Jump to content


Photo

The God Debate (Part 2)


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
504 replies to this topic

#461 DarkNemesis

DarkNemesis

    Keeper of the Threads

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 15483 posts

Posted 27 July 2016 - 03:51 PM

https://en.wikipedia...by_Adolf_Hitler

 

 

he tried and failed.

 

Fair point. I didn't know that. He had talent. He just needed to practice more. It's unfortunate that he took out his frustration on 6 million people. But I still don't see how God can't judge him.


Kubo's announcement will be his new work will be called Tide; not as strong as bleach but does its trolling in a more colorful fashion! - arcane_chaos

Spoiler

#462 waleuska

waleuska

    Pirate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6267 posts
  • Locationeverywhere but nowhere

Posted 27 July 2016 - 04:21 PM

Fair point. I didn't know that. He had talent. He just needed to practice more. It's unfortunate that he took out his frustration on 6 million people. But I still don't see how God can't judge him.

like i said before he is a necessary evil that created the world as it is today. Also if god would have given him more talent or made people like his art work more. Than hilter wouldn't have become hilter.

 

It would be like if the child of a rapist found the cure to cancer. Without the rapist you wouldn't have the cure to cancer.


p5Y5w8P.jpg


#463 DarkNemesis

DarkNemesis

    Keeper of the Threads

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 15483 posts

Posted 27 July 2016 - 04:40 PM

like i said before he is a necessary evil that created the world as it is today. Also if god would have given him more talent or made people like his art work more. Than hilter wouldn't have become hilter.

 

It would be like if the child of a rapist found the cure to cancer. Without the rapist you wouldn't have the cure to cancer.

 

It doesn't change the fact he raped somebody. So if the child of a rapist solves quantum mechanics and cures the common cold, then we should let the rapist out of jail and give him restitution?

 

"Oops our bad, you got great genes and clearly knew what you were doing." .... :huh:


Edited by DarkNemesis, 27 July 2016 - 06:05 PM.

Kubo's announcement will be his new work will be called Tide; not as strong as bleach but does its trolling in a more colorful fashion! - arcane_chaos

Spoiler

#464 NGEFan

NGEFan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 446 posts

Posted 27 July 2016 - 05:28 PM

Did God not have the power to stop the rape from ever happening in the first place?  To have the power to stop an evil action like rape and choose not to is to be complicit and therefore evil yourself.



#465 DarkNemesis

DarkNemesis

    Keeper of the Threads

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 15483 posts

Posted 27 July 2016 - 06:11 PM

Did God not have the power to stop the rape from ever happening in the first place?  To have the power to stop an evil action like rape and choose not to is to be complicit and therefore evil yourself.

 

I see what you're saying. And on an instinctual level, I agree. But I still wouldn't make an absolute statement like that.

 

What's the point of giving someone or all people Free Will if you're gonna stop them from every mistake possible. Even the really bad ones. Does God need to step for problems even bad ones, when you yourself have the ability to prevent it yourself. And no I'm not blaming the rapee for being raped. What I'm saying is that a lot of horrible things we see in this world are preventable. They are problems we can solve ourselves as a collective. But, again, we choose not to.


Kubo's announcement will be his new work will be called Tide; not as strong as bleach but does its trolling in a more colorful fashion! - arcane_chaos

Spoiler

#466 NGEFan

NGEFan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 446 posts

Posted 27 July 2016 - 07:03 PM

The general answer given to the question why God would choose to give people free will is that it's a test despite the fact at best the vast majority aren't aware of the rules of the test.  But there's a point in between where it's clear the test has been failed and yet there is still no preventative measure being taken.  If I had the power to stop that rape in progress, I would consider myself morally compelled to.  I would not feel I were protecting him by letting him wreak as much havoc as possible so that he could fully make his mistake.  But of course, I lack the power to stop that rapist I don't even know about.



#467 retroluffy13

retroluffy13

    Sardine

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9444 posts

Posted 25 March 2017 - 06:51 PM

now im not saying I told you all so but....

 

 

http://www.ozy.com/r...up-darwin/39217

 

my ideas were simply just a little ahead of they're time

 

apologies can be made in cash.


Edited by retroluffy13, 25 March 2017 - 06:51 PM.

 this is a music video I made for a friend of mine.  give it a listen.  the visuals are pretty dope

Spoiler


also some ear kandy
Spoiler

when you love something..  and I mean. really love it.  you fight for it for as long as you can until you cant stand any longer.  then when its all said and done, walk away with a smile hoping you did right.

