Author Topic: "Debating The Existence Of God" or "Making Fallacious Agruements"  (Read 13657 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Agita

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 5465
  • SFT is mai waifu.
Re: "Debating The Existence Of God" or "Making Fallacious Agruements"
« Reply #60 on: August 02, 2009, 06:07:25 PM »
@ God makes the rules: What Tshern said, more or less.
See, I don't listen to my mom just because she squeezed me out of her vagina 17 years ago. I listen to her when I think what she's saying is useful and she's not being stupid. So why should I listen to God just because he put a distant ancestor on earth?
And Agita, the fallacies of omniscience are exactly on topic, though GrayTigeress mentions knowledge of all futures, not perfect knowledge of the futures, which is a small, but important difference. Knowledge of all futures implies simply a complete understanding of every variable (including those influenced by self action) and all possible outcomes (as well as probably their likelihood), but not the knowledge of which will actually occur.
True. I was referring to it as off-topic in terms of the original purpose of the thread, rather than the conversation itself.
A complete understanding of all possible variables in existence also proves problematic, however (possibly even more so), especially if we figure in quantum mechanics and chaos theory. It's impossible to know both the location and impulse of any given quantum at the same moment in time, and as such it is also impossible to know all possible variables that may apply to a given circumstance.

As for reconciling Biblical mythology with scientific evidence, my Religion teacher tends to say that the Bible shouldn't be taken literally - it's basically lots of metaphors.
It is notable that in the original form of the Bible, some phenomena were much less supernatural than in modern translations. Most notably, I've been told that Moses parting the sea was originally a weather phenomenon in which strong winds desert winds dried out seas rather quickly. It's been a while since I heard about this, however, so my recollection is fuzzy on the details.
It's all about vision and making reality conform to your vision. By dropping a fucking house on it.

Agita's Awesome Poster Compilation
Lycanthromancer's Awesome Poster Compilation

EjoThims

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
  • The Ferret
    • Email
Re: "Debating The Existence Of God" or "Making Fallacious Agruements"
« Reply #61 on: August 02, 2009, 06:24:19 PM »
To me god doesn't have any right to judge us at all.

I personally don't believe he does either. But (assuming such exists) whether he (or she, it, or they) do or not, does not hinder free will.

I was referring to it as off-topic in terms of the original purpose of the thread, rather than the conversation itself.

It is a "non nonsensical argument," is it not?

It's impossible to know both the location and impulse of any given quantum at the same moment in time

But you could know the different varying possibilities it may exist in, even if you did not know which it actually held, could you not?

Everything boils down to a probability, after all. It may be possible to simply know the exact probability of every single thing or event, and how each would influence the probability of the others. This would not, in itself, require actual knowledge of what has passed, just the theoretical knowledge of what else may happen if it had.

the Bible shouldn't be taken literally - it's basically lots of metaphors.

It would have to be. Because even if anything in it was true, it would also have to be a metaphor since the being it speaks of has no meaningful way of interacting with entities as limited as humans.

Tshern

  • Clown Prince of Crime
  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 5726
  • Aistii valoa auttavasti
    • Email
Re: "Debating The Existence Of God" or "Making Fallacious Agruements"
« Reply #62 on: August 02, 2009, 06:28:47 PM »
I personally don't believe he does either. But (assuming such exists) whether he (or she, it, or they) do or not, does not hinder free will.
That wasn't even my argument. Now when you raised the point, I must correct you. Omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive. If this sky dweller truly knows everything that will happen, my choices either cannot chance that or he is not omniscient.

Handy Links

kurashu

  • Donkey Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 719
  • K?
    • Androgynous Moose Hippy
    • Email
Re: "Debating The Existence Of God" or "Making Fallacious Agruements"
« Reply #63 on: August 02, 2009, 06:29:23 PM »
It's impossible to know both the location and impulse of any given quantum at the same moment in time

But you could know the different varying possibilities it may exist in, even if you did not know which it actually held, could you not?

Everything boils down to a probability, after all. It may be possible to simply know the exact probability of every single thing or event, and how each would influence the probability of the others. This would not, in itself, require actual knowledge of what has passed, just the theoretical knowledge of what else may happen if it had.

