets for resources in Dead Space, of course the ecozealots unleashed the necromorph plague on humanity because the Universe was very angry with us for despoiling its planets. If the Universe wanted its planets cracked they would have already been cracked. By the Universe. Then they all killed themselves to join the necromorph collective. |
 |
BlakexEkalb said: You cannot disregard information due to it being old, that's plain stupid. http://bib.irr.org/tacitus-suetonius-and-historical-jesus  I didn't disregard anything for being old; I disregarded miracles because there isn't a single shred of evidence for any of them, ever. Good job not even reading the info on the link I shared... |
|
| Gods are basically imaginary friends made up to explain the unknown. |
 |
| Sorry for the late replies. I try my best. Grey-Zone said: I don't understand the point of having any kind of discussion under such a premise. If humans are just part of a closed-off system god created, which essentially assigns humanity their whole existence from beginning to end, then from gods perspective the beginning and end of humanity are the same thing and it's like humans are just part of a deterministic process with no agency whatsoever. In that case everything about humans is predetermined and there is no "weak point" that can even be addressed, but that's clearly not what you intended with this thread, is it? If you want this to be a discussion, there needs to be some kind of agency for humans, like free will that the omnipotent god cannot restrict, predetermine (at least not in every case) or control, only then is there any point in such a discussion. There must some kind of independence for the creation, else humans are not like our equivalent of AI to god, but rather our equivalent of programmed robots. The application of such idea would just be another Omnipotence paradox -- I try to avoid that. To think that humans can surpass God makes him not omnipotent or almighty. It doesn't generally state that there is no free will for humans. God simply cannot be surpassed or rivaled. If this is possible then the whole God-Paradox-Everything crumbles to the ground. This sort of reminds me of Abbott. “The little Hexagon meditated on this a while and then said to me; "But you have been teaching me to raise numbers to the third power: I suppose three-to-the-third must mean something in Geometry; what does it mean?" "Nothing at all," replied I, "not at least in Geometry; for Geometry has only Two Dimensions." And then I began to shew the boy how a Point by moving through a length of three inches makes a Line of three inches, which may be represented by three; and how a Line of three inches, moving parallel to itself through a length of three inches, makes a Square of three inches every way, which may be represented by three-to-the-second. xxx Upon this, my Grandson, again returning to his former suggestion, took me up rather suddenly and exclaimed, "Well, then, if a Point by moving three inches, makes a Line of three inches represented by three; and if a straight Line of three inches, moving parallel to itself, makes a Square of three inches every way, represented by three-to-the-second; it must be that a Square of three inches every way, moving somehow parallel to itself (but I don't see how) must make Something else (but I don't see what) of three inches every way—and this must be represented by three-to-the-third." "Go to bed," said I, a little ruffled by this interruption: "if you would talk less nonsense, you would remember more sense.” Equate this quote to God and Humans and you might understand where I'm going at. We're not able to be God. Free will or God restricting us has no play in it. Afterthought: Well, if you think about it, aren't humans also restricted by the laws of physics? The independence only exists in your head. Just like all of your senses and thoughts. Now this is a new thread topic right there. Railey2 said: Yarub said: How do we have chess engines that destroy every living chess player then? We can clearly create things that are better than us.The second downfall is the law that governs creation as always inferior to its creator. You simply cannot create something that is more capable of being you (in case of our topic, If giving birth to a child counts as "creating" life, then we can also create life that is superior. Children regularly surpass their parents in various categories, be it physical strength, intellect, health, or all three at once. It happens. I don't know how you could believe something that's so obviously wrong and has so many apparent counter examples, unless you're parroting the delusions from some poor indoctrinated idiots that poison the intellectual climate wherever they go. You're also completely missing the point of the omnipotence paradox. The point is to prove the logical impossibility of omnipotence, and if you're getting hung up on the "human characteristics" thingie, you can simply make up another example to fit the bill. Can god create an atom with such strong attracting forces, that he can not split it? And there you go. It doesn't matter if it's a stone, an atom, or whatever. Your "refutation" is off. I think you quoted the wrong sentence. Chess engines are engines. They can not be you any more than you can be God himself. Again, reiterate^. Maybe I'm the poor indoctrinated idiot that poisons the intellectual climate wherever I go. Have you thought of that? It is true. Demanding that God rely on humans characteristics while He is independent of His creation is nonsense. Again, reiterate^. Stone, atom, or whatever. You never cease to demand God has human characteristics. You simply cannot equate God to anything physical. SadMadoka said: Yarub said: Lmao, disbelieving in something because nobody has proven it (But there are geeneral public and intellectual support) reminds me of 10th century AD level of thought Proof and evidence are two distinct things, by the way. Proof lies in the realm of logic and mathematics, whereas there is only evidence in science. (There are also weaker, more casual types of proof that aren't actually proof, such as social proof.) Believing something is true does not make it true. The popularity of an idea has no bearing on its validity. One of the main reasons so many hold these particular beliefs is that countless people were slaughtered and tortured in their name, building the foundation for political control. As for "intellectual support"...no true intellectual could take such absurd things