I found this exchange between AgentofCoin and Hyperme.sh (One of Anonymint's recent and now banned incarcerations) a fascinating read the exchange starts here.
Why hasn't any government stopped Bitcoin?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1972052.80
Topic: Health and Religion - page 58. (Read 210871 times)
''I would gently remind you that in our prolonged back and fourth above we reduced Perry Marshall's argument down to three primary assumptions'' If you admit they are just assumptions then don't use it as evidence to say the belief in god is logical. It would only be logical if all the assumptions are correct. I can use X amounts of assumptions to prove the belief in magic unicorns is logical. It's pointless.
As for my beliefs, I don't have. Why would I believe in anything for no reason?
As for my beliefs, I don't have. Why would I believe in anything for no reason?
All knowledge is ultimately based on apriori truth Astargath. All empiricism can ever do is take you back to primary assumptions and then evaluate the consistency and fit of the model from the basis of those assumptions.
I explained this earlier in some depth.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.24418501
Your response was:
That was some next level bullshit my friend, what the fuck are you even talking about.
You don't understand epistemology and metaphysics. That is ok but the problem with not understanding metaphysics is that we really can't get very far in discussions such as ours above. It is metaphysics that teaches us how to use our understanding. Without metaphysics there is no knowledge or proof.
Adam and eve make no sense, how did they fail? Didn't they fail because god made them that way? If god knew they would fail, why make them and then punish them for something he already know would happen? It's garbage, you like logic so much, how is this logical to you?
why create humans that you know ultimately will fail and you want to send them to hell for eternal torture (which also makes no sense, eternal torture I mean) in any of this... Why is god attributed these silly emotions that only a mortal would have? Why would he send his ''son'' to sacrifice himself to himself in order to forgive us? Come on man, you gotta be kidding me, you really believe in this bullshit?
Up until now (several pages of) answers and replies to you have been simple logic and deduction essentially IF -> THEN statements. However, I am not wise enough to answer these last questions in the same definitive manner. The best I can do is share my opinions on these issues. Perhaps that will be helpful.
On the question of Adam and Eve I believe the Bible/Torah is best understood as a functional document. It's intent and purpose is to redeem and rectify humanity.
For this to occur biblical wisdom must be conveyed in a manner that is both simplified enough to be understandable by primitive man while simultaneously accurately reflecting a truth which can be better understood as our wisdom grows. The best way to meet these two needs is via parable and metaphor.
(The reasoning below represents my opinions and speculations on these issues. I make no claims beyond that)
Adam and Eve in the garden can be looked at literally as a man and a woman walking through a garden and considering the fruit of various trees.
Or Adam and Eve can be looked at as a metaphor for our species progenitors. All choices were potentially open to our remotest ancestors but a singular choice namely the development of an intellect capable of understanding good and evil was "forbidden" as that choice leads to severe and inevitable consequences.
Many "punishments" outlined in the Bible are not necessarily outside intervention but simple cause and effect the inevitable consequences we bring upon ourselves from sin.
Let's look at the "punishment" women received as a result of eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge.
Genesis 3:16
"Unto the woman He said: 'I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy travail; in pain thou shalt bring forth children"
Why is childbearing in humans so painful? A religious man would have told you 1000 years ago that it was because Eve ate from the tree of knowledge. It has taken science a very long time to catch up to this very simplified but according to our current theories essentially accurate description.
Current science theory states that the reason human birth and labor is so painful and dangerous is due to the physiological consequences of our large brains specifically some combination of the physical limitations of pelvic size when walking upright and the extreme metabolic demands a large infant brain places on a mother.
See:
Why Is Human Childbirth So Painful?
https://www.americanscientist.org/article/why-is-human-childbirth-so-painful
For the most part God doesn't punish us we punish ourselves with our choices. Sometimes these "choices" were made long before our time but these the consequences nevertheless impact us.
Regarding eternal damnation not everyone who believes in God believes in eternal punishment and damnation. Some for example believe that hell is a very painful but temporary process. A purification process to remove falsehood and evil.
See:
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1594422/jewish/Do-Jews-Believe-in-Hell.htm
Now unlike my prior posts which were simple logical deduction the arguments in this post are opinion. They are one possible interpretation. I have not proven this opinion is fact and am not in a position to do so currently. I share them as a potential answer to your questions but your questions are spiritual ones and must ultimately be answered on a personal and individual level.
body health is directly dependent on psychological health...and psychological health is built on our emotions and accordingly our beliefs and faith...if we can be calm enough throughout life, because we know that there is the very highest who is always just, then we will be physically healthy enough...and if we fight for life every day, believing that everything depends on us alone, then we can't live without stress, and stress destroys
Right! After all, even science is a religion. See https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.25082912. And we look to science for ways to remain healthy. Then we follow things that a bunch of science researchers say, even though nobody knows if they are beneficial in the long run. Science and health work hand in hand.
