Question about flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-03-2015, 04:29 PM
RE: Question about flood
(18-03-2015 01:38 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  I can tell you. The number 1 is an audio/ visual symbol which stands for the concept "one" which denotes a single instance of something. It came from man's conceptual faculty which is a type of conscious activity.

So what you are saying is the #1 would not exist if it wasn't for the conceptual faculty of man's consciousness?? So if there was a single rock that existed in the world and nothing else, would that still be considered "one" rock, even though there isn't a mind to conceptualize it?? Hmmmm.

(18-03-2015 01:38 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  That is where the number one came from. That is where all concepts come from including your God. Now it's your turn. Where did God come from?

First off, that isn't where it came from, but I will give you an A for your response...now, the question of where did God come from; God is a metaphysically necessary being that doesn't depend on any entity outside itself for its existence. So, the short answer is that God didn't come from anywhere.

(18-03-2015 01:38 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  You've already admitted in another thread that we probably can't distinguish between God and something that is imaginary, so I'm interested to hear your answer. I'll bet whatever your answer is it will be something for which there is no alternative but to use our imaginations to apprehend it.

I admitted what? Ahh, this is a perfect time to discuss the Modal Ontological Argument, since no one is man enough to debate me on the subject formally.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2015, 04:29 PM
RE: Question about flood
(18-03-2015 01:50 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  The scenario was "If God told you to kill your child, would you do it"...and the answer is HELL YEAH. If God is telling me to do something, then God exists.

Hi. I'm coming into the discussion a little late here.

This statement makes me feel queasy, especially because you talk about murdering a child with such relish. I gather that you take your morality exclusively from what you believe god commands, therefore even murder of an innocent is not immoral when god commands it. Is that the case? If so, I still don't understand how you could possibly feel enthusiastic about it.

My question to you is, what about your empathy? Do you think that moral questions have nothing to do with harm and/or suffering?

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.

-Karl Marx
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Phoenix's post
18-03-2015, 04:32 PM
RE: Question about flood
(18-03-2015 03:01 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(18-03-2015 01:50 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Again, you are changing the scenario. The scenario wasn't "if you heard a voice in your head telling you to do x,y, and z, would you do it".

The scenario was "If God told you to kill your child, would you do it"...and the answer is HELL YEAH. If God is telling me to do something, then God exists.

I note how you didn't actually explain what I asked you to. You didn't actually say how you can differentiate between God telling you to do something and you imagining God is telling you to do something.

I was actually going to ask him that same question, only I was going to throw Satan in there as well -- how would he know it wasn't Satan telling him to do whatever? But then I saw you had beaten me to the punch. And I agree he hasn't answered your question at all. I see no way to distinguish whether such a command would be coming from God, or Satan, or voices in his head -- and neither does he, which is why he won't answer the question.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2015, 04:36 PM
RE: Question about flood
(18-03-2015 04:29 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  this is a perfect time to discuss the Modal Ontological Argument

What's the Modal Ontological Argument?

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.

-Karl Marx
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2015, 04:44 PM
RE: Question about flood
(18-03-2015 01:29 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  People, people. You guys sound like fools. You are giving me a scenario at which the Almighty God commands me to do something. Not the President. Not the Emperor. Not Pharaoh. But the Almighty God, Supreme ruler of the entire universe. And if this God is omnibenevolent like my religion says he is, then every commandment that he gives is the RIGHT thing to do...regardless of what you people think, believe, or agree with.

God cannot make a morally wrong decision, so anything that he commands is for the greater good. Now of course, I don't expect you heathens on here to understand this. But what I find hilarious is how you people are so distraught about this, but yet you don't even know how you even obtained your own moral standards. Was your moral standards part of natural selection? Laugh out load

However, what if he was telling you to do something as a test of your morality? What if he WANTS to you say no? By actually following it through, you not only would be failing the test but doing what he really didn't want in the end.

Edit: and how would you tell the difference?

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2015, 04:49 PM
RE: Question about flood
(18-03-2015 04:29 PM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  
(18-03-2015 01:50 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  The scenario was "If God told you to kill your child, would you do it"...and the answer is HELL YEAH. If God is telling me to do something, then God exists.

Hi. I'm coming into the discussion a little late here.

This statement makes me feel queasy, especially because you talk about murdering a child with such relish. I gather that you take your morality exclusively from what you believe god commands, therefore even murder of an innocent is not immoral when god commands it. Is that the case? If so, I still don't understand how you could possibly feel enthusiastic about it.

My question to you is, what about your empathy? Do you think that moral questions have nothing to do with harm and/or suffering?

If this bothers you phoenix, go back a few more pages. This guy makes Q look good.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
18-03-2015, 05:09 PM
RE: Question about flood
(18-03-2015 01:29 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(18-03-2015 08:47 AM)dancefortwo Wrote:  So if god told CoTW to blow up the Parliament Building, apparently he'd do it. Or sacrifice children on an altar, or even build a nuclear bomb and kill a swath of people from the Middle East.

