Precision in Nature = Evidence of God

[GreatOldOne]

Instead of arguing over what we don’t agree on, maybe there are some practical bible principles we can all agree on? Someone should make a thread like that.

Love God/existence and love neighbors as yourself.

The end.

[ElrondHubbard]

This is absurd.

Sadism is also part of being human. Plenty of people have sadistic tendencies.

Scenario A: There's a sadistic atheist on a deserted island where some innocent person is tied up, and the atheist knows 100% that there are no consequences for his actions, and he can do whatever he wants to this person.

Scenario B: Same location except it's a sadistic Christian who fears God. He knows he won't wind up in prison whatever he does, but he believes in punishment from God.

Which of those two human beings is more likely to end up torturing/abusing/killing that innocent person on the island?

You are acting as if all humans are "great, kindhearted human beings" not because they fear consequences regardless whether it's the government/law or God, but because of some "humanistic" values. It's completely absurd.

There's been a lot of sadism in the christian church over the cednturies. Are you forgetting the Spanish Inquisition? NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!

You seem to be labouring under the misconception that due to their christian beliefs, christians display more moral behavior. Too bad, dude, facts show they don't.

http://theconversation.com/are-relig...re-moral-84560

[ElrondHubbard]

It's actually easier and scarier but you can argue a finely tuned Evil God a lot easier than a Good One.

I've spoken to evangelicals who believe just that.

[Dorich]

There's been a lot of sadism in the christian church over the cednturies. Are you forgetting the Spanish Inquisition? NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!

You seem to be labouring under the misconception that due to their christian beliefs, christians display more moral behavior. Too bad, dude, facts show they don't.

http://theconversation.com/are-relig...re-moral-84560

Instead of deflecting and creating a strawman, can you answer the simple question I asked in regards to those hypothetical scenarios?

[ElrondHubbard]

Instead of deflecting and creating a strawman, can you answer the simple question I asked in regards to those hypothetical scenarios?

Strawman? I'm knocking down YOUR strawman, good sir. Is it your argument, then, that the ONLY observable difference in moral behavior between a christian believer and a nonbeliever would occur on an isolated desert island?

[numberguy12]

Love God/existence and love neighbors as yourself.

The end.

Honest question: If someone doesn't even believe in the existence of God, however that's defined, do you really think he will agree with the first item you mentioned, "Love God"? You really think this is something everyone will agree on?

[GreatOldOne]

I've spoken to evangelicals who believe just that.

Yeah. I originally looked into it as I think it shows question begging throughout the whole approach.

Is it really a signal?

Seashell looks like a galaxy.

Is that really a signal?

Sure...it could be. But that is not a deduction. It's a feeling.

Same with the Evil God idea. Really? Maybe you're just depressed.

Anyway, I always found fine-tuning not that great. Is anything finely-tuned if everything is? Doesn't the concept dissipate necessarily?

God would have to finely tune everything. Which would mean nothing would in principle I think constitute a signal...based on the concept of what a signal IS.

You would need to incorporate 'attention', and to date afaik no philosopher of mind or theologian has used the 'attention' concept...

We get to where it's an exercise in futility imo. It's good mental exercise. Not a good exercise to perhaps found a religion or a system of ethics that might actually influence specific behavior.

What if Evil God religion entailed you act like Cthulhu cultists and rush to embrace death? Or Hellraiser (Cenobite) religion to glorify not death but suffering?

Those are just as apparently likely or have as much claim to many God proofs.

[GreatOldOne]

Honest question: If someone doesn't even believe in the existence of God, however that's defined, do you really think he will agree with the first item you mentioned, "Love God"? You really think this is something everyone will agree on?

I came to believe God is understood best as 'Whatever metaphysical principles give rise to existence in the moment'.

So no...if you think God is a personality. Like Thor, or Jesus, Azathoth, Satan...you will be necessarily in conflict always.

I think conceptions of Jehovah, Allah, Brahman, The Great Spirit...etc...may prove synonymous.

The God I would suggest is of Spinoza, Einstein's...panentheist/panpsychic. Mental states distributed as potentials across the universe, with epistemic privacy (self/soul) as contingent...in our case on biophysical occurrence.

We can wire up a cyborg arm...we'll eventually wire up feelings, memories, language...between people.

If only we live that long...which is unlikely tbh.