In addition, up until the last 100 years or so, almost 100% of Chinese medical science revolved around health and nutrition. And it was all tied into their various religions. How did Chinese find out what worked? They did it through careful scientific examination: see the definition of science at http://www.dictionary.com/browse/science?s=t. This is exactly what Chinese medical health is all about. And it is all tied into their religions.
body health is directly dependent on psychological health...and psychological health is built on our emotions and accordingly our beliefs and faith...if we can be calm enough throughout life, because we know that there is the very highest who is always just, then we will be physically healthy enough...and if we fight for life every day, believing that everything depends on us alone, then we can't live without stress, and stress destroys
I have already shattered the ''logic'' used by perry marshall and you don't want to accept that. You are telling me that after 20 assumptions belief in god is logical, well my friend, that doesn't make much sense now, does it?
It's fairly simple, if god is omnipotent and omnipresent then there is no point for any of this, no point for humans to be waiting for god to comeback, why would he? No point in living this life because he already knows whether someone would go to hell or heaven. Adam and eve make no sense, how did they fail? Didn't they fail because god made them that way? If god knew they would fail, why make them and then punish them for something he already know would happen? It's garbage, you like logic so much, how is this logical to you?
Not to mention all the scientific errors in the bible + all the contradictions that I linked before.
You shattered it huh? Well I suppose we are all giants in our own minds.
I would gently remind you that in our prolonged back and fourth above we reduced Perry Marshall's argument down to three primary assumptions. In most standard mathematical notations 3 < 20
I must also be the bearer of bad news. Although you have repeatedly refused to talk about what you believe in I must inform you that these beliefs whatever they may be are ultimately supported by primary assumptions.
Now on to your chief objection actually two objections.
1) You state that if God is omnipotent and omnipresent then there is no point to life for God already knows the outcome.
2) You question the sin of Adam and Eve. You ask If God knew they would fail, why make them and then punish them.
For the sake of brevity let's address your first question now and once we are done with that we can return to the second objection in a later post.
To respond to your objection we must first understand the purpose of creation. I will quote the words of Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto who wrote an interesting book on this topic.
The Way of God (Chapter 2)
Quote from: Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto
The Purpose of Creation
God's purpose in creation was to bestow His good to another.
God alone is true perfection, free of all deficiency, and there is no perfection comparable to Him. Any imaginable perfection, with the exception of God's, is therefore not true perfection, but it is only relative to something less perfect. Absolute perfection, however, is only That of God.
Since God desires to bestow good, a partial good would not be sufficient. The good that He bestows would have to be the ultimate good that His handiwork could accept. God alone, however, is the only true good, and therefore His beneficent desire would not be satisfied unless it could bestow that very good, namely the true perfect good that exists in His intrinsic Essence.
This is also true in another way. True good exists only in God. His wisdom therefore decreed that the nature of this true benefaction be His giving created things the opportunity to attach themselves to Him to Him to the greatest degree possible for them.
Therefore, even though created things cannot emulate God's perfection in their own right, the fact that they can be attached to Him allows them to partake of it, since they can be considered part of God's perfection as a result of their association with Him. They can thus derive pleasure from that true good to the greatest degree possible for them.
The purpose of all that was created was therefore to bring into existence a creature who could derive pleasure from God's own good, in a way that would be possible for it.
God's wisdom, however, decreed that for such good to be perfect, the one enjoying it must be its master. He must be one who has earned it for himself, and not one given it accidentally or by chance.
God's purpose in creation was to bestow His good to another.
God alone is true perfection, free of all deficiency, and there is no perfection comparable to Him. Any imaginable perfection, with the exception of God's, is therefore not true perfection, but it is only relative to something less perfect. Absolute perfection, however, is only That of God.
Since God desires to bestow good, a partial good would not be sufficient. The good that He bestows would have to be the ultimate good that His handiwork could accept. God alone, however, is the only true good, and therefore His beneficent desire would not be satisfied unless it could bestow that very good, namely the true perfect good that exists in His intrinsic Essence.
This is also true in another way. True good exists only in God. His wisdom therefore decreed that the nature of this true benefaction be His giving created things the opportunity to attach themselves to Him to Him to the greatest degree possible for them.
Therefore, even though created things cannot emulate God's perfection in their own right, the fact that they can be attached to Him allows them to partake of it, since they can be considered part of God's perfection as a result of their association with Him. They can thus derive pleasure from that true good to the greatest degree possible for them.
The purpose of all that was created was therefore to bring into existence a creature who could derive pleasure from God's own good, in a way that would be possible for it.
God's wisdom, however, decreed that for such good to be perfect, the one enjoying it must be its master. He must be one who has earned it for himself, and not one given it accidentally or by chance.
If you understand the above passage then you will have the answer to why there is a point to life even if the ultimate outcome is already known to God and not in doubt (see the bolded text above).