People, people. You guys sound like fools. You are giving me a scenario at which the Almighty God commands me to do something. Not the President. Not the Emperor. Not Pharaoh. But the Almighty God, Supreme ruler of the entire universe. And if this God is omnibenevolent like my religion says he is, then every commandment that he gives is the RIGHT thing to do...regardless of what you people think, believe, or agree with.

So we're smuggling in definitions. God tells you "do X horrible thing" and because you've decided god = good you don't stop to re-evaluate if it's true. There is literally nothing god could do to make you question if god is actually omnibenevolent. Which means you simply aren't open to evidence that you're wrong about any aspect of your blind faith.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2015, 05:11 PM
RE: Question about flood
(17-03-2015 10:00 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  "If science were to find evidence of God tomorrow" Laughat

Im sorry, couldn't help myself on that one.

Absurd, I know, but even I as an atheist can't deny that anything is possible no matter how unlikely or improbable.

(17-03-2015 10:00 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I am talking about evolution WITHOUT God...of course, if God exists, he can use whatever method he want to create stuff. If you guys are running around talking about how much of an atheist you are, lets just cut the crap and talk about reality in your warped little brains, and that is evolution without God, which is, dare I say, IMPOSSIBLE.

Okay, so evolution WITH God is fine then? So why would you suggest that evolution is drowning? Is God drowning?

So, is evolution IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT God? You dared to say, but do you say? How would you know it is impossible? Do you have the necessary information to determine something like that? If not, then aren't you just making an argument from ignorance? You don't understand how it could be possible so therefore it is impossible? Yet this god existing is possible?

It would seem you might be projecting when you use the phrase "warped little brains".


(17-03-2015 10:00 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I find it amusing how people are so desperate negate the God hypothesis that they will believe in logical absurdities.

Well, I can't speak for any other atheists on this forum (but I'd imagine they feel the same) when I say that I have no need or desire to negate the existence of a god or gods. I can only evaluate the evidence I'm given along with everything I've learned in life and come to a conclusion based on that. The fact that I am an atheist just means that I have no reason to believe that a god of any kind exists. I'm not hard to convince, but then again I'm not a gullible sucker either. Ironically, it is you that has to come up with logical absurdities in order to explain why I or other atheists don't believe in God.

You are so convinced that it is atheists fault that they are atheists that you never stop to consider that maybe you are at fault, that maybe you believe something exists based on incredibly low expectations for evidence and that you don't even care as long as what you already believe is confirmed.

You have a lot to lose if God doesn't exist, after all, you think the universe and everything in it couldn't exist without God. Your entire belief structure is based on God existing.

My belief structure is only based on figuring out what actually exists and not wasting my time, energy or mental health on believing in things that don't exist. Is what I believe perfect, no, I'm always finding out new things and correcting my mistakes. If there is a god or gods and reasonable evidence were presented to me, I'd believe in said god or gods. All I'd be doing is incorporating new information into the information I currently have.

You see, you can't admit that it is possible that God doesn't exist, where as I can admit that it is possible that God does exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like SevenPatch's post
18-03-2015, 05:55 PM
RE: Question about flood
(18-03-2015 05:11 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  You see, you can't admit that it is possible that God doesn't exist, where as I can admit that it is possible that God does exist.

Now we just wait for him to come back and say this is why his position is better, 'cause he can't be wrong and you can. Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2015, 06:30 PM
RE: Question about flood
(18-03-2015 04:29 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(18-03-2015 01:38 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  I can tell you. The number 1 is an audio/ visual symbol which stands for the concept "one" which denotes a single instance of something. It came from man's conceptual faculty which is a type of conscious activity.

So what you are saying is the #1 would not exist if it wasn't for the conceptual faculty of man's consciousness?? So if there was a single rock that existed in the world and nothing else, would that still be considered "one" rock, even though there isn't a mind to conceptualize it?? Hmmmm.

That's right. Non conscious things don't consider anything or have concepts. In the same way that there would be no digestion without stomachs. Digestion is an action performed by stomachs, conceptualizing is an action of a mind which possesses a conceptual faculty. No mind, no concepts.
(18-03-2015 04:29 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(18-03-2015 01:38 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  That is where the number one came from. That is where all concepts come from including your God. Now it's your turn. Where did God come from?

First off, that isn't where it came from, but I will give you an A for your response...now, the question of where did God come from; God is a metaphysically necessary being that doesn't depend on any entity outside itself for its existence. So, the short answer is that God didn't come from anywhere.

How do you know this?


(18-03-2015 04:29 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(18-03-2015 01:38 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  You've already admitted in another thread that we probably can't distinguish between God and something that is imaginary, so I'm interested to hear your answer. I'll bet whatever your answer is it will be something for which there is no alternative but to use our imaginations to apprehend it.

I admitted what? Ahh, this is a perfect time to discuss the Modal Ontological Argument, since no one is man enough to debate me on the subject formally.

Yes. I had asked you if there was a reliable way to distinguish what you call God from something that is merely imaginary and you said "probably not".

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: