Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Does GOD exist?
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
Take from that what you will, free will exists only as a choice at an instant, but simply because it is possible no matter how improbable the choice you make is definable and predictable.
'Random' is one of those terms I DESPISE using for that very reason. It is based on what you've said that my statement is actually made, just I didn't give it enough wordage to make my case properly I think.
I am a determinist thinker, and I believe that because all things in the universe follow certain natural laws, given a powerful enough mind, and the exact mechanics of the start of the universe, it HAS to be possible to prove exactly what has happened from that start point to the 'end point' as it were, and everything in between. It's based on that that I don't like the idea of a being that can break those natural laws. I would prefer a universe where everything is essentially equal; everything resides under one specific set of rules. Having something outside of that... Well, my mind just doesn't gel with it.
It's based on the above that I don't want someone to have given me a purpose to exist from millenia before my existance began. I believe my life would have been exactly as it is regardless of how many times the universe began (so long as it began under the same conditions every single time), and as such I'd like it to be a journey worth travelling; not one that someone already knows the end of. As a determinist you also have to accept the pointlessness of certain things/people. My ONLY purpose in life may be that at one point I will trip over, causing some girl to take pity on me, increasing her empathy towards guys with curly hair the tiniest amount, such that years later when she meets the man of her dreams, she gives him the time of day because she was feeling sorry for him because he looked upset and he had curly hair. Their union in turn may do something which affects something into doing something else blah blah blah the purpose of existance if fulfilled. Frankly, I don't only want to exist to trip over in the street one day, and that's why I don't like the idea of someone having planned things for me. I'd prefer they were determined 'randomly' than with the intention of a specific outcome. Make any sense? Haha!
Of course he exists, The world couldn't become this screwed up by chance alone.
Yes God does exist, he appeared on South Park so it must be true.
With all of that said, I would most certainly say no. There are far too many inconsistancies with the classic and current view of god for me to consider such a being even close to a likely possibility.
That said, I will concede there is ample room for another force, even an intelligence or purpose in what we know of the universe, and that the existence of such would indeed fill a number of theoretical holes in need of closure.
I, sir, must applaud you on an intelligent and overall excellent response to xpowderx's posting.
GOD doesn't exist, it was a failed video game developer that got bought out by Take Two I believe :P God doesn't exist either.
I don't know he exist or not. There is no pic of him, no one saw him. But I think "Bible" is the most popular and long selling FICTION novel in the world. Too bad, if he (or she) wrote this book, could make more than Bill Gates.
By the way, he or she? If it is GOD, why it needs gender??
Does it looks like HUMAN? Why it needs looks like human??
Xpowderx, you complete and total fraud. You THIEF. YOU PLAGIARIST.
I suggest everyone try THIS link to find out where Powder has stolen his latest material.
Stop stealing material from other sites and passing it off as your own! You sicken me with your immoral ways. CITE YOUR SOURCES WHEN YOU STEAL FROM THEM. I have no doubt in my mind that you are an ignorant piece of dirt that walks about this earth with a stupid smug smile on his face as he spouts, verbatim, stolen knowledge. I bet you memorize lines from garbage websites just so you can PRETEND to be intelligent. Well, guess what... Google is not your friend Mr. Plagiarist.
You are a pretend intellect, nothing more. You pathetic weasel.
- LC
P.S. Be sure to check out this thread to see more of the same plagiarism. Ain't he cool?
Just say no to plagiarism.
Kudos to you LC!
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Give a fish a man and he will eat for a month!
Bren
while(horse==dead)
{
beat();
}
There is no pretending LC. I am quite intelligent. Whether you believe it or not is up to you. I do have some original works here at MMORPG. Can you find those too? Or are you simply here to try to discredit anything that does not concur with your belief set?
Often I will use works that have already been made. I have never claimed to be the origin of the content nor shall I. But I will use it in debate or in situations that warrant such. Nothing wrong with data mining. Know what that is?
As to the posters below who do there best to ridicule or call me names they think are cool. I will just shine that on.
Copyright and Press Material
This is straight out of the Rules of Conduct here at MMORPG.com. You are in violation as you have never cited your sources or linked to them in any way. Next time you decide to use someone else's work in it's entirety you may want to give them credit for it and not try to pass it off as your own thoughts on the subject (By omitting the link or the source of the quote). LC has you dead to rights on this one.
Also notice how I quoted someone else's material in this very post but as always I included a link and cited the source. Something I highly suggest you do in the future.
Bren
while(horse==dead)
{
beat();
}
And no, there is no such thing as deities.
lol,"Feed a troll a piece of pie, THEY WANT THE WHOLE THING..."
You are Special!
its really simple. the idea of god is based on belief systems. if you're a person that is in the mind set of spirituality and the authority of your spiritual belief is God then you are either a believer or an agnostic which i believe is a cop out.
now if you're in the mind set that doesn't lend itself to all the established spiritual belief systems or any personal beliefs then he simply doesn't exist.
why is it that simple? cause there isn't any hard proof that either proves or disprove the existance of god. even though the position, discription and view of god has changed over the many, many, many centuries.
____________________________________________________________________
You are Special!
No I just try to follow the rules when I'm in someone else's house and I NEVER rip off other people's material and try to pass it off as my own. You seem to be the special one in that category. That is just wrong no matter how you try to justify it. Try to have an original thought please as doing this just makes you look really stupid. Especially now that you've been caught doing it twice.Bren
while(horse==dead)
{
beat();
}
Actually agnostic isn't a cop out. It is the only logical and scientific stance a thinking person can take. Basically a believer knows God exists 100%, and an athiest believes god doesnt exist 100%, the greatest "athiest" minds admit they can't be sure god doesn't exist 100%. Just my take on it
You are Special!
No I just try to follow the rules when I'm in someone else's house and I NEVER rip off other people's material and try to pass it off as my own. You seem to be the special one in that category. That is just wrong no matter how you try to justify it. Try to have an original thought please as doing this just makes you look really stupid. Especially now that you've been caught doing it twice.Bren
First Bren, I have not been caught twice..I have used other materials before. Multi tasking with data mining is essential. Especially when it seems you have a issue with thinking i am trying to pass it off on my own. You seem to have a issue with me other than me ripping off material.?? Would you care to share? Or is hatefulness a part of your normal personality.I have quite alot of original material here at mmorpg. Some of it carefully made. Now as to the ROC at mmorpg. You have called me stupid, berated me, attempted to "make me feel" less than you. Since you are up on your ROC and try to follow the rules. Enjoy this from the ROC itself.
Flaming and Personal Attacks
Example: Telling someone that you disagree with their argument is tolerated, while calling someone inappropriate names is not
Everyone knows there is a God, because......
Good research, Xpowderx!!
You are Special!
No I just try to follow the rules when I'm in someone else's house and I NEVER rip off other people's material and try to pass it off as my own. You seem to be the special one in that category. That is just wrong no matter how you try to justify it. Try to have an original thought please as doing this just makes you look really stupid. Especially now that you've been caught doing it twice.Bren
First Bren, I have not been caught twice..I have used other materials before. Multi tasking with data mining is essential. Especially when it seems you have a issue with thinking i am trying to pass it off on my own. You seem to have a issue with me other than me ripping off material.?? Would you care to share? Or is hatefulness a part of your normal personality.I have quite alot of original material here at mmorpg. Some of it carefully made. Now as to the ROC at mmorpg. You have called me stupid, berated me, attempted to "make me feel" less than you. Since you are up on your ROC and try to follow the rules. Enjoy this from the ROC itself.
Flaming and Personal Attacks
Example: Telling someone that you disagree with their argument is tolerated, while calling someone inappropriate names is not
No, I said that stealing other people's thoughts and passing them off as your own makes you look stupid. Nowhere did I say that you ARE stupid. If you are as intellectually inclined as you claim you would know that there is a difference.
Before you accuse me of trolling again maybe you should consider this little tidbit as well. The topic of this thread became "The evils of plagiarism" when you decided to rip off someone else's work and pass it off as your own. My posts have been right on topic for this thread in that respect. You claim it is data mining but its not because not once have you cited your sources or provided links to them. This leads people to believe that these thoughts you are proposing are your own when in reality they are not. By doing this and getting caught your credibility on this topic has been shot to hell as well as casting doubt on anything you've claimed as your own from the past. All of this makes you seem very unintelligent and easy to dismiss.