But why create humans that you know ultimately will fail and you want to send them to hell for eternal torture (which also makes no sense, eternal torture I mean) You are essentially creating millions and millions of people just to torture them in hell later on for something that is not their fault, god made them and god made the rules. What happens to all the other possible humans? Why are we the ones who exist and the others aren't? Just imagine if your parents had sex another day or month or didn't meet, the amount of different humans is almost infinite or infinite. What is god waiting for? Why is he waiting to come and take us to heaven? Is there a limit of how many people he can take there? There is absolutely no logic in any of this. Why does god need to forgive us if he already knows? Why is god attributed these silly emotions that only a mortal would have? Why would he send his ''son'' to sacrifice himself to himself in order to forgive us? Come on man, you gotta be kidding me, you really believe in this bullshit?
''I would gently remind you that in our prolonged back and fourth above we reduced Perry Marshall's argument down to three primary assumptions'' If you admit they are just assumptions then don't use it as evidence to say the belief in god is logical. It would only be logical if all the assumptions are correct. I can use X amounts of assumptions to prove the belief in magic unicorns is logical. It's pointless.
As for my beliefs, I don't have. Why would I believe in anything for no reason? I don't know what happens when we die, I know there is some scientific evidence pointing to ''nothing'' but there is also so many things we still don't know it's hard to say for sure that when someone dies nothing happens. Maybe something does happen, maybe something else changes in another dimension, who knows. There is no reason to believe in after life tho or heaven or reincarnation. You could accept them as wild possibilities but assuring to people that any of them are real is lying, to yourself and to everyone. I'm going to live my life the best I can. I don't see a reason not be a good person and at the same time enjoy life as much as possible and if there is some god out there that really cares about humans I should have no problems passing the test as I lived my life the best I could and I don't see a reason why a god would make me go to hell and torture me forever just because I don't believe in him or accept him. That's my ''belief''
I have already shattered the ''logic'' used by perry marshall and you don't want to accept that. You are telling me that after 20 assumptions belief in god is logical, well my friend, that doesn't make much sense now, does it?
It's fairly simple, if god is omnipotent and omnipresent then there is no point for any of this, no point for humans to be waiting for god to comeback, why would he? No point in living this life because he already knows whether someone would go to hell or heaven. Adam and eve make no sense, how did they fail? Didn't they fail because god made them that way? If god knew they would fail, why make them and then punish them for something he already know would happen? It's garbage, you like logic so much, how is this logical to you?
Not to mention all the scientific errors in the bible + all the contradictions that I linked before.
You shattered it huh? Well I suppose we are all giants in our own minds.
I would gently remind you that in our prolonged back and fourth above we reduced Perry Marshall's argument down to three primary assumptions. In most standard mathematical notations 3 < 20
I must also be the bearer of bad news. Although you have repeatedly refused to talk about what you believe in I must inform you that these beliefs whatever they may be are ultimately supported by primary assumptions.
Now on to your chief objection actually two objections.
1) You state that if God is omnipotent and omnipresent then there is no point to life for God already knows the outcome.
2) You question the sin of Adam and Eve. You ask If God knew they would fail, why make them and then punish them.
For the sake of brevity let's address your first question now and once we are done with that we can return to the second objection in a later post.
To respond to your objection we must first understand the purpose of creation. I will quote the words of Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto who wrote an interesting book on this topic.
The Way of God (Chapter 2)
Quote from: Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto
The Purpose of Creation
God's purpose in creation was to bestow His good to another.
God alone is true perfection, free of all deficiency, and there is no perfection comparable to Him. Any imaginable perfection, with the exception of God's, is therefore not true perfection, but it is only relative to something less perfect. Absolute perfection, however, is only That of God.
Since God desires to bestow good, a partial good would not be sufficient. The good that He bestows would have to be the ultimate good that His handiwork could accept. God alone, however, is the only true good, and therefore His beneficent desire would not be satisfied unless it could bestow that very good, namely the true perfect good that exists in His intrinsic Essence.
This is also true in another way. True good exists only in God. His wisdom therefore decreed that the nature of this true benefaction be His giving created things the opportunity to attach themselves to Him to Him to the greatest degree possible for them.
Therefore, even though created things cannot emulate God's perfection in their own right, the fact that they can be attached to Him allows them to partake of it, since they can be considered part of God's perfection as a result of their association with Him. They can thus derive pleasure from that true good to the greatest degree possible for them.
The purpose of all that was created was therefore to bring into existence a creature who could derive pleasure from God's own good, in a way that would be possible for it.
God's wisdom, however, decreed that for such good to be perfect, the one enjoying it must be its master. He must be one who has earned it for himself, and not one given it accidentally or by chance.
God's purpose in creation was to bestow His good to another.
God alone is true perfection, free of all deficiency, and there is no perfection comparable to Him. Any imaginable perfection, with the exception of God's, is therefore not true perfection, but it is only relative to something less perfect. Absolute perfection, however, is only That of God.
Since God desires to bestow good, a partial good would not be sufficient. The good that He bestows would have to be the ultimate good that His handiwork could accept. God alone, however, is the only true good, and therefore His beneficent desire would not be satisfied unless it could bestow that very good, namely the true perfect good that exists in His intrinsic Essence.