#468 Tale

Tale

    Kakistocrat

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3187 posts

User's Awards

3    3    2   

Posted 25 March 2017 - 07:17 PM

@retroluffy13

 

What exactly do you see in the article? All I got from it is that it's telling us about a guy working on an idea (which is still speculative).



#469 retroluffy13

retroluffy13

    Sardine

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9444 posts

Posted 25 March 2017 - 07:35 PM

@retroluffy13

 

What exactly do you see in the article? All I got from it is that it's telling us about a guy working on an idea (which is still speculative).

that they're now on the assumption that atoms and the like are alive(ie.  god) and that life is inevitable.  which given the laws of physics, was an inevitable conclusion.  otherwise life just isn't possible.  it didn't appear out of nothing like some special snowflake, that just doesn't make any sense. 

 

even in spore theory, you still got to dictate where the spores came from


 

but after reading through it I suppose your right.  no proof.  just theories, numbers and speculation.

 

still.  if its backed with numbers, id like to see them because to me it all checks out.


Edited by retroluffy13, 25 March 2017 - 07:28 PM.

 this is a music video I made for a friend of mine.  give it a listen.  the visuals are pretty dope

Spoiler


also some ear kandy
Spoiler

when you love something..  and I mean. really love it.  you fight for it for as long as you can until you cant stand any longer.  then when its all said and done, walk away with a smile hoping you did right.

#470 DarkNemesis

DarkNemesis

    Keeper of the Threads

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 15483 posts

Posted 25 March 2017 - 07:36 PM

atoms being alive and atoms being god are very different things. plus, don't atoms look for bond with each other naturally for stability? so his glass shattering theory would just be atoms finding a different configuration to hold a natural bond and stable cohesion. i don't think you need to add life to that equation. at least to explain why. plus even if atoms were alive, that doesn't explain where they came from?

Kubo's announcement will be his new work will be called Tide; not as strong as bleach but does its trolling in a more colorful fashion! - arcane_chaos

Spoiler

#471 retroluffy13

retroluffy13

    Sardine

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9444 posts

Posted 25 March 2017 - 07:44 PM

atoms being alive and atoms being god are very different things. plus, don't atoms look for bond with each other naturally for stability? so his glass shattering theory would just be atoms finding a different configuration to hold a natural bond and stable cohesion. i don't think you need to add life to that equation. at least to explain why. plus even if atoms were alive, that doesn't explain where they came from?

well then ill back up his findings with theoroms of my own.  consider the action and nature of atoms, and they're tendancy for random movement coupled with electrons dancing around them in an almost unnatural pattern.  what else besides life itself is capable of moving at random?  what else but sentience gives movement to objects in ways that literally break the laws of physics?  my hypothesis has always been that since there's no other type of physical phenomena capable of this, to assert its something different is asinine.

 

though to be fair my assertion has always been its not the object that's alive, but the energy inside of it, considering the more energy you put into an object, the more random its movements become.

 

what else do you call the origins of life/ a force of nature that's constantly surrounding us that in of itself gave birth all animals/living orginisms other then god?


Edited by retroluffy13, 25 March 2017 - 07:47 PM.

 this is a music video I made for a friend of mine.  give it a listen.  the visuals are pretty dope

Spoiler


also some ear kandy
Spoiler

when you love something..  and I mean. really love it.  you fight for it for as long as you can until you cant stand any longer.  then when its all said and done, walk away with a smile hoping you did right.

#472 DarkNemesis

DarkNemesis

    Keeper of the Threads

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 15483 posts

Posted 25 March 2017 - 07:55 PM

why stop at atoms? why not electrons, protons, neutrons, and quarks? are those god as well?

no object or being that moves in a way that breaks the laws of physics. even if you're comparing quantum physics with standard model physics, the physics still hold. our understanding of quantum physics is nascent at best. but physics or its laws have not been broken.

i will need a more scientifically read person to give me a 3rd opinion here. but atoms are subject to forces of nature just like anything else. so ultimately their movements can be determined even those they seem random.

