Does God exist? (2 Viewers)

[durrrrr]

Hes already made a perfect creation; the angels if He did make us perfect there would be no difference between us and angels. It allows us to be greater than angels as I said or worse than the devils.

Why is it necessary to create anything other than angels?

Basically god is making us risk eternal suffering because he got bored. Oh, and his omniscience means that he knew we were going to fuck up and go to hell before he even created us which means he's the biggest cunt imaginable.

 

[dan964]

Probability is not well defined for meta-events.

just as well-ordered is for complex numbers.
Yet in philosophy (this is secular philosophy), secularists, hold to truth as being true:
- consistent with other known truths
- coherence
- pragmatic
- personal (relativism).

The problem is not whether probability is not that is well-defined, it is in some measure. Truth is not agreed on when it comes to what would be considered truth. For instance, someone like you, would probably only consider something true, if you can definitely prove it, limited to the empirical methods of science and mathematical logic.

Truth concerning meta-events can also not well-defined, because the word "miracle" is very subjective, even amongst the non-religious.
Even then because naturalism is also a world view that says that the probability of meta-events are 0.
Then again it also depends on classifying things as meta-events, some (as per a discussion several threads ago), would define the healing of cancer even though it is a physical event, with a correlating meta-event.

===
To change the angle...

Confidence can be well-defined, but not in a quantitative. So the question is not whether you have confidence (everyone has confidence in something), what is the thing we have confidence is (there can be more than one answer), and what reasons does one have for that?

IN the end the only one who can claim they don't have confidence in anything, is the nihilist in the room, but even they I think secretly are confident in the seeming lack of confidence elsewhere.

Personally, and I think most people are like this, they hold to the view that is most coherent. (It is why accusations such as delusional are just unjustified/unfound), the problem we have sometimes is that, and sometimes I err on this side too, is we need to address the issue.

Probability is well-defined in the realms of mathematics. That is sufficient to say it is well-defined. Can we plot meta-events in the realm of mathematics. Only if we have an accurate record of such events. Now some people say, well if it is a meta-event it has to be false, if it doesn't have a scientific explanation. The issue with that, is there is another dimension.

I kind of think when it comes to meta-events, you are looking at a problem.

Let us consider a simple miracle for instance as an example, turning into water into wine.

It is obvious that such thing is not a normality, so hence the probability of occurring is not high, specifically speaking. The issue is not that the probability is close to zero henceforth, but the question is it zero, because we dismiss as unlikely to happen. The real question is how reliable are the accounts of meta-events happening. This is where we have to look at it more, like a legal case, where witnesses put forth evidence as such.

 

[dan964]

Sorry ill try again

So what we believe in(again it's a belief you have a right to not agree and I have convinced myself with proofs that I agree with that probably everyone else won't) is that if there is a choice/inclination to do bad then it would obviously be more valuable to not do that bad then if you do not have the choice/inclination to do bad. Similarly if you have the choice to only do good things then the value of that good thing isn't as great as if you have the ability not to do good things and do bad. Does this make sense ?

For example I program a robot to respect me vs a child who can have the choice to disrespect me but respects me at the same level as the robot, obviously I would give a greater reward/respect to the child.

It is very wordy, let me see if I can get what you are trying to say...
The second statement before is clearer. You are basically asserting that for a good action to be truly considered good, it needs to be done without coercion and "freely" (in the loosest definition of the word). There is some agreement on this, but you can consider a situation where one or the other is so repulsive that they are bound to do the other. Considering the child, why is that we don't have to teach the kid how to do bad, but have to teach the kid good? And while despite our efforts, they tend towards the "bad" than the good. Does this not suggest something about the nature and capacity of humans not just to do evil but in the sense that they are inclined to evil.

But the idea of "freedom" is not just a subjective one, it tends to be a poorly defined one.

 

[Katebate]

Why is it necessary to create anything other than angels?

Basically god is making us risk eternal suffering because he got bored. Oh, and his omniscience means that he knew we were going to fuck up and go to hell before he even created us which means he's the biggest cunt imaginable.

Do you think a mother should be condemned for having a child just because they will experience suffering during life?

Even considering his omniscient nature, we still have a choice to choose him or reject him, to go to hell or join him in heaven. If we fail to accept his underserved gift of forgiveness, that is our fault not his.

 

[Drsoccerball]

Why is it necessary to create anything other than angels?

Basically god is making us risk eternal suffering because he got bored. Oh, and his omniscience means that he knew we were going to fuck up and go to hell before he even created us which means he's the biggest cunt imaginable.

