|
ITT we will try to use any method to try to prove the existence or non-existence of a creator of the universe (that can be of any religion or not). I'll first start with an argument for the existence of God. My argument is that there are many things in nature that are fixed laws (such as gravity, for example) and it all seems to work in a very fixed and specific way. I think it would be too much coincidence that these things work because of random patterns. If these were made naturally and randomly, wouldn't the laws of nature be constantly changing as well? Sorry if I'm dumb. I'm not good with discussions and arguments but I'm trying to improve.
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 05:02 |
|
|
Big Scary Owl posted:ITT we will try to use any method to try to prove the existence or non-existence of a creator of the universe (that can be of any religion or not). Christ, do we really need a third religion thread right now?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
I'll leave a letter asking for help on this next to the chimney on Christmas. Pretty sure Santa hangs with Yahweh.Caros posted:Christ, do we really need a third religion thread right now?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
I glued a bunch of rocks together creating one so big that I couldn't lift it but then pulled it apart a bit and was able to lift it I am God.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
site posted:I'll leave a letter asking for help on this next to the chimney on Christmas. Pretty sure Santa hangs with Yahweh. I only just now realized I'd said that. And I am quite amused.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
I tried the 'Strike me down if...' tirade. Doesn't appear to be working. I did just get some static discharge however. God? Is that you?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
Let's think of a crime so terrible, if God exists he would surely have stopped it. OK, either God does not exist, he's a big enough rear end in a top hat to let the Holocaust happen, or he's too weak to stop that kind of thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
Chamale posted:Let's think of a crime so terrible, if God exists he would surely have stopped it. OK, either God does not exist, he's a big enough rear end in a top hat to let the Holocaust happen, or he's too weak to stop that kind of thing. Or he made it happen intentionally.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
drink deep from the fermented fruit of the vine and engage in unbridled intercourse with the partner of your persuasion. getting drunk and laid is the road to the divine
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined). God exists as an idea in the mind. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist). But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.) Therefore, God exists.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
Big Scary Owl posted:
No, the laws of nature are not random. Although the things that they influence proceed "randomly" they are still governed by the same laws, if mathematical predestination is right then everything that happens was ordained to happen at the point of the big bang basically due to the trajectory and energy of the big bang then cascading into a series of events kicked off by the initial reaction. I believe their may be some debate about that though, as to whether you could potentially create a mathematical model based on this if your measurements were precise down to the fundamental particles and picosecond or whether there is actually an inherent randomness to events that cannot be predicted and thats where you get into quantum theory where everything is probabilities. I don't have a degree-level understanding of physics though. The laws of nature may be variable though, just not in the observable universe and probably the whole universe. If multiverse theory or cyclic universe theory are correct though there may be other universes with different laws of physics. We happen to live in the universe whose laws can support life because it supports life. By nature we cannot exist in any of the ones that don't. Communist Thoughts fucked around with this message at 06:15 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
Tao Jones posted:It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined). The creation of the universe is the greatest achievement imaginable. The merit of an achievement consists of its intrinsic greatness and the ability of its creator. The greater the handicap of the creator, the greater the achievement. The biggest handicap of a creator would be non-existence. If we suppose that the universe is the creation of an existing creator, we can conceive a greater being — one who created everything while not existing. Therefore, God does not exist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 06:55
|
|
|
Can someone remind me why existence is not a property again? Won't that defeat this thread?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 06:58
|
|
|
Guys, god is a particle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 07:35
|
|
|
Flip Yr Wig posted:Can someone remind me why existence is not a property again? Won't that defeat this thread? "God" and all associated holiness is copyright Warner Bros. inc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:The creation of the universe is the greatest achievement imaginable. Step five doesn't logically follow. Granting steps 1-4 would suggest that we could imagine a greater achievement, a universe that was created by a non-existent creator, but that says nothing about the properties of a universe and a creator. Step 2/3 are dubious. It seems unreasonable to argue that Einstein solving 1+1 as a child was a greater achievement than Einstein devising the theory of relativity because Einstein as a child had a bigger handicap, or that an artist's finger-paintings as a child are a greater achievement than an artist's masterpieces in the prime of his adulthood.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
Set GodExists==1;
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 08:06
|
|
|
Still waiting for an answer to my question of how the gently caress humanity managed to build a religion around a carpenter who got killed by a piece of wood.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 08:07
|
|
|
Technogeek posted:Still waiting for an answer to my question of how the gently caress humanity managed to build a religion around a carpenter who got killed by a piece of wood. I'm still tickled by this joke. Good job, man.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 08:09
|
|
|
*checks constant, ubiquitous presence of God* yep, he exists
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 08:12
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:*checks constant, ubiquitous presence of God* Counterpoint: "cuck" exists as a word.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 08:14
|
|
|
There is a movie called Heaven Is For Real and it's based on a true story. Pretty sure that means God is for real too, man.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 08:22
|
|
|
Acid Haze posted:There is a movie called Heaven Is For Real and it's based on a true story. Pretty sure that means God is for real too, man. I once saw a poster for that movie next to a poster for Transformers 4. I'm not sure what the theological implications of that pairing are, but I doubt it's anything good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 08:26
|
|
|
If God isn't real than I'd have to face the existential terror inherent in our existence, so I'm pretty sure that God has to be real.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 09:08
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:If God isn't real than I'd have to face the existential terror inherent in our existence, so I'm pretty sure that God has to be real. now yer gettin' it!
