Regarding the Existence or Absence of God

[goldenarm]

Originally posted by daniel_m


to armstrong, it will have seemed exactly as though he made all his choices. but that would obviously have been an illusion. he was merely acting out a prewritten script.

FINALLY, we're getting somewhere! From Armstrong's perspective, he DOES have free will and follows his choices to become an American icon. From God's perspective, it is a prewritten script since God is all-knowing.

As far as mankind is concerned, we are following our FREE WILL. God's knowledge of the choices we will make has no bearing on what we choose to do today.

Our future is God's past. Just like yesterday was my past.

For example, at 7:30am yesterday morning I took a massive dump and ate a bowl of Grape Nuts. I got dressed and took the subway to my office on 49th and 5th Avenue. At 9:00am, I was at the secretary's desk, sharing jokes while ogling her ample cleavage. Fast forward to today. Looking back, did I have free will to eat Life cereal instead of Grape Nuts? Could I have skipped work? Could I have walked to work instead of taking the subway? Could I have taken a dump at the office? Could I have avoided the secretary's charms and gone straight to my desk or could I have pinched her well-rounded butt? Could I have punched my co-worker's lights out? YES to all. I don't believe that I was "forced" to follow yesterday's sequence of events.

But since the events of yesterday are past, then from my perspective, my actions have become "pre-ordained" or pre-written. Well, this is the case with God. Our future is his past, so you could imply that our actions were "pre-ordained". But we can still choose what we will do tomorrow or at least we are operating under the ILLUSION that we can choose. It really doesn't matter how you define it since the result is the same.

To summarize, we BELIEVE that we are in control of our actions. Maybe we ARE just actors in God's cosmic script. But as long as the illusion of free will exists, then this is an irrelevant condition and has no bearing on the choices we make.

You're making some progress, Danny-boy! I'm proud of you! Maybe by your 1000th post, you'll admit the POSSIBILITY that God exists!

 

[I Missed Boat]

Originally posted by axeman



COULD being the key word.

Zornoph COULD have created this universe.
My big foot COULD be god.
Little purple unicorns COULD exist in separate space and time.
Three headed demons COULD exit ouside of our human comprehension.

This is what bugs me about your position Boat.

You muddy the waters with a bunch of COULD's which
bring absolutely NOTHING to the table.

You have no rational reason to even CONSIDER such
nonsense, yet you consistently step in and mention
these silly notions. They are completely arbitrary
and unsupported.

peace

axeman

First of all, if I establish that something CAN happen, then it is not "unsupported." You keep throwing that around incorrectly!

Secondly, I'm not muddying the waters. Your unicorns of very simple, imagined earthly beings. The idea that something extremely abstract might be responsible for the order in the universe is not an unreasonable notion.

I have said it several times now, and I will say it again. I believe that I AM "bringing something to the table," because there have been many absolutes argued here, by both sides, that are faulty, and some erroneous arguments in general. I think addressing these is important (although obviously I have a cut off, since I'm not about to address every stupid think that, say, T-Dolt says). I'm sorry if arguing against incorrect absolutes and pointing out incomprehensibility of the universe "muddies the waters" for you. Apparently you want everything to fit into our neat little world.

 

[I Missed Boat]

Originally posted by axeman
I don't have the time to counter respond to all
of your other posts Ive missed, so im gonna summarize instead.

Correct me anywhere Im wrong because im going to
paraphrase how I see a position you constantly jump into
arguments with.

Originally posted by axeman

It SEEMS thats your entire belief base stems from:
"I think therefore I am", followed by:
"We cant truly KNOW anything other than just that 100%".

This is not at all where my "entire" belief system is founded. That's ridiculous! It is the only one part of the point that we are highly limited in what we can know.

Originally posted by axeman

You then attack logic and reason by pointing
at contradictions in mathematics.

Daniel correctly pointed out that this doesn't not invalidate
all of math and logic.

I only "attacked" it insofar as I said, noted rather, that they are based on unprovable assumptions and even some contradictions. I've never said that this "invalidates" all of math and logic. I've said that it reflects our limitations though. They are our most objective way of studying the universe. Moreover, physicists have had to borrow from two contradictory models at times just to explain some of the apparent realities in the universe.

Originally posted by axeman

The interesting part to this all is that you even
partake in ANY debate at ALL since you SEEM believe
you cant "really know anything" outside of your own existence.