Because creating something other than angels with free will as I said allows us to surpass the angels. Also God didn't need to create humans, as you probably asserted through the word "necessary." Also we believe that before entering the world God asked us if we wanted to be human so we cant question that aspect. Also would you call it injustice if a farmer plants 100 seeds and 10 fruit trees sprout. The value of even 1 tree is a lot more valuable then 100 seeds. Similarly humanity has people such as the pious people, prophets, saints etc... who became 'trees'. Also imagine I am on top of a high place and I can see the intersection of a road. I see two cars approaching fast and I write on a paper that "those two cars will crash and they will both die" and it happens will the people involved in the accident who were speeding/passing red lights blame me?

 

[Drsoccerball]

It is very wordy, let me see if I can get what you are trying to say...
The second statement before is clearer. You are basically asserting that for a good action to be truly considered good, it needs to be done without coercion and "freely" (in the loosest definition of the word).

Almost. I am saying that a good action of equivalent value is considered greater if it done with conscience, free-will and good-intention.

There is some agreement on this, but you can consider a situation where one or the other is so repulsive that they are bound to do the other. Considering the child, why is that we don't have to teach the kid how to do bad, but have to teach the kid good? And while despite our efforts, they tend towards the "bad" than the good. Does this not suggest something about the nature and capacity of humans not just to do evil but in the sense that they are inclined to evil.

We believe that everyone has a "jinn" 'inside' them which 'whispers' to us to do bad things. So this being is always whispering bad things trying to convince us to do bad things. "It's just one ciggie" "What's the worse that could happen if you just do..."

 

[Orwell]

I'd probably identify as a theist agnostic.

 

[Drsoccerball]

I'd probably identify as a theist agnostic.

This offends me as a vegan transgender atheist who vapes and crossfits 4 times a week and im also a male feminist as I identify myself as a pastafarian, apache, helicopter dog, mega multi combo god of hyper death and if you dont agree with me You're an ignorant arrogant globaphobic sexist lesbian.

 

[Paradoxica]

We believe that everyone has a "jinn" 'inside' them which 'whispers' to us to do bad things. So this being is always whispering bad things trying to convince us to do bad things. "It's just one ciggie" "What's the worse that could happen if you just do..."

As a naturalist, these things are the result of evolutionary strategies that have become maladaptive under the light of civilisation. (The other piece of explanation is genetic and epigenetic variation in psychology and neurology of individuals)

Morbid Curiosity is an intrinsic part of humans. (See: https://youtu.be/ZbdMMI6ty0o)

Also, I haven't had a "djinn" telling me to do "bad" things, as much as I have completely simulated (i.e. guessed) the consequences of a hypothetical action inside my head in a few seconds and evaluating the cost-benefit ratio of said action. (Which isn't to say that my moral/ethical and reward center is not atypical, because that is definitely the case as it stands... but I digress)

Still gonna be weird as far as weird goes.....

 

[Paradoxica]

This offends me as a vegan transgender atheist who vapes and crossfits 4 times a week and im also a male feminist as I identify myself as a pastafarian, apache, helicopter dog, mega multi combo god of hyper death and if you dont agree with me You're an ignorant arrogant globaphobic sexist lesbian.

raccoon sex dungeon

 

[dan964]

Almost. I am saying that a good action of equivalent value is considered greater if it done with conscience, free-will and good-intention.

the word "free-will" is not something that needs to be raised, what I mean that this libertarian view of freedom is inconsistent with the very nature of inclinations/desires, that even you mentioned. But that is a separate topic.

We believe that everyone has a "jinn" 'inside' them which 'whispers' to us to do bad things. So this being is always whispering bad things trying to convince us to do bad things. "It's just one ciggie" "What's the worse that could happen if you just do..."

really? I think you've lost even me on this one.

 

[durrrrr]

Because creating something other than angels with free will as I said allows us to surpass the angels. Also God didn't need to create humans, as you probably asserted through the word "necessary." Also we believe that before entering the world God asked us if we wanted to be human so we cant question that aspect. Also would you call it injustice if a farmer plants 100 seeds and 10 fruit trees sprout. The value of even 1 tree is a lot more valuable then 100 seeds. Similarly humanity has people such as the pious people, prophets, saints etc... who became 'trees'. Also imagine I am on top of a high place and I can see the intersection of a road. I see two cars approaching fast and I write on a paper that "those two cars will crash and they will both die" and it happens will the people involved in the accident who were speeding/passing red lights blame me?

a seed that fails to grow does not suffer for ETERNITY

but yeah I agree, people deserve to be tortured forever because they didn't know about/understand/believe some goofy horseshit some psychopathic camel jockey said 1500 years ago

 

[durrrrr]

it should come as no surprise that the average IQ for muslims is over half a standard deviation below that of non-muslims

 

[Paradoxica]

it should come as no surprise that the average IQ for muslims is over half a standard deviation below that of non-muslims

Well, that's kind of what happens when you let your religious beliefs take priority over education and genetic diversity...