seriously. Since I suspect you misunderstand what constitutes disbelief, I'll leave you with this quote: katsucats said: The rejection of belief that any deities exist is not the rejection that any deities exist. GG. Thanks for playing. Yarub said: If you read my post, you'd understand that I was arguing for the existence of God. I see no argument; just...incoherence. :P I didn't write this thread because I believed in God. I wrote this thread because I had proof of the fallacious nature of one of the most famous anti-deity statements. Does this get us closer to believing in God? Maybe. Does my making this thread allow me to make people believe in God over the internet? No. I'm just info-dumping my thoughts and enjoying discussions. Popularity of the idea does have partial validity. It means it filtered off of countless people and thinkers. And I presume you're the intellectual one here? What quote is that? You started with zero and ended with zero. I also see no argument; just...incoherence. But I still reply to incoherence, since you're no any better :P |
Yarub said: Sorry for the late replies. I try my best. Grey-Zone said: I don't understand the point of having any kind of discussion under such a premise. If humans are just part of a closed-off system god created, which essentially assigns humanity their whole existence from beginning to end, then from gods perspective the beginning and end of humanity are the same thing and it's like humans are just part of a deterministic process with no agency whatsoever. In that case everything about humans is predetermined and there is no "weak point" that can even be addressed, but that's clearly not what you intended with this thread, is it? If you want this to be a discussion, there needs to be some kind of agency for humans, like free will that the omnipotent god cannot restrict, predetermine (at least not in every case) or control, only then is there any point in such a discussion. There must some kind of independence for the creation, else humans are not like our equivalent of AI to god, but rather our equivalent of programmed robots. The application of such idea would just be another Omnipotence paradox -- I try to avoid that. To think that humans can surpass God makes him not omnipotent or almighty. It doesn't generally state that there is no free will for humans. God simply cannot be surpassed or rivaled. If this is possible then the whole God-Paradox-Everything crumbles to the ground. This sort of reminds me of Abbott. “The little Hexagon meditated on this a while and then said to me; "But you have been teaching me to raise numbers to the third power: I suppose three-to-the-third must mean something in Geometry; what does it mean?" "Nothing at all," replied I, "not at least in Geometry; for Geometry has only Two Dimensions." And then I began to shew the boy how a Point by moving through a length of three inches makes a Line of three inches, which may be represented by three; and how a Line of three inches, moving parallel to itself through a length of three inches, makes a Square of three inches every way, which may be represented by three-to-the-second. xxx Upon this, my Grandson, again returning to his former suggestion, took me up rather suddenly and exclaimed, "Well, then, if a Point by moving three inches, makes a Line of three inches represented by three; and if a straight Line of three inches, moving parallel to itself, makes a Square of three inches every way, represented by three-to-the-second; it must be that a Square of three inches every way, moving somehow parallel to itself (but I don't see how) must make Something else (but I don't see what) of three inches every way—and this must be represented by three-to-the-third." "Go to bed," said I, a little ruffled by this interruption: "if you would talk less nonsense, you would remember more sense.” Equate this quote to God and Humans and you might understand where I'm going at. We're not able to be God. Free will or God restricting us has no play in it. Afterthought: Well, if you think about it, aren't humans also restricted by the laws of physics? The independence only exists in your head. Just like all of your senses and thoughts. Now this is a new thread topic right there. So basically it goes like... "Let's presume that God is almighty... therefore God is almighty. Discuss!" Again, what's the point, if the premise and the conclusion are literally the same? |
Grey-ZoneSep 18, 2018 8:27 AM
 |
Yarub said: You simply cannot create something that is more capable of being you A.I. in 20 years will say otherwise. |
Yarub said: I didn't write this thread because I believed in God. I wrote this thread because I had proof of the fallacious nature of one of the most famous anti-deity statements. Does this get us closer to believing in God? Maybe. Does my making this thread allow me to make people believe in God over the internet? No. I'm just info-dumping my thoughts and enjoying discussions. Popularity of the idea does have partial validity. It means it filtered off of countless people and thinkers. And I presume you're the intellectual one here? What quote is that? You started with zero and ended with zero. I also see no argument; just...incoherence. But I still reply to incoherence, since you're no any better :P The popularity of an idea has zero validity in science and logic. Anyone who believes something simply because it's popular has no critical thinking skills. All sorts of ideas used to be popular before later being demonstrated to be erroneous; it's just that most people aren't willing to accept that they're wrong when it comes to this, because they don't care about the truth; they only care about how pleasant something is to them. I'm more of an intellectual than those gullible enough to believe something that is self-contradictory, flies in the face of science and logic, and lacks evidence. My point in sharing the quote was to illustrate the difference between merely disbelieving something and claiming that something is impossible...but it clearly flew over your head. Some versions of gods are logically impossible because they are self-contradictory and incompatible with the real world, while some (who don't possess the alleged qualities of omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omniscience) at least don't have this issue. I already covered this. I have posted many arguments with flawless logic. It's not my fault if you have the reading comprehension of a kindergartner. Oh, and wonderful job trying to manipulate the conversation by removing the part of my reply to you about the necessity of evidence. You know you can't justify what you said, so it's understandable that you want to avoid it now. |
