Author Topic: what is the premise of your main argument here...?  (Read 898 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Timo

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1316
  • Darwins +102/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • You know
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #29 on: August 07, 2014, 04:11:47 PM »
I'm kind of with frank on this.  Not knowing much from quantum mechanics, I don't understand why existence within our universe being unstable in its initial minutes is supposed to be a problem for the existence of a potential deity but not a problem for the multiverse.
Nah son...

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1344
  • Darwins +96/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #30 on: August 07, 2014, 04:13:31 PM »
It is not an attribute of a god, it is an attribute of existence.

wait, what...?  you just said the following:

T=0 is itself an unstable quantum state

and then you said...

a god could not do it. The reason is that a god cannot exist outside a universe in order to create one.

so the obvious question is... why can't this "god" you mention, exist in the "unstable quantum state" which is t=0...?

Because it is unstable. Existence itself is unstable.

o.k., so this "god" you mention is unable to exist because the "quantum state" is unstable.  got it, this god cannot exist in an unstable quantum state... any other characteristics of this "god" you would like to share...?

It is not a characteristic of the god, it is a characteristic of the state that existence is unstable.

how do know that this "god" cannot exist in an unstable quantum state...?

Existence is unstable in those circumstances. Your sentence is self contradictory.

are you saying that this "unstable quantum state" is non-existent...?

I see you are having a problem with understanding the concepts. I hope this will help. It is non-existence. That is the normal situation at t=0. An extremely limited form of existence is a temporary and unstable by-product. This existence does not persist in any form whatsoever. There is no continuity of time or space or anything else.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1344
  • Darwins +96/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #31 on: August 07, 2014, 04:21:22 PM »
I'm kind of with frank on this.  Not knowing much from quantum mechanics, I don't understand why existence within our universe being unstable in its initial minutes is supposed to be a problem for the existence of a potential deity but not a problem for the multiverse.

The difference is that a multiverse has its own space and time so it can exist.

If someone says a god can exist without space and time, that is just wishful thinking. If you want a god you have to put him in a universe, then he is longer a god.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2108
  • Darwins +132/-3
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #32 on: August 07, 2014, 04:28:37 PM »
If someone says a god can exist without space and time, that is just wishful thinking. If you want a god you have to put him in a universe, then he is longer a god.

I don't see why a god would require space or time to exist. A god by definition is supernatural, so it isn't subject to scientific law.
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline frank callaway

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 200
  • Darwins +3/-20
  • Gender: Male
  • it's a bird, it's a shark... you're fucked
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #33 on: August 07, 2014, 04:29:45 PM »
It is not an attribute of a god, it is an attribute of existence.

wait, what...?  you just said the following:

T=0 is itself an unstable quantum state

and then you said...

a god could not do it. The reason is that a god cannot exist outside a universe in order to create one.

so the obvious question is... why can't this "god" you mention, exist in the "unstable quantum state" which is t=0...?

Because it is unstable. Existence itself is unstable.

o.k., so this "god" you mention is unable to exist because the "quantum state" is unstable.  got it, this god cannot exist in an unstable quantum state... any other characteristics of this "god" you would like to share...?

It is not a characteristic of the god, it is a characteristic of the state that existence is unstable.

how do know that this "god" cannot exist in an unstable quantum state...?

Existence is unstable in those circumstances. Your sentence is self contradictory.

are you saying that this "unstable quantum state" is non-existent...?

I see you are having a problem with understanding the concepts. I hope this will help. It is non-existence. That is the normal situation at t=0. An extremely limited form of existence is a temporary and unstable by-product. This existence does not persist in any form whatsoever. There is no continuity of time or space or anything else.

so you're saying "it" is non-existence, yet "it" is an extremely limited form of existence at the same time, but not REALLY existence, just more of a "temporary and unstable by-product" (whatever that is).  this existence does not persist in any form... but "it" does exist even though "it" IS non-existence...

hey man, you sold me... i must say.  i kinda like it.  it's like when i told OAA a few days ago:

i cannot help you understand what "it" is... but "it" happened, whatever "it" is...

you and me, we on the same page foxy... (don't get mad because i used "..." screwtape)...