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 09:09
|
|
|
God, you're omnipotent so I know you're reading this, please post below so we can end this crazy train now. Thanks Oh, amen
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 09:20
|
|
|
This thread sucks
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 09:21
|
|
|
Big Scary Owl posted:I'll first start with an argument for the existence of God. My argument is that there are many things in nature that are fixed laws (such as gravity, for example) and it all seems to work in a very fixed and specific way. I think it would be too much coincidence that these things work because of random patterns. If these were made naturally and randomly, wouldn't the laws of nature be constantly changing as well? No man, they are not a coincidence, that's just how everything happens to exist. Otherwise it wouldn't be possible for us to be here observing it's existence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 09:22
|
|
|
Sanguine posted:God, you're omnipotent so I know you're reading this, please post below so we can end this crazy train now. site posted:This thread sucks IT IS WRITTEN
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 09:22
|
|
|
Oh poo poo i totally didn't write that. God hijacked my account!
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 09:23
|
|
|
Sanguine posted:God, you're omnipotent so I know you're reading this, please post below so we can end this crazy train now. Yo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 09:23
|
|
|
Tao Jones posted:Step 2/3 are dubious. It seems unreasonable to argue that Einstein solving 1+1 as a child was a greater achievement than Einstein devising the theory of relativity because Einstein as a child had a bigger handicap, or that an artist's finger-paintings as a child are a greater achievement than an artist's masterpieces in the prime of his adulthood. That's not the argument though, the argument is that Einstein devising the theory of relativity as a child would have been a greater achievement than doing it when he did. Also, I think a similar problem to the one you point out applies to the original ontological argument. I've never really bought the step that an existing thing must necessarily be greater than one that exists only in the mind. Anyway, I'd like to introduce the reverse pascal's wager: If god does not exist, there's no point worshipping him. If he does exist, he shouldn't be worshipped. "If you don't worship me I'll torture you for all eternity"? gently caress that guy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 09:24
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:No, the laws of nature are not random. Although the things that they influence proceed "randomly" they are still governed by the same laws, if mathematical predestination is right then everything that happens was ordained to happen at the point of the big bang basically due to the trajectory and energy of the big bang then cascading into a series of events kicked off by the initial reaction. I believe their may be some debate about that though, as to whether you could potentially create a mathematical model based on this if your measurements were precise down to the fundamental particles and picosecond or whether there is actually an inherent randomness to events that cannot be predicted and thats where you get into quantum theory where everything is probabilities. I don't have a degree-level understanding of physics though. The bolded idea is a nice one, but unfortunately this german dude named Heisenberg came along and hosed it over like ninety years ago or so. Also I was out for a walk the other day and saw a flash of lightning and heard the roar of thunder. This proves that holy Thor himself must exist and is battling the frost giants to this day.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 09:39
|
|
|
site posted:Oh poo poo i totally didn't write that. God hijacked my account! Immaculate Posting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 09:40
|
|
|
The New Black posted:That's not the argument though, the argument is that Einstein devising the theory of relativity as a child would have been a greater achievement than doing it when he did. Yeah, my Einstein example wasn't great. I think you could still use that logic to produce something like "cheating produces a larger handicap than being honest (because of the added risk of exposure as a cheat), so therefore things brought about by cheating are better than things brought about honestly" or some other absurdity. As for the existence thing being better, I think there's plenty of examples from life that point to existence being better than existence only in the imagination -- for instance, wouldn't a winning lottery ticket that exists both in your mind and in your hand be necessarily better than one that exists only in your mind? Similarly with a perfect friend, or the perfect romantic partner, or even more abstract things like a perfect day, a perfect vacation, and so on? Why would God be any different? (There's obviously a counterargument to be made here -- made by Kant, among others -- but even as someone who is only pretending to believe it for purposes of an amusing internet thread, I think the ontological argument is wonderful to think about.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 09:53
|
|
|
itskage posted:Immaculate Posting. I am truly blessed. Hail Satan
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 09:54
|
|
|
Tao Jones posted:As for the existence thing being better, I think there's plenty of examples from life that point to existence being better than existence only in the imagination -- for instance, wouldn't a winning lottery ticket that exists both in your mind and in your hand be necessarily better than one that exists only in your mind? Similarly with a perfect friend, or the perfect romantic partner, or even more abstract things like a perfect day, a perfect vacation, and so on? Why would God be any different? Right, but those are examples where it's true, that doesn't mean that it follows automatically in every case. I can imagine a piece of paper with "This piece of paper is imaginary" written on it, isn't that "greater" in some way (i.e. the truth of the statement) than an actual piece of paper with the same thing written on it? e: or to use a different counter-point, those examples are only definitely true from the perspective of the imaginer. Someone who hates me would probably prefer my theoretically perfect friend to stay in my imagination. The New Black fucked around with this message at 10:05 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 10:01
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:The bolded idea is a nice one, but unfortunately this german dude named Heisenberg came along and hosed it over like ninety years ago or so. Quantum mechanics is an illusion, bro. Every time you heathens in lab coats measure your little electron spins, it's actually god reading the results from a notebook.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 10:08
|
|
|
Being is merely the constant, ultimately futile resistance of unbeing. Everything follows from that, and the result is nothingness.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 11:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 05:02 |
|
|
Big Scary Owl posted:My argument is that there are many things in nature that are fixed laws (such as gravity, for example) and it all seems to work in a very fixed and specific way. I think it would be too much coincidence that these things work because of random patterns. You ever wonder how a water puddle fits so perfectly into the hole it's in? Like, if you changed even one small parameter of the hole, that water would no longer fit in that shape. It can't be a coincidence, there's no way random processes could produce even one hole so expertly crafted in every way to fit one particular puddle, let alone hundreds or thousands of them. No, there must be some invisible Dude going at super speed all around the world, digging perfect small holes in the ground so that water would collect precisely in that particular way He intended.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 11:14
|
|
