Print

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

[Virex]

Whoa! Brainwave! I think I've figured out a scenario/experiment that could provide reliable evidence for or against the existence of a creator deity; However it only applies if that creator deity is at least to some degree fallible. To wit, if the world was created by an omnipotent but fallible creator there could be fundamentally unresolvable inconsistencies^* in things such as the laws of physics and the general laws as they operate on different scales or settings, analogously to how the mechanics of fortress mode in Dwarf Fortress cannot be derived from just looking at the mechanics of world-generation.

No, not really. It's possible for an infallible deity to create something that's flawed, or at least flawed by our standards.

Honestly, your argument is a little confused here. First it sounds like you're arguing that you can disprove the existence of a fallible deity, but then you go on to sound like you're arguing that you can prove a deity is fallible.

At any rate, saying that an infallible deity (whatever that means; remind me why we aren't defining terms here?) can't create something fallible implies too much about that deity that we can't readily assume. Why shouldn't an infallible deity be able to create a universe with inconsistencies in its rules? Hell, isn't that basically the definition of a miracle?

Test a if A then B statement is true of false, you only need to test if B true or not when A is true, when A is false you don't need to test B at all, the statement if A then B, always true. And it only test the "causality" between A and B, Nothing to do with the true of false about A. When the world is flawed or flawless, and there is not creator, or its infallible, all makes A false, but the statement if A then B stays true.

Only you accepted the assumption of existing creator AND its fallible in the first place, than the test can determine the causality of A->B true of not. That is a fallible creator exited and we observed a flawless world, then it will shock us. That will be a true miracle. Sometime fallible creates a flawless thing.

PS. about the analysis of if A->B, All the below is what need to be analysis, let's see these statements:
 
1. there is no creator, the world is flawed, need to be true, no problem here, check.

2. there is no creator, the world is somehow flawless, need to be true at the same time. I don't know how, but it can be. check.

3. there is a creator, and he is infallible, but he purposely create a flawed world, toying with us. It can be true. but I will not say anything about the creator's character. check

4. there is a creator, and he is fallible, the world is flawed, true, it's an obvious statement. check.

5. there is a creator, and he is fallible, the world is flawless, need to be false, and obviously is a contradiction statement itself. check.

Then we get a statement about causality of if A->B true. If you think the implication about this statements above, you won't feel it's a causality worth mention. (Or you want to, because may lead to the funny conclusion that God is simply playing us), you can't test the assumption true of not from its implication statement.

That whole argument hinges on being able to accurately gauge if the world is flawed, which is not a given. Because if the world is flawed, then it means that our perception of the world can be flawed, meaning we could percept it as being perfect. Therefor, even if we think the world is flawless that does not guarantee that it is in fact flawless. And that is, assuming there is an objective definition of flawlessness in the first place.

[CJ1145]

Well, I do believe in the existence of heaven, but there are a few discrepancies that don't really fit your theory. For one, God has described himself as the one and only god, and a jealous one at that. He would be by his own admission be unwelcoming to other deities. So while the Taoist view of heaven is perfectly viable on its own, if tried to merge with Christianity it doesn't really make sense.

A second issue is that our God is defined as literally Truth incarnate, among other things. Lying, even for our own sake, is simply something he doesn't do. Not to mention the Bible is full of visions of things that simply don't make sense, and if this were true probably would have been edited a bit.

I am asking because someone in the history actually trying to do that - the Taiping Rebellion 太平天國 in 19th century China. Their name in Chinese literally means "Great peacefully Heaven (on earth)". Though it maybe a bit different than the original religion, like the Mormonism in US, the movement in China created this unusual hybrid, more unusual than Mormonism. But it did in term believing in Bible, but adding one more figure as the founder Hong Xiuquan (洪秀全) believed that in a vision, he is the brother of Jesus. I know it sound weird, but blood/family relationships is the core of Eastern Culture elements. And he intend to build a Christian kingdoms in China, but most people here are Taoism/Buddhism/Confucianism in the first place, its quicker for he to adaptive new doctrines than slowly converting people. And he saw the common elements in Taoism and Christianity believes. If he didn't fail politically, like in history, we might have a new branch of Christian believes. (I am not arguing it's right or wrong, in history believing in Jesus as the son of God in Judaism is also new and unacceptable, and minority believes, as long as it gather enough followers later, it too becomes a center believe doctrine), And I think it should be a constant struggle of keeping old faith, or accepting new possibility that hold a believe system together. You may support it or against it, but they both existed in balanced. However I think most will be against accepting new elements in a mostly converted/culture-stable society, so it can hold its current believers. How many or the degree of acceptance is related with the ratio of non-believers/population. More non-believers around you, more open minded you need to be.

I understand the benefits of incorporating parts of other religions, such as the creation of the Christmas holiday. But that is mostly harmless to the actual doctrine, what  the Taiping Rebellion did changed some vital elements of Christianity, and at that point it's not even Christianity. Keep in mind, the apostle Paul actually advocates being like who you are trying to reach (to a certain point) but, for example, saying he is the brother of Jesus is full-on heresy, and more importantly ludicrous. Jesus is God according to our belief, therefore he would have no brothers save for his human brothers, who died long ago.

