t is undefined
I always told my kids “clean up your Lego from the floor.” :rolleyes: As an adjective it is Lego, but not as a noun. Legos is really short for Lego blocks, as I bet the trademark lawyer for them would say.
It’s (once again) not a term I made up. Cite
That’s no answer. Not with anything like the common conception of god on the table.
OK - I’ll answer, since I’m still on hold (Michael Jackson music now)…
I’d argue that it’s not God causing tidal waves, earthquakes & such. It’s just the physical properties of the earth combined with all the physics that make it work. The functioning of the earth, the rotation of the planets, etc. are not evil or good - they just are. People are moral beings, planets are not.
As one person put it, air thin enough to breathe is air thin enough to fall through. The laws of physics are the laws of physics. Nothing good or evil about them.
Between that and the “kingdom of God will come before some of you taste of death” prediction, he was batting .500.
I’ve heard this story, but it was with two lions. Much funnier that way.
A rich man and a man so poor he was living in the street and eating out of dumpsters met. “Why don’t you give more to charity?” the poor man asked.
“Why don’t you?” the rich man answered.
So, how powerful is your god? Is he powerful enough to construct a world without earthquakes and floods? Is he powerful enough to point a tsunami in a direction where it won’t drown hundreds of thousands of people. Is your god a god, or is he a pussy?
And ?
Ah, and of course the believer ignores my point in favor of a personal insult. It is NOT a “correct conclusion to a rational analysis that a deity is involved”; there’s no evidence of that at all. All your side has are a lot of baseless claims by people, claims which contradict themselves, which strongly indicates that there is nothing real, nothing objective behind those claims.
No, I have rules. You just believe in asserting the truth of whatever you feel like believing this Thursday. You have just as much reason to believe in God as you do in Santa Claus.
It’s called compartmentalization; your beliefs in God don’t impinge too much on your work, so you can function, just as you could do automobile design from a wheelchair. That doesn’t make it healthy; you’d likely do poorly at biology or cosmology, and would be unlikely to reach the heights of science in general. Just because you can function with the intellectual equivalent of a ball and chain doesn’t mean the ball and chain are a good thing.
Of course; God is such a silly idea that insanity or drugs are a much more plausible explanation for something like that.
No, I didn’t; free will is impossible. When I make a choice, it feels free, but that’s just because I have almost no awareness of the workings of my own brain. My choice is no different than a computer choosing among programmed alternatives; I’m just more sophisticated and self-programming.
Nonsense. You should still toss them in prison to protect others. The fact that people respond according to programming and not some sort of mystic essence that defies logic doesn’t mean that they don’t modify their behavior; quite the opposite.
And “free will”, being illogical is useless for holding people responsible; how can you hold them responsible if their behavior isn’t determined by the external world and their own internal functions ? What would be the point of punishing someone who’s choices aren’t affected by punishment ? You say they are ? Well, that’s another argument against free will.
As I predicted; the believer as usual claims that those who don’t believe are all monsters.
And I am, as you are. And if there’s a god, so is it. Calling a person “just a machine” is rather like calling a planet “just a rock”. We are immensely complex machines, more so than humanity has managed to develop; there’s no “just” about it.
Don’t be silly. As someone who believes in only the material world and patterns of information, I’m the one that values people. I’m the one that values real things. Not imaginary gods and souls. It is part of what makes religion so destructive that it values the delusion and cares little or nothing for the reality.
Because preexisting life eats it before it can become alive.
:rolleyes: How, exactly, do you suppose your own body was made ? We are all COMPOSED of self assembling molecules.
Nope. First, there’s no God. Second, evolution is rather slapdash, messy, and amoral. For a natural process it’s impressive; as the tool of a creator of universes, it’s clumsy and irresponsible.
Well, that’s because theology is by nature garbage. Religion is the garbage heap where stupid ideas that people don’t want to give up are put. My “rules” are that the idea should make logical sense, and have some evidence for it at least being possible; your godsilliness has done neither. Not only have you failed to prove it, you haven’t given me any reason to take your ideas more seriously than someone who claims invisible wombats are behind it all.
And asserting that you have a soul won’t make one appear. As has been pointed out repeatedly, the evidence is strongly against there being a soul. And once again, you fail to produce any evidence that your claim is even possible.
My soul isn’t measurable, because there’s no such thing as a soul. It’s wishful thinking ( and poorly thought out wishful thinking at that ).
As pointed out, wrong. Virtual particles are everywhere, and they are uncaused.