 
« Last Edit: August 07, 2014, 04:32:47 PM by frank callaway »
When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

-Jonathan Swift

Offline frank callaway

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 200
  • Darwins +3/-20
  • Gender: Male
  • it's a bird, it's a shark... you're fucked
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #34 on: August 07, 2014, 04:31:29 PM »
If someone says a god can exist without space and time, that is just wishful thinking. If you want a god you have to put him in a universe, then he is longer a god.

I don't see why a god would require space or time to exist. A god by definition is supernatural, so it isn't subject to scientific law.

correct zankuu... i mean, who makes up these rules you're talking about foxy...?
When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

-Jonathan Swift

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1344
  • Darwins +96/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #35 on: August 07, 2014, 04:53:18 PM »
If someone says a god can exist without space and time, that is just wishful thinking. If you want a god you have to put him in a universe, then he is longer a god.

I don't see why a god would require space or time to exist. A god by definition is supernatural, so it isn't subject to scientific law.

Where and when would he be without space and time? How could he do anything?

Space and time are not just arbitrary properties like paints on a painting which you can use or not use. They are necessary properties for existence.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1344
  • Darwins +96/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #36 on: August 07, 2014, 04:55:33 PM »
It is not an attribute of a god, it is an attribute of existence.

wait, what...?  you just said the following:

T=0 is itself an unstable quantum state

and then you said...

a god could not do it. The reason is that a god cannot exist outside a universe in order to create one.

so the obvious question is... why can't this "god" you mention, exist in the "unstable quantum state" which is t=0...?

Because it is unstable. Existence itself is unstable.

o.k., so this "god" you mention is unable to exist because the "quantum state" is unstable.  got it, this god cannot exist in an unstable quantum state... any other characteristics of this "god" you would like to share...?

It is not a characteristic of the god, it is a characteristic of the state that existence is unstable.

how do know that this "god" cannot exist in an unstable quantum state...?

Existence is unstable in those circumstances. Your sentence is self contradictory.

are you saying that this "unstable quantum state" is non-existent...?

I see you are having a problem with understanding the concepts. I hope this will help. It is non-existence. That is the normal situation at t=0. An extremely limited form of existence is a temporary and unstable by-product. This existence does not persist in any form whatsoever. There is no continuity of time or space or anything else.

so you're saying "it" is non-existence, yet "it" is an extremely limited form of existence at the same time, but not REALLY existence, just more of a "temporary and unstable by-product" (whatever that is).  this existence does not persist in any form... but "it" does exist even though "it" IS non-existence...

hey man, you sold me... i must say.  i kinda like it.  it's like when i told OAA a few days ago:

i cannot help you understand what "it" is... but "it" happened, whatever "it" is...

you and me, we on the same page foxy... (don't get mad because i used "..." screwtape)...

I never said it would be easy to understand. That is the problem with science. It is so crazy that it could not be true.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4850
  • Darwins +558/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #37 on: August 07, 2014, 05:12:23 PM »
The lack of healing for amputees doesn't disprove the existence of god, like screwtape said.  What it does disprove is the concept of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god as an actual thing that can exist.  Such a deity could make it so that limbs which were removed would quickly and painlessly return, while making sure that whatever lessons needed to be learned from the loss of the limb were retained, just as one example.

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2108
  • Darwins +132/-3
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #38 on: August 07, 2014, 05:15:46 PM »
Where and when would he be without space and time? How could he do anything?

Space and time are not just arbitrary properties like paints on a painting which you can use or not use. They are necessary properties for existence.

To a god I see no reason why space and time wouldn't be arbitrary properties that it could phase in or out of on a whim.

