Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

for those that believe in god

Page 2 of 3 [ 38 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

27 May 2010, 4:07 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Swapping out names is invalid here, as the properties of "spiritual beings" have not been established. What if "spiritual beings" don't need to be created such as if they do not undergo the same temporal causality as items existent in physical time? Or how about if a subset or just one need not be bound by temporal causality?

Swapping out names is totally valid though as the property you were referring to is the inability of an entity to create itself. If you present a logical argument, and I can swap out the names and it fails, then your argument has also failed.


Swapping out names is invalid since I am referring to the Law of the Conservation of Mass/Energy. Applying it to inductively encompass all entities is not cogent.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

27 May 2010, 4:30 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Swapping out names is invalid since I am referring to the Law of the Conservation of Mass/Energy. Applying it to inductively encompass all entities is not cogent.

Here's what you said:
"X cannot create itself", therefore "another agent must have created X".

This kind of reasoning is valid for anything that cannot create itself. A lot of things cannot create themselves, including spiritual beings.

Now, I know you were implicitly referring to the law of the conservation of mass/energy. The issue is that your logic is just logic, it wouldn't matter what you implicitly invoke, because if the explicit structure is the same, then the substitution is valid. The explicit structure I used is the same, therefore the substitution is valid.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

27 May 2010, 5:25 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Swapping out names is invalid since I am referring to the Law of the Conservation of Mass/Energy. Applying it to inductively encompass all entities is not cogent.

Here's what you said:
"X cannot create itself", therefore "another agent must have created X".

This kind of reasoning is valid for anything that cannot create itself. A lot of things cannot create themselves, including spiritual beings.

Now, I know you were implicitly referring to the law of the conservation of mass/energy. The issue is that your logic is just logic, it wouldn't matter what you implicitly invoke, because if the explicit structure is the same, then the substitution is valid. The explicit structure I used is the same, therefore the substitution is valid.


Okay, so if Matter-Energy cannot create itself, then it must have been created by another agent or must have existed for eternity. Matter-Energy cannot have existed for eternity since Thermodynamic heat-death would have long since occurred, so matter-energy must have been created by another agent.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

27 May 2010, 5:45 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Okay, so if Matter-Energy cannot create itself, then it must have been created by another agent or must have existed for eternity. Matter-Energy cannot have existed for eternity since Thermodynamic heat-death would have long since occurred, so matter-energy must have been created by another agent.

Your argument assumes that there is an infinite past. A block universe can avoid heat-death, while also requiring no external agent creating it, and this is because a block universe exists for all time.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

27 May 2010, 7:23 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Okay, so if Matter-Energy cannot create itself, then it must have been created by another agent or must have existed for eternity. Matter-Energy cannot have existed for eternity since Thermodynamic heat-death would have long since occurred, so matter-energy must have been created by another agent.

Your argument assumes that there is an infinite past. A block universe can avoid heat-death, while also requiring no external agent creating it, and this is because a block universe exists for all time.
That sounds like crap.



LiendaBalla
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,736

27 May 2010, 10:46 pm

Would me shareing enduce mockery and laughter? I suspect it would.



Last edited by LiendaBalla on 27 May 2010, 10:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

27 May 2010, 10:48 pm

LiendaBalla wrote:
Would me shareing enduce mockery and laughter?


It's entirely possible... But personally I'm open to whatever ANYONE has to say. Go ahead and share away!



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

27 May 2010, 10:55 pm

LiendaBalla wrote:
Would me shareing enduce mockery and laughter? I suspect it would.


Peer pressure works due to such fears. In effect, it silences opposition. The choice whether you say something or not is your own though.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

27 May 2010, 11:07 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
That sounds like crap.

Well, that's only because of your mental handicaps, because a block universe is something that some physicists and philosophers think exists, partially due to problems with the nature of time uncovered by Einstein's theory of relativity, such as a lack of a clear ontological dividing line between the present and the future. It also is timeless. It also can't be stranger than the God of the Bible who found mixing two kinds of cloth to be an abomination, and whose great plan included getting himself killed by Romans to appease himself.