We’d be different, because there’s a lot of randomness, of sloppiness involved in human development. We’d be very similar but unique, due to “manufacturing differences”, and the chaotic nature of brain processes.
And the third turtle swimming by says, "If he says that to me, I’ll say, ‘Well, Mr God, where WERE the divine powers I would have needed to make the world better as you could have ? If you cared.’ "
And we aren’t people at birth; just potential people given more development.
First, quantum mechanics affects electrical and chemical processes as well. And, there’s plenty of other randomness going on; the two of use aren’t eating food identical to the atom, there are cosmic rays sleeting through us, random particles decaying and so on. Randomness is an inescapable part of the real world, and the nature of biology is such that it can rapidly amplify small inputs into large ones.
Yes, we are also the sum of our culture, and our own thoughts. A soul wouldn’t make us any more special - even if souls existed, what makes you think you’d even notice if you lost it ? And free will, as said, doesn’t even make logical sense; it can’t make us special because it can’t exist.
And God ? The existence of God would just make us victims.
Not sure your point…
I hate your replying style, by the way. What, is the “Quote” tag too good for you?
Legos do not have an “affinity” for combining that’s anything close to the degree that chemicals do. Analogizing them is like holding one block of wood above another and saying “look, they don’t stick together - ergo there’s no such thing as magnets”.
For a better analogy start sticking those legos together randomly in every possible combination. (You have to do the sticking because the legos won’t do it themselves, unlike the molecules.) Repeat for a billion years, if necessary. What do you think the odds are that you’ll ever recreate the original airplane?
In baby steps, and lots of them. Ever played a computer game? Been shot at by a virtual soldier? That’s not consciousness (we hope), but it’s another baby step closer than pong was, which is another baby step closer than tic-tac-toe, which is a baby step closer than building blocks, which is a baby step closer than rocks…
It demonstrates a gross minsunderstanding of what moelecules do, is that it demonstrates.
[QUOTE=Belrix]
*Proto-matter is what I’m calling the melange of stuff that was there before the explosion… that formed all the electrons and quarks and play-doh that makes up all the stuff filling the universe. Yes, I know about Mass/energy duality.
[QUOTE=Belrix]
I’m not up on my submolecular physics, but even I know that something can come from nothing - if something of an equal but inverse energy appears at the same time. With nothing existing before it.
God is described as an uncaused effect. If you can’t beleve in uncaused events, you can’t believe in god. Or is it turtles all the way down? 
As should be obvious, the rich man - the stand in for God - is being arrogant be holding a poor man to the same standard of generosity and capability.
God isn’t in any moral position to condemn me or any human for immoral behavior or for not trying to help others; we have the moral high ground, and nowhere near the resources of a God. By all the evidence, Saddam Hussein showed more concern for the people of Iraq that God does for humanity, assuming he existed.
Sure he could.
Did he? No. Why? Tough answer - perhaps because our pains help guide us. Perhaps because strength is built through adversity. Perhaps it’s because we, the privileged, should be going into flood areas and helping rather than manna parachuting in from above.
I dunno and it’s been a stumbling block to belief for 2000 years. My belief is hardly perfect and I ask “why?” all the time.
Since our lives belong to him. Bill Cosby had it right in a way… He put me into this world, he can take me out. He’s kinda allowed to use us in a way that furthers his will - even if it’s not clear to me what that is.
Besides, a lot of what happens to me is the result of other people’s choices, not natural evil things like hurricanes & tornadoes. A lot of evil that occurs to people is not the will of God, it’s the will of other people.
The Bear Analogy:
While walking through the woods, you come across a bear in a trap. The bear’s paw is stuck in the trap and he’s howling in pain. You decide to release him from that trap and set him free.
As you pry the trap open, twisting and prying at it, you’re causing the bear greater pain that just leaving it alone. But, you know that in return for the pain, the bear will get a greater benefit by going free. You, as the more intelligent, higher life form, can see the repercussions of your action and you act accordingly. The bear, of course, lacks this foresight.
For the purposes of analogy, we assume the bear does not eat you.
I thought my method was clear enough, with the italics, and quote tags a pain in quantity.
I do believe in uncaused effects by allowing God. I said earlier that my theology allows this, including God as an uncaused effect. My point is that without God and only with physics, then effect must have cause and the big bang has a problem with cause, it seems.
Got isn’t asking you to part the red sea - he’s just asking you to treat your neighbor as you would yourself.
Now you are using the “God is an evil bastard and we should love him for it” argument for God, one of the sickest.
And is someone driven insane by adversity “stronger” ?