SmugSatokoSep 18, 2018 2:36 PM
|
| @Grey-Zone Hmm. I'm wondering what you're on about. I assumed God is Omnipotent because it was a necessary assumption that was needed to attempt to falsify the paradox. But hey, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and agree that we don't know for sure whether God is Almighty or not (since He haven't told us directly, since you don't believe in revelations). If I don't assume that God is Almighty then there will be contradiction in terms of what I'm trying to prove. It would seem your issue here is the whole notion of the thread, then? How is my conclusion circular? I'm arguing against the paradox and I havent said anything that might otherwise cause circular motion of the discourse. If your issue is with the assumption, and you thinking that assumptions are sort of non logical I don't see how we can continue. @SadMadoka Hoi. I was going to reply rn but I got drowsy. I'll reply tomorrow, had the need to tell you that because I knew you would just stroke your ego all week for thinking I ignored your post while replying to others :P. @Nithirel Hmm. A.I is an abbreviation of Artificial Intelligence. Are you an A.I? No? Okay. Moving on. |
| Your brain has clearly turned off. Moving on indeed. |
Nithirel said: Your brain has clearly turned off. Moving on indeed. Lmao. I can see the AI pun and that was cheesy as fuck dude. But hey, an AI can't be you unless you're an AI... It's simple deduction. An AI mimicking human activity or your activity does not classify as being you in terms of existence. I hope you had enough battery life to analyse what I just said, T-1000. |
SadMadoka said: The popularity of an idea has zero validity in science and logic. Anyone who believes something simply because it's popular has no critical thinking skills. All sorts of ideas used to be popular before later being demonstrated to be erroneous; it's just that most people aren't willing to accept that they're wrong when it comes to this, because they don't care about the truth; they only care about how pleasant something is to them. I'm more of an intellectual than those gullible enough to believe something that is self-contradictory, flies in the face of science and logic, and lacks evidence. My point in sharing the quote was to illustrate the difference between merely disbelieving something and claiming that something is impossible...but it clearly flew over your head. Some versions of gods are logically impossible because they are self-contradictory and incompatible with the real world, while some (who don't possess the alleged qualities of omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omniscience) at least don't have this issue. I already covered this. I have posted many arguments with flawless logic. It's not my fault if you have the reading comprehension of a kindergartner. Oh, and wonderful job trying to manipulate the conversation by removing the part of my reply to you about the necessity of evidence. You know you can't justify what you said, so it's understandable that you want to avoid it now. If I tell a person that people with pink eyes can teleport from New Guinea to India, would he believe me? The fact that things get through people's head is because that they either sound and are for the most part logical. That doesn't mean that the public view is always right or wrong, it just encompasses that you look like an ass if you discredit other people's intelligence because it is 'general'. Newton had the same downfall when it came to the 17th century light wave - light particle debate. It is less dependent on their gullibility and about how """"""intellectuals"""""" like you just announce their own truth and denounce anything as 'self-contradictory, flies in the face of science and logic, and lacks evidence'. Hmm. You just quoted a saying that is equivalent to saying "One does not represent one". I still don't get your illustration. Yes. God maybe logically impossible, but the assumption (by the paradox) that God exists in which it was attempted to denounce his omnipotence is enough for me to assume his existence to denounce their fallacious paradox. There is nothing more to it. How many times do I have to say that I don't technically prove God is Omnipotent; I just falsify the paradox itself. It's not my fault if you have the reading comprehension of a kindergartner. "By the way, omnipotence doesn't exist, there ya go" The flawlessness makes my penis erect. Manipulation? I'm debating with you; you know your points and views and I know mine. Deleting things won't gain me anything as much as your statement will help you gain credibility in an argument. I just tried pruning the post word count by deleting things that are either I am neutral with or agree with. I don't feel the need to stroke people's penis all the time. Anyone with a grasp of science, logic, and reality knows that you need evidence to justify believing something. If you have no evidence for something, you literally have no reason to believe it. I agree, one point to add up is that it also doesn't allow you to reject the existence of things that don't have evidence to back it up or evidence to excoriate. Have you ejaculated yet? |
| Consider this: the universe is actually a big anime. god is the guy who made the anime, and he's watching us right now. |
crackersoup said: I havent heard of any tentacle rape irl. So I really doubt your theory.Consider this: the universe is actually a big anime. god is the guy who made the anime, and he's watching us right now. |
Yarub said: crackersoup said: I havent heard of any tentacle rape irl. So I really doubt your theory.Consider this: the universe is actually a big anime. god is the guy who made the anime, and he's watching us right now. but u see it's actually a moe slice of life show. 100 percent wholesome with no boobies or tentacle rape. |
| This thread is very offensive and needs to be locked |
| Help stop the spread of Korean propaganda (KPrOP) and sign this petition! http://chng.it/Yw8Vzwk4Tg |
crackersoup said: Consider this: the universe is actually a big anime. god is the guy who made the anime, and he's watching us right now. That's a pretty fun way to think of our existence. |
|
Satisfucktion said: This thread is very offensive and needs to be locked How is it offensive to provide quality entertainment? |