So YHVH is Muad'Dib and not Leto II?

Agita

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 5465
  • SFT is mai waifu.
Re: "Debating The Existence Of God" or "Making Fallacious Agruements"
« Reply #64 on: August 02, 2009, 06:40:44 PM »
I was referring to it as off-topic in terms of the original purpose of the thread, rather than the conversation itself.

It is a "non nonsensical argument," is it not?
M'afraid my argument-fu isn't advanced enough, or perhaps I'm just currently brainfarting. Explain, please?

It's impossible to know both the location and impulse of any given quantum at the same moment in time

But you could know the different varying possibilities it may exist in, even if you did not know which it actually held, could you not?

Everything boils down to a probability, after all. It may be possible to simply know the exact probability of every single thing or event, and how each would influence the probability of the others. This would not, in itself, require actual knowledge of what has passed, just the theoretical knowledge of what else may happen if it had.
That would be theoretically possible. I would not mean complete omniscience, however - God could make very educated guesses, but it would still be impossible for him to know for certain what will happen.
Even in this event, however, it would be impossible to make hard and fast rules that apply in every single situation - say, "Thou shalt not kill". This is my main beef with Christian morality - it assumes objective, hard and fast rules. The world just doesn't work like that.
It's all about vision and making reality conform to your vision. By dropping a fucking house on it.

Agita's Awesome Poster Compilation
Lycanthromancer's Awesome Poster Compilation

EjoThims

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
  • The Ferret
    • Email
Re: "Debating The Existence Of God" or "Making Fallacious Agruements"
« Reply #65 on: August 02, 2009, 06:57:34 PM »
That wasn't even my argument.

No, but it was the one I was making, and the one which you responded to.

Omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive. If this sky dweller truly knows everything that will happen, my choices either cannot chance that or he is not omniscient.

This is 100% true. But omniscience is flawed in it's own right anyway, so it's more likely that the omniscience is at fault, not the free will.

It is a "non nonsensical argument," is it not?
M'afraid my argument-fu isn't advanced enough, or perhaps I'm just currently brainfarting. Explain, please?

A non non-sensical argument (qouted from the OP) is a double negative, it would thusly be a sensical argument. And pointing out the flaws of omniscience (and omnipotence, omnipresence, and all benevolence) is a sensical argument. ;)

That would be theoretically possible. I would not mean complete omniscience, however

True omniscience is simply not possible without bypassing our understanding of the world. For any kind of deity to be something we can actually interact with, it could not actually possess true omniscience.

Even in this event, however, it would be impossible to make hard and fast rules that apply in every single situation - say, "Thou shalt not kill". This is my main beef with Christian morality - it assumes objective, hard and fast rules. The world just doesn't work like that.

I agree. An objective morality just does not work, neither physically nor in the divine.

Tshern

  • Clown Prince of Crime
  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 5726
  • Aistii valoa auttavasti
    • Email
Re: "Debating The Existence Of God" or "Making Fallacious Agruements"
« Reply #66 on: August 02, 2009, 07:03:18 PM »
No, but it was the one I was making, and the one which you responded to.
Hope I didn't derail the discussion too much.

Quote
This is 100% true. But omniscience is flawed in it's own right anyway, so it's more likely that the omniscience is at fault, not the free will.
Perhaps. Not quite sure why you find omniscience flawed though. Omnipotence gives one a chance to achieve omniscience.

Handy Links

Agita

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 5465
  • SFT is mai waifu.
Re: "Debating The Existence Of God" or "Making Fallacious Agruements"
« Reply #67 on: August 02, 2009, 07:10:25 PM »
It is a "non nonsensical argument," is it not?
M'afraid my argument-fu isn't advanced enough, or perhaps I'm just currently brainfarting. Explain, please?

A non non-sensical argument (qouted from the OP) is a double negative, it would thusly be a sensical argument. And pointing out the flaws of omniscience (and omnipotence, omnipresence, and all benevolence) is a sensical argument. ;)
I see. e666, you might want to edit that. ;)

That would be theoretically possible. I would not mean complete omniscience, however

True omniscience is simply not possible without bypassing our understanding of the world. For any kind of deity to be something we can actually interact with, it could not actually possess true omniscience.
Exactly. My point being, even with this kind of limited 'omniscience', it would be impossible for God to make hard and fast rules - he could make suggestions based on how to manipulate probabilities to the most favorable ends, but even these wouldn't be surefire.
Actually, I rather like this interpretation - it kind of reminds me of Eberron's Prophecy and its 'If X, then Y' format.

