1818 replies to this topic

[Duchykins]

Justify you definiton of god. You say we have to take it seriously so why?

Edited by Duchykins, 03 August 2014 - 02:29 PM.

[serp777]

 

 

46 pages arguing for Christianity? I just don't get it and the Christian version of the book doesn't make sense either. Jews call hell as a state of mind, not an actual place, but Christians converted it into a place? I am utterly confused about that. Has there been any argument on the idea of an advanced species somewhere in the universe creating the creatures of this planet? I'd be open minded to that.

But we as a species are too small to even think at that level anyway. We can barely even get past taking a poo, let alone anything on a higher thought process. lol

well at least half of these pages are from useless YouTube videos and posts crying about ad hominem. All from shadow hawk ofc.

 

Typical off topic such as this attempt to derail the subject is everywhere.  Ever see a black person at a KKK meeting?  This thread is an example of what Christians can expect.  There is little real descent here, just bigotry.

 

The topic is derailed already. Almost no one is listening to your ridiculous arguments. Almost bobody cares anymore about this dumb thread, which you have ruined with your terrible debate tactics. Notice how nearly everyone is telling you that your arguments suck. Notice how no one is defending your comments. Notice how all the downvotes are on your posts. 

 

All we can do is be amused by your tired, relentless regurgitation 

 

 

Edited by serp777, 03 August 2014 - 08:11 PM.

[shadowhawk]

GODEL DISCUSSION SUMMARY

SECTION SUMMARIES
http://www.longecity...-43#entry676194
http://www.longecity...-43#entry676594

GODEL'S INCOMPLETENESS
http://www.longecity...-43#entry677051
1. Discussion #1. Applied.

1. All non-trivial computational systems are incomplete
2. The universe is a non-trivial computational system
3. Therefore the universe is incomplete”

“ I am Lying” a Godel sentence.  Any statement requires an outside observer.
Consider what happens when we draw the biggest circle possibly can – around the whole universe. (If there are multiple universes, we’re drawing a circle around all of them too):

MATH AND PHYSICS.
http://www.longecity...-43#entry677248

3 Godel incompleteness 3 INFORMATION
http://www.longecity...-43#entry677302
Naturalism is the hypothesis that the natural world is a closed system, which means that nothing that is not part of the natural world affects it.
If you know Godel’s theorem, you know that all logical systems must rely on something outside the system. So according to Godel’s Incompleteness theorem, the Infidels cannot be correct. If the universe is logical, it has an outside cause.

See also the discussion in “Is there Evidence for Atheism??”  Starts here  http://www.longecity...-23#entry655289

GODEL INCOMPLETENESS 4 The Ontological argument.
http://www.longecity...-44#entry677722
William Lane Craig
http://www.longecity...-44#entry677760
Godels statement of the ontological argument
http://www.longecity...-44#entry678000
GODEL'S ARGUMENT #5 proved by scientists and computers.
http://www.longecity...-44#entry678002

Plantings formalization of The Ontological Argument.
http://www.longecity...-44#entry678257




 

[DukeNukem]

>>> The topic is derailed already.

 

Christianity itself is fast derailing.  People under 30 are on a hockey stick rise of converted non-believers.  Within two decades, a ton of older believers will have died off, and younger non-believers will be raising their non-indoctrinated children.

[shadowhawk]

>>> The topic is derailed already.

 

Christianity itself is fast derailing.  People under 30 are on a hockey stick rise of converted non-believers.  Within two decades, a ton of older believers will have died off, and younger non-believers will be raising their non-indoctrinated children.

Incorrect but this is evidence for what?

[sthira]

>>> The topic is derailed already.

Christianity itself is fast derailing. People under 30 are on a hockey stick rise of converted non-believers. Within two decades, a ton of older believers will have died off, and younger non-believers will be raising their non-indoctrinated children.