Yarub said: So far, we're good.To make my argument sensible, we need to state off the assumptions and distinguish them first. - God is omnipotent. - God exists outside of creation. - God does not rely on his creation. Yarub said: When you talk about properties of a being beyond human comprehensibility, it is already meaningless. There would be no need for this argument. Furthermore, discussing the viability of omnipotence does not require, necessarily, a God figure.- God is beyond human comprehensibility even in the abstract and is therefore illogical in essence. Yarub said: This is irrelevant. You've only specified that the stone is unliftable. You did not say that God had to lift it. If God were able to lift it through whatever powers, then it still does not depend on the creation. We assume God created humans with some set of characteristics. Humans did not cause God to have an arm or not.First of all. God needs to create a stone. It then enlists that the stone must have an unliftable characteristic; weight and mass do not matter hence the unliftability. The issue here is that, the premise, demands that God must do an action, which is to lift. You would need a hand of some sort. A force to apply and bodily tension to sustain your lifting of the said creation. Here is the first downfall of the paradox: It encompasses that God must have human characteristics which contradict our assumption. Yarub said: This is nonsense. For example, the computer can compute more calculations per second than we can in a lifetime. Your objection is only coherent within the context of omnipotence, but then you'd be demonstrating the contradiction within it.The second downfall is the law that governs creation as always inferior to its creator. You simply cannot create something that is more capable of being you (in case of our topic, God himself creating a boulder that is mightier than God, referencing the infinite nature of the boulder) than yourself. It is not coherent in any sense. Yarub said: That's exactly the definition of a paradox. Are you arguing that nothing can be a paradox because paradoxes are illogical? But paradoxes are illogical because the entity in question is illogical. If omnipotence has property of being a paradox, you cannot reject the paradox without rejecting omnipotence, unless you argue that omnipotence is not a paradox. But the definition of paradox does not say anything about whether omnipotence is one.The only sensible conclusion that can justify this, would be the creation of another God by God. This is the demise of this argument since a paradox that leads to a possibly infinite sequences of paradoxes is not to be intellectually considered valid and thought of as folly. Yarub said: This is actually the downfall of omnipotence, and God itself, because they are illogical. In effect, you've defeated your own argument with your own premise. Good job.The third downfall of this is the application of logic to the illogical. Adding electrons to components of Nucleophilic nature is void. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Yarub said: We all heard of the infamous paradox: "Could God create a stone so heavy that even He could not lift it?" I now shall attempt to disprove thus At least you tried. :/ Yarub said: and in completion, I shall continue with another discourse to prove that God exists  ...waits awhile... Aw, poo. And here I was all excited for the breakthrough of the millennium, but you gave us nothin'. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Yarub said: (or atleast, disprove of whatever theory/idea that is currently present that concludes the non-existence of God). So...where's your disproof? You have yet to post any so far. Yarub said: The issue here is that, the premise, demands that God must do an action, which is to lift. You would need a hand of some sort. A force to apply and bodily tension to sustain your lifting of the said creation. Here is the first downfall of the paradox: It encompasses that God must have human characteristics which contradict our assumption. All this would be easy-peasy for an all-powerful being...and if he couldn't do it, that would mean he's not all-powerful. This stuff is a lot simpler than you're trying to make it seem. Yarub said: The second downfall is the law that governs creation as always inferior to its creator. There is no such law. Yarub said: You simply cannot create something that is more capable of being you (in case of our topic, God himself creating a boulder that is mightier than God, referencing the infinite nature of the boulder) than yourself. It is not coherent in any sense. And this is precisely why he couldn't be all-powerful in the context of the omnipotence paradox, since it's a logical contradiction. I have an elegant remedy for this conundrum, though, which you can find later in this post. Yarub said: The only sensible conclusion that can justify this, would be the creation of another God by God. This is the demise of this argument since a paradox that leads to a possibly infinite sequences of paradoxes is not to be intellectually considered valid and thought of as folly. ...Or you could just admit that the broadest sense of omnipotence is impossible, which is the point of the paradox. This is what you have been implying all along, but may have been hesitant to acknowledge. Yarub said: The third downfall of this is the application of logic to the illogical. What a cheap attempt to weasel your way out of having to back up your claims with anything of merit. Yarub said: Your cerebral cortex is free to doubt in the ecstasy of this thread. Discuss. Even my skeleton is skeptical after all that tripe.  