Off-topic

[Aries1918]

Edit - Edit - Umm... Edit - I like how there are random people that are popping in on the current discussion with things like croissant lol, it seems like an attempt to derail the conversation, but at the same time I think it's funny because there's a few of us making these long drawn out statements and then there are a few others putting breaks in between. Once again, great job with this off-topic topic Aries I love it.

That's what I'm here for. To bring randomness to this server, and its forums. I love being sponta...... hey look, something shiny!

[Mighty_Draco]

That is only a designation that you have assigned to the word "God". Words have value only relating to the meaning you have granted them, and it is not objective for you to say that the aforementioned term implies something sapient - that is based on assumptions and previously used understandings. When I say God, I use it in the sense that it could be a man floating on a cloud, or an energy, or the universe itself, or a mass-conciousness, or anything. I don't really care what designation you give it, but I had already outlined in what context I was using it in: a being that exists of its own necessity, outisde of space and time. Nothing more, nothing less.

Thanks for that definition. Debating over a deity gets fuzzy without knowing where the stance is on a deity.

The entire point of the argument is to say that that extention of logic makes no sense. There can't be an infinite series of creators, causers, or movers. There must have been a first, and for that to be true, it cannot be bound by the concept of time. If it cannot be bound by the concept of time, then it cannot be bound by the concept of space either, as space exists within time, since space as we know it had a begining.

I think the key part of this is was the simple clause "as we know it." The problem with this argument is that it's an argument from ignorance. To make sure people don't think I'm flaming or anything, allow me to define that. (from wikipedia again because it has a good way of wording things) An argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false or is only false because it has not been proven true. Read the article on it for a better explanation. It's a good article. In other words, demonstrating inconsistencies with our current theories on the world may show problems with our theories, but it does not assert the existence of any alternative theory. The current accepted model is the big bang theory, but I am not well versed in it and am not confident I could explain it.

The point is that our universe didn't. If it had, it would not be here now. I don't really understand your analogy.

What I meant was that because an apple needs to be created, and will be destroyed, it does not mean our universe functions the same way. The Big Bang theory asserts that there was a beginning. The assertion that a god outside our universe was the cause is an argument from ignorance as well.

Yeah, I hate the argument too. These aren't mine... they're Thomas Aquinas' five proofs of God, and I felt that I had to put this one in simply for the sake of completion. I probably did a terrible job of explaining it, as I don't recall the specifics of this one, having learned about it a few years ago. But truth be told, I agree with you anyways on this one.

I thought that one was a bit strange. Maybe there's a little less invalid form of reasoning to that argument, but it makes no sense to me still

Who rolled the dice?

God does NOT play dice with the universe

Couldn't resist that quote. What determines the decay of a radioactive isotope? *shrug*

I would say that whether or not he exists is the only thing relevant. I'll leave that untouched though, as it is purely a matter of fair perspective. What I would disagree with though, is you stating that searching for God would require putting away objectivity and rationality, in the name of wanting it to be there. Personally, I didn't search for God because I wanted him to be there... why would I want that? A being that will, religiously speaking, condemn me for my actions, punish me for my wrong doings, and provoke me to feel compelled to go to spiritual services of one sort or another, does not sound like something I would be excited to find, initially.

There are plenty reasons people "searching" for a god want it to be there that would cause inherit bias and loss of objectivity.

Please note that by "relevant" I mean that in the objective sense of influencing our known universe. I god that does not physically manipulate our universe in any way, is not relevant.

When you search, it is your motivation that provides your bias. If you search to find God because you want it to be real, you will find what you are looking for. If you search for God to prove he is not there, you will find what you are looking for. If you search for God to find only the truth, whatever it may be, you will find what you are looking for. Choose your motivation, and proceed to search. But to not search at all will mean you find nothing - truth included.

You are stating that I may choose to look for the existence or nonexistence of a "god", and that I will find whichever one I look for. Let's create a hypothetical split. I choose the first, and look for and find a god objectively and rationally. I find a way to conclude he exists. The other me chooses to search for his nonexistence and objectively and rationally conclude he does not exist. If "searching" for him can lead to me concluding he does, and he does not exist, then there is an inherit loss of rationality, or we live in an inconsistent universe in which facts are decided by whatever I search for. I like the think the former. I choose not to "search" for the invisible pink unicorn. I choose not to search for the flying spaghetti monster. I choose not to search for a god.

Hehe, I never noticed you said "devout atheist". Thats actually pretty funny. And atheism isn't really objective. Agnosticism is, if you've heard of it. It sounds more aligned with how you describe yourself anyways, but I may be wrong.

Atheism is defined by either the assertion of the nonexistence of god or the lack of the belief in a god. There's a bit of a blurry line between some forms of atheism and agnosticism.

At one point or another, you have to have faith in something. The fun thing about faith though, is that you have nothing to lose no matter what you do with it. You might as well invest in something big, since its risk-free. But really, I agree with you regardless. I just happened to have found rationality through a leap of faith. Lucky me. Then again, luck isn't rational, is it?

I do not believe "faith" is necessary. There is more then one definition of faith too, and I'm not quite sure which one you mean.

Would it make you feel better if I changed the word "theory" to the word "concept"? Since really, all this is, is an argument over word-choice...

It's not too significant, but I felt it necessary to make the distinction between what you said, and what a theory is.

Disclaimer: Let it be known that I am, in no way, attempting to push religion onto you, Draco, or anyone else reading this. I am also not trying to be disrespectful or negatively critical of your own personal views and beliefs. I simply enjoy, drastically, these kinds of discussions. I just plain love them.

I strongly believe in open discussion and communication. I, in no way, feel as if your religion has been imposed on me, and I am enjoying this discussion as well.

