Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

71 (27.7%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

114 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (23.8%)

Total Members Voted: 251

[Kot]

I guess. On the other hand that would basically mean he's satisfied with the world where you can die before you're even born and thus be damned forever because you can't exactly be baptised then. What a dick.

So you're admitting you don't actually have any kind of a legitimate argument. Okay.

Dunno, do you?

[USEC_OFFICER]

Given this I feel comfortable saying "It is good" doesn't seem to connote perfection, merely satisfaction.

In other words, God pretty much went 'This is good enough' and called it a day? Because that would certainly explain a lot...

[Arx]

So you're admitting you don't actually have any kind of a legitimate argument. Okay.

Dunno, do you?

Yes. It goes like this:

Have you considered that there are a hell of a lot of problems that can't be solved by nuking them?

[Kot]

So you're admitting you don't actually have any kind of a legitimate argument. Okay.

Dunno, do you?

Yes. It goes like this:

Have you considered that there are a hell of a lot of problems that can't be solved by nuking them?

Eh, this isin't really an argument, since while nukes are cool and whatnot, actually nuking God would be kinda tricky and it was more of a joke anyway, though I do see a lot of truth in Imperial doctrine of "there is nothing that you can't solve with enough artillery".
In theory, if he's an amazingly advanced alien (or maybe an actually finite "celestial" being, but then we would have to come up with a way to transfer nukes into other planes of existence), nuking his face would possibly be our only option besides surrendering to space Kim Jong Un. You wouldn't want to surrender to space Kim Jong Un.

[Arx]

So you're admitting you don't actually have any kind of a legitimate argument. Okay.

Dunno, do you?

Yes. It goes like this:

Have you considered that there are a hell of a lot of problems that can't be solved by nuking them?

Eh, this isin't really an argument, since while nukes are cool and whatnot, actually nuking God would be kinda tricky and it was more of a joke anyway

Aah, K. I tend to miss those, sorry, in part because I feel like most of the time people are being serious about things like that.

[lemon10]

Nukes are a pretty useless solution against anything sufficiently advanced, because they would presumably be able to protect against them (eg. God makes a plane of existence where fusion doesn't work).
Honestly surrender against a being that powerful (without technology thousands of times more advanced), surrender is the only viable option. Hell, it might be the only option at all given that it could forceably change everyone's minds to make them surrender.

Okay, I'd like to present you with a challenge. Think about what being God is like. Imagine that there is nothing except you and infinite power. Now, create something perfect. Do you think that's possible? Have you done better? I'm not claiming that God is perfect, far from it. I simply think we are in no position to judge a divine being with infinitely more knowledge and experience than each of us, and if he has made mistakes, then quite honestly, why can't we forgive Him?

Its easy, I would use my omniscience to know exactly what to create, and my omnipotence to create it. Now, its clearly very different if he lacks omniscience. But he doesn't, thus the quandary.

I personally find the argument that "we live in the best of all possible worlds" (to quote the  old philosophical argument about the goodness of god) to be a bit ridiculous, but its not really possible to disprove.
After all it is correct that any bad things could theoretically be necessary for better things later on or that happened in the past.

I don't like it because it doesn't line up what humanity has perceived of reality at all (eg. randomness and the viciousness of the universe and evolution), but it is philosophically consistent.

[Quartz_Mace]

-snip-

I never claimed that God was omnipresent or omniscient, only that he ultimately held, in all practical regards, all power. He certainly would know everything that we have discovered, because he made it. And there's no way of knowing how many mortals he has outlived, thus, his knowledge and experience far outweigh our own. I'm also not claiming that God is infallible. I'm stating that perfection* itself may be impossible. I'd like to define this to be clear. *Perfect (adj.)- excellent or complete beyond all practical or theoretical improvement. OK, well how can you declare that anything fits that criteria? When does God say, okay "I added enough it's done." Or "I've fixed every issue. Done."?

[Kot]

Nukes are a pretty useless solution against anything sufficiently advanced, because they would presumably be able to protect against them (eg. God makes a plane of existence where fusion doesn't work).
Honestly surrender against a being that powerful (without technology thousands of times more advanced), surrender is the only viable option. Hell, it might be the only option at all given that it could forceably change everyone's minds to make them surrender.

Nay. I'd go against that powerful being with a bloody stick. And if he'd forcefully change my mind... wouldn't that go against all that "free will" thing? Though, are we now talking about being that is God (implying there is one) or maybe just any random being posing as one or whatever?

[origamiscienceguy]

I guess. On the other hand that would basically mean he's satisfied with the world where you can die before you're even born and thus be damned forever because you can't exactly be baptised then. What a dick.

How did you get to the conclusion that baptism staves of damnation?

[Toady One]

I trimmed a derail and sent a warning.  Continue on.

[TheBiggerFish]

Thankye.

[Orange Wizard]

Thanks.

Anyway, let's drop the nuking God thing because apparently it causes arguments.

[nenjin]

Glad I caught the post pre-edit. That was an...entertaining read.

[scriver]

I guess. On the other hand that would basically mean he's satisfied with the world where you can die before you're even born and thus be damned forever because you can't exactly be baptised then. What a dick.

How did you get to the conclusion that baptism staves of damnation?

If I recall my theology right, baptism washes off the stains of original sin.

[TheBiggerFish]

I guess. On the other hand that would basically mean he's satisfied with the world where you can die before you're even born and thus be damned forever because you can't exactly be baptised then. What a dick.

How did you get to the conclusion that baptism staves of damnation?

If I recall my theology right, baptism washes off the stains of original sin.

Yeah, that's pretty much how it goes.
I don't know the theology about when you're afflicted with original sin, though.