To know with absolute certainty, this is true. But obviously I get outta bed in the morning and conduct my daily life, and I consider what to the best of my abilities, I can reasonably consider or must in order to livey my life. Considering that a God is POSSIBLE IS reasonable. Otherwise I would simply throw out erroneous absolutes.

Originally posted by axeman

You also use human logic and reasoning to attempt
to show that human logic and reasoning is faulty.
Obviously, if it IS faulty, then your argument could
be faulty too for the very same reason.
This is quite humorous!

Quite humorous to you I guess. What a ridiculous point to make. It's almost childish. We discuss epistemology and the nature of the universe. I point out that mathematicians, among others, have proven that math is based on unprovable assumptions and you say, "yuckayucka, that means everything you're saying could be faulty. yuckayuckayucka." And what??

Originally posted by axeman

You also SEEM very hypocritical because you jump around
waving the "you cant know anything flag" all day long
yet you go on living life as if WE exist, the market exists,
your computer exists, etc etc etc

I just address this. This is so stupid. In order to operate, I must assume everyone else exists. If nothing else, it serves my purposes. If nothing else is real, well then assuming this entertains me. Or perhaps everyone does exist, and not assuming it would lead to serious problems for me. Stop erroneously throwing around so many absurd accusations, in this case about hypocrisy.

Originally posted by axeman

The fact is.... if you want to be very technical, your right,
we cant truly prove anything outside of "I exist" with 100% certainty.

But we know the universe is not black and white.
It is full of probabilities. There are very few absolutes, if any.

The PROBABILITY that this is all real, is assumed to be high.
We have no evidence to believe that is actually all an illusion.
We COULD simply all be brains in a jar connected to a super
computer. Or MAYBE we exist in the MATRIX, like in the movie.

THIS is a straw man argument. You are taking one legitimate point I made to demonstrate our limitations, and you are arguing everything based on that one point. Although ultimately we don't know any of this is real for sure, I agree that we have to assume it is, as long as we still RECOGNIZE THE FURTHER LIMITATIONS of our knowledge and logic systems (even assuming what we perceive is generally accurate). Therefore, my points go beyond just "assuming" that we are real. They point to the fact that reducing everything into the universe to our very limited and finite abilities of comprehending is itself faulty (especially when things are reduced of all things to silly semantical arguments, which is the ultimate in mistaken human arrogance, with respect to comprehending the universe that is). The fact that our logic systems themselves are based on unprovable assumptions, the fact that physicists must borrow from competing mathematical models to try to explain what otherwise seems unexplainable, the fact that physicists have shown that the universe is so much more random and beyond our understanding (I can see about having a mathematician or a physicist write as simple an explanation as possible about this last point, but I certainly would not explain this last point, since I would not explain it nearly as well) the fact that what we can comprehend is so small compared to what there is and what is possible (not simply observe, but COMPREHEND), means we should not be so arrogant as to argue absolutes about an infinite being or to bring everything into our little world of comprehension. That is what is so silly about much of the holy books, and you are making the SAME general mistake!

Originally posted by axeman

But once again... there is no RATIONAL reason to believe
this is the case. We have to work within our KNOWN
universe. We have no evidence to support such nonsense.

Yes we have to work within our known universe. No, recognizing our limitations, what is even reasonably possible and how complex the universe is is NOT "nonsense." Framing everything about the universe as though it fits in our neat little world of comprehension (especially our semantical little world) is not "nonsense!!!!!!!!"

Originally posted by axeman

In the end.... would it even MATTER that we actually exist
in a MATRIX like world? Nope. You still gotta play by
the rules. You still have to learn to think clearly etc etc.

True. AND?? We are not talking about simply living our daily lives, we are talking about the nature of the universe. And I have gone well beyond just whether we can know that WE exist.

Originally posted by axeman

If you want to strictly stick to your "We can only know
that we exist" position. Then fine. But don't bother
partaking any further in these discussions. We all understand
your position.

That's not at all what I have stuck too. If you want to stick to the silliest of semantic games and pretend as though you can reduce all concepts to what is not even the most advanced notions in our limited logical world, then fine.