Kubo's announcement will be his new work will be called Tide; not as strong as bleach but does its trolling in a more colorful fashion! - arcane_chaos

Spoiler

#473 retroluffy13

retroluffy13

    Sardine

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9444 posts

Posted 25 March 2017 - 08:02 PM

why stop at atoms? why not electrons, protons, neutrons, and quarks? are those god as well?

no object or being that moves in a way that breaks the laws of physics. even if you're comparing quantum physics with standard model physics, the physics still hold. our understanding of quantum physics is nascent at best. but physics or its laws have not been broken.

i will need a more scientifically read person to give me a 3rd opinion here. but atoms are subject to forces of nature just like anything else. so ultimately their movements can be determined even those they seem random.

by "break the laws of physics"  I'm speaking in hyperbole.    of course they aren't breaking the laws of physics, because otherwise it wouldn't be a law.  still, your about as likely to predict the movement of a bolt of lightni ng as you are a human who cant speaks actions.  I mean you can, based on assumption and a lot of critical thinking/the laws of probability.  but even then, like humans, high concentrations of evergy don't move in set patterns.  your more likely to find two snowflakes thst look the same then you are to find two bolts of electricity that move in the same pattern.  meaning its possible, but only because every single action will always be repeated, ergo eventually will be repeated twice.


 

 

the idea isn't so much that "atoms are the scource of life" as it is they will eventually move into a pattern that will become life by its proper definition. in other words, a cell.


Edited by retroluffy13, 25 March 2017 - 08:06 PM.

 this is a music video I made for a friend of mine.  give it a listen.  the visuals are pretty dope

Spoiler


also some ear kandy
Spoiler

when you love something..  and I mean. really love it.  you fight for it for as long as you can until you cant stand any longer.  then when its all said and done, walk away with a smile hoping you did right.

#474 Tale

Tale

    Kakistocrat

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3187 posts

User's Awards

3    3    2   

Posted 25 March 2017 - 09:07 PM

that they're now on the assumption that atoms and the like are alive(ie.  god) 

 

I don't think that was the assumption. The article said (if I read it correctly), that atoms in the right circumstances (may) self-organize, and, depending on your definition of life, you could consider certain things to be "alive". The definition seems like the crucial factor here and without it being stated in the article, it's hard to see how significant it would be.

 

 

 

which given the laws of physics, was an inevitable conclusion.  otherwise life just isn't possible.

 

It doesn't follow that life isn't possible if it's not inevitable, but I'm not sure that's what you meant.

 

 

 

what else besides life itself is capable of moving at random?  what else but sentience gives movement to objects in ways that literally break the laws of physics?  my hypothesis has always been that since there's no other type of physical phenomena capable of this, to assert its something different is asinine

 

still, your about as likely to predict the movement of a bolt of lightni ng as you are a human who cant speaks actions.  I mean you can, based on assumption and a lot of critical thinking/the laws of probability.  but even then, like humans, high concentrations of evergy don't move in set patterns.  your more likely to find two snowflakes thst look the same then you are to find two bolts of electricity that move in the same pattern.

 

.

If what you mean by randomness doesn't break the laws of physics, then the problem in prediction is not a feature of the phenomena but an issue with our knowledge, involving ignorance about the physical laws or the factors in play. 

 

To take your example of lightning, we can predict what will happen in a general sense when lightning strikes, but we can't predict exactly what shape the lightning bolt will take. That doesn't mean the lightning bolt is somehow inherently random. It's still following the rules, but for us to have that exact knowledge, we would also have to have exact knowledge of the conditions at that point in time, down to the smallest details (something which is impractical and impossible) as well as a full understanding of the physical laws.


Edited by Tale, 25 March 2017 - 09:07 PM.


#475 retroluffy13

retroluffy13

    Sardine

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9444 posts

Posted 25 March 2017 - 09:42 PM

I don't think that was the assumption. The article said (if I read it correctly), that atoms in the right circumstances (may) self-organize, and, depending on your definition of life, you could consider certain things to be "alive". The definition seems like the crucial factor here and without it being stated in the article, it's hard to see how significant it would be.

 

 

It doesn't follow that life isn't possible if it's not inevitable, but I'm not sure that's what you meant.

 

.

If what you mean by randomness doesn't break the laws of physics, then the problem in prediction is not a feature of the phenomena but an issue with our knowledge, involving ignorance about the physical laws or the factors in play. 

 

To take your example of lightning, we can predict what will happen in a general sense when lightning strikes, but we can't predict exactly what shape the lightning bolt will take. That doesn't mean the lightning bolt is somehow inherently random. It's still following the rules, but for us to have that exact knowledge, we would also have to have exact knowledge of the conditions at that point in time, down to the smallest details (something which is impractical and impossible) as well as a full understanding of the physical laws.

well lets break it down step, because language is important to this kind of thing.