To answer your question, I don't have the faintest clue where or when the deity would be if it isn't within space or time. But when we discuss something limitless and supernatural like a god, we just can't put a limitation on it. For example some ideas of god are panentheistic and view existence and the universe/multiverse as residing within god or as god itself with it's boundaries/body beyond space and time.

That's why proving the nonexistence of a god using scientific law with miss the mark with deities of that sort.
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1344
  • Darwins +96/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #39 on: August 07, 2014, 05:38:33 PM »
Where and when would he be without space and time? How could he do anything?

Space and time are not just arbitrary properties like paints on a painting which you can use or not use. They are necessary properties for existence.

To a god I see no reason why space and time wouldn't be arbitrary properties that it could phase in or out of on a whim.

To answer your question, I don't have the faintest clue where or when the deity would be if it isn't within space or time. But when we discuss something limitless and supernatural like a god, we just can't put a limitation on it. For example some ideas of god are panentheistic and view existence and the universe/multiverse as residing within god or as god itself with it's boundaries/body beyond space and time.

That's why proving the nonexistence of a god using scientific law with miss the mark with deities of that sort.

I think there is a difference between imagination and what is actually possible. People can always make up imaginary qualities for a god to define it further beyond the boundaries of knowledge.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline shnozzola

Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #40 on: August 07, 2014, 06:54:04 PM »
So Frank, you say this -
Quote
"what if all there IS, is empirical evidence that god is real...etc, etc"

Which observable evidence are you talking about?  The sun rising and setting?  That someone loves you?  Or just the fact that we... er... life, had to have sprung from H+ ions etc. organizing itself over eons since T = 0?

Are you saying YOU find existence unbelievable without a god creator, or are you just questioning it all for the fun of it?

If you read the front page of the website - the author, Marshall Brain  -  that started this all, I believe, also added a link -

   http://decidingtobebetter.com/

   Looking at where Marshall leads in this other site, the cynic will so, "Oh what a namby-pamby do-gooder Oprah/Disney-like view.  But you see, that's the problem.  Many times religious views are currently the "turn the desert to glass view", or the "pry the gun from my dead fingers view", or the extremist Islam caliphate view, or the Hamas is better than Israel is better than Hamas is better than Israel view, always the "fuck everybody else I got what I want" view. 

   Although I very much doubt it, I wish there WAS a god, and it would allow humanity to separate ourselves into 2 paths - like 2 worlds - one the" fuck everybody else" view, and one the" deciding to be better" view, and we could watch each other's world, and see if there really might be a heaven and a hell.
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Offline eh!

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1334
  • Darwins +49/-30
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #41 on: August 07, 2014, 09:47:01 PM »
the challenge is to make this world (the only one we know exists) heaven, or not. hoping big daddy magic man will provide us with one when we die is an evil thought.
Signature goes here...

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2999
  • Darwins +265/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #42 on: August 07, 2014, 10:08:00 PM »
If you read the front page of the website - the author, Marshall Brain  -  that started this all, I believe, also added a link -

   http://decidingtobebetter.com/

DTBB also has a group going on Reddit, which I've been following for a couple of months now.  I wish it was as lively as here, with more of a discussion thread layout, but there's a lot of useful information there if you want to do some serious self-improvement.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Online bertatberts

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1412
  • Darwins +49/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Humanists. Not perfect. Not forgiven. Responsible.
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #43 on: August 08, 2014, 03:19:50 AM »
Where and when would he be without space and time? How could he do anything?

Space and time are not just arbitrary properties like paints on a painting which you can use or not use. They are necessary properties for existence.

To a god I see no reason why space and time wouldn't be arbitrary properties that it could phase in or out of on a whim.

To answer your question, I don't have the faintest clue where or when the deity would be if it isn't within space or time. But when we discuss something limitless and supernatural like a god, we just can't put a limitation on it. For example some ideas of god are panentheistic and view existence and the universe/multiverse as residing within god or as god itself with it's boundaries/body beyond space and time.

That's why proving the nonexistence of a god using scientific law with miss the mark with deities of that sort.