[Mighty_Draco]

Your missing the general thrust of my point though Draco. I'll try to elaborate, try to go with me on this one. The whole idea of 'ad hominem' or anything we 'use' to label, discern, or understand things with is not that great. An ant can say that because it never understood or saw any proof of wearing white after labor day is a fashion faux pas, that there fore it must not exist, or it does exist but is not relevant, is just kind of silly. The ant that is. . . silly as in "Awww look at the dumb little fellah"

I guess if you can see the discussion that the 'created' beings, thats us, trying to disprove the 'creator', with the little berries we have in our skulls is pretty much just a laugh riot.

Just because we say something is scientific does not make it so. Any scientist that really pushes the folds of study comes to the conclusion or a breakthrough that 'hey!' the rules I have been forcing on the universe really aren't true, Gee Whiz!

I guess thats what I'm also trying to say, we as humans think very highly of ourselves and try to force our 'rules' on the universe. When instead we should be looking and searching for the rules we should adhere to, not vice versa.

And in conclusion the Ad Hominem label was tenous at best, what with you using an argumentum ad verecundiam.

I love Chicken Pot Pie, beats the snot out of its bastardized fruity cousins.

Where? I hate it when I use a fallacy, bugs the hell out of me.

I think I understand the source of our disagreement.

I'll assume your beliefs are common with Jaeram. The scenario described is one in which an omnipotent force does not wish to be known by whatever it created, and thus it's impossible for the created to know of it. True, but it relies off the assertion that the creator does not wish to be known. There are an infinite quantity of scenarios that can be described in which some an omnipotent creator may or may not want his existence known to us.

I guess thats what I'm also trying to say, we as humans think very highly of ourselves and try to force our 'rules' on the universe. When instead we should be looking and searching for the rules we should adhere to, not vice versa.

We should search for rules that can be used to predict, explain, understand, and control the universe and its many aspects. Whether or not a god exists has no predictive ability. One cannot formulate an experiment, even if only theoretically possible, that would demonstrate the existence or nonexistence of god, and thus, whether or not a god exists is irrelevant.

EDIT: I could go for some truthful cake about now, better then any kind of pie.

[Aries1918]

No, you are all wrong. The only real religions are the ones from the Final Fantasy series. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't get any more pie. Or muffins.

[Mighty_Draco]

No, you are all wrong. The only real religions are the ones from the Final Fantasy series. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't get any more pie. Or muffins.

Oh noes! It's a Jenova's Witness!

That Pastry! It's a word or phrase said knowingly contrary to reality with intents of deceit!

[Jaeram]

(This is a bit more of a personal feeling than a continuation to god or no god topic) I don't think that we have a case where a god wishes to be completely unknown, only that, they wish to have their existence take a true act of faith to have belief in. If you had concrete proof that there was a god everyone would just accept it and faith would no longer be an issue, it would be like putting a glass of water in front of me and saying here this glass of water exists, do whatever you want with it, it doesn't take an act of faith for me to believe it because it's right there in front of me. Part of what leads my faith is a feeling that I get deep inside of me, that guides my actions, you could call it a spark of the divine, a part of my soul, or nothing at all because no one else can feel what I feel, and I can't prove it to anyone. I believe that I was brought here, from where ever, for a reason though, that there is a purpose to my being here in this moment, whether it is to influence another person, or to protect someone, or maybe just to be someone's friend, but it's something I can't ignore. I feel that life is a very sacred thing that should be cherished and protected, and all my life I've based my actions largely on that feeling, and It's always been in my nature to step in when I see someone getting hurt. There are also times when certain actions, activities, or even emotions, make me feel more in tune with it, like it's resonating inside of me and things become clearer the closer I get to resonating with it. You might say it's just courage and morals, maybe even brash stupidity, or maybe a strong sense of justice, but for some reason it feels deeper than that to me and for some reason I can't help but to feel that it was a gift given to me, to be a part of me and my personality, for a reason I may not even know yet, for all I know in 50 or 60 years I could be preaching peace the way that ghandi did and this could just be leading me to the path, or maybe I've already done my job, who knows.

[Aries1918]

Oh noes! It's a Jenova's Witness!

That Pastry! It's a word or phrase said knowingly contrary to reality with intents of deceit!

See? Someone knows what I am talking about!
*hands Draco a pie and a muffin*

[Jaeram]

I love that Jenova's witness comic, that was a good one. Praise Hojo!

[Peridan]

I just like pastry, I don't know what you guys are talking about...

[Kangleton]

Its early in the morning and I have school in about ten minutes, so I won't post anything long yet. But fear not! I shall return...

In the mean time, Jaeram, you talk the Pisces. Did you know?

[Jaeram]

I had no idea, but actually I am an Aries, and surprisingly many of the traits for an Aries seem like my personality.

I've got classes to go to now too.

[Gairun]

Quick blurb before I go to the gym and get a hair-cut afterwards.

Draco I'm pointing out the fact that you, and humanity in general, are limited fallible creations. And because of this we cannot trust in our own made up logic or fancy rules of how we view the universe.

And secondly human beings have free will, because of this gift we can choose. Because we can choose what we believe, we can choose to believe or not in our creator, and that is what is known as Faith.

[Jaeram]

That's pretty much what I was getting at as well, I think you summed that up pretty nicely gairun.

[Aries1918]

I had no idea, but actually I am an Aries, and surprisingly many of the traits for an Aries seem like my personality.

Everyone can dream

[rustediron]

One more thing I feel compelled to note. Those "theories" are in no way valid, objective, scientific theories. (right out of wikipedia)

: o I think he is quoting Aquinas' five ways, which have been adapted over the 500 odd years they have been around... dismissing them as 'arguments from ignorance' *shakes head*

A theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experimentation or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.

Empircism FTW!

Now I'd better check the rest of the posts after this one - had to reply on read :P