My post that you claim is flaming and trolling was a very well worded and non-inflammatory piece of advice recommending that in the future you link to and cite your sources. You on the other hand have been trying very hard to turn it into something its not in a vane attempt to hide your own guilt.
Bren
while(horse==dead)
{
beat();
}
well, it is quoted from the linked page that has the original content.
this is a good argument, and it sums up my position nicely, there can be no supernatural God as the material world is the reliable bit. Basically we can reliably interact with the material world. we can experiment with it and develop understanding.
the supernatural is unreliable (statisticaly a prayer does not cure disease any better than a double blinded placebo, and only becomes as good as a placebo if the subject has faith in the prayer). The supernatural is untestable, miracles are unrepeatable.
to me, a supernatural god is useless and has no value above a placebo. I will stick with my a priori position that the natural world is all that there is and then work within those boundaries to make the world a better place.
i think that it is time that people gave up sacrificing goats to a supernatural entity to make it rain.
the linked article goes on to say that anyone holds this view has lost their objectivity. what they are actually doing is attempting to insult and bait those that attempt to use an objective approach with a paper tiger. Through science we all ready can experimentaly show that the observer must be part of the tested system, this means there is no absolute objectivity, only a supernatural entity can show absolute objectivity as they are outside the natural order. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle was discovered over 80 years ago, and the religeous still bait scientists with "you are not objective!" and if they reply with anything but "i know, now, how can we use that in our experimentation?" they are showing poor science and have most likely become emotionally involved.
Using the above quoted argument the follow up of "Once you're ready to ask the question, "does God exist?"" you have given up critical thinking by allowing the faith in the unnatural. you recognise that a god must be supernatural being, something outside of the natural order, something that crittical thought cannot be applied to as there can be no testing of its existance.
As such the FSM is as worthwhile a story as any others to explain creation.
Of course websites are used LC. It would not be intelligent to not use them. As to Plagiarism, I never said it was my own work now did I? Evolutionists, in-particular Atheist Darwin types plagiarise the works of evolution constantly. Often they do not add links to the site. By the way LC I am glad you spent time looking this up.There is no pretending LC. I am quite intelligent. Whether you believe it or not is up to you. I do have some original works here at MMORPG. Can you find those too? Or are you simply here to try to discredit anything that does not concur with your belief set?
Often I will use works that have already been made. I have never claimed to be the origin of the content nor shall I. But I will use it in debate or in situations that warrant such. Nothing wrong with data mining. Know what that is?
As to the posters below who do there best to ridicule or call me names they think are cool. I will just shine that on.
Well, I think Bren has summed it up well, except the anger that I feel when it comes to plagiarism. I have two degrees, one is in English. How do you think I feel about people stealing the intellectual (well, a bit of a stretch, but we'll pretend) property of others? Students receive failing grades for such actions. People are sued for plagiarism. Others are merely mocked. So yeah, I have a real problem with it.
"Atheist Darwin types"? Wow, nice smoke-screen. Want to point to these evil characters in order to deflect from your own dishonesty? The blogs that I visit of "Atheist Darwin types" cite their sources. I wouldn't visit them otherwise -- for the same reasons I am tearing into you for your dishonesty. And since when has, "Well, he did it too!" been a good defense? Not since you were 5 years old and told it was NOT a reasonable excuse. As for taking the time to look up "your" work, it was as simple as cutting and pasting an entire line into google and hitting enter. Not hard.
As to your intelligence, I am sure you are intelligent at certain things. Apparently, originality and a basic grasp of Evolutionary Science are not among them. As far as Evolution goes, I think you're very knowledgeable in Binary.
That said, when you fail to cite your source for material you are claiming it as your own. It really is as simple as that. And yes, I do know what Data Mining is. You're doing it wrong. When you steal whole works instead of gathering a few facts... yeah... WRONG. I don't care how many original works you have created, the fact that you have stolen twice (that I know of) is despicable. Might as well congratulate a mass murderer on all the people he didn't kill. (hyperbole, yes, but an example none the less)
What is worse: It has been brought to your attention and yet you still refuse to edit your work and cite the source. It really could be that simple.
Enough said.
-LC
p.s. LOVE the avatar de4th_m0nkee. Squeeeeek?
well, it is quoted from the linked page that has the original content.
this is a good argument, and it sums up my position nicely, there can be no supernatural God as the material world is the reliable bit. Basically we can reliably interact with the material world. we can experiment with it and develop understanding.
the supernatural is unreliable (statisticaly a prayer does not cure disease any better than a double blinded placebo, and only becomes as good as a placebo if the subject has faith in the prayer). The supernatural is untestable, miracles are unrepeatable.
to me, a supernatural god is useless and has no value above a placebo. I will stick with my a priori position that the natural world is all that there is and then work within those boundaries to make the world a better place.
i think that it is time that people gave up sacrificing goats to a supernatural entity to make it rain.
the linked article goes on to say that anyone holds this view has lost their objectivity. what they are actually doing is attempting to insult and bait those that attempt to use an objective approach with a paper tiger. Through science we all ready can experimentaly show that the observer must be part of the tested system, this means there is no absolute objectivity, only a supernatural entity can show absolute objectivity as they are outside the natural order. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle was discovered over 80 years ago, and the religeous still bait scientists with "you are not objective!" and if they reply with anything but "i know, now, how can we use that in our experimentation?" they are showing poor science and have most likely become emotionally involved.
Using the above quoted argument the follow up of "Once you're ready to ask the question, "does God exist?"" you have given up critical thinking by allowing the faith in the unnatural. you recognise that a god must be supernatural being, something outside of the natural order, something that crittical thought cannot be applied to as there can be no testing of its existance.
As such the FSM is as worthwhile a story as any others to explain creation.
Hi Nurgle,You make some valid points in your post. I do not see how phenomena can be explained scientifically. Thus a major flaw with evolutionary spontaneous mutation. Also, if you have opposing views, figuring out a solution sometimes is very difficult. I will give you a example.
A friend of mine told me he believes everything is interconnected. From a science stand point I can understand that. But from my personal view point I do not see "interconnected". By using that word he is assuming everyone believes that everything is separate, thus a reason to have something to connect (interconnect). A flaw in that design..perhaps. From my view there is no interconnected nor will there be as we all are one. The difference!
Two completely different views. It is like explaining to a Duck he is a Cow.
To TC, you already gave the link to my source. Regardless I lay no claim as saying the work as mine. But the content is still quite valid and substantiated. You and Bren both have been on my case about posting the content link. For now on I will hold myself to doing such. Just because I personally have no quarrel with you or Bren. As to the content ,I will still make comments and or argument concerning it. It is still quite a good argument.
phenomena? not sure if you mean a range of phenomena or just the spontaneous mutation one.
I am not an evolutionary scientist and i don't know what the flaw you are talking about. are you talking about doubting the occurance of transcription errors? or that they don't lead to gross changes in cells? these things are being pretty thoroughly explored in cancer research.
or is just randomness and the complexity that is the problem. One common mistake is to define an "isolated change" excluding it from the "environment" as there is no such thing, the change is part of its environment.
i am sure i am missing your point here.
also the interconected thing is very vague and emotionaly charged. is it about our ability to empathise with another? or is it the abstract that all masses influence each other by gravitational forces? Your view of us all being one is also very common spiritual theme, probably relating to the fact that we can all relate to some extent with each other. Like a lot of social abstracts it helps a community survive thus supporting the evolutionary drive to reproduce.
on the whole though, i hope you see that the web site you quoted uses poor logic, a semblence of authority and emotional appeals to the ignorant. they use misinformation and strawman arguments to push thier agenda. I am still quite amazed that the emotional appeal to the ignorant by touting the "scientists much vaunted objectivity is just hypocracy" argument. Really, for over 80 years that one has been layed to rest, there is no absolute objectivity without an omnicience outside of the natural order.