1340 replies to this topic

[Ash]

Lol, well, Google's being wanky so far. But yeah, it's funny shit if you bother to look at those dumb ads..

[Banshee]

But by saying that thing, Banshee, you can't claim God to be omnipotent because all or part of him is adhering to a law. Were God to be omnipotent, the laws themselves wouldn't exist because the particles wouldn't adhere to them...


You have to make your mind up. You can't just call my argument crap when you've tripped yourself up or disproven something you've said...

- My ideas are very clear in my mind and they are even more clear in my last post.

I wouldn't be persisting in this argument except that I am insensed that you profess my idea to be "crap" despite the fact I've just rattled the cage X number of times...

You claim that God is omnipotent.
You claim that God is every particle and everything.

And yea, God is omnipotent because it is the universe. It is everything. I keep my words and they are not contradicting with anything.

These two statements directly contradict...if God is omnipotent, why is all or part of God adhering to the laws that hold the universe together (God is every particle, remember)?

Laws... you have to remember that laws are an abstract thing. Laws are one of the inumerous ways that humans try to generalize events that happens on the environment. Therefore laws are our concepts. God particles doesn't give a shit to laws. But we study their interaction to make up the physics and whatever else laws to explain their interaction. Therefore saying that God particles adhere to any laws is ridiculous. Our laws are what try to explain their interaction and it is subject to failures. If you do any laboratory class in your school and/or university, you'll notice that your experiences will not match the theory, although they will get close to it, with an error usually smaller than 10% depending on the equipment you use and how things are done in the process (i've just sent another physics lab report, so I know what I'm saying... my experience had about 11% of error on it).

Therefore, your insistence on God not being omnipotent because its particles adhere to physics laws are ridiculous. The physics laws are what are constantly being adhered to the explanation of the interaction of God particles. Therefore God makes the rules and not the oposite. Of course that everything interaction of the particles cause a chain of consequences that makes sense but it's too complex to any human to explain it with maximum acuracy.

If God is everything that exists and has ever existed, then God must also be the concepts we make, and must also actually BE the laws of physics. Which means God basically shoots his omnipotence in the foot.

That's your main mistake. Universe and all particles on it are concrete things. Concepts are abstract. They are not part of the universe. They are part of our imagination. For the universe, they are only a bit of electrical charge travelling through your neurons.

The anomaly
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Anomaly is a certain philosophy and or spiritual belief system, related to various modern mystic philosophies and beliefs, which asserts that there are certain mathematical, musical, artistic, and physical anomalies which are at their core inexplainable and have mystic and spiritual significance. Moreover, these anomalies are interrelated in a mystical and profound way which may point to an over-all "Anomaly" that is, a singular unexplainable, ineffable mystery of existence.
good enough for me.

Good enough for you? Wow, you'll base something on bugger all, then. What amuses me is that this anomaly is the base for all religion. Religion is there to explain what we don't understand. What you might as well say is "We don't know," which, if the original progenitors of religion had said, would have kept it real and interesting...
That post was only barely relevant to the question I posed to Banshee, and it basically said nothing but what we in the UK refer to as "flannel."


You know, I can't wait till we work out how to revive a person who's been stone dead for two hours to ask them...then the scores will really change!

I also disagree with you on this. Religion is a way of life to prevent the chaos in a community. However, in order to convince people to follow certain laws or understand the concept behind the rules or statements that sustain a certain way of life, people try to bring explanations or concepts for something they can or can't explain.

Otherwise, all the nazi propaganda to explain that the Arian race would be superior to others would also be considered a religion and they also based their whole propaganda on myths, just like all religions do.

[MSpencer]

If you look at religion, then look at numerous Goebbels campaigns from the 1930s and 1940s, you'll definitely see quite a few similarities. Goebbels was a genius, the writers of the Bible were one better. When you place a book in the sky and say "This is the word of god, embrace it and you will find eternal happiness", and then fill that book with cryptic messages warning of the "evils" of such things as science, other beliefs, homosexuality, and questioning authority, you instantly create a society unwilling to jeapordize their place in the heavens by questioning the long held beliefs of 1 billion people on the earth. If there is one thing in the world which holds us back as a people, it is religion, especially Christianity.

[Drewry]

All of the so called evils you mentioned were all from the old testament. What jesus did was he said that he was replacing the old covenant with a new, basically telling us that all of that old religious traditions are now no longer needed. The traditional view of europe during the holy roman empire was based on the old testament. In fact most evangelists base their views on the old testament. Let me describe it to you like this, old testament view (out-dated) eye for an eye, new testament view - turn the other cheek.

I dont see how religion holds science back. Jesus taught us to question the world around us. Ask why? To question authority. Whereas the old testament taught us those old traditional values. So you see, it is not that christianity holds humanity back, it is the interpretation that does.

[Blodo]

Interpretation of the religion is what makes the religion itself, unfortunately. If the book was written in riddles, it was more than obvious that it would be decoded in a way that would benefit those who want power the most.

Best example is how the church is ridiculous on the subject of researching stem cells. Something that could prove vital to medicine in ventures such as replacing lost limbs and creating new organs.

[MSpencer]

For all of you who are saying "OMG MONKEYS!!!", Scientific American just came out with a new special edition called Becoming Human. It's all about the evolutionary development of Homo sapien from various forms of advanced primates later culminating in Austrolopithicus, then through the various steps of habilis, erectus, and neanderthalis. I haven't read it yet, but it really looks good so far. The terms aren't too complicated either, normally if you don't understand something Wikipedia should have some good articles about the finer principles of evolutionary biology.

Edited by MSpencer, 26 July 2006 - 08:19 PM.

[Tom]

Spence, stop reading books, otherwise this is what it does to ya see, makes you smart and when your smart religion cannot attack you. You also fail to remember that science would be nothing without religion as religion would also be nothing without science. Pwnt

[Ash]

For Banshee's consideration:

"Laws are an abstract thing."

So is God. If God is everything, then God is also the laws. If God isn't the laws, then God is not everything. Thus this is a contradiction.

If God isn't the laws, but adheres to them, then God is not omnipotent. To say otherwise is a contradiction. In being everything (including laws or not including laws notwithstanding), God can do nothing but adhere to the laws. The fact God adheres to the laws denies his omnipotence. Otherwise, he'd defy the laws.

There. My point cannot be made much clearer than that. If you insist on persisting in arguing the case, then that is your prerogative.

[Banshee]

*/me shoots Paradox 4, 5, 6, 7... 100 times until I make sure there is nothing left of him*

Therefore saying that God particles adhere to any laws is ridiculous. Our laws are what try to explain their interaction and it is subject to failures.

[Athena]

I kind of failed to understand the last two posts.

[Ash]

I fail to understand what's hard to understand...the particles are adhering to the laws that they adhere to...you must've totally misread my posts for this to keep grating at you, Bansh...

Tbh tho I notice he's taking exception to every word I say, even tho I've done my damnedest not to rise to it...

[Hostile]

Ash if you don't believe in God, than all the words in the world will come through filtered, based on your belief.

It's kinda like making an argument with MSpencer, where LOTR is as relavant as The Bible. No point in making any case.

The Bible, War and Peace, LOTR, and all the other great works. Defeat God, by placecating it to something as irrelevant as a simple book.

How can one make a case and discuss something with someone whos mind is so small that is cannot even take the time to evaluate the other side?

People would make it appear, as soon as I say I believe in God, means that everythiong else I ever said EVER is BS. Because we all know if someone believes in God, than they clearly must be crazy.

Too much of an imbalance. "Shoot the God believers! Quick shoot them before somone is able to talk"

Trying to bring up another point of view at Revora is pointless. MAYBE science and religion might be two diferant ways of looking at the same thing. "Quick, shoot him in the head, he religious!" appears to be science way of deciding the issue.

(WAIT!) I can even change my online message to ALL people who knows that someone named MS will shoot anyone who even declares they faintly believe in God. Because obviously, if one believes there might be a God must be absolutely crazy, and worth shooting. WTF?

Whatever....

[Banshee]

I've missed a part of it which was also replied previously. So, let's redo the quote job here:

"Laws are an abstract thing."

So is God. wink.gif If God is everything, then God is also the laws. If God isn't the laws, then God is not everything. Thus this is a contradiction.

The answer:

Universe and all particles on it are concrete things. Concepts are abstract. They are not part of the universe. They are part of our imagination. For the universe, they are only a bit of electrical charge travelling through your neurons.

Final note: Therefore God, being the universe, is concrete and not abstract.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If God isn't the laws, but adheres to them, then God is not omnipotent. To say otherwise is a contradiction. In being everything (including laws or not including laws notwithstanding), God can do nothing but adhere to the laws. The fact God adheres to the laws denies his omnipotence. Otherwise, he'd defy the laws.

The answer:

The physics laws are what are constantly being adhered to the explanation of the interaction of God particles. Therefore God makes the rules and not the oposite. Of course that everything interaction of the particles cause a chain of consequences that makes sense but it's too complex to any human to explain it with maximum acuracy.

So, God does not adhere to any law. These laws are made by us, humans, to explain the interaction of the particles and try to predict the future/results from it. Remember that God is every single damn particle in the universe, but laws are abstract things... they aren't particles or anything that really exists outside our imagination.

[Ash]

Ash if you don't believe in God, than all the words in the world will come through filtered, based on your belief.

Is that not also the case for those who do believe in God?