 

"The 101 version of his big idea is this: Under the right conditions, a random group of atoms will self-organize, unbidden, to more effectively use energy. "

so far, life has not been implied with the statement. its just talking about how, supposedly, a group of atoms will self organize in a certain way which, given the laws of probability, is a fact.  because there are infinite different combinations of atoms and if things are in constant motion, it was inevitable that they would organize like this.

"Over time and with just the right amount of, say, sunlight, a cluster of atoms could come remarkably close to what we call life."

this is where the intake of energy is important, as well as how the statement was phrased.  its implying that the cluster of atoms will arrange themselves in such a  pattern, that when they intake a certain form of energy yet defined, something akin to what we define as life is formed.  but notice it says "define", implying the cluster of atoms has become at least something akin to the most basic form of life, ie, a cell.

 

"In fact, here’s a thought: Some things we consider inanimate actually may already be “alive.”"this is the important part and where it leads in to my own established hypothesis.  theres a possibility that there exists forms of life outside of what we define as life.  it doesn't go into detail explaining what exactly this would be, but to me I would at least assume that it was the energy, because this is what brings this random cluster to "life", as we define it.

 

so if I'm reading it correctly, hes basicly saying the same thing I have.

 

 

 


It doesn't follow that life isn't possible if it's not inevitable, but I'm not sure that's what you meant.
 

no I'm saying something more akin to life was inevitable by the laws of physics because every eventuality will eventually play itself out amongst the universe, and as were standing here talking right now, obviously the universe had the capacity for it, ergo it was inevitable.  if we consider the universe to be infinitely big, then there are infinite amount of combinations in it, ie, it was always going to happen because it could happen in the first place as well as the universe is so big and filled with infinite combinations of different matter, ergo the sequence was bound to happen by the laws of probability.

 

 

 


If what you mean by randomness doesn't break the laws of physics, then the problem in prediction is not a feature of the phenomena but an issue with our knowledge, involving ignorance about the physical laws or the factors in play.

To take your example of lightning, we can predict what will happen in a general sense when lightning strikes, but we can't predict exactly what shape the lightning bolt will take. That doesn't mean the lightning bolt is somehow inherently random. It's still following the rules, but for us to have that exact knowledge, we would also have to have exact knowledge of the conditions at that point in time, down to the smallest details (something which is impractical and impossible) as well as a full understanding of the physical laws.

I get what your saying, but at the same time,  its like this.  you could capture electricity in a box and replicate the same jolt nine thousand times under the same circumstances and still end up with different paths for the bolt to have traveled.  so unless the factor lies in something simple like;  the bolt of electricity will always travel the least spaced out path, and given the atoms in the box will always rearrange themselves in ways that are uncontrollable, such configuration could be what defines such randomized movement, the only other conclusion is that the electricity is chosing its path.

 

though I admit having thought about it, there is more then one possibility.

 

but then id argue back that:  weve dissected the human body to the point where we understand everything that's inside of it, and the only option as far as I can see as far as life giving property goes, is electricity BECAUSE that's what leaves the bundle of protein and chemicals when the body dies, and that's the difference between a body that's alive and one that's dead.

 

couple that with its apperant random movements and we have ourselfes a quality of life that goes beyond the bundle of protiens and chemicals.


 

granted, the electricity never really disappears fully from the body because you know.  atoms are charged and whatnot.  but a human that's alive holds a much higher charge then one that's not.


 

the math, when put in linguistic terms, checks out.


Edited by retroluffy13, 25 March 2017 - 09:55 PM.

 this is a music video I made for a friend of mine.  give it a listen.  the visuals are pretty dope

Spoiler


also some ear kandy
Spoiler

when you love something..  and I mean. really love it.  you fight for it for as long as you can until you cant stand any longer.  then when its all said and done, walk away with a smile hoping you did right.

#476 Otaku-N.

Otaku-N.

    Otaku

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1347 posts
  • LocationVarsity. Man do I like that term.

Posted 25 March 2017 - 09:56 PM


the only other conclusion is that the electricity is chosing its path.

By what mechanism?

 



but then id argue back that: weve dissected the human body to the point where we understand everything that's inside of it, and the only option as far as I can see as far as life giving property goes, is electricity BECAUSE that's what leaves the bundle of protein and chemicals when the body dies, and that's the difference between a body that's alive and one that's dead.