The reason why I would say the golden rule is true is because it is literally true...you ARE your neighbor.

No distinct individual but God...existence.

[GreatOldOne]

My version is that you're living the moment as God tricking Himself into thinking He's you...for no specific reason except perhaps love, and nothing else to do with eternity.

I personally find Ecclesiastes to be the best book in the bible.

And that was written by someone pretending to be Solomon...lulz.



Edit: afaik...atheism is perfectly fine. Be in the moment.

Edit again: other random thoughts. Consider Oppenheimer and the nuclear explosion. The now I am become death. The idea isn't there's a blue guy with special powers srs. It's duty...in that particular moment, even to kill friends.

Another idea...reincarnation is just other people. 'Hell is other people'. If you're in Hell...plant flowers. You died a long time ago. Heaven and Hell are for the living.

"The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand" - literally...you're here. Congrats (srs)

"Become like a child to enter the Kingdom of Heaven"

[Dorich]

Strawman? I'm knocking down YOUR strawman, good sir. Is it your argument, then, that the ONLY observable difference in moral behavior between a christian believer and a nonbeliever would occur on an isolated desert island?

Muh studies
Muh polls

Still cannot answer the damn question lmfao.

[ElrondHubbard]

Muh studies
Muh polls

Still cannot answer the damn question lmfao.

It's a stupid question. Shows how far divorced from reality you folks are. Try making an argument that's actually meaningful.

[Dorich]

It's a stupid question. Shows how far divorced from reality you folks are. Try making an argument that's actually meaningful.

Still can't answer?

Damn.

[GreatOldOne]

It's a stupid question. Shows how far divorced from reality you folks are. Try making an argument that's actually meaningful.

He's just kidding (srs)

[Dorich]

He's just kidding (srs)

?

No I'm not.

[ElrondHubbard]

He's just kidding (srs)

No, he's not. He's seriously not very bright. He thinks that I'm "not answering" his question, although he refuses to consider any context for it beyond a toy scenario of zero practical probability. To the extent it can be generalized into actual, observable behavior, the question has been already answered and evidence linked. But he calls that a "straw man," revealing that he doesn't really know what the term means, and that he'd rather play with his toy scenario than risk being proven ridiculous in the real world.

Sucks to be him, I guess.

[Dorich]

No, he's not. He's seriously not very bright. He thinks that I'm "not answering" his question, although he refuses to consider any context for it beyond a toy scenario of zero practical probability. To the extent it can be generalized into actual, observable behavior, the question has been already answered and evidence linked. But he calls that a "straw man," revealing that he doesn't really know what the term means, and that he'd rather play with his toy scenario than risk being proven ridiculous in the real world.

Sucks to be him, I guess.

Fact: you did not answer the question

You deflected and simplified my argument, thus creating a strawman.

Will you answer? I'll wait.

[GreatOldOne]

?

No I'm not.

I see you as a guy who never breaks character but always says like basically the opposite of what he thinks.

I could be wrong.

This is one of the problems while we're talking about it of the fine tuning idea (srs).

What if it means the exact opposite?

[ElrondHubbard]

Fact: you did not answer the question

You deflected and simplified my argument, thus creating a strawman.

Will you answer? I'll wait.

I didn't simplify it, I generalized it. Just the opposite. I made it more widely applicable and subject to far more relevant situations. But your argument can't handle that, because it gets destroyed that way. Therefore, you prefer to remain stuck on a desert island.

[GreatOldOne]

No, he's not. He's seriously not very bright. He thinks that I'm "not answering" his question, although he refuses to consider any context for it beyond a toy scenario of zero practical probability. To the extent it can be generalized into actual, observable behavior, the question has been already answered and evidence linked. But he calls that a "straw man," revealing that he doesn't really know what the term means, and that he'd rather play with his toy scenario than risk being proven ridiculous in the real world.

Sucks to be him, I guess.

Anyone who has conversed with you understands you're very intelligent.

I think he's smart...but a gamer. He's just fooling around I think.

I'm sure he knows what straw man means and is quite adept at drawing people into thinking he's super stoopid.

Then reveals as a 'gotcha' that he agrees with you.

It's more obvious with political stuff because he's more interested in that. The Israeli issue is actually a good one...it brings to light racism and political and national ideation.

Idk even...one way or the other he's mocking white nationalists so good.

It's an intergenerational struggle.

lol...and you might think I'm kidding, but not.

I do think there's good room for all political sides to look at this philosophy of science, philosophy of mind stuff...it's not at all political.

[Dorich]

Anyone who has conversed with you understands you're very intelligent.

I think he's smart...but a gamer. He's just fooling around I think.

I'm sure he knows what straw man means and is quite adept at drawing people into thinking he's super stoopid.

Then reveals as a 'gotcha' that he agrees with you.

It's more obvious with political stuff because he's more interested in that. The Israeli issue is actually a good one...it brings to light racism and political and national ideation.

Idk even...one way or the other he's mocking white nationalists so good.

It's an intergenerational struggle.

lol...and you might think I'm kidding, but not.

I do think there's good room for all political sides to look at this philosophy of science, philosophy of mind stuff...it's not at all political.

This is incoherent.

[Dorich]

I didn't simplify it, I generalized it. Just the opposite. I made it more widely applicable and subject to far more relevant situations. But your argument can't handle that, because it gets destroyed that way. Therefore, you prefer to remain stuck on a desert island.

Translation: "I can't answer your question."

[boydwgrossii]

There's been a lot of sadism in the christian church over the cednturies. Are you forgetting the Spanish Inquisition? NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!

You seem to be labouring under the misconception that due to their christian beliefs, christians display more moral behavior. Too bad, dude, facts show they don't.

I would be more than willing to visit over Skype or something more personable and not so distant like a forum if you're interested.

Christ said that not all who claim to know Him truly know Him. History is riddled with many who claim to do noble things in the name of God, but fail to search the Scriptures to see if they truly are.

[JaymzJ]

Trying to explain what should be obvious=Headache. Have fun

[sy2502]

I would be more than willing to visit over Skype or something more personable and not so distant like a forum if you're interested.

Christ said that not all who claim to know Him truly know Him. History is riddled with many who claim to do noble things in the name of God, but fail to search the Scriptures to see if they truly are.

According to the Bible, god perpetrated genocide both personally and ordering others to do it for him, so try to twist it any way you want, that stuff is in the Bible.

[numberguy12]

Trying to explain what should be obvious=Headache. Have fun

err...because it's not obvious? All one needs to do is scroll through this thread to realize how ridiculous the OP's non-arguments are. It's almost like the fine-tuning argument (OP's argument is not one- she appears to not understand basic science or what fine-tuning actually means, and trolls various forums about religious creationism) has been considered before by many highly thoughtful people (scientists, philosophers, etc), and has not convinced them either. What is "obvious" to you, is certainly not obvious to others. People in general don't need convinced on actual obvious matters (3+4 = 7 in base ten arithmetic).

[ElrondHubbard]

I would be more than willing to visit over Skype or something more personable and not so distant like a forum if you're interested.

Christ said that not all who claim to know Him truly know Him. History is riddled with many who claim to do noble things in the name of God, but fail to search the Scriptures to see if they truly are.

Are you gonna go "No True Scotsman" on my a$$?

[Mr Beer]

Are you gonna go "No True Scotsman" on my a$$?

Hey, better than going "True Clergyman" on your arse.

[sandaltan]

Muh studies
Muh polls

Still cannot answer the damn question lmfao.

who cares dorich? your example is stupid as fuk. your premise is 2 sadists on a deserted island?

hahahahaha wtf man

how about this example:

2 people are on a deserted island

one is christian and the other is atheist

the christian is a dick and the atheist is moral because he doesnt need fear of hell to act like a decent human being

who dies first?

[isingmodel]

who cares dorich? your example is stupid as fuk. your premise is 2 sadists on a deserted island?

hahahahaha wtf man

how about this example:

2 people are on a deserted island

one is christian and the other is atheist

the christian is a dick and the atheist is moral because he doesnt need fear of hell to act like a decent human being

who dies first?

Or an easier one is

two people on a desert island

both are instrinsically good people

one has been convinced by religion that the other is an evil infidel and the righteous moral thing to do would be to murder him in order to fulfil gods will

who is more likely to harm the other?

dorich used to be a half decent poster before he went full schizo multiple personality

[ElrondHubbard]

Hey, better than going "True Clergyman" on your arse.

Can't argue with that! LOL