No one is putting limits on this god concept. it can be as huge as the imagination can be. However arbitrary or not. Whenever this god thing zips out of time and space, how does it get back in, without invoking time.
Unless of course it's zipping into another place that contains time and space, but that would just make the move (excuse the pun) a waste of time.
We theists have no evidence for our beliefs. So no amount of rational evidence will dissuade us from those beliefs. - JCisall

It would be pretty piss poor brainwashing, if the victims knew they were brainwashed, wouldn't it? - Screwtape. 04/12/12

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1344
  • Darwins +96/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #44 on: August 08, 2014, 04:44:27 AM »
Where and when would he be without space and time? How could he do anything?

Space and time are not just arbitrary properties like paints on a painting which you can use or not use. They are necessary properties for existence.

To a god I see no reason why space and time wouldn't be arbitrary properties that it could phase in or out of on a whim.

To answer your question, I don't have the faintest clue where or when the deity would be if it isn't within space or time. But when we discuss something limitless and supernatural like a god, we just can't put a limitation on it. For example some ideas of god are panentheistic and view existence and the universe/multiverse as residing within god or as god itself with it's boundaries/body beyond space and time.

That's why proving the nonexistence of a god using scientific law with miss the mark with deities of that sort.

I think there is a difference between imagination and what is actually possible. People can always make up imaginary qualities for a god to define it further beyond the boundaries of knowledge.

A readers' guide to the imagination.

Let's say there is a god in a heaven and he wants you there. Now you are in heaven, what can you see? Can a god make colours?  There is a problem. Colours are subjective and cultural. You might think colours are real but they are only arbitrary abstract qualities. They have no reality except in perception. But colours obviously have a cause, the wavelengths of radiation, and this depends on a well ordered universe so a god would have to live in a well ordered universe with physical laws. Next, take time and space. Time and space are also arbitrary abstract qualities of perception. Time is not easy to think about, most people don't remember time very well, and the way time and space are thought about has cultural aspects too. The reality of time and space is that they are not independent of each other or of existence. Like colours, it is only in human perception that time and space might feel independent of existence. It is the basic problem that our brains have evolved to interpret reality from a particular point of view which suits a particular situation. The way people normally imagine reality to be is not actually true. This is the mistake which theists make when they use imagination to construct alternative realities.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2014, 04:47:28 AM by Foxy Freedom »
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6621
  • Darwins +523/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #45 on: August 08, 2014, 04:59:58 AM »
Seriously Foxy  I wouldn't bother. he's trolling.

am i being trolled right now...?  seriously, i'm not trolling.  i'm after the "precise idea".
Frank:
The essence of the god, Yahweh, is that He is supposed to do things for which we can find no other explanation.

We know this because, back in the day, people believed that God made people blind/deaf/dumb[1]. We now know that it is genetics/disease that does this, not God.

So, when we worship God, we are worshiping that which we do not understand. This is the explanation of “The God of the Gaps” – believers fill in the gaps in their knowledge by saying “God did it.”

The more we know, the fewer the areas in which God can be credited with doing something.

This is basically, worshipping your own ignorance.

In line with this, God only ever does miracle cures of infirmities and disease the cause of which is (or was) not fully understood[2].

We fully understand a lost limb. Therefore God does not cause amputated limbs to re-grow. If someone said, “I lost my left leg in an accident 3 years ago, but it grew back again instantly.” You would not believe him. You would not believe him even if he added “God did it.”

At all times up until the present, no amputated limbs have re-grown.[3]

So, “Why doesn’t God Heal Amputees?”
 1.  Joh:9:2: And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?
Joh:9:3: Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.
 2.  M't:21:14: And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them.
Lu:7:22: Then Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached.
 3. However, lizards, insects and crabs can all re-grow limbs - what might be God's thinking on this? Why them, not us?
« Last Edit: August 08, 2014, 05:01:58 AM by Graybeard »
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12215
  • Darwins +659/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #46 on: August 08, 2014, 08:19:55 AM »
Frank and Foxy

please don't nest more than two quotes.  It takes up a lot of space and make the page more difficult to read.  Thanks.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12215
  • Darwins +659/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #47 on: August 08, 2014, 08:25:00 AM »
frank,

I'm curious. You started this thread with a question, which I feel was pretty well answered in the first two posts.  Instead of responding to the substantive points in those posts, or thanking us for answering your question, you attempted to construct a strawman argument, made a bunch of flippant replies, focused on nonissues and then derailed your own thread. 