 

So, how exactly are you defining life here? "Having electricity" is certainly a strange way to go about it.

 


i will need a more scientifically read person to give me a 3rd opinion here. but atoms are subject to forces of nature just like anything else. so ultimately their movements can be determined even those they seem random.

 

For the most part, I would suggest yes. But it's also kinda fruitless seeing as you'd amass so many errors in your measurements and it would be expensive to amass that kind of data (right now), it's much better to simply analyse the emergent effect. Boom, thank you classical physics.


JaAjRjC.png?1

 

Spoiler muh outdated stuffs

#477 retroluffy13

retroluffy13

    Sardine

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9444 posts

Posted 25 March 2017 - 10:10 PM

By what mechanism?

 

 

 

 

So, how exactly are you defining life here? "Having electricity" is certainly a strange way to go about it.

 

 

 

 

For the most part, I would suggest yes. But it's also kinda fruitless seeing as you'd amass so many errors in your measurements and it would be expensive to amass that kind of data (right now), it's much better to simply analyse the emergent effect. Boom, thank you classical physics.

well my assumption would be through sentience.  id define it as an inate trait to the bolt if such were the case.  how it came to poses this trait, I couldn't tell you.

 

well at the most basic state of life, a cell, we define it with three factors.  water, carbon, and electricity.  the cell dies when its no longer charged in the same way it once was.  and since theres nothing innately life like about the other two componants, the electricity must be the thing animating it as it does posess such traits.


 this is a music video I made for a friend of mine.  give it a listen.  the visuals are pretty dope

Spoiler


also some ear kandy
Spoiler

when you love something..  and I mean. really love it.  you fight for it for as long as you can until you cant stand any longer.  then when its all said and done, walk away with a smile hoping you did right.

#478 Otaku-N.

Otaku-N.

    Otaku

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1347 posts
  • LocationVarsity. Man do I like that term.

Posted 25 March 2017 - 10:29 PM

What do you think about emergent behaviour?


JaAjRjC.png?1

 

Spoiler muh outdated stuffs

#479 retroluffy13

retroluffy13

    Sardine

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9444 posts

Posted 25 March 2017 - 11:33 PM

What do you think about emergent behaviour?

 

well for that I would look to bigger, more complex structures and examine the role emergent structure plays in such creatures, like rats for example.  the brains precarious, and if chemicals are even slightly altered, innate behavior of the creature is what's seen to change and not so much the fact that the creature is alive in the first place. 

 

so what id say about that is that:  structures important, but only in defining the nature of the living organism and not so much the fact that its alive in the first place. 

 

after all, electricity gives life to many things, not just biological mechanisms, but computers, electronics, and other such things as well.  its like when you build a computer.  the physical components are all there, but without the charge, they're useless.  to me, points like this lead me to the conclusion that it wouldn't matter so much what physical components made up a cell in terms of bringing it to life so much as it defines the actions such cell will take innately.


 

its also very important in the retention of life as well, seeing that if the precarious structure of a cell is damaged in a major way, the cell will also die.


 

to me, its an issue of causality.  its for life to take place, its not just a matter of difference chemicals, atoms and whatnot coming together in a mix so perfect that life is created so much s it is the sequence on which the chemicals and whatnot are released into each other at differing times, which leads to the question what's sequencing these chemicals to be released at such perfect times tht the structure in of itself functions with a  certain purpose?  which leads back to the initial point, the energy running through whatever base, almost godlike structure that leads to the reaction in the first place.


Edited by retroluffy13, 25 March 2017 - 11:02 PM.

 this is a music video I made for a friend of mine.  give it a listen.  the visuals are pretty dope

Spoiler


also some ear kandy
Spoiler

when you love something..  and I mean. really love it.  you fight for it for as long as you can until you cant stand any longer.  then when its all said and done, walk away with a smile hoping you did right.

#480 Otaku-N.

Otaku-N.

    Otaku

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1347 posts
  • LocationVarsity. Man do I like that term.

Posted 26 March 2017 - 01:53 AM

I don't see how this discounts the emergent behaviour resulting from electromagnetic interactions producing the effects we call "electricity"


 

Actually here's a better question, because I think I'm beating at a dead horse:

 

Suppose that electricity is a life giving entity, or that there is a sentience that characterises the actions of electrons. What does this actually mean to name this sentience "god"?


JaAjRjC.png?1

 

Spoiler muh outdated stuffs




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users