About truth, I agree for the consistency and maintaining believes it has to be forbidden to lie, in order for followers not questioning the believe itself. (Sorry for the tone sounds a little academic, like observers, since I AM not Christian, not even Westerners) But, do it forbid not telling everything and the whole picture of truth? Like there is a possibility that God as an unimaginable entities such that the whole courts/government of deities in Taoism heaven is just in God's mind/body/entity-self, like the concept of trinity (its defined later, rather than state in the old bible), but multi-entities-unity? And he didn't show it to the followers in the western world is because God can be as many forms as it can be, so he shows in different faces to different people in Eastern world, and the one recorded that, like the people wrote/recorder bible, has to use the concepts of their time to write it down, so it looks outdated/not-make-much-sense to us now. It's the fault of us humans that they are recoded differently. Like in a scenario there are many Abraham/prophets not recorded in ancient land of China, or did recorded but due to language difference/distances, so didn't incorporate their vision of God into current version of Bible (chapters are collected and selected in Rome-era churches, many are discards, and I don't believe even they have the scrolls, written about God from prophets in Chinese, they would understand the language, let along accept it). So the memory of Gods show itself to different prophets in different faces, granting different prayers, are viewed by the rest as many deities from heaven - like in Taoism. Anyone told any lies? No, and perhaps not even faults (not intentionally), but just restricted by the limitations of human themselves (in traveling, knowledge, comprehensions, languages, even our short lived lifespan), you can't blame those forerunners/prophets really.  So why can't they be both telling a different perspective of a single truth as you have faith in it? Or is this point of view, will be seen by you as devil's advocate to you?

Well, if I understand what you're saying I can't really say for certain if that's even true. In my copy of Genesis God refers to himself as a "we". This may be something done by newer translations and not be present in the old texts mind you, but if it's true it would set a precedent for the trinity. Why he would reveal the trinity later and still yet withhold the other potential parts of him makes little sense to me. Not to mention one must question what exactly the point of them would be. The trinity is clearly defined in its roles (as clearly defined as a god can be, anyway). The Father is the ruler, the Son is the voice and the savior, and the Holy Spirit is the part of God that resides within us all, according to Christian doctrine. What roles are left for any other "parts" to fill?

And I think the second part of this is referring to general revelation. The idea that in parts of the world where Christianity could not reach, the message of God is spread to people in similar forms, and worship of that is accounted as worship of him. It's a real recognized thing, and there's much debate over its credibility, and I'm not sure if it applies here. I don't actually know a whole lot about Taoism to be honest, so I can't say for certain how compatible the religion as a whole is with Christianity.

[G-Flex]

Well, if I understand what you're saying I can't really say for certain if that's even true. In my copy of Genesis God refers to himself as a "we". This may be something done by newer translations and not be present in the old texts mind you, but if it's true it would set a precedent for the trinity.

For what it's worth, it's unclear why the plural ("we", "our", "Elohim") is used in the Bible/Torah. There are some cases where it's treated as singular even though it's a grammatical plural, some cases where it isn't (mostly when referring to other gods explicitly), and it's not clear whether the plural is used because there was a sort of monolatry in ancient Israel, or because it's more of a "royal We", as there are in fact many languages (modern and ancient) in which plural pronouns/words are used to denote politeness, majesty, or grandeur.

[counting]

Whoa! Brainwave! I think I've figured out a scenario/experiment that could provide reliable evidence for or against the existence of a creator deity; However it only applies if that creator deity is at least to some degree fallible. To wit, if the world was created by an omnipotent but fallible creator there could be fundamentally unresolvable inconsistencies^* in things such as the laws of physics and the general laws as they operate on different scales or settings, analogously to how the mechanics of fortress mode in Dwarf Fortress cannot be derived from just looking at the mechanics of world-generation.

No, not really. It's possible for an infallible deity to create something that's flawed, or at least flawed by our standards.

Honestly, your argument is a little confused here. First it sounds like you're arguing that you can disprove the existence of a fallible deity, but then you go on to sound like you're arguing that you can prove a deity is fallible.

At any rate, saying that an infallible deity (whatever that means; remind me why we aren't defining terms here?) can't create something fallible implies too much about that deity that we can't readily assume. Why shouldn't an infallible deity be able to create a universe with inconsistencies in its rules? Hell, isn't that basically the definition of a miracle?

Test a if A then B statement is true of false, you only need to test if B true or not when A is true, when A is false you don't need to test B at all, the statement if A then B, always true. And it only test the "causality" between A and B, Nothing to do with the true of false about A. When the world is flawed or flawless, and there is not creator, or its infallible, all makes A false, but the statement if A then B stays true.

Only you accepted the assumption of existing creator AND its fallible in the first place, than the test can determine the causality of A->B true of not. That is a fallible creator exited and we observed a flawless world, then it will shock us. That will be a true miracle. Sometime fallible creates a flawless thing.

PS. about the analysis of if A->B, All the below is what need to be analysis, let's see these statements:
 
1. there is no creator, the world is flawed, need to be true, no problem here, check.