Yarub said: If I tell a person that people with pink eyes can teleport from New Guinea to India, would he believe me? I certainly hope not. The mystic secrets of the Pink-Eyes must be protected at all costs! :P Yarub said: The fact that things get through people's head is because that they either sound and are for the most part logical. How is this relevant to your teleportation example? No one in their right mind would even consider such a highly illogical thing to be real. quietly sweeps ancient Pink-Eyes manuscript under the rug—no one must know! ...I'm going to attempt to decipher this swath of broken English. Let's break it down... (Get it? Because it's already broken enough. Har har.) Yarub said: That doesn't mean that the public view is always right or wrong,  Yarub said: it just encompasses that  Yarub said: you look like an ass Well...you're entitled to your opinion, but I for one think I look pretty darn snazzy! Yarub said: if you discredit other people's intelligence because it is 'general'. Oh? How so? I'm just pointing out the obvious when I say the validity of a claim is independent from its popularity. Even if everyone in the world believed a lie, it would still be a lie. What do you mean by "general intelligence"? I'm fairly confident you aren't referring to what the term actually means. If you rather meant the general consensus (ie popularity) on a given topic, then I aptly covered its irrelevance...and it should go without saying it has no reliable correlation to intelligence or truth. Yarub said: Newton had the same downfall when it came to the 17th century light wave - light particle debate. What downfall would that be exactly? You keep saying random things without clarifying what your point is. At any rate, scientific experimentation and discourse based on evidence is drastically different than philosophical speculation based on imagination. Yarub said: It is less dependent on their gullibility and about how """"""intellectuals"""""" like you just announce their own truth and denounce anything as 'self-contradictory, flies in the face of science and logic, and lacks evidence'. In other words, you're in denial. What a surprise... I'm not "announcing my own truth" or denouncing any ol' thing I can shake a stick at; I'm expounding things logically and focusing on a specific thing that is irrefutably self-contradictory, as has been proved eons ago beyond a shadow of a doubt, regardless of your feelings on the matter. Yarub said: Yes. God maybe logically impossible, but the assumption (by the paradox) that God exists in which it was attempted to denounce his omnipotence is enough for me to assume his existence to denounce their fallacious paradox. There is nothing more to it. I never took issue with the fact that you start with assumptions as conditions when undertaking logical arguments, and I am at a loss as to why you seem to think I did. I did the same thing with one of my quotes, you know...in case you somehow didn't notice. (The long one about the problem of evil that commenced with the presupposition that God exists, albeit culminating in the contrary.) Yarub said: How many times do I have to say that I don't technically prove God is Omnipotent; I don't recall accusing you of claiming such a thing. You're coming off as disoriented at this point. Yarub said: I just falsify the paradox itself. ...Except you didn't. Unadulterated wishful thinking at its finest. To reiterate the quandary: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox Can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it? If yes: the being's power is limited, because it cannot lift the stone. If no: the being's power is limited, because it cannot create the stone. Either way, the allegedly omnipotent being has proven not to be omnipotent due to the logical contradiction present in both possible answers. By the way, an easy way out of this whole debacle is to define omnipotence as the ability to do anything as long as it's not self-contradictory. (That way, you don't need to resort to so many more logical contradictions.) Plenty of theologians adhere to this definition. (Though I personally think it's pointless to waste time on things that have not been demonstrated to exist.) Yarub said: It's not my fault if you have the reading comprehension of a kindergartner. Step off, troll. Reading your gibberish is embarrassing enough as it is. My original statement you quoted pertained to something else entirely (primarily the logical contradictions inherent to the problem of evil), and you know it. I barely mentioned anything about your first post in the thread until now, yet you're acting like I did. Such dishonesty... This is why I criticized your reading comprehension in the first place: Even after I clearly explain things, you are completely oblivious. It's preposterous to even suggest your literacy could be remotely comparable to mine. My mastery of the English language is orders of magnitude beyond your reckoning or ability, I assure you. As a consolation prize, please enjoy these owls with top hats and monocles. Yarub said: "By the way, omnipotence doesn't exist, there ya go" The flawlessness makes my penis erect. I couldn't help but point out the pointlessness of the thread. Yarub said: Manipulation? I'm debating with you; Debating the undebatable...what fun! (Or perhaps not... I find this redundant excursion of ours quite tiresome, to be candid.) Yarub said: you know your points and views and I know mine. Deleting things won't gain me anything as much as your statement will help you gain credibility in an argument. I just tried pruning the post word count by deleting things that are either I am neutral with or agree with. First you disagreed and now you've changed your mind? Okay then... Yarub said: I don't feel the need to stroke people's penis all the time. You sure do say a lot of homoerotic things. You may not always stroke, but do ya rub, Yarub? >:D Yarub said: Hmm. You just quoted a saying that is equivalent to saying "One does not represent one". I still don't get your illustration. Yarub said: I agree, one point to add up is that it also doesn't allow you to reject the existence of things that don't have evidence to back it up or evidence to excoriate. You admitted you didn't get it...but right after that, you tried to act like you did. XD Rejecting belief in the existence of something and rejecting the existence of something are two different things. I can say I don't believe in dragons, but that doesn't necessarily mean I think they're impossible. (I wish there were dragons, 'cause they're frikkin' cool!) What I find perplexing is that you initially portrayed disbelieving without evidence as primitive thinking (no idea why you thought that, because the opposite is true), yet now you seem to have pulled a 180. No, any competent scientist can tell you that the only logical position is to believe something when (and only when) there is evidence for it, rejecting or at least withholding belief until such time. You can allow for the possibility of many things and acknowledge they might exist, but that doesn't mean it's logical to believe they do exist without first obtaining evidence, and it's perfectly reasonable to reject them until proven otherwise. And no, anyone is allowed to reject anything they damn well please. There is endless evidence that blatantly debunks the "mainstream" God hypothesis, some of which I have covered...but ultimately, none of it is necessary, because the burden of proof is on those who assert something exists. Yarub said: Have you ejaculated yet?  |