You are providing a great example of what I said earlier, of why religion is evil in part because it promotes concern over the delusion rather than the reality. And how it promotes utter ruthlessness. Rather than admit that it’s wrong for some god to refrain from helping or doing a better job in the first place, you come up with excuses for him. Because “God is evil” or "“God is imaginary” is a forbidden conclusion.
And God ISN’T “privileged” ?
And again, we see the fundamental hostility religion has for humanity. We see how it devalues us.
And I am not God’s property, even if he existed. A God that regards us as such is evil, not to mention our enemy.
Except that if we are honest with this analogy, the trap is there because the human put it there. And because he wanted the bear to get hurt by it. And he could just make the trap vanish, or tranquilize the bear. Or, he could have made the bear trap proof in the first place.
In other words, he wants me to act better than him. MUCH better. I wouldn’t just stand by and watch my neighbor burn to death to teach him a life lesson.
Quick tip: copy/paste the opening ‘quote’ tag, which you’ll find at the head of the reply when you hit quote. Much easier.
And when I read it the italicized text sort of rolls in with the other, and when I reply I have to manually filter the guy you were quoting’s comments out… me no likey. But then I may just be picky that way.
And my point is that you seem to have an even weaker grasp of subatomic physics than I do, which is saying something. From what I can tell, the physics allow it.
Also, even I could design a better world than this if the goal was to strenghen people though the overcoming of adversity - for one I wouldn’t have the adversity tend to kill the people I’m trying to strengthen. Frankly for a god to design a world like ours, either the suffering was the goal in itself, or the god would have to be a frikking incompetent.
An apology for missing your very long post earlier. I missed it in the page flip.
We’re going to have to agree to disagree. In part because I have to go home, in part because we’re just wrestling with things that have no solid answers (despite your objections to the contrary) and in part because I haven’t sufficient theology to answer you further.
Here’s the way I see it.
I have a unique “spark” in me. A spark that is greater than my genes & blood. I have the ability to choose my destiny - there is not shining path, no pre-programmed future awaiting me - either programmed by God or programmed by causal mechanics.
I call that spark “my soul”. It’s most likely my Judeo-Christian heritage that I name it this. Still, this spark, this soul, is a thing of spirit, not atoms, quarks, or molecules. If there’s a spiritual world, and my soul’s existence implies that there is, then it’d be neglectful if I ignored it.
I belief in a benevolent God that wants the best for me - a God that, like a father to a son, like me to my son, wants the best for me but is willing to let me fall down and scrape my knee in order to learn & develop.
This Father will guide me with advice & counsel - through his writings and through prayer on how I should make decisions but I make the choice to follow or deny that advice.
I don’t understand the full nature of God but I believe he’s there.
We’ll just have to disagree about this.
FWIW, I was an atheist at one point and I’ve used your arguments (not some of the particle physics stuff, though (my physics left off at at the 300 level). I still stumble at times with disbelief.
I keep almost getting a tattoo of Mark 9:24 as my “signature” verse, “Lord I believe but help thou my unbelief”. Mark 4:5 talks about seed falling on rocky soil. I have rocks in my soil, so to speak, and they’ll always be there. Every now and then I dig one out. Every now and then one falls in. In my opinion, intellectual belief is a hard thing but, I think it’s the right thing.
I wish you well and I’m going to bow out of this thread because I think I’m just repeating myself and, as I said, I really don’t have the theology to argue at more than the layman’s level.
Concerning bears & traps. It’s just an analogy - it could be that his foot is stuck in a hole. Ignore the trap and go with the meaning related to differing levels of perception versus good & evil.
I believe that you can’t prove, other than by a perceive lack of evidence, that God doesn’t exist and I can’t prove, other than by inference, that he does. It’s a constant, never ending, battle.
Anyway, all that aside, I think what we have here is an example of why religion will always be with us, curse it - people want to believe. Reality is too scary or mundane or whatever, so they find and/or construct (or were given and keep) a belief system that they find to their liking, and then defend the belief for it’s own sake. When you classify disbelief itself as being inherently bad, you can convince yourself to try and dig it out of yourself without actually assessing its value - even if those rocks you’re discarding are diamonds, and the seed you’re trying to protect is only imagined.
People are going to keep doing this as long as they find the world to be a scary, uncomfortable, or lonely place, which will very likely be forever (or until we run out of people). The best that we can hope for would be that the more assertive, threatening, and damaging religions are replaced by benign ones, but that’s kind of like hoping that if bunnies and tigers were locked in the same cage, the bunnies would come out on top.