I will partake in all the fucking discussions I care to. I would tell you to stop partaking for the reason I described in the paragraph above, but I won't cause I'm not a little prick like you! Who the fuck are you to tell me whether to partake in a discussion or not, simply because you don't like what I have to point out (apparently its frustrating for you) and because I hold back some of your silly arguments while pointing out very relevant facts and concepts. Is that how you argue such complex matters. If you don't like what someone is saying, no matter how legitimate, then you TRY to kick them out. Well then perhaps an electronic public forum is not the right place for YOU! Are you Baron acting like a jerk by another name, because only he can stop me from posting, even though he wouldn't have a good reason!

And you have demonstrated time and again, with your ridiculously erroneous accusations, and the fact that you have repeated questions that I'd answered, and the fact that you have made straw man and other arguments that have shown you DIDN'T get it, that you DON'T UNDERSTAND (or at the very least DIDN'T) my position.

 

[axeman]

Incorrect.

Unicorns CAN exist, does this alone mean this is
a supported notion? NO.

3 headed demons on mars CAN exist, does this alone
mean its supported? NO.

Just because something is a possibility does NOT
mean its supported in ANY way.

Supported by what? Do you have a shred of evidence?
No you dont.

You are the one throwing this idea around incorrectly.

The idea is completely arbitrary and completely lacks evidence.

peace

axeman

Originally posted by I Missed Boat

First of all, if I establish that something CAN happen, then it is not "unsupported." You keep throwing that around incorrectly!

 

[I Missed Boat]

Originally posted by axeman
Incorrect.

Unicorns CAN exist, does this alone mean this is
a supported notion? NO.

3 headed demons on mars CAN exist, does this alone
mean its supported? NO.

Just because something is a possibility does NOT
mean its supported in ANY way.

Supported by what? Do you have a shred of evidence?
No you dont.

You are the one throwing this idea around incorrectly.

The idea is completely arbitrary and completely lacks evidence.

peace

axeman

I have supported not that they DO exist, but that they CAN exist. What is so hard to understand?

However, unicorns and dragons are almost certainly human ideas of earthly creatures, very much within our realm of cognition (at least as they've been described) and very much observable. If an infinite being we would call God exists, it is incomprehensible and not observable (at least virtually all of God would be), however. Of course proof of God lacks evidence, just as proving God doesn't exist "lacks evidence." And? The idea that something infinite and extraordinarily abstract is responsible for the order of the universe is no more arbitrary then claiming that this does not exist.

 

[axeman]

Originally posted by I Missed Boat


I have supported not that they DO exist, but that they CAN exist. What is so hard to understand?


Nothing, I always take the position that they CAN exist.

But that is NOT what you said.
You said:
First of all, if I establish that something CAN happen, then it is not "unsupported." You keep throwing that around incorrectly!


Your claiming that just because something CAN happen,
that this constitutes support.

This is NOT correct for reasons I explained in the previous post.
If that is not what you meant, then im simply replying
to your ambigious statement.



However, unicorns and dragons are almost certainly human ideas of earthly creatures,


And omniscient beings are NOT?????????

very much within our realm of cognition (at least as they've been described) and very much observable. If an infinite being we would call God exists, it is incomprehensible and not observable (at least virtually all of God would be), however. Of course proof of God lacks evidence, just as proving God doesn't exist "lacks evidence." And?


And THEREFORE there is no reational reason to believe
in such a mythical being.
Believing they are "possible" yes. Believing they exist NO.



The idea that something infinite and extraordinarily abstract is responsible for the order of the universe is no more arbitrary then claiming that this does not exist.

I agree. The idea is as useless (part 1 of sentence) as attempting to prove a negative( 2nd part of sentence).



peace

axeman

PS I just accidently LOST my LOOOONG reply to your other
post Dont have the time to retype all that right now.

 

[nitro]

Who's winning?

And what happened to Jesus Christ's posts?

nitro

 

[I Missed Boat]

Originally posted by axeman


Nothing, I always take the position that they CAN exist.

But that is NOT what you said.
You said:
First of all, if I establish that something CAN happen, then it is not "unsupported." You keep throwing that around incorrectly!


Your claiming that just because something CAN happen,
that this constitutes support.

If I establish that something can happen, when someone challenges whether something can happen, then I have IN FACT SUPPORTED the claim that said something CAN happen. Nuff said!