This is also true in another way. True good exists only in God. His wisdom therefore decreed that the nature of this true benefaction be His giving created things the opportunity to attach themselves to Him to Him to the greatest degree possible for them.
Therefore, even though created things cannot emulate God's perfection in their own right, the fact that they can be attached to Him allows them to partake of it, since they can be considered part of God's perfection as a result of their association with Him. They can thus derive pleasure from that true good to the greatest degree possible for them.
The purpose of all that was created was therefore to bring into existence a creature who could derive pleasure from God's own good, in a way that would be possible for it.
God's wisdom, however, decreed that for such good to be perfect, the one enjoying it must be its master. He must be one who has earned it for himself, and not one given it accidentally or by chance.
If you understand the above passage then you will have the answer to why there is a point to life even if the ultimate outcome is already known to God and not in doubt (see the bolded text above).
Religion and health science have mutual support potential. The person who will perform the pilgrimage requires the role of tenagamedis to conduct a general check-up so that worship activities hajidapat running smoothly.
The tradition of fasting or diet is one therapy that has been recognized by the medical community in improving health. The true religious teachings have the potential to provide support to health.
The tradition of fasting or diet is one therapy that has been recognized by the medical community in improving health. The true religious teachings have the potential to provide support to health.
...
I don't deny the possibility of some sort of being that created the universe and I can't disprove that. Religious gods on the other hand are always garbage.
I don't deny the possibility of some sort of being that created the universe and I can't disprove that. Religious gods on the other hand are always garbage.
the bible is extremely easy to prove wrong, I already showed you many examples of it's big big flaws. For instance, humans, God made humans purposely imperfect and then they failed by eating the fruit he told them not to, this already makes no sense if your god is omniscient and omnipotent. From there we have the same problems trough the whole bible
...
...
Given the length of this exchange a summary of what we have discussed so far is warranted.
Upthread I highlighted how we can mathematically deduce The Incompleteness of the universe and logically conclude that whatever is outside the universe must be boundless, immaterial, indivisible and an uncaused cause.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.23796852
I next highlighted how religious thought specifically monotheism conceptualises God and how this conceptualisation is consistent with what we can mathematically deduce.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.24187846
I also demonstrated how traditional Biblical writings on the timeline of creation and origins of mankind can in fact be reconciled with modern scientific thought.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.24374030
I reviewed the limitations of reason in understanding infinity and the fact that our understanding of God must necessarily be a massive oversimplification. God can never truly be grasped through our mind as our mind is time-bound.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.24330562
Finally I noted the importance of truly drilling down to the foundations of ones metaphysical assumptions and how failure to do so was ceding control of ones actions, beliefs and thoughts to external forces.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.24418501
At this point you asked to start the conversation over again.
Ok, let's start again.
We returned to the logic that allows us to mathematically deduce the incompleteness of the universe and reviewed it in greater depth reducing that logic down to its three primary assumptions. These assumptions are reasonable and currently not disprovable. I invited you try.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.24665515
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.24791749
Finally I outlined how one could make the case for God using an entirely empirical argument. You have chosen to ignore this argument.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.24814642
Now it appears you are returning to attempts to challenge the existence of God by challenging the consistency of traditional holy texts. I have already demonstrated how traditional biblical writings on the timeline of creation and origins of mankind can in fact be reconciled with modern scientific thought and in response you appear have shifted your focus of criticism of the story of Adam and Eve.
Please clarify what exactly in biblical account of Adam and Eve are you objecting and why you feel this objection disproves God.
Why do you feel that humanity's flaws are evidence against an omniscient and omnipotent creator?
I have already shattered the ''logic'' used by perry marshall and you don't want to accept that. You are telling me that after 20 assumptions belief in god is logical, well my friend, that doesn't make much sense now, does it?
It's fairly simple, if god is omnipotent and omnipresent then there is no point for any of this, no point for humans to be waiting for god to comeback, why would he? No point in living this life because he already knows whether someone would go to hell or heaven. Adam and eve make no sense, how did they fail? Didn't they fail because god made them that way? If god knew they would fail, why make them and then punish them for something he already know would happen? It's garbage, you like logic so much, how is this logical to you?
Not to mention all the scientific errors in the bible + all the contradictions that I linked before.
...
I don't deny the possibility of some sort of being that created the universe and I can't disprove that. Religious gods on the other hand are always garbage.
I don't deny the possibility of some sort of being that created the universe and I can't disprove that. Religious gods on the other hand are always garbage.
the bible is extremely easy to prove wrong, I already showed you many examples of it's big big flaws. For instance, humans, God made humans purposely imperfect and then they failed by eating the fruit he told them not to, this already makes no sense if your god is omniscient and omnipotent. From there we have the same problems trough the whole bible
...
...
Given the length of this exchange a summary of what we have discussed so far is warranted.