How can one make a case and discuss something with someone whos mind is so small that is cannot even take the time to evaluate the other side?

I am evaluating the other side. One has to expect to have their believes questioned or challenged in some way. Am I not allowed to say, "Yes, but have you considered X, Y, or Z?" If not, then I see religious discussion as the most pointless crock of bollocks that there has ever been, because people take exception to their beliefs being questioned. Throw some questions at my atheist beliefs if you fancy. I really don't mind at all. I just find it quite staggering that whenever I point to a hole that's been poked in the logic (or a contradiction), I get my words described as being a load of crap, and I get people saying they want to see me get shot a hundred times.

People would make it appear, as soon as I say I believe in God, means that everythiong else I ever said EVER is BS. Because we all know if someone believes in God, than they clearly must be crazy.

Too much of an imbalance. "Shoot the God believers! Quick shoot them before somone is able to talk"

Yes, but most of the religious people here are all: "SHUN THE UNBELIEVERS! SHUUUUN!"

Trying to bring up another point of view at Revora is pointless.

I agree completely.

MAYBE science and religion might be two diferant ways of looking at the same thing. "Quick, shoot him in the head, he religious!" appears to be science way of deciding the issue.

Yes. My theory behind religion is surely a sound one. People couldn't explain things 2000 years ago, so they came up with religion as a means to explain it. I don't begrudge people their faiths as you seem to think I do. Frankly, you could believe in the Great Spaghetti Monster for all I care. But remember thar religion has its fair share of "Shoot him in the head" people. You can hide behind false pretenses of "oh, the crusaders weren't religious" or "Hitler wasn't religious" all you damn well want, but the fact is, people have killed for their beliefs throughout history. Five centuries ago, I'd be killed for not believing. I'm not killing you people. I am allowed to ask questions. Ask why. Ask how. I'm allowed to point out contradictions in terms, am I not?

If you religious people can't take a bit of questioning here or there, then you are as blindly zealous and closed-minded as you hypocritically claim me to be.

Final note: Therefore God, being the universe, is concrete and not abstract.

Fair enough. But in being concrete and not abstract, God is not everything that exists. God cannot be in your heart in an abstract sense, because you just said he ain't abstract.

The universe is not omnipotent. One atom cannot go kill ten people because it wants to. Nor can one man create an atom. I will explain in terms of your next point below:

The physics laws are what are constantly being adhered to the explanation of the interaction of God particles. Therefore God makes the rules and not the oposite. Of course that everything interaction of the particles cause a chain of consequences that makes sense but it's too complex to any human to explain it with maximum acuracy.

So, God does not adhere to any law. These laws are made by us, humans, to explain the interaction of the particles and try to predict the future/results from it. Remember that God is every single damn particle in the universe, but laws are abstract things... they aren't particles or anything that really exists outside our imagination.

No. The laws of physics, gravity and molecular physics are NOT made by us. The laws were already in place. We just discovered them; we didn't invent them any more than we 'invented' oxygen. If God is every single damn particle in space, then God is adhering to laws. They may be 'abstract concepts', but they are there. I refer you to Newton's Laws of Motion. Show me those laws being truly defied. No? Well, then, God is not only omnipresent (he is not abstract concepts as well as the physical and the tangible), but he is not omnipotent. This is the point I've been trying to get across.

Bansh, I really do respect your views even though you think I don't. But you haven't given me a logical answer to prove my statement that your points are a contradiction is wrong

I say that to any religous person too. There's only one person whose beliefs I would utterly say are wrong, and that's mostly because that person never explained himself beyond posting four or five random words here or there. You all know who I mean. Anyone's entitled to their beliefs. You can have your God, your Allah, your Buddha, your Ganesh and whoever else. I can have my atheism. None of us are ever going to agree, probably. But in order to advance one's belief, is it not right that one must first question them? And answer the questions?

[Athena]

.. I still don't understand stuff lol.

[Mathijs]

I couldn't really be bothered with reading all of this, but something came to mind when reading some of the earlier posts.

If God is everything, then what do you believe in? In your table, the rocks outside or the trees? How can you define God when God is everything? How can something you define as a ''being'' or a ''thing'' (and yes, you define it like that, since you call it by a name, God) be everything? How can you believe in a specific, named ''object'' when that object is everything in the entire world. That just doesn't fit.

[Athena]

Don't the Jedi also say the Force is everywhere? Or did I mix something up?

[Ash]

*Knows what Blaat will put on her census papers when they come through*

[Athena]

LOL.. I know it's fiction but this 'whether something can be everywhere' thing reminded me of it .

[MSpencer]

Name: Gaia Skywalker
Age: The Force knows no age
Place of Birth: Alderaan
Current Residence: Coruscant
Occupation: Jedi Master
Income per Year: $0 - 25,000

Something like that?