Yeah I agree with this. The Internet will finally kill off these silly religions with their pathetic arguments for paternistic gods. I'm ready for a goddess anyway. This thread is a good example; SH's arguments have been completely dismantled and I keep reading his stuff and thinking wow that's all he's got to support his tradition? Endless cries of ad hominem and argument evasion. No matter what you say to this sad cat he'll not answer the reasonable criticisms of his position. If god exists and wants to say hello, we're all ears. But if god is working through the crummy arguments expressed by Shadowhawk then I'm about a million miles away from your conversion attempts.

By the way, whatever happened to the concept of love in your religion, Shadowhawk? Love get lost along the way?

[shadowhawk]

 

>>> The topic is derailed already.

Christianity itself is fast derailing. People under 30 are on a hockey stick rise of converted non-believers. Within two decades, a ton of older believers will have died off, and younger non-believers will be raising their non-indoctrinated children.

Yeah I agree with this. The Internet will finally kill off these silly religions with their pathetic arguments for paternistic gods. I'm ready for a goddess anyway. This thread is a good example; SH's arguments have been completely dismantled and I keep reading his stuff and thinking wow that's all he's got to support his tradition? Endless cries of ad hominem and argument evasion. No matter what you say to this sad cat he'll not answer the reasonable criticisms of his position. If god exists and wants to say hello, we're all ears. But if god is working through the crummy arguments expressed by Shadowhawk then I'm about a million miles away from your conversion attempts.

By the way, whatever happened to the concept of love in your religion, Shadowhawk? Love get lost along the way?

 

God is love but that does not mean I can overcome this content of name calling and empty baseless claims.  You have said absolutely nothing with zero facts.  Empty assertions with nothing to back them  up.  What do you think is the most difficult argument I have not dealt with is?  Perhaps you and I could discuss it now.  You claim to know of many.  Take the best one and lets revisit it.

 

[sthira]

Haha, I don't claim to know shit, man. You're the only one here claiming you've got the goods on god, and it's all about some 2k yr old hocus pocus. If god is love, explain ebola, eg. Or is that on Satan?

The most difficult argument you have to deal with is god has a perfect platform to come on down and join in the discussion. Where ya at, god? If god wants to be known then she'll make herself known. Your strange twisted sophistry doesn't fly here, dear bird. By the way, is that a flaming dove in your avatar, what is that thing? Scary ass shit, man, where's your love?

[sthira]

God is love

Hey flaming Zenaida macroura (I guess that's a hot mourning dove in your pic?), anyway, hey flaming dove, know what I know?

Here's what I do know. If "god is love" then god loves bacteria more than god loves you. 

That's because your body is made up of around ten trillion cells, but you harbour a HUNDRED TRILLION bacteria. God loves bacteria more than god loves you. Sad, true. 

Know what else? Jesus was a big sack of BACTERIA. God loved bacteria so much he filled His only begotten Son smack full of the stuff. And we have evidence galore for that one haha. 

[shadowhawk]

Non theists like to argue against a Maximately Great Being thinking they can substitute some other name for Maximately Great Being and thereby defeat the Ontological argument.  So they may advance such things as a computer, teapot, gods of the Greek and Roman pantheon, or some tribal gods.

The tribal gods of the early inhabitants of history are of little or no interest. They were essentially finite beings, and the god of one tribe or collection of tribes was regarded as good in that it enabled victory in war against tribes with less powerful gods. Similarly the Greek and Roman gods were more like mythical heroes and heroines than like the omnipotent, omniscient and good God postulated in mediaeval and modern Christianity and philosophy. In fact they were remarkably human with all the sins and failures of humanity.  That is one reason the Greeks and Romans stopped believing in them.

Pantheism, In Pantheism, God is identical with the cosmos, the view that there exists nothing which is outside of God, or else negatively as the rejection of any view that considers God as distinct from the universe.  God is exhausted in the cosmos and there is nothing but the physical world. In this it is remarkably close to Atheism.  Many Hindus hold this view.  Godel’s Incompleteness theorem is an uncomfortable fit with a view that identifies the material world and God as the same.  Such a God would be caused and could not explain itself anymore than nature can.  It could not be a maximally Great being.  So nature gods cant be a maximally Great being
 

[platypus]

Jehova is a tribal god.

[Duchykins]

So SH's new argument is that we can't play with their definiton of maximally great being because their definition is currently the most popular.

Christianity became state religion after being persecuted by pagans because ONE Caesar was converted, and once Christianity was in power it ground the pagans into dust with great prejudice, that's why it supeseded Roman polytheism.

The same intellectual elite that rejected Roman polytheism rejected Christianity too. Lol

[Duchykins]

Jehova is a tribal god.

Exactly. That's why YHWH acts just like a human in the Bible, complete with all petty human emotions, irrational reasoning, and behaviors. The fact that the god exhibited some of the better human traits would be a given since it's modeled after humanity (at the time).

[shadowhawk]

[addx]

 

God is love

 

 

This is true in a "romantic way".

 

It is personifying an emotion that is in fact a mechanism produced by years of evolution whose purpose is to allow more complex social grouping yielding more stronger life (in relation to the life form before it).

 

People would group up, bring up children, sacrifice themselves without such mechanisms. They're not the breath of jahve or whatever crap ignorant people like to spew when they want to enjoy attention(of even more ignorant people). 

 

Neurology can easily demonstrate, switch on or switch off various such drives, emotions and awarenesses even though it is still far from understanding the whole nervous system assembly and function.

[addx]

dbl pst cant find delete

Edited by addx, 07 August 2014 - 12:19 PM.

[sthira]

God is love

This is true in a "romantic way".

It is personifying an emotion that is in fact a mechanism produced by years of evolution whose purpose is to allow more complex social grouping yielding more stronger life (in relation to the life form before it).

People would group up, bring up children, sacrifice themselves without such mechanisms. They're not the breath of jahve or whatever crap ignorant people like to spew when they want to enjoy attention(of even more ignorant people). 

Neurology can easily demonstrate, switch on or switch off various such drives, emotions and awarenesses even though it is still far from understanding the whole nervous system assembly and function.

Exactly. And those on/off god-switches in the human brain were clearly beneficial to our ancestors or else we wouldn't have naturally selected for them. We created god  to help us survive as a species; we're now killing god because that tactic no longer functions to keep us safe. We will be more godless into our future, and that's a good thing. Competing religions have a terrible ongoing history of making things globally worse for us, and globally worse for the plants and animals with whom we share this planet.

[shadowhawk]

We discussed this as our first topic,  Here it is again.

 

1. EVIDENCE FROM HUMAN DESIRE.
Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.

Premise 2:  But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.

Conclusion:  Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.

This something is what people call "God" and "life with God
forever.

http://www.longecity...ty/#entry616422
 

[shadowhawk]

Are the laws of logic material?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by shadowhawk, 07 August 2014 - 07:36 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Which God have we been talking about since detractors seem to want to call a teacup God or some other stick, stone or other carved made or caused thing God??   I shall here assume that the God in question is that of a sophisticated monotheism as stated clearly in the topic.  You can call anything a ball even a square if the definition can change and words do not have meaning.  Isaiah in the old Testament laughed at Gods made out of sticks and stones and which were carved and made by human hands.   Simply slipping in the name of a frog. For God does not make the frog, God.  It entirely lacks the attributes of God as we are referring to here.  So if a teacup is your god, I agree a teacup will not fit the bill.  However that is not what I am referring to.

[Duchykins]

We discussed this as our first topic, Here it is again.

1. EVIDENCE FROM HUMAN DESIRE.
Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.

Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.

Conclusion: Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.

This something is what people call "God" and "life with God
forever.

http://www.longecity...ty/#entry616422

You must not know how popular tentacle porn is.

Also, P2 is not universally true.

[Duchykins]

Which God have we been talking about since detractors seem to want to call a teacup God or some other stick, stone or other carved made or caused thing God?? I shall here assume that the God in question is that of a sophisticated monotheism as stated clearly in the topic. You can call anything a ball even a square if the definition can change and words do not have meaning. Isaiah in the old Testament laughed at Gods made out of sticks and stones and which were carved and made by human hands. Simply slipping in the name of a frog. For God does not make the frog, God. It entirely lacks the attributes of God as we are referring to here. So if a teacup is your god, I agree a teacup will not fit the bill. However that is not what I am referring to.

Okay, we can assume the sophisticated monotheistic god is Ahura Mazda.

[shadowhawk]

 

We discussed this as our first topic, Here it is again.

1. EVIDENCE FROM HUMAN DESIRE.
Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.

Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.

Conclusion: Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.

This something is what people call "God" and "life with God
forever.

http://www.longecity...ty/#entry616422

You must not know how popular tentacle porn is.

Also, P2 is not universally true.

 

Nice argument by assertion with no evidence. 

[shadowhawk]

 

Which God have we been talking about since detractors seem to want to call a teacup God or some other stick, stone or other carved made or caused thing God?? I shall here assume that the God in question is that of a sophisticated monotheism as stated clearly in the topic. You can call anything a ball even a square if the definition can change and words do not have meaning. Isaiah in the old Testament laughed at Gods made out of sticks and stones and which were carved and made by human hands. Simply slipping in the name of a frog. For God does not make the frog, God. It entirely lacks the attributes of God as we are referring to here. So if a teacup is your god, I agree a teacup will not fit the bill. However that is not what I am referring to.

Okay, we can assume the sophisticated monotheistic god is Ahura Mazda.

 

The argument does not say which God, only that we emotionally long for God, We only long for real things.  Zoroastrianism is monotheistic and Ahura Mazda the top spirit, is not omnipotent but needs human beings to help him.  There are only a couple hundred to perhaps two million Zoroasters in the world today.  Very small.  However since we are talking about Christianity It is far bigger, and has an omnipotent God who is maximately great.  That is our topic.

As for your prostitute, you long for her and porn because it is real and meets your real need.  Therefore this does not defeat the argument.

[shadowhawk]

[Duchykins]

We discussed this as our first topic, Here it is again.

1. EVIDENCE FROM HUMAN DESIRE.
Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.

Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.

Conclusion: Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.

This something is what people call "God" and "life with God
forever.

http://www.longecity...ty/#entry616422

You must not know how popular tentacle porn is.

Also, P2 is not universally true.

Nice argument by assertion with no evidence.

You don't need 'evidence' to dismantle an argument via logic. This is something you refuse to learn.

Your stupid desire argument fails in both premises. I'm sorry that I don't comprehend your ignorance or idiocy, so I can't relate enough to you to dumb it down for you to better understand what just happened.

[Duchykins]

Which God have we been talking about since detractors seem to want to call a teacup God or some other stick, stone or other carved made or caused thing God?? I shall here assume that the God in question is that of a sophisticated monotheism as stated clearly in the topic. You can call anything a ball even a square if the definition can change and words do not have meaning. Isaiah in the old Testament laughed at Gods made out of sticks and stones and which were carved and made by human hands. Simply slipping in the name of a frog. For God does not make the frog, God. It entirely lacks the attributes of God as we are referring to here. So if a teacup is your god, I agree a teacup will not fit the bill. However that is not what I am referring to.

Okay, we can assume the sophisticated monotheistic god is Ahura Mazda.

The argument does not say which God, only that we emotionally long for God, We only long for real things. Zoroastrianism is monotheistic and Ahura Mazda the top spirit, is not omnipotent but needs human beings to help him. There are only a couple hundred to perhaps two million Zoroasters in the world today. Very small. However since we are talking about Christianity It is far bigger, and has an omnipotent God who is maximately great. That is our topic.

As for your prostitute, you long for her and porn because it is real and meets your real need. Therefore this does not defeat the argument.

That just means that any fantasy character is 'real', including gods and spirits of other religions, since they meet a 'real need'.
You can't have it both ways, your stupid argument supports all god beliefs equally, and it also supports atheism since that meets a 'real need' of atheists.


It doesn't matter though, we can assume other gods. Brahman, Aten, Jehovah (where Jesus is not God), the impersonal god of deism, whatever -- the more you argue against them and whittle the choices down to the Abrahamic god of your choosing, the more you prove that I am right when I argue that you are using your own theism to justify and confirm your own theism.

But if you don't argue that way, then the original 'proof' supports all other monotheistic, omnipotent blah blah blah gods equally.

[twc111]

 

 


'I'm sorry but your sentiments are naive and poorly presented.'
 
    I agree totally. Its been years since i have been addicted to intellectualize defined by EGO.I loved all that attention jealousy competition getting that next research funding, Acting like a human but being moved inside by a urge, like a machine, kissing up to others who I wanted to be. The power of my intellectualize allowed me to hide my emotion feelings. Things like love,home, life joys were not mine to be filled but only reasoned.  I would get a joy just to trick someone with a new way *I had with words. What a power. But that  was long ago----i got out---so believe me i am fully aware at  times here I am out of my league.
 
                  But I dont back down. Not when it comes to some things that is the essence of life or love. I see life love and God Spirit as inseparable. Involvement in extreme EGO will never understand Spiritual world--like a passing  warm wind at night or a quick glance from a beautiful person your way will allow you a feel of comfort or excitement but its only a Shadow that soon passes.
 
  So yes I understand some words I use dont fit and even my spelling may be off. We are all human and wacos exist everywhere, and until we see the main waco is us not them---WE HAVE NOT BEGUN TO LEARN

You are involved with your ego, all that patronizing about life, love, god, spirit and smugly implying how enlightened you are compared to those who have different beliefs, all of that is part of your ego. That is your ego speaking to us.

There is nothing wrong with not knowing everything. There is something wrong with being a pompous hypocrite.

 

 

 

[twc111]

 

You are involved with your ego, all that patronizing about life, love, god, spirit and smugly implying how enlightened you are compared to those who have different beliefs, all of that is part of your ego. That is your ego speaking to us.

There is nothing wrong with not knowing everything. There is something wrong with being a pompous hypocrite.

 

 

 

good catch----i guess i am saying --------that ego---me-- i ------becomes the god in my life------and i understand that if one wants to be accepted------or win---graduate-------excel--------EGO -must be number one--------

 

 Learn the fancy----accepted language of the group! Dress like your there! Cover up the realities, that show your human side. Your food is the compliments---acceptance---OK so whats this have to do with the topic?????

 

   EVERYTHING---------------forget trying to convince people Jesus is GOD--------------the reality is that we all choose our god-leader------some choose EGO---OK-cool--------the problem becomes when the EGO--worshipers have to proof---or justify there believe by saying other believes like--------BORN AGAIN believers--u know-those holy rollers---have no proof that Jesus is God----

 

 Where is his{ JESUS}physical body? why did those bible authors know that "things unseen make up the things we do see", Book of Genesis shows anyone ready to hear that--------this world is a battle ground! Evil is here until time ends!

Israel will battle with neighbors until the end!

 

  i can go on forever----PROOF-- Christianity is well explained---from Genesis to Revelation---its a true ----book of Directions---of how to understand the being of a human---

 

Edited by twc111, 09 August 2014 - 05:57 PM.

[serp777]

 

 

We discussed this as our first topic, Here it is again.

1. EVIDENCE FROM HUMAN DESIRE.
Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.

Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.

Conclusion: Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.

This something is what people call "God" and "life with God
forever.

http://www.longecity...ty/#entry616422

You must not know how popular tentacle porn is.

Also, P2 is not universally true.

 

 

 

Nice argument by assertion with no evidence. 

 

Look who's talking.

 

Prove that premise 2 is always true. You made the premise, so you can't shift the burden of proof this time. 

 

Basing logic off of desires is stupid. That's called magical thinking--human desires do not affect the reality of the universe.