Upthread I highlighted how we can mathematically deduce The Incompleteness of the universe and logically conclude that whatever is outside the universe must be boundless, immaterial, indivisible and an uncaused cause.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.23796852
I next highlighted how religious thought specifically monotheism conceptualises God and how this conceptualisation is consistent with what we can mathematically deduce.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.24187846
I also demonstrated how traditional Biblical writings on the timeline of creation and origins of mankind can in fact be reconciled with modern scientific thought.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.24374030
I reviewed the limitations of reason in understanding infinity and the fact that our understanding of God must necessarily be a massive oversimplification. God can never truly be grasped through our mind as our mind is time-bound.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.24330562
Finally I noted the importance of truly drilling down to the foundations of ones metaphysical assumptions and how failure to do so was ceding control of ones actions, beliefs and thoughts to external forces.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.24418501
At this point you asked to start the conversation over again.
Ok, let's start again.
We returned to the logic that allows us to mathematically deduce the incompleteness of the universe and reviewed it in greater depth reducing that logic down to its three primary assumptions. These assumptions are reasonable and currently not disprovable. I invited you try.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.24665515
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.24791749
Finally I outlined how one could make the case for God using an entirely empirical argument. You have chosen to ignore this argument.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.24814642
Now it appears you are returning to attempts to challenge the existence of God by challenging the consistency of traditional holy texts. I have already demonstrated how traditional biblical writings on the timeline of creation and origins of mankind can in fact be reconciled with modern scientific thought and in response you appear have shifted your focus of criticism of the story of Adam and Eve.
Please clarify what exactly in biblical account of Adam and Eve are you objecting and why you feel this objection disproves God.
Why do you feel that humanity's flaws are evidence against an omniscient and omnipotent creator?
The thing about religion is, there is too many of them, this might be the reason why until now, peace is a very difficult thing to attain in our world. So many beliefs, so many faith that it results to war and terrorism. Which results to building of weapons like nuclear power, that affects the human health.
And every religious person claims their god is the real one. In a way every religious person is an atheist on the other religions, I find it quite funny when they insult atheists, although they are doing the same thing for all the other religions but theirs. There is no real reason to believe on religion is real and the others aren't. None of them have proof. Some folks claim their book has predictions that are true but does that make god real? Is the book with most predictions the real one?
Well, almost exactly as you say. The difference in your case is that you are proclaiming yourself to be God by having the authoritative stupidity to say that there isn't any God, when you don't really know it to be true.
Don't you think you should be a little more humble just in case there is a True Great God? I mean, He knows He has the last laugh against you... easily. He knows what a weakling you are. You can't even create a grain of sand, but He made the whole universe. He's playing you, son... but maybe playing with you.
Oh no I can say that because I'm referring to religious gods which are all very easy to disprove by exposing the stupidity in their books, systems, etc etc. As I pointed out earlier with the god from the bible:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.24835142
I don't deny the possibility of some sort of being that created the universe and I can't disprove that. Religious gods on the other hand are always garbage.
All right. So you understand that something that falls into the classification of a real God exists.
Since cause and effect show that He is so great that He set everything in place by completely and perfectly controlling His roll of the dice, so to speak, it follows that He wanted humans to exist and even recognize Him. Religion is a way that we recognize Him in greater detail than science has been able to give us. Which religion would He show Himself through? Or would it be all religions?
Tough question to figure out the answer to. Perhaps we should look for the religion that has power in it.
Because Christianity is a religion of faith, many Bible scholars say we should avoid proving any of it.
By entering the movements of the stars and planets into a computer, NASA has found that the lost day of Joshua in Joshua 10:13, and the shorter period of time in 2 Kings 20:9–11 that were supposed to be discrepancies in the movements of the stars and planets.
One site is https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid/nasa-found-joshuas-missing-day/.
Science is starting to prove that the Bible is accurate.
HAHAHAHAAHAOh man I don't even know what to say. Have you read anything in your link?
The link itself is named ''arguments to avoid'' The first thing the article says is ''Many Christians mistakenly claim that NASA scientists have confirmed the Bible by finding Joshua's missing day. '' I'm starting to believe you are trolling me now.
The thing about religion is, there is too many of them, this might be the reason why until now, peace is a very difficult thing to attain in our world. So many beliefs, so many faith that it results to war and terrorism. Which results to building of weapons like nuclear power, that affects the human health.
And every religious person claims their god is the real one. In a way every religious person is an atheist on the other religions, I find it quite funny when they insult atheists, although they are doing the same thing for all the other religions but theirs. There is no real reason to believe on religion is real and the others aren't. None of them have proof. Some folks claim their book has predictions that are true but does that make god real? Is the book with most predictions the real one?
Well, almost exactly as you say. The difference in your case is that you are proclaiming yourself to be God by having the authoritative stupidity to say that there isn't any God, when you don't really know it to be true.
Don't you think you should be a little more humble just in case there is a True Great God? I mean, He knows He has the last laugh against you... easily. He knows what a weakling you are. You can't even create a grain of sand, but He made the whole universe. He's playing you, son... but maybe playing with you.
Oh no I can say that because I'm referring to religious gods which are all very easy to disprove by exposing the stupidity in their books, systems, etc etc. As I pointed out earlier with the god from the bible:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.24835142
I don't deny the possibility of some sort of being that created the universe and I can't disprove that. Religious gods on the other hand are always garbage.