SmugSatokoSep 21, 2018 4:02 PM
|
deg said: @Yarub i just equate the contradictory nature of paradoxes as illogical but they have some truth to it according to the definition you already mention that God is illogical so he is unrealistic considering that logic is also part of how we make sense of reality so thats why just like the paradox imply then God is not real I'm very happy to see someone interpreted it the same way I did. |
 |
| @Yarub 1. If god needs a human body to manipulate reality, then why is he even called god? 2. In case you try to refute my first point then you are implying that a number of animals, merely by lifting a rock, can do something a god can't. So much for omnipotence, then. 3. There is no law that states that creation cannot be superior to the creator. Human are nearing in invention of technology far more superior to humans themselves. 4. You argument for existence of god is unfalsifiable, so your argument is basically invalid. 5. If god is beyond human comprehensibility even in the abstract and is therefore illogical in essence, then how do you know of the existence of god? 6. I see you have Deidara as your avatar, quite funny that you're gonna explode with the infidels now. EDIT: Sorry if I got a bit aggressive. I tend to lose my patience among idiots. |
BlakexEkalb said: But there's evidence that there was the Big Bang or any other thing? Believing in a deity all comes down to having faith in it. You can be oblivious to a creator, or you can mock the fools who believe in such a thing. Either way, respecting what people believe is the right thing. "(No one has ever done so)" I'm sure anyone can say that to anything that resolves around the reason for creation. Once again, it comes down faith. I have a problem with unsolicited shoving of opinions on other people's face. I don't go around in public forums or places and tell Christian or Muslims that god isn't real but I guess religious people don't have the common courtesy of keeping their opinions to themselves unless asked for. BlakexEkalb said: To answer where evil comes from: it has been said it came from Satan, who saw that he wanted to be above God, which is the first instance of sin in the universe. From his actions, he was sent away from God. Then when humans were created, who were made to follow God, they took influence from Satan and that is the reason why we are all sinners. As a result of our actions, God gave us a gift and curse: the ability to choose. We are able to turn back towards him, or turn away and neglect his existence in search for our own desires of a perfect world. If god is omniscient then he created Satan on purpose knowing that he would sin, meaning that god is not willing to prevent evil. If god is omniscient and created Satan with the intent to stop him, then he obviously failed and isn't able to prevent evil. If god isn't omniscient and didn't know that Satan will sin, and still won't stop satan from luring humans then he is neither able nor willing. P.S. Satan isn't even in the old testament, it's just new testament bullshit. The old testament doesn't even have a hell. |
AF44X said: You shouldn't. For a while now, it has been considered rude, but the game was rigged in one's favor. The religious have the excuse that spreading the word of God grants them favors in the afterlife. It is in their interests, literally life or death. The non-religious do not have such a convenient excuse, have been traditionally oppressed, and usually kept their mouths shut out of politeness and/or safety. However, the politeness aspect is faux pas.I have a problem with unsolicited shoving of opinions on other people's face. I don't go around in public forums or places and tell Christian or Muslims that god isn't real but I guess religious people don't have the common courtesy of keeping their opinions to themselves unless asked for. We recognize that religious beliefs inform public policy that affects all of us. These are not just opinions held to oneself. Every time a Christian or Muslim advocates any policy informed by so-called God, whether it's pro-life or anti-stem cell, it may as well be an act of violence against women or cancer patients respectively. It doesn't even matter if you are also pro-life or anti-stem cell. What should offend you more than the position itself is that the position is informed by delusions. So you have the future livelihoods of real human beings dependent on imaginary escapist comfort of a group. Children do not solicit education, but they require it. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
deg said: I've been a fan of the simulation theory ever since:have you heard about the simulation hypothesis/argument? that is a better theory of a god according to modern philosophy considering that technology is about to headed that way and starts with games being more realistic or more of a simulation being a computer science graduate i kinda approve of that argument but its just another god of the gaps scenario no doubt, fact is as long as science cannot have a working theory of everything then god as first mover will not die https://www.technologyreview.com/s/429561/the-measurement-that-would-reveal-the-universe-as-a-computer-simulation/ But I don't see it as god of the gaps. Essentially, if we are objects within some program, the world that exists outside of the computer is fundamentally dissimilar to ours, such that it is not co-inhabitable. It should be common sense, since you're a CS graduate, how machine language, even if it appears as a human on screen, is incompatible with an actual human in the real world. So the net effect of this hypothesis on our world is none. It is definitely not a moral and personal God like religions propose. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| For fuck’s sake. I’m not the one claiming stuff out of my ass, the paradox is stated and I’m deducting its faulty features. I’ve set nothing but the assumptions, so don’t doubt the premises of the samething you argue for. @katsucats God being beyond human comprehensibility does not render the argument meaningless. It just renders anything that demands God to be anything that he isn’t is. Eh, ask the person who proposed the paradox about why he involved God. The paradox (Not I) proposed that God must lift it. If he could not, he is not omnipotent. The only thing that appears to be able to lift something (and not other things, for example, you can lift a cup but not a brick house) is physical strength in terms of conscious beings. This also demands God to obtain human-like characteristics. Humans did not cause God to have an arm, but this paradox does. (Read the first sentence of the post). As I previously stated multiple times. If God goes out of his way to create another God of superior or equal might, it creates a never-ending sequence of paradoxes. This ‘law’ is deduced from that. “If omnipotence has property of being a paradox, you cannot reject the paradox without rejecting omnipotence” So be it. My purpose was never to state that God is omnipotent. My purpose was to falsify the omnipotence paradox. If that’s the easy way out, I’ll take it. The last sentence was made as a last resort. If you pass through the two seamlessly (even though realistically, no one in this thread did), you’d get blocked off by my last statement. You can ignore it since it’s just there to cement that a paradox about God is invalid anyway. @SadMadoka Partially sorry for the mess above, just couldn't bother to quote everything out. But you can outline the replies by the successive number of your reply. Only useful thing I found in this argument with you is that you may as well have schizophrenia. Madoka: “I’m more of an intellectual than those gullible enough to believe something that is self-contradictory, flies in the face of science and logic, and lacks evidence. I have posted many arguments with flawless logic. It's not my fault if you have the reading comprehension of a kindergartner. Yarub: “It's not my fault if you have the reading comprehension of a kindergartner.” Madoka: “mY mAsTeRy OF tHe ENgLisH laNgUaGe iS OrDErs oF mAgNitUdE bEyONd yOuR reCkOniNg oR aBiLItY”. Try to condense whatever shit you will post into sensible lengths and leave out the ad hominem. I only replied to your previous post just so you won’t make excuse and baby rage all over my cock. @AF44X 1. He doesn’t need to have a human body. His reality is unknown to everyone so we can’t really factually decide on anything. Only the demand that God must do/have something humanly is paradoxical. 2. Animals can’t lift the unliftable. So much for your ‘rebuttal’, lmao. 3. Speaking in the context of God, God creating something that surpasses or is equal to God is paradoxical. Humans and technology don’t matter in this context. 4. You just tried to falsify my unfalsifiable argument. Therefore you are an imbecile. 5. The paradox proposes it. 6. My post doesn’t really portray any sort of theism, but a rather unconventional viewpoint. It’s sort of funny how you added Deidara to your point of rebuttals. Shows that you are self conscious of the antic that is your post. EDIT: An idiot worthy of acknowledgement is barely an idiot. |
YarubSep 22, 2018 2:50 AM
Yarub said: Your argument is circular and question-begging.For fuck’s sake. I’m not the one claiming stuff out of my ass, the paradox is stated and I’m deducting its faulty features. I’ve set nothing but the assumptions, so don’t doubt the premises of the samething you argue for. Yarub said: No. I'm asking you why you feel like you can use logic to argue the illogic of God; how you can even assert anything about God if it is incomprehensible. It is like arguing about a circle with anything other than 360 degrees, or something that isn't. If God is illogical, then a rational being should reject it. If you accept something that is illogical, then that is grounds for you to accept everything that isn't true.@katsucats God being beyond human comprehensibility does not render the argument meaningless. It just renders anything that demands God to be anything that he isn’t is. Eh, ask the person who proposed the paradox about why he involved God. Yarub said: Lifting something does not require an arm, and it would only be a purportedly human characteristic because God wished it so. It is ironic that you are denying the responsibility of God in human creation while asserting its omnipotence.The paradox (Not I) proposed that God must lift it. If he could not, he is not omnipotent. The only thing that appears to be able to lift something (and not other things, for example, you can lift a cup but not a brick house) is physical strength in terms of conscious beings. This also demands God to obtain human-like characteristics. Humans did not cause God to have an arm, but this paradox does. (Read the first sentence of the post). Yarub said: If this leads to an absurd consequence, then it is proof of the paradox. That is the definition of what a paradox is. Paradoxes disprove things by showing absurd consequences! Saying that absurd consequences disprove the paradox but not the thing is preposterous.As I previously stated multiple times. If God goes out of his way to create another God of superior or equal might, it creates a never-ending sequence of paradoxes. This ‘law’ is deduced from that. Yarub said: Except you falsified omnipotence along with the paradox. You proved that omnipotence is logically impossible. This leads to two possible conclusions:“If omnipotence has property of being a paradox, you cannot reject the paradox without rejecting omnipotence” So be it. My purpose was never to state that God is omnipotent. My purpose was to falsify the omnipotence paradox. If that’s the easy way out, I’ll take it. 1. God is not omnipotent. 2. God is illogical. With 1, you must reject a God that is omnipotent. With 2, you must reject God, period. Yarub said: You don't seem to understand what the word paradox means. You've proved that the paradox is indeed valid, since you've proved that omnipotence is invalid.The last sentence was made as a last resort. If you pass through the two seamlessly (even though realistically, no one in this thread did), you’d get blocked off by my last statement. You can ignore it since it’s just there to cement that a paradox about God is invalid anyway. When you shoot yourself in the foot, and then claim your foot hit the bullet. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