I'm curious why we should think of you as anything but a troll?  I would like a serious and thought out answer.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline frank callaway

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 200
  • Darwins +3/-20
  • Gender: Male
  • it's a bird, it's a shark... you're fucked
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #48 on: August 08, 2014, 08:50:15 AM »
frank,

I'm curious. You started this thread with a question, which I feel was pretty well answered in the first two posts.  Instead of responding to the substantive points in those posts, or thanking us for answering your question, you attempted to construct a strawman argument, made a bunch of flippant replies, focused on nonissues and then derailed your own thread. 

I'm curious why we should think of you as anything but a troll?  I would like a serious and thought out answer.

i beseech you to point me to any thread on this entire site that has not diverted from the original question.  you may find a few, but the VAST majority veer from the OP, some come back to topic and others do not.  so i ask, have you made this same comment on numerous other threads here on wwgha...?

furthermore, everyone's premise is different, each individual has their own particular worldview.  oh sure, i went down into the black hole with foxy, but really, that same black hole is ultimately where 90% of these threads end up.  so while you may consider it a "derailment" i consider it a "free flow of conversation and ideas".  that's one thing i've picked up about you screwtape, you're rigid in your ideology... you should try to stretch things out a bit more...
When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

-Jonathan Swift

Offline frank callaway

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 200
  • Darwins +3/-20
  • Gender: Male
  • it's a bird, it's a shark... you're fucked
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #49 on: August 08, 2014, 09:12:31 AM »
So, when we worship God, we are worshiping that which we do not understand. This is the explanation of “The God of the Gaps” – believers fill in the gaps in their knowledge by saying “God did it.”

The more we know, the fewer the areas in which God can be credited with doing something.

This is basically, worshipping your own ignorance.

screwtape had this same type of thought about knowledge... that the more we know the fewer areas God has to hide.  but again, with each piece of new knowledge comes a new set of questions.  is knowledge indefinitely progressive...? i believe one day i will know that of which i am now ignorant, but are we capable of complete knowledge, of becoming omniscient ourselves..." that's an interesting idea to me.

At all times up until the present, no amputated limbs have re-grown.[1]

So, “Why doesn’t God Heal Amputees?”
 1. However, lizards, insects and crabs can all re-grow limbs - what might be God's thinking on this? Why them, not us?

i see what you're saying here... but if we're talking about an omniscient being, the all powerful alpha & omega, the beginning and the end... we have to ask not only why this supreme being doesn't heal amputees, but why do i have to encounter traffic on my way into the office... or why do i have to go to the office at all...?  why should i have to work, or eat, or breath, or anything... why God doesn't heal amputees would be way down on my list of questions.  but i think the "heart" of this "God" would be somewhere in the arena of "deciding to be better"... but deciding to be better also infers a "free will" it sounds like a statement in which you have a "choice"... as if WE are the source of our own thoughts and actions.  yet the facts tell us that free will is an illusion...
When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

-Jonathan Swift

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2108
  • Darwins +132/-3
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #50 on: August 08, 2014, 10:01:48 AM »
I think there is a difference between imagination and what is actually possible. People can always make up imaginary qualities for a god to define it further beyond the boundaries of knowledge.

Well I think all god’s are imaginary, but you’ve hit the nail on the head. People can imagine those types of qualities which is exactly why relativistic quantum field theory argument can't disprove a god's existence.