...I'll be on the D&D WMG page over on tvtropes.com. :D
It's all about vision and making reality conform to your vision. By dropping a fucking house on it.

Agita's Awesome Poster Compilation
Lycanthromancer's Awesome Poster Compilation

EjoThims

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
  • The Ferret
    • Email
Re: "Debating The Existence Of God" or "Making Fallacious Agruements"
« Reply #68 on: August 02, 2009, 07:25:53 PM »
Not quite sure why you find omniscience flawed though. Omnipotence gives one a chance to achieve omniscience.

Omnipotence itself is flawed, so it's not a valid out. Besides, pairing them actually creates more problems, as one must lose out. You can either know everything exactly as it is or you can have the power to change it all. They can't even coexist with "I knew I was going to change it," as then you would lack the free will to do otherwise, which you must have to be omnipotent. And without omnipotence, omniscience entirely denies free will to it's user.

Agita has also pointed out a very specific example of the flaws of omniscience.

he could make suggestions based on how to manipulate probabilities to the most favorable ends, but even these wouldn't be surefire.

Indeed. Because that .00...001 chance will still crop up on occasion. ;)

Also, be sure to toss me a link. ;)

Kuroimaken

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 6733
Re: "Debating The Existence Of God" or "Making Fallacious Agruements"
« Reply #69 on: August 02, 2009, 07:27:09 PM »
Quote
Then why did he create pain in the first place? Under that definition, if there were no pain, there could be no right or wrong and everyone would be happy.

This goes back to the book of Genesis - Man didn't so much as know wrong or evil before acquiring knowledge, and therefore pain wasn't necessary in the Garden of Eden. I think this is a broad metaphor on the uses of knowledge for the right purposes, to avoid bringing pain unto others. Pain is thus a deterrent, but it's also a consequence and not a cause. Creationism versus evolution aside, I'm not the kind of person that believes the Bible is to be taken at face value - as it was written by men and much was undoubtedly lost in translation twice over. It DOES, however, offer a good deal of acceptable moral advice, if you learn to take the lessons from it through a filter of your own perception, rather than take it directly.

Quote
He created the universe and the rules, but that doesn't mean his rules are to be followed. If you look at the rules he created, there is a good number of things I personally consider to be very wrong, but god (the Christian one) doesn't have any troubles, for example, giving the life of a man a set price.

And yes, god condemns souls to hell as per the little book of his.

God doesn't give you a gun and tell you to shoot people. That's all you. He also doesn't keep you from doing so, except sometimes if you have such a strong belief that a man's life is sacred that you can't get yourself to do so.
Quote
To me god doesn't have any right to judge us at all. He personally created rules under which we are born as sinners and die as sinners regardless of our actions. If I am born a loser without any choice, I think the rules need to be changed very, very quickly and that's where I jumped into action and created my own little rule set. So far I am doing just fine.

This goes back to my argument that the Bible isn't to be taken literally. Consider this: Man needs something to believe in. Man eventually comes up with the notion of God. However, upon spreading the notion, Man realizes his fellow men and women do not share the same view of God that he does. Therefore, Man writes a book of metaphors and whatnot teaching people how they should be better men and women. To enforce the notion there is a need to better themselves, Man comes up with the notion that everyone is a sinner from birth and therefore must strive to become better.

Sociologically speaking, God was the first form of law enforcement. The Ten Commandments, when you think about it, are the ONLY part of the Bible that's written in the form of an order - everything else is within parabole and metaphor.

As for the "right" to judge us, I don't think that's God's job, specifically. Our deeds are what make our souls lighter or heavier. Therefore, we send ourselves up or down.
Quote
What about the difference between god's attitude in the Old Testament, in the New Testament and in Islam? He goes from vengeful, heinous bastard to loving hippy tree hugger/you're all going to die and burn in hell if you don't love me, back to vengeful hateful bastard except this time he's mad at the Jews and what's them all dead. If he's the same god, he's certainly bi-polar which makes him imperfect. Not to mention all of his crazy little rules that send you to hell: "Don't mix clothing fibers" or "Don't eat shell fish."

This is because the Bible is made up of several authors. God as a character is inconsistent because he was conceived by several different people. It also goes back to my point of God as the first form of law enforcement - you can't really make people do the right things if you're a lovable character, the simplest form of reinforcing behavior is fear. It's like dressing up one of the Care Bears with a police uniform and saying he'll shoot you if you disobey him. Who'd hold back thinking of that?

Of God's omniscience - again, back to my initial point. The easiest way to do something without facing the consequences is keeping anyone from knowing it. The notion of God being omniscient is thus made to keep people from thinking they can escape punishment. It doesn't matter what you do to cover it up, God knows you did it. The easiest way to prove this is: we know God isn't devoid of feelings. Therefore, if he sensed mankind about to turn in on itself - over him, no less - do you SERIOUSLY think he wouldn't act? The only other possibility assumes he CAN'T act, in which case God would eventually grow mad at his powerlessness.

It's funny, I usually don't back up the Big Guy's existence like this.
Gendou Ikari is basically Gregory House in Kaminashades. This is FACT.

For proof, look here:

http://www.layoutjelly.com/image_27/gendo_ikari/

[SPOILER]
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Katana of Enlightenment.
Get yours.[/SPOILER]

I HAVE BROKEN THE 69 INTERNETS BARRIER!


EjoThims

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
  • The Ferret
    • Email
Re: "Debating The Existence Of God" or "Making Fallacious Agruements"
« Reply #70 on: August 02, 2009, 07:34:32 PM »
It's funny, I usually don't back up the Big Guy's existence like this.

Never heard Tshern described like that before. Though, I'm sure it's simply because I've never met anyone he was in a relationship with.

All jests aside, your post does as much (if not more) to demolish the traditional notion of an anthropomorphic God as he, I, and Agita have. And once that is gone, it's just a short step to a naturalist deity, or no deity (at least of a singular mind/will as we can possibly conceive of it) at all.

Agita

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 5465
  • SFT is mai waifu.
Re: "Debating The Existence Of God" or "Making Fallacious Agruements"
« Reply #71 on: August 02, 2009, 07:37:16 PM »
Also, be sure to toss me a link. ;)
Crap, now I'll have to actually write something there. :D
It's all about vision and making reality conform to your vision. By dropping a fucking house on it.

Agita's Awesome Poster Compilation
Lycanthromancer's Awesome Poster Compilation

bhu

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 6783
  • Convincing the rich whale fat enemas are healthy
Re: "Debating The Existence Of God" or "Making Fallacious Agruements"
« Reply #72 on: August 02, 2009, 09:20:43 PM »

Again, simply wrong.

You still have the freedom to perform that 'except' if you choose to accept the consequences of that action. Just because the consequence is imposed rather than natural does not at all influence your ability to still perform the action in question.

The only way free will is denied is when the actions an individual will take are determined by outside before they take them, whether that is divine in nature or simply probabilistic.

We'll agree to disagree then.  I have difficulty accepting that I have free will to do as I wish unless I violate the rules of an invisible dictator in the sky as being actual freedom.  It's like telling my kids "You're allowed to do what you want, but if you violate one rule ever, I get to rip out your eyes and let you be sodomized by strangers the rest of your life".  If they're allowed to do what they want, why are there rules against some forms of behavior?

EjoThims

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
  • The Ferret
    • Email
Re: "Debating The Existence Of God" or "Making Fallacious Agruements"
« Reply #73 on: August 02, 2009, 10:38:34 PM »
If they're allowed to do what they want, why are there rules against some forms of behavior?

Because there are consequences for the action.

But they could always choose to have their eyes ripped out and by sodomized. They have the free will to do so.

Graytigeress

  • Domesticated Capuchin Monkey
  • **
  • Posts: 111
    • Email
Re: "Debating The Existence Of God" or "Making Fallacious Agruements"
« Reply #74 on: August 02, 2009, 11:47:53 PM »
Wow, lots of stuff I don't know the answer to.  If you truely want answers to those questions you would be better served talking with a trained minister or take a class in a semenary.

There are two laws that I believe we are to live by.

Love God with all your heart and mind.
Love your neighbor as yourself.


In me the tiger sniffs the rose and watches butterflies!

Nanshork

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2146
  • BOO!
    • Email
Re: "Debating The Existence Of God" or "Making Fallacious Agruements"
« Reply #75 on: August 03, 2009, 03:05:18 AM »
If they're allowed to do what they want, why are there rules against some forms of behavior?

Because there are consequences for the action.

But they could always choose to have their eyes ripped out and by sodomized. They have the free will to do so.

+1.

Our society has laws against certain behavior, and if you do that behavior your are forever condemned to prison with no chance of ever getting out.  People still do those behaviors.
My babies - A thread of random builds I've come up with over the years.
Notes to self

bhu

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 6783
  • Convincing the rich whale fat enemas are healthy
Re: "Debating The Existence Of God" or "Making Fallacious Agruements"
« Reply #76 on: August 03, 2009, 03:11:03 AM »
If they're allowed to do what they want, why are there rules against some forms of behavior?

Because there are consequences for the action.

But they could always choose to have their eyes ripped out and by sodomized. They have the free will to do so.

+1.

Our society has laws against certain behavior, and if you do that behavior your are forever condemned to prison with no chance of ever getting out.  People still do those behaviors.

You have some chance of getting out.  Misdemeanor theft doesn't get you life for example. 

God however sends you to Hell for eternity for misdemeanor theft, same as he does for murder 1. 

Kuroimaken

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 6733
Re: "Debating The Existence Of God" or "Making Fallacious Agruements"
« Reply #77 on: August 03, 2009, 03:59:42 AM »
If they're allowed to do what they want, why are there rules against some forms of behavior?

Because there are consequences for the action.

But they could always choose to have their eyes ripped out and by sodomized. They have the free will to do so.

+1.

Our society has laws against certain behavior, and if you do that behavior your are forever condemned to prison with no chance of ever getting out.  People still do those behaviors.

You have some chance of getting out.  Misdemeanor theft doesn't get you life for example. 

God however sends you to Hell for eternity for misdemeanor theft, same as he does for murder 1. 

If you spend your life doing work for the poor and commit theft once, you're not going to hell. I for one don't think God equates a murderer to a thief; that's a convention stated in the Bible, which goes back to my argument of God as law enforcement.
Gendou Ikari is basically Gregory House in Kaminashades. This is FACT.

For proof, look here:

http://www.layoutjelly.com/image_27/gendo_ikari/

[SPOILER]
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Katana of Enlightenment.
Get yours.[/SPOILER]

I HAVE BROKEN THE 69 INTERNETS BARRIER!


EjoThims

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
  • The Ferret
    • Email
Re: "Debating The Existence Of God" or "Making Fallacious Agruements"
« Reply #78 on: August 03, 2009, 06:13:14 AM »
You have some chance of getting out.

The degree of the punishment and it's likelihood do not in any way influence your ability to choose it, though they may influence your likelihood of doing so.

You always have the freedom to accept the consequences, no matter how brutal or harsh they may be.

Tshern

  • Clown Prince of Crime
  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 5726
  • Aistii valoa auttavasti
    • Email
Re: "Debating The Existence Of God" or "Making Fallacious Agruements"
« Reply #79 on: August 03, 2009, 06:39:41 AM »
Not quite sure why you find omniscience flawed though. Omnipotence gives one a chance to achieve omniscience.

Omnipotence itself is flawed, so it's not a valid out. Besides, pairing them actually creates more problems, as one must lose out. You can either know everything exactly as it is or you can have the power to change it all. They can't even coexist with "I knew I was going to change it," as then you would lack the free will to do otherwise, which you must have to be omnipotent. And without omnipotence, omniscience entirely denies free will to it's user.
Why so? Omnipotence does not even begin to imply free will. In other words, god, as long as he keeps himself omniscient, which he does because it is all in the Bible, is slave to the same grind we are.

Handy Links