BlakexEkalb said: SadMadoka said: This quote alone disproves the typical version of God. (Which is self-contradictory and cannot exist, therefore does not exist.) Even ignoring that, there's no evidence for the existence of any deity. The burden of proof is on those who make a positive claim, so if you say there is such a being, you're the one who has to prove it. (No one has ever done so.) You'd think it would be a simple matter for an omnipotent being to create a hand. lol As for the stone paradox, well, omnipotence isn't real anyway, so there ya go. But there's evidence that there was the Big Bang or any other thing? Believing in a deity all comes down to having faith in it. You can be oblivious to a creator, or you can mock the fools who believe in such a thing. Either way, respecting what people believe is the right thing. "(No one has ever done so)" I'm sure anyone can say that to anything that resolves around the reason for creation. Once again, it comes down faith. The difference between God (or any religious manifestation) and science is that science is not there to be believed. You don't formulate a theory because you want to create a dogma, you formulate it because it explains a reality you observe in a convincing way. And they are subject to being refuted if enough evidence is gathered. Nothing wrong with people having beliefs but religion and science are not the same scale of things, they don't have the same requirements and they don't aim for the same, so the comparison is misguided. |
Yarub said: You conflate must and can. The opposite of can is cannot. It would be truly paradoxical if God is omnipotent but could not lift something. The paradox states the opposite: God must be able to... This is not the same as God must. Perhaps you should fix your grammar before asserting anything of God.@AF44X 1. He doesn’t need to have a human body. His reality is unknown to everyone so we can’t really factually decide on anything. Only the demand that God must do/have something humanly is paradoxical. Yarub said: But then again, no one claimed that animals are omnipotent. So much for yours. :/2. Animals can’t lift the unliftable. So much for your ‘rebuttal’, lmao. Yarub said: Actually, your original post states a universalized law that something can't create something better than itself. Since you specifically used the pronoun "you", I'm pretty sure it is relevant. I quote:3. Speaking in the context of God, God creating something that surpasses or is equal to God is paradoxical. Humans and technology don’t matter in this context. Yarub said: The second downfall is the law that governs creation as always inferior to its creator. You simply cannot create something that is more capable of being you Yarub said: Unfalsifiable means that you have no faculty of proving it right or wrong. It does not mean it is right by default. In fact, since it is impossible to prove its rightness, it is logically wrong by default.4. You just tried to falsify my unfalsifiable argument. Therefore you are an imbecile. Yarub said: You have two options:5. The paradox proposes it. 1. The paradox correctly presupposes the logicality of God, since it attempts to apply logic to it. 2. The paradox incorrectly presupposes the logicality of God, since God is illogical. If 1, you must accept that God is not omnipotent. If 2, you must accept that God does not exist. Yarub said: On that contrary, your post is quite conventional idiocy commonly argued by the lowest rank of religious self-appointed scholars who want to assert their prowess in logic and at the same time deny it. To deny logic is to communicate nihilism and incoherence.6. My post doesn’t really portray any sort of theism, but a rather unconventional viewpoint. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Yarub said: 1. He doesn’t need to have a human body. His reality is unknown to everyone so we can’t really factually decide on anything. Only the demand that God must do/have something humanly is paradoxical. 2. Animals can’t lift the unliftable. So much for your ‘rebuttal’, lmao. 3. Speaking in the context of God, God creating something that surpasses or is equal to God is paradoxical. Humans and technology don’t matter in this context. 4. You just tried to falsify my unfalsifiable argument. Therefore you are an imbecile. 5. The paradox proposes it. 6. My post doesn’t really portray any sort of theism, but a rather unconventional viewpoint. It’s sort of funny how you added Deidara to your point of rebuttals. Shows that you are self conscious of the antic that is your post. EDIT: An idiot worthy of acknowledgement is barely an idiot. 1. Let's assume that god can't have human characteristics. You yourself said that to lift an object, you would need a hand of some sort. A force to apply and bodily tension to sustain your lifting of the said creation and the only way it creates a paradox is if god can't lift the object without a limb. You also imply that an animal characteristic , i.e. a limb, is needed to lift something. Therefore god can't lift an object without creating a paradox and thus, is not omnipotent. 2. My argument isn't about animals lifting unliftable, it's that if to lift, a limb is required(which you said yourself) and god can't acquire a limb, then animals can do something god can't. 3. If existence of god is out of our comprehension and reality(which you said yourself) then why can't god bypass basic paradoxes which only exist because of limitations of reality? You also stated previously that the law governs creation as always inferior to its creator. If god has to abide by this law and cannot break it then this law must be created by something more powerful than god since god cannot bypass paradoxes and creating a law he cannot break is "paradoxical" in your terms. 4. Trying to falsify an unfalsifiable argument is only the logical thing to be done in an argument rather than making an unfalsifiable argument. 5. If god is illogical then why is he bound to paradoxes solely caused by limitations of logic. 6. I don't think you know what theism means. 7. Even if you don't acknowledge your theism, I'm honest enough to say that I'm a very generous atheist and I believe in sending preachers of god to his paradise with no delay. P.S. Taking care of a minor annoyance doesn't mean acknowledging it as a challenge. |
More topics from this board
Poll: » Do you pay attention to forum signatures?PostMahouShoujo - Yesterday |
18 |
by traed
»»
5 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Are you mentally ill?Ejrodiew - Yesterday |
19 |
by _Nette_
»»
5 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Worst social mediaIpreferEcchi - Mar 19 |
26 |
by Adnash
»»
18 minutes ago |
|
» Why don't boys wear dresses until they start working?vasipi4946 - Nov 22, 2023 |
24 |
by Bruh69XD
»»
29 minutes ago |
|
» Do you think there should be an age limit on friendship?Thy-Veseveia - Feb 28 |
31 |
by Bruh69XD
»»
30 minutes ago |