2. there is no creator, the world is somehow flawless, need to be true at the same time. I don't know how, but it can be. check.

3. there is a creator, and he is infallible, but he purposely create a flawed world, toying with us. It can be true. but I will not say anything about the creator's character. check

4. there is a creator, and he is fallible, the world is flawed, true, it's an obvious statement. check.

5. there is a creator, and he is fallible, the world is flawless, need to be false, and obviously is a contradiction statement itself. check.

Then we get a statement about causality of if A->B true. If you think the implication about this statements above, you won't feel it's a causality worth mention. (Or you want to, because may lead to the funny conclusion that God is simply playing us), you can't test the assumption true of not from its implication statement.

That whole argument hinges on being able to accurately gauge if the world is flawed, which is not a given. Because if the world is flawed, then it means that our perception of the world can be flawed, meaning we could percept it as being perfect. Therefor, even if we think the world is flawless that does not guarantee that it is in fact flawless. And that is, assuming there is an objective definition of flawlessness in the first place.

If you giving the assumption of we as a tester is fundamentally flawed, then there is no need to test anything at all. The result will be pointless. And you can say anything to be true, and they still possibly  true, as there is a pink elephants flying with it's ears. This is fundamental problems and meanings of any believes can not be tested in the first place.

[Bohandas]

Regarding the burden of proof...

[G-Flex]

If you giving the assumption of we as a tester is fundamentally flawed, then there is no need to test anything at all. The result will be pointless. And you can say anything to be true, and they still possibly  true, as there is a pink elephants flying with it's ears. This is fundamental problems and meanings of any believes can not be tested in the first place.

This reasoning itself is flawed as it assumes that the purpose of empirical science/testing is to ascertain absolute truths; it is not. The purpose is to generate a working model of the universe around us that seems to have repeatable and predictable patterns in it, which is basically the core of human learning to begin with.

The problem is when we try to use our reasoning ability to ascertain absolute truths or things that transcend the universe itself, like how "flawed" our own universe is compared to some other, hypothetical universe, when the entire concept of "flaw" is rooted in this universe (and indeed our own heads) to begin with.

[Montague]

Pascal's Wager.

Because you never know.

[Hiiri]

Ugh, again one of these topics that stretch 21 pages within the first week. Could you guys be a bit LESS active, so the slower ones can catch up, please?

As for the topic itself; how can one win an argument, when the opposition doesn't value logic or evidence? Religion can be argued against with a sentence or two, yet everyone's writing walls of irrelevant metaphysical shit. (For and against)

How about a discussion on free will instead, hmm?

Edit:

Pascal's Wager.

Because you never know.

Yeah you never know, so why assume?

[Glowcat]

Pascal's Wager.

Because you never know.

Reverse Pascal's Wager.

Because you never know if Pascal's God hates brown-nosers.

[G-Flex]

Pascal's Wager.

Because you never know.

Pascal's Wager is extremely flawed. It's not even really controversially flawed; it's so mathematically screwy that it isn't worth considering.

It rests on the assumption that your choices are "believe in the Christian God" and "don't believe in the Christian God" when in fact there is an infinite and uncountable number of potential deities, religious beliefs, etc. that have different standards, different conceptions of life and death and the afterlife, and so forth. Pascal's Wager doesn't consider the possibility that you'd just wind up worshiping the wrong god, for instance. Hell, what if the real gods only bring atheists to paradise after death?

[Hiiri]

Pascal's Wager is extremely flawed. It's not even really controversially flawed; it's so mathematically screwy that it isn't worth considering.

It rests on the assumption that your choices are "believe in the Christian God" and "don't believe in the Christian God" when in fact there is an infinite and uncountable number of potential deities, religious beliefs, etc. that have different standards, different conceptions of life and death and the afterlife, and so forth. Pascal's Wager doesn't consider the possibility that you'd just wind up worshiping the wrong god, for instance. Hell, what if the real gods only bring atheists to paradise after death?

This. But like I said: "When the opposition doesn't value logic..."

[Criptfeind]

Piff. You don’t have to believe in God, you can just do good things in such and keep a open mind that a god might exist. I mean, if it is a good god, that should be enough, and if it is a bad god, you are screwed anyway.

[Montague]

You have to take certain assumptions.

Out of all religions, the Abraham ones are the ones that send you straight to hell for not believing. Out of this, Islam canonically accepts Christians and Jews as a sort of side-bet loser and they don't typically go to hell. Other major religions don't have such terrible afterlives for non-believers or heathens. Mormonism is like that, too. Christianity offers the best odds. Of course there is always the chance that the One True God is actually nothing at all like any major world religion, but thats not likely, considering any really vengeful or spiteful god will have a greater following.

I'd put my chips on Christianity. Eastern Orthodoxy, if you have the time and money to spare, but even Unitarian universalism is better then atheist. Atheist is a sure fire way to go to hell no matter who you talk to. Its like hitting on a 20.

[Hiiri]

Religion and afterlife is like lottery with infinite amount of numbers. What's the point of playing, when there's no chance of winning anyway?

"Well why not? What's the harm?" ... Open up your newspaper.

[Criptfeind]

Um. Cause you have to?