Maranatha
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2010
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 135
Location: California

27 May 2010, 11:25 pm

Quote:
What evidence do you have that god exists?


Everything that's good.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

27 May 2010, 11:48 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
That sounds like crap.
It also can't be stranger than the God of the Bible who found mixing two kinds of cloth to be an abomination


Mixing two kinds of cloth as an abomination makes perfect sense. God called the Israelites to preserve natural distinctions. Mixtures are a violation of the order God brought into the world by separating the species. Mixtures are symbolic of mixtures of human beings; thus these laws prohibit intermarriage and assimilation. And finally, mixtures are to be avoided because the belong to the sacred sphere, namely the sanctuary, as do the priests. The lower cover of the tabernacle and the curtain closing off the most holy place are a mixture of linen and wool. The high priest's ephod, breastpiece, and belt contain the same mixture. Mixtures represent what is holy, including those called to enter the holy place or to serve in the tent of meeting (and later, I assume, the temple).



Maranatha
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2010
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 135
Location: California

27 May 2010, 11:56 pm

Genesis 1:31

"And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good."



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

28 May 2010, 12:00 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
That sounds like crap.

Well, that's only because of your mental handicaps, because a block universe is something that some physicists and philosophers think exists, partially due to problems with the nature of time uncovered by Einstein's theory of relativity, such as a lack of a clear ontological dividing line between the present and the future. It also is timeless. It also can't be stranger than the God of the Bible who found mixing two kinds of cloth to be an abomination, and whose great plan included getting himself killed by Romans to appease himself.


I have the same mental handicaps as you do, namely Asperger's syndrome. I'm sure there are random physicists and philosophers in a plethora of camps, and just appealing to them in vague terms to illicit argument by consensus is compounded lameness.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

28 May 2010, 12:02 am

AngelRho wrote:
Mixing two kinds of cloth as an abomination makes perfect sense. God called the Israelites to preserve natural distinctions. Mixtures are a violation of the order God brought into the world by separating the species. Mixtures are symbolic of mixtures of human beings; thus these laws prohibit intermarriage and assimilation. And finally, mixtures are to be avoided because the belong to the sacred sphere, namely the sanctuary, as do the priests. The lower cover of the tabernacle and the curtain closing off the most holy place are a mixture of linen and wool. The high priest's ephod, breastpiece, and belt contain the same mixture. Mixtures represent what is holy, including those called to enter the holy place or to serve in the tent of meeting (and later, I assume, the temple).


I'll admit that my comment was completely offhanded, however:
"Natural distinctions" is stupid. "Mixtures are a violation" is stupid. "Mixtures are symbols of mixing humans" is stupid, and really screws with the whole mixtures are sacred idea as well, because if God is anti-mixture, then why would he make holiness a mixture? That seems like clear symbolic confusion. The only one that even seems reasonable is the idea of the mixtures are holy, but even then that is unnecessary.

As it stands though, I could have picked something else, like "a God who likes the smell of burning goat fat", or whatever else really. The list kind of goes on and on.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

28 May 2010, 12:06 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
As it stands though, I could have picked something else, like "a God who likes the smell of burning goat fat", or whatever else really. The list kind of goes on and on.


If you went with that one, which is really God being pleased in the willingness to sacrifice or otherwise mentally seek to please God displayed in actions, then humans could be equally made fun of for liking the bond energy levels of carbon ring molecules.



Maranatha
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2010
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 135
Location: California

28 May 2010, 12:12 am

The Holy and the common, brought together:

Mark 15:17-20

17 And they clothed him in a purple cloak, and twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on him. 18 And they began to salute him, “Hail, King of the Jews!” 19 And they were striking his head with a reed and spitting on him and kneeling down in homage to him. 20 And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the purple cloak and put his own clothes on him. And they led him out to crucify him.



Last edited by Maranatha on 28 May 2010, 12:22 am, edited 3 times in total.