All right. So you understand that something that falls into the classification of a real God exists.
Since cause and effect show that He is so great that He set everything in place by completely and perfectly controlling His roll of the dice, so to speak, it follows that He wanted humans to exist and even recognize Him. Religion is a way that we recognize Him in greater detail than science has been able to give us. Which religion would He show Himself through? Or would it be all religions?
Tough question to figure out the answer to. Perhaps we should look for the religion that has power in it.
Because Christianity is a religion of faith, many Bible scholars say we should avoid proving any of it.
By entering the movements of the stars and planets into a computer, NASA has found that the lost day of Joshua in Joshua 10:13, and the shorter period of time in 2 Kings 20:9–11 that were supposed to be discrepancies in the movements of the stars and planets.
One site is https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid/nasa-found-joshuas-missing-day/.
Science is starting to prove that the Bible is accurate.
The thing about religion is, there is too many of them, this might be the reason why until now, peace is a very difficult thing to attain in our world. So many beliefs, so many faith that it results to war and terrorism. Which results to building of weapons like nuclear power, that affects the human health.
And every religious person claims their god is the real one. In a way every religious person is an atheist on the other religions, I find it quite funny when they insult atheists, although they are doing the same thing for all the other religions but theirs. There is no real reason to believe on religion is real and the others aren't. None of them have proof. Some folks claim their book has predictions that are true but does that make god real? Is the book with most predictions the real one?
Well, almost exactly as you say. The difference in your case is that you are proclaiming yourself to be God by having the authoritative stupidity to say that there isn't any God, when you don't really know it to be true.
Don't you think you should be a little more humble just in case there is a True Great God? I mean, He knows He has the last laugh against you... easily. He knows what a weakling you are. You can't even create a grain of sand, but He made the whole universe. He's playing you, son... but maybe playing with you.
Oh no I can say that because I'm referring to religious gods which are all very easy to disprove by exposing the stupidity in their books, systems, etc etc. As I pointed out earlier with the god from the bible:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.24835142
I don't deny the possibility of some sort of being that created the universe and I can't disprove that. Religious gods on the other hand are always garbage.
All right. So you understand that something that falls into the classification of a real God exists.
Since cause and effect show that He is so great that He set everything in place by completely and perfectly controlling His roll of the dice, so to speak, it follows that He wanted humans to exist and even recognize Him. Religion is a way that we recognize Him in greater detail than science has been able to give us. Which religion would He show Himself through? Or would it be all religions?
Tough question to figure out the answer to. Perhaps we should look for the religion that has power in it.
The thing about religion is, there is too many of them, this might be the reason why until now, peace is a very difficult thing to attain in our world. So many beliefs, so many faith that it results to war and terrorism. Which results to building of weapons like nuclear power, that affects the human health.
And every religious person claims their god is the real one. In a way every religious person is an atheist on the other religions, I find it quite funny when they insult atheists, although they are doing the same thing for all the other religions but theirs. There is no real reason to believe on religion is real and the others aren't. None of them have proof. Some folks claim their book has predictions that are true but does that make god real? Is the book with most predictions the real one?
Well, almost exactly as you say. The difference in your case is that you are proclaiming yourself to be God by having the authoritative stupidity to say that there isn't any God, when you don't really know it to be true.
Don't you think you should be a little more humble just in case there is a True Great God? I mean, He knows He has the last laugh against you... easily. He knows what a weakling you are. You can't even create a grain of sand, but He made the whole universe. He's playing you, son... but maybe playing with you.
Oh no I can say that because I'm referring to religious gods which are all very easy to disprove by exposing the stupidity in their books, systems, etc etc. As I pointed out earlier with the god from the bible:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.24835142
I don't deny the possibility of some sort of being that created the universe and I can't disprove that. Religious gods on the other hand are always garbage.
The thing about religion is, there is too many of them, this might be the reason why until now, peace is a very difficult thing to attain in our world. So many beliefs, so many faith that it results to war and terrorism. Which results to building of weapons like nuclear power, that affects the human health.
And every religious person claims their god is the real one. In a way every religious person is an atheist on the other religions, I find it quite funny when they insult atheists, although they are doing the same thing for all the other religions but theirs. There is no real reason to believe on religion is real and the others aren't. None of them have proof. Some folks claim their book has predictions that are true but does that make god real? Is the book with most predictions the real one?
Well, almost exactly as you say. The difference in your case is that you are proclaiming yourself to be God by having the authoritative stupidity to say that there isn't any God, when you don't really know it to be true.
Don't you think you should be a little more humble just in case there is a True Great God? I mean, He knows He has the last laugh against you... easily. He knows what a weakling you are. You can't even create a grain of sand, but He made the whole universe. He's playing you, son... but maybe playing with you.
The thing about religion is, there is too many of them, this might be the reason why until now, peace is a very difficult thing to attain in our world. So many beliefs, so many faith that it results to war and terrorism. Which results to building of weapons like nuclear power, that affects the human health.