No one is putting limits on this god concept. it can be as huge as the imagination can be. However arbitrary or not. Whenever this god thing zips out of time and space, how does it get back in, without invoking time.
Unless of course it's zipping into another place that contains time and space, but that would just make the move (excuse the pun) a waste of time.

How does Yahweh invoke the growth of horns on Moses’ forehead when Moses views his backside? How does Zeus conjure a lightning bolt? How does Kingu’s blood form into human organs? Asking how a deity zips in and out of space/time is a fruitless question like those examples. It’s a supernatural law breaking being. It doesn’t matter if we know how it’s done- these beings just do it (supposedly).

Foxy’s argument that a god can’t exist in t=0 IS putting a limitation on it. What if this unknown being thrives in unstable quantum states? What if the area outside of the universe is an incubation chamber for infantile gods? We couldn’t possibly know. And I think it’s unfair to say we do.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2014, 10:31:27 AM by Zankuu »
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline frank callaway

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 200
  • Darwins +3/-20
  • Gender: Male
  • it's a bird, it's a shark... you're fucked
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #51 on: August 08, 2014, 10:05:11 AM »
humanity to separate ourselves into 2 paths - like 2 worlds - one the" fuck everybody else" view, and one the" deciding to be better" view, and we could watch each other's world, and see if there really might be a heaven and a hell.

have you ever read the reluctant messiah by richard bach... just a short easy read... with some interesting ideas.   one of the thoughts goes like this - "the measure of a person ignorance is their depth of belief in other people's pain and suffering"... or something close to that, i'm remembering this off the top of my head... but you get the idea.
When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

-Jonathan Swift

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12215
  • Darwins +659/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #52 on: August 08, 2014, 11:00:38 AM »
i beseech you to point me to any thread on this entire site that has not diverted from the original question.  you may find a few, but the VAST majority veer from the OP, some come back to topic and others do not.  so i ask, have you made this same comment on numerous other threads here on wwgha...?

furthermore, everyone's premise is different, each individual has their own particular worldview.  oh sure, i went down into the black hole with foxy, but really, that same black hole is ultimately where 90% of these threads end up.  so while you may consider it a "derailment" i consider it a "free flow of conversation and ideas".  that's one thing i've picked up about you screwtape, you're rigid in your ideology... you should try to stretch things out a bit more...

this post completely evades the questions and misses the point.  It was neither serious nor well thought out. Please try again.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Online bertatberts

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1412
  • Darwins +49/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Humanists. Not perfect. Not forgiven. Responsible.
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #53 on: August 08, 2014, 11:16:56 AM »
No one is putting limits on this god concept. it can be as huge as the imagination can be. However arbitrary or not. Whenever this god thing zips out of time and space, how does it get back in, without invoking time.
Unless of course it's zipping into another place that contains time and space, but that would just make the move (excuse the pun) a waste of time.

How does Yahweh invoke the growth of horns on Moses’ forehead when Moses views his backside? How does Zeus conjure a lightning bolt? How does Kingu’s blood form into human organs? Asking how a deity zips in and out of space/time is a fruitless question like those examples. It’s a supernatural law breaking being. It doesn’t matter if we know how it’s done- these beings just do it (supposedly).

Foxy’s argument that a god can’t exist in t=0 IS putting a limitation on it. What if this unknown being thrives in unstable quantum states? What if the area outside of the universe is an incubation chamber for infantile gods? We couldn’t possibly know. And I think it’s unfair to say we do.
Well I agree with you if we only think of this god thing as imaginary, however the theist does not. And as such it must follow the same rules for them as we do. If it is to be claimed to exist. Least it remains imaginary.
We theists have no evidence for our beliefs. So no amount of rational evidence will dissuade us from those beliefs. - JCisall

It would be pretty piss poor brainwashing, if the victims knew they were brainwashed, wouldn't it? - Screwtape. 04/12/12

Online JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2026
  • Darwins +203/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #54 on: August 08, 2014, 10:15:36 PM »
We don't know what came before the event, we don't say. it just happened we just don't know.

and that's the boat we're all floating in... maybe someday we'll figure it out... maybe not.

If that is the case, its a lot smarter to say "I don't know" than to firmly assert some shit about an invisible man in the sky, isn't it? 
Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6621
  • Darwins +523/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #55 on: August 09, 2014, 07:12:08 AM »

screwtape had this same type of thought about knowledge... that the more we know the fewer areas God has to hide.  but again, with each piece of new knowledge comes a new set of questions.  is knowledge indefinitely progressive...? i believe one day i will know that of which i am now ignorant,
This is certainly true.
Quote
but are we capable of complete knowledge, of becoming omniscient ourselves..." that's an interesting idea to me.
No. That state is not possible. It is the speed at which data can be assimilated that prevents it. Unfortunately, the question is a little vague: for example, you would have to understand the final intricacies of photosynthesis in plants and know what an Amazonian tribesman were thinking, just in case it was important.

I take it that by the we” in “we capable of complete knowledge” to mean “there would be a set of people, whose individual knowledge, when added together, would amount to all that could be known.”

It may be that, by “knowledge” you mean “how things work.” 

Based upon the growth of knowledge since the Enlightenment, knowing “how things work.”  has been pretty stupendous, but we may never understand some things fully.

That said, I invented a way to pick the winner 9 times out of 10 in a horserace, even if I did not understand it, it would work. Obviously, however, I would not attribute it to a god.

Quote
… but if we're talking about an omniscient being, the all powerful alpha & omega, the beginning and the end... we have to ask not only why this supreme being doesn't heal amputees, but why do i have to encounter traffic on my way into the office... or why do i have to go to the office at all...?  why should i have to work, or eat, or breath, or anything...
Well, we might have to ask these things, but we know the answers.
Quote
why God doesn't heal amputees would be way down on my list of questions.
If you were an amputee or a medical insurance company, it might be somewhat higher. You can, of course, reply as to where your priorities are but that does not explain WWGHA?

I hope you have seen “Monty Python and The Holy Grail." Early in the film a witch is being tried. The John Cleese character calls out from the crowd “She changed me into a newt!”

There is sudden silence and the crowd start looking at him. “John Cleese adds, “…I got better!”

The lack of amputees being healed in the Bible is because the crowd would not have believed it. There is a limit to falsehoods if you wish to be believed[1].  A more Biblical example is from one of the gospels that did not make it into the Bible: Jesus is approached by two sisters who claim that their brother was turned into a donkey by a witch -> Jesus restores the man to his normal self.

We can see why it ended up on the cutting-room floor at Nicaea.

Quote
but i think the "heart" of this "God" would be somewhere in the arena of "deciding to be better"... but deciding to be better also infers a "free will" it sounds like a statement in which you have a "choice"... as if WE are the source of our own thoughts and actions.  yet the facts tell us that free will is an illusion...
I agree, the NT comprises some stories that say, “Be reasonable”. It is massively marred (i) by others saying “or else you burn forever.” (ii) an inability to move with the times.
 1. I cite the story of the angel at the pool of Bethesda in Mark(?) it is omitted from many Bibles presumably because checking on it was too easy.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline eh!

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1334
  • Darwins +49/-30
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #56 on: August 09, 2014, 07:38:52 PM »
reminds me of all those (mostly bored American housewives) that get abducted by aliens sexually molested by them and kept as sex slaves for eons while they put earth time on pause and when the aliens are done they return the hapless women to their beds where they got them and they wake up next to their unsuspecting husbands with repressed memories and go on to make television appearances and write a book about their experiences.
Signature goes here...

Offline Airyaman

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4161
  • Darwins +17/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Alignment: True Neutral
    • Moving Beyond Faith
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #57 on: August 09, 2014, 07:46:30 PM »
God doesn't heal amputees. God doesn't answer prayers. God basically does...nothing.

So God is either on a long vacation or he doesn't exist.
If you are following God why can I still see you?