Originally posted by axeman

This is NOT correct for reasons I explained in the previous post.
If that is not what you meant, then im simply replying
to your ambiguous statement.

what's ambiguous. I said that many things very well can happen. I have described our limitations and the complexities of the universe, the vast majority of which we can't comprehend. what's the prob?

Originally posted by axeman


However, unicorns and dragons are almost certainly human ideas of earthly creatures,


And omniscient beings are NOT?????????

The concept of an omniscient exceeds our realm, proven by the semantic arguments you play. Since if there is a God it exists outside of space and time (the possibility of which to SOME degree can be comprehended by math and science), the free will argument becomes a silly argument. And the fact that the universe is so complex and beyond our comprehension, the general concept that there may be some God, some underlying force that is (or virtually all of it is) beyond our comprehension, is reasonable. The idea of some fairy tale, earthling creatures playing human like star trek games is possible but unlikely (although the existence of other life in this universe, that may be very strange even, is extremely probable).

Originally posted by axeman


And THEREFORE there is no reational reason to believe
in such a mythical being.
Believing they are "possible" yes. Believing they exist NO.

The God of the bible could probably be called "mythical." But the concepts I've described is a serious concept in a universe that is far stranger and more abstract than anything in Star Trek (modern physics keeps demonstrating this).

Originally posted by imissedboat


The idea that something infinite and extraordinarily abstract is responsible for the order of the universe is no more arbitrary then claiming that this does not exist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.

Originally posted by axeman

I agree. The idea is as useless (part 1 of sentence) as attempting to prove a negative( 2nd part of sentence).

Not quite. Trying to prove the existence of God is useless. Recognizing the possibilities is not useless to anyone curious about the possible nature of the universe to the extent that we can comprehend it.

Originally posted by axeman

PS I just accidently LOST my LOOOONG reply to your other
post Dont have the time to retype all that right now.

I'll be around. Have a good weekend. Thanks for being respectful again.

 

[daniel_m]

Originally posted by goldenarm


FINALLY, we're getting somewhere! From Armstrong's perspective, he DOES have free will and follows his choices to become an American icon. From God's perspective, it is a prewritten script since God is all-knowing.

another dreamer, wanting to have his cake and eat it too.

if it's an ILLUSION, dimwit, it's not REAL. we don't REALLY have free will after all.

answer this question shit for brains, could armstrong have EVER done ANYTHING THAT WOULD DISQUALIFY HIM FROM BEING AN ASTRONAUT? fuck no! there was never a possibility of this! NEVER. do you understand that? it is quite elementary. furthermore, like i said, armstrong was never ever in danger of personal harm befalling him, you know, things that would incapacitate him. he basically had divine protection. is that the way you think the world really works?

goldenarm, you have either not read all of my clearly explained posts, or you do not understand them. i suspect it's the latter..

 

[daniel_m]

Originally posted by I Missed Boat


If I establish that something can happen, when someone challenges whether something can happen, then I have IN FACT SUPPORTED the claim that said something CAN happen. Nuff said!
.

well, i would argue that it's proven, as far our rational faculty goes, that your conception of this unkown entity is IMpossible, insofar as it violates logic.

but, as you keep saying, you won't except this contradiction because you think logic is insufficient. well, you really have nothing left to say then. there could be NOTHING that i, axe, or anyone could say to you that would cause you to change your mind; you'll simply duck back under the wall of incomprehensibility you've built up (and somehow think your position is supported by it).

'Boat, just come out of the closet and admit you believe in "god" already. it's pretty obvious to me that you keep the god idea alive as a way to make your life easier. that's fine. but at least have the guts to come out and admit it.

and also come out and admit you're a creationist, you believe the universe was created. well, stop all the freakin ducking and dogding and answer the question axe through at you guys 200 pages ago : who created your creator?

that's the one question that no theist has ever been, and will ever be able to answer. BOOM - the whole structure of creator believers comes crushing down.

ancient religions were aware of this problem. they actually had stories explaining how their gods were created. of course, they always began with SOME god that was "always there". they couldn't find a way around this problem any more than the pretend "sophisticated arguments" of today's creationists.

the posit a being existing in order to explain what exists, who requires no explanation for HIS existance, is UNreasonable to the highest degree. believe it's possible if you like, but you can no longer do so under the claim that "it's reasonable to believe it", cos it isn't.