And every religious person claims their god is the real one. In a way every religious person is an atheist on the other religions, I find it quite funny when they insult atheists, although they are doing the same thing for all the other religions but theirs. There is no real reason to believe on religion is real and the others aren't. None of them have proof. Some folks claim their book has predictions that are true but does that make god real? Is the book with most predictions the real one?
The thing about religion is, there is too many of them, this might be the reason why until now, peace is a very difficult thing to attain in our world. So many beliefs, so many faith that it results to war and terrorism. Which results to building of weapons like nuclear power, that affects the human health.
So really this isn't proof of anything.
...
1. God is made up, religious folks didn't study god and then wrote about his properties, they made them up.
...
I showed you that many of these assumptions are actually wrong,
...
Sigh you were doing so well Astargath.
Yes you can posit anything and in isolation and this may be a logical belief. However, beliefs do not exist in isolation. They are tested against other beliefs and the world itself.
If for example I was blind and had never seen the color of the sky and no one had told me what color it was. I could say that I believe the sky is green because when I had inquired in the past that was the most common color of things outside.
Now this belief is false but at this stage it is logical. The belief will fail, however, when it is tested because the color of the sky can be known and defined within our system of knowledge. If I ask someone who is not blind what color the sky is or build a machine to measure the wavelengths of light in the sky both will return the answer blue. Belief that the sky is green while initially logical fails and is disproven as we grow in knowledge.
What Perry Marshall shows is that there are some beliefs that cannot fail in this way.
This does not "prove" or "disprove" these beliefs it simply shows us that for some questions we must infer knowledge rather then prove it. Such knowledge must be accepted apriori. This is a logical necessity of an incomplete universe.
Perry Marshall's conclusion follows from his primary assumptions but most people with a background in philosophy or epistemology will acknowledge this and there are other ways of arriving at the same conclusion.
For example we had that guy nihilnegativum here a while back who was a hardcore nihilist with a clear background in philosophy.
the main distinction of metaphysics (serious buisness as it teaches how to use one's understanding), is the epistemological distinction between a priori and a posteriori that can hold only when this distinction is a pure difference. When one assumes this distinction to be based on some from of positivity, it either assumes a theistic ontology (an ontology where the pure infinite is the ground of everything and time a mere illusion), and thus lose the reality of a posteriori or the opposite, assume there is not pure ground, lose the a priori and be stuck with mere empiricism.
I agree, atheism is false, but that it is false exactly to the extent that its still not absolute nihilism.
What both nihilnegativum and Perry Marshall are telling us is that both theism and nihilism are logical positions. It is only the atheist who keeps asking for proof and refusing to define his own basis in knowledge who is behaving illogically because he is repeatedly asking the wrong questions.
This makes traditional atheism easy to dismiss as a credible position. Nihilism on the other hand is a much tougher nut to crack for nihilism is a logical system. To reject nihilism The best course of action is probably to build out a theist world view alongside the worldview of the nihilist and honestly ask yourself which of these constitutes your reality. Thus Perry Marshall's argument or nihilnegativum's if you prefer to start from a position of nihilism is only the first step in an argument for religion.
P.S.
If God was truly made up by primitive people thousands of years ago then it should be a trivial matter to disprove him just like the blind man can disprove that the sky is green. The fact that we not only cannot disprove God but in all probability will never disprove God hints that this is something much deeper and more fundamental.
P.P.S
You have not disproven Perry Marshall's three assumptions but if you think you can have at it. They are:
1) That the universe is finite
2) That the universe is rational
3) That the question of God cannot be answered from within the system.
''If God was truly made up by primitive people thousands of years ago then it should be a trivial matter to disprove him'' It is, the bible is extremely easy to prove wrong, I already showed you many examples of it's big big flaws. For instance, humans, God made humans purposely imperfect and then they failed by eating the fruit he told them not to, this already makes no sense if your god is omniscient and omnipotent. From there we have the same problems trough the whole bible, God always knows things in advance yet he still gets mad? He then proceeds to kill everyone but a few people with the flood, why? If he was going to kill people anyways, why not just save all the time and start by making them perfect?
Argument for God
1) Belief in God is logical in that the belief is internally consistent and cannot be falsified. This conclusion can be derived in numerous ways one of which is via the application of incompleteness theorem.
See: The #1 Mathematical Discovery of the 20th Century
2) All knowledge ultimately traces back to assumed axioms. Without knowledge, scientific enquiry including empiric enquiry is meaningless and we can’t analyse the world around us we cannot identify truth.
See: The Coherence Theory of Truth
3) Our fundamental metaphysical first axioms are therefore a critical step in the formation of a sound empirical model of the universe and our place within it.
See: Metaphysical Attitudes
4) Human progress and civilization requires the growth of knowledge and is ultimately cooperation dependent. Our first premises and axioms directly impact the degree of cooperation that the system can support.
