If it where plausible would it still be God?
User Tag List
-
12-18-2010, 08:26 PM #471
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
- Posts
- 23,022
All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.
Chapter IV, p. 448. - Adam Smith, Book 3, The Wealth of Nations
-
12-18-2010, 08:34 PM #472
-
12-18-2010, 10:27 PM #473
-
12-18-2010, 11:01 PM #474
Yes. Well put.
Maybe the set is the other way around altogether.
Atman was bored and he created the illusion of the universe to divert himself.
The illusion cannot see the real. The real can see the illusion.
Does the illusion exist? Yes.
Does Atman exist?
Wrong question.
-
12-19-2010, 12:46 PM #475
This is not quite right. Infinite means "not finite". What does finite mean?
fi·nite
[fahy-nahyt]
–adjective
1. having bounds or limits; not infinite; measurable.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/finite
If you assume there is a god! And I think you're assuming even more in this sentence: that god is somehow able to steer us like puppets and has actively cutted the strings to make us free-willed. But if there isn't a puppeteer to begin with... free will is much easier to understand. And I'm a great fan of Ockham: if two different theories describe the same effect, choose the easiest.
True. Moreover, for science to work you need to believe in other things too: that there is a sort of structure to our universe, that it's predictable, and that our senses don't mislead us. Most people actually believe in that - maybe not if you ask them right out, but they live as if they do. They go home after work as if they are sure their house is still there and didn't mutate into an octopus! You don't even think about that!
Did you find a part of god yet? Did you find a lower bound?
I only found upper bounds to him (her,...): his influence is not significantly bigger than pure chance.My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
http://www.revoltingvegetables.com
-
12-19-2010, 03:14 PM #476
People have a fear of the unknown. When events occur that they can't describe, rather than accept it as an unknown they attribute it to a greater being. Thus, religion. There is also trust and communication. When one person reaches a conclusion, those surrounding them learn of this conclusion from them. It's not like Christianity formed in multiple places; different religions popped up to handle such situations.
That definition of finite is problematic. You can place bounds or limits on stuff and have it remain infinite. Saying that happy is not a number does not mean that there are not an infinite amount of numbers.Ne > Ti > Si >> Te > Se >> Fe > Fi > Ni
5 so/sp
Chaotic Neutral/Evil
-
12-20-2010, 02:54 AM #477
What's then the difference between infinite and non-existent? If something is non-existent, it isn't measurable either. If you say "infinite" I think of two things - either infinitely small or infinitely big. If something is infinitely big (insert any scale here - infinitely good, infinitely powerful... are the ones most readily attributed to a god - but I don't shrink from infinitely massive or other things) you can at least put a lower limit to it.
Infinitely small - why worship a "god" who is infinitely less powerful than a human, who has infinitely little influence on the world,...? Such an entity is not worth to worship.
This is the first time I've heard this argument. Perhaps you could elaborate? Generally I've heard atheists argue against free will and Christians argue in favor of it. If the simplest explanation is that free will exists without God I would like for you to elaborate as to why that is.
Let me revise the Christian thing.
First of all there is a God with a free will. This one wants some company, creates (whether in six days like the Bible tells or with genetic manipulation which can't be distinguished from spontaneous evolution - I don't really care about the details here.) plants, animals and humans. Then he actively endows the humans with a spark from his free will.
So you start already with something with free will!
Why can't I start with something with a free will too? Why do I have to prove that you can create free will with nothing but chance and selection? You've got a much bigger problem than that! Where does that free will of God come from??
I can't really understand your last sentence. In that I can't understand how a person can see the influence of any sort of deity as purely chance. For this to be true one must give an adequate (and non-cynical) explaination why religion is a universal phenomenon.
You don't want to risk spring not coming back, so you won't experiment with "not sacrificing a lamb" this year. Until someone does.
The whole history is riddled with new ideas and beliefs coming up and old ones discarded or proven false.
Religion is not as universal as it used to be...
-
12-20-2010, 03:15 AM #478SnifflesGuest
-
12-20-2010, 09:15 AM #479
- Join Date
- Dec 2010
- MBTI
- INTJ
- Enneagram
- 8
- Socionics
- INTj
- Posts
- 3
Actually, it is rather obvious that the Christian God is illogical. The essence of christianity is that God made the Universe, and Adam and Eve, who ate a fruit from a talking snake, which caused us all to be sinners, and then sent himself as a sacrifice to himself, in a bid to please himself. Despite his omniscient characteristic, he could not prevent Adam and Eve from eating the fruit, he could not prevent people for disbelieving, and yet claims free will exists when he would send his creations to hell. To make it worse, evil believers qualify for heaven, while good nonbelievers go to hell. The Universe is so obviously not designed, and it is obvious that if a God existed, he would have deliberately made it appear as such. And when Christians say that it is to 'test their faith', it gets annoying that they reject evidence. Of course, we have the FSM to back us up.
Furthermore, the irony deepens when God is considered 'all loving', when any rational thought immediately shows that God is bloodthirsthy and self-centred. If the Christian God existed, Heaven would be no better than Hell.
The deist God would make a much better case. However, the existence of any God in the first place is, prima facie, unlikely.
-
12-20-2010, 10:50 AM #480
If both are defined as "can not been expressed in terms of money", yes. But they aren't.
Priceless can be defined as: "more worth than any money" while worthless can be defined as "less worth than any money."
The same is true for "infinitely big" = "bigger than every measure" and "infinitely small" = "smaller than every measure". Both can be compared to a measure. Not I, but Liquid Laser was telling "infinite" meant "can not been expressed in terms of measures". If you take this definition (which I don't) then yes, you can't distinguish between infinite and nonexistent.
Similar Threads
-
Let's see how good you guys are
By Anamalech in forum What's my Type?Replies: 22Last Post: 07-15-2010, 12:50 AM -
I don't know how much more I can take.
By Haphazard in forum General PsychologyReplies: 83Last Post: 05-20-2010, 11:15 PM -
I really don't know how I feel about this...
By Wade Wilson in forum Arts & EntertainmentReplies: 0Last Post: 05-08-2009, 07:21 PM -
Let's see how this goes...
By whiteraven in forum Welcomes and IntroductionsReplies: 11Last Post: 07-15-2007, 08:05 PM