I mean, just look at the U.S. in the south these days....

 

[dan964]

Well, that's kind of what happens when you let your religious beliefs take priority over education and genetic diversity...

I mean, just look at the U.S. in the south these days....

replace "religious" with "ideological" and we have some agreement

 

[dan964]

here is my logic flow, feel free to disagree:

I also address the very argument on the first page, since I don't think it is very accurate, and it is unsurprising that claims of poor "Christian logic".
View attachment Document1.pdf

Basically, I look at the options, and then you have to look at the case yourself. The evidence is there; I basically look at the things to establish and a bit rush the conclusion, so here is a little more spiel:

1. If God exists, then for it to be of relevance to the debate, he has to have made some contact with humanity and there are claims of such beyond creation.
2. Jesus Christ was a man who lived 2000 years ago, who said stuff about God and did things/miracles.
(now if God does not exists, then you have to conclude that Jesus was wrong to talk about God or at the very least delusional).

The real heart of the debate on this sheet is point 6. Once you establish that the Gospel accurately report Jesus teaching and actions, then there is no conclusion but to then examine it, and then make the judgement call about whether he was lying or not.

===
That is if Jesus is telling the truth, then God exists...

 

[Paradoxica]

===
That is if Jesus is telling the truth, then God exists...

Conditional statement is still conditional

 

[braintic]

(now if God does not exists, then you have to conclude that Jesus was ... at the very least delusional)

Yes - that is my conclusion.

And what part of your 'proof' cannot be applied to the existence of the Zoroastrian god and it's "prophet" Zarathustra?

 

[dan964]

Yes - that is my conclusion.

And what part of your 'proof' cannot be applied to the existence of the Zoroastrian god and it's "prophet" Zarathustra?

I am well aware of your conclusion. Or Islam and its prophet Mohammed.

Factors we have to ask:
- Have the claims of person X been accurately transmitted.
- Are their claims true?

What you find the case for the resurrection for instance, is something that is very public, 500 witnesses and the like.
The difference is most religion is revealed to just one person who then passes it on. A key difference for instance in Christianity, is Jesus is not just passing on info on what God is like, he is the exact representation of his being (as per his claims). I've had some discussion with Muslims over the claims.

Secondly, the big thing with Zorostrianism, is unlike Christianity and to a lesser extent Islam, the writings were not as well-preserved, nor as closely to the date of said prophet (I am going off the last conversation we had on this)
Unfortunately unlike with say Jesus (and again to a lesser extent Mohammed); is there is not much information on when he lived and scholars are highly in doubt of when he lived; most scholars leniently put no later than about 500BC, because Plato mentions him (around the death of Herodotus). Yet the earliest sources of Avesta (which is their equivalent to Quran/Bible etc.) dates only the 13th century AD, that is almost 1800 years (and that is using the most lenient figure, some scholars put Zoroaster at 1200-1500 BC). So I don't think the case for reliability and accuracy for Zoroaster is there, like is for say the Gospel of Mark/Jesus; we have much greater certainty that what the Gospels contain is most likely what Jesus said.

While the earliest record for instance of Jesus that we have record of, dates within 15 years about of the events that occurred. A section in 1 Corinthians 15, in Paul's letter, records the very witness of the key events...

"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter (Cephas) and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than 500 of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born."

So that is why I guess it doesn't work for absolutely all.
It is not so much a proof, but demonstrating the logic flow is a bit more complex than just the Bible says it, so therefore I believe it.

===
If your claims are that Jesus is schizophrenic simply because of "supposed miracles" then you have the issue that medically speaking, mass hallucinations of people is either itself a miracle in itself which you reject, or doesn't happen either.

I am curious if you come to that conclusion, what are you suggesting about the texts? I know your opinion is simply equivalent to the view of modern psychiatry. Present your case just for the sake of the other readers.

 

[braintic]

500 claimed witnesses.

You do know that there are no original manuscripts of the bible in existence don't you.
The earliest surviving copy of the text describing the "resurrection" exists in a museum in Egypt. It clearly shows that the story of Jesus' ascension to heaven was added later, with the 'original' text crossed out and the edits written above. The original text in this unoriginal manuscript simply states that his body was not to be found in the tomb.

Who knows what other edits occurred between the original and the earliest surviving texts. And more importantly, in terms of the 'mystical' elements of the bible, apparently we are to believe that the bible authenticates itself.