See: Superrationality and the Infinite
5) Competing first axioms such as nihilism may grant "freedom" to do whatever you want but for humanity as a whole this is an illusion and such axioms reduce overall freedom.
See: Freedom and God
6) Thus the first axiom of God is not only largely responsible for the progress we have made so far it is likely necessary for continued progress.
See: Religion and Progress
and
See: Faith and Future
7) Finally and least important accepting the first axiom of God appears to be correlated with good health.
See: Health and Religion
8 ) For these reasons accepting the first axiom of God is a superior choice for the empiricist then accepting the first axiom of nihilism or refusing to define ones metaphysics.
See: Music that Illuminates for more.
1) Belief in God is logical in that the belief is internally consistent and cannot be falsified. This conclusion can be derived in numerous ways one of which is via the application of incompleteness theorem.
See: The #1 Mathematical Discovery of the 20th Century
2) All knowledge ultimately traces back to assumed axioms. Without knowledge, scientific enquiry including empiric enquiry is meaningless and we can’t analyse the world around us we cannot identify truth.
See: The Coherence Theory of Truth
3) Our fundamental metaphysical first axioms are therefore a critical step in the formation of a sound empirical model of the universe and our place within it.
See: Metaphysical Attitudes
4) Human progress and civilization requires the growth of knowledge and is ultimately cooperation dependent. Our first premises and axioms directly impact the degree of cooperation that the system can support.
See: Superrationality and the Infinite
5) Competing first axioms such as nihilism may grant "freedom" to do whatever you want but for humanity as a whole this is an illusion and such axioms reduce overall freedom.
See: Freedom and God
6) Thus the first axiom of God is not only largely responsible for the progress we have made so far it is likely necessary for continued progress.
See: Religion and Progress
and
See: Faith and Future
7) Finally and least important accepting the first axiom of God appears to be correlated with good health.
See: Health and Religion
8 ) For these reasons accepting the first axiom of God is a superior choice for the empiricist then accepting the first axiom of nihilism or refusing to define ones metaphysics.
See: Music that Illuminates for more.
So really this isn't proof of anything.
...
1. God is made up, religious folks didn't study god and then wrote about his properties, they made them up.
...
I showed you that many of these assumptions are actually wrong,
...
Sigh you were doing so well Astargath.
Yes you can posit anything and in isolation and this may be a logical belief. However, beliefs do not exist in isolation. They are tested against other beliefs and the world itself.
If for example I was blind and had never seen the color of the sky and no one had told me what color it was. I could say that I believe the sky is green because when I had inquired in the past that was the most common color of things outside.
Now this belief is false but at this stage it is logical. The belief will fail, however, when it is tested because the color of the sky can be known and defined within our system of knowledge. If I ask someone who is not blind what color the sky is or build a machine to measure the wavelengths of light in the sky both will return the answer blue. Belief that the sky is green while initially logical fails and is disproven as we grow in knowledge.
What Perry Marshall shows is that there are some beliefs that cannot fail in this way.
This does not "prove" or "disprove" these beliefs it simply shows us that for some questions we must infer knowledge rather then prove it. Such knowledge must be accepted apriori. This is a logical necessity of an incomplete universe.
Perry Marshall's conclusion follows from his primary assumptions but most people with a background in philosophy or epistemology will acknowledge this and there are other ways of arriving at the same conclusion.
For example we had that guy nihilnegativum here a while back who was a hardcore nihilist with a clear background in philosophy.
the main distinction of metaphysics (serious buisness as it teaches how to use one's understanding), is the epistemological distinction between a priori and a posteriori that can hold only when this distinction is a pure difference. When one assumes this distinction to be based on some from of positivity, it either assumes a theistic ontology (an ontology where the pure infinite is the ground of everything and time a mere illusion), and thus lose the reality of a posteriori or the opposite, assume there is not pure ground, lose the a priori and be stuck with mere empiricism.
I agree, atheism is false, but that it is false exactly to the extent that its still not absolute nihilism.
What both nihilnegativum and Perry Marshall are telling us is that both theism and nihilism are logical positions. It is only the atheist who keeps asking for proof and refusing to define his own basis in knowledge who is behaving illogically because he is repeatedly asking the wrong questions.
This makes traditional atheism easy to dismiss as a credible position. Nihilism on the other hand is a much tougher nut to crack for nihilism is a logical system. To reject nihilism The best course of action is probably to build out a theist world view alongside the worldview of the nihilist and honestly ask yourself which of these constitutes your reality. Thus Perry Marshall's argument or nihilnegativum's if you prefer to start from a position of nihilism is only the first step in an argument for religion.
P.S.
If God was truly made up by primitive people thousands of years ago then it should be a trivial matter to disprove him just like the blind man can disprove that the sky is green. The fact that we not only cannot disprove God but in all probability will never disprove God hints that this is something much deeper and more fundamental.
P.P.S
You have not disproven Perry Marshall's three assumptions but if you think you can have at it. They are:
1) That the universe is finite
2) That the universe is rational
3) That the question of God cannot be answered from within the system.
Jump to: