Power Corrupts
Pages
| Author | Topic: Power Corrupts |
|---|---|
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4445
|
written Sunday, April 23 2006 17:37
Profile
Damn. You caught me before I could edit away my ill-considered response. :P EDIT: You know, this post really does not work when separated from the one before it by the page break. Oh, well, can't think of anything useful to say instead. [ Sunday, April 23, 2006 17:38: Message edited by: PoD person ] Posts: 293 | Registered: Saturday, May 29 2004 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Sunday, April 23 2006 17:38
Profile
Homepage
quote:The problem is with the word "possible." Anselm's proof was the the greatest being of all existing beings does exist. Your statements are true for the greatest conceivable being, which may or may not exist. The greatest being that exists may not be the greatest being that could exist. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Sunday, April 23 2006 22:41
Profile
Lots of people these days have seen movies about malicious aliens, and probably also watched The Wizard of Oz on TV once or twice. So I'm not sure a booming voice from the sky would really persuade many people to believe whatever the voice said. For the sake of argument, though, suppose that it would. Nobody who really appreciated what 'God' meant could be persuaded by a mere booming voice, so I'd say that the people who believed in the booming voice would not really be believing in God, but only in some primitive booming-voice-god. So this method of revelation would be self-defeating, for a true God. I do believe in God, and not just as an afterthought. I go to church regularly, and pray a fair amount. And in the back of my mind, when I am trying to think of some original approach to the foundations of quantum mechanics, I am wondering what sort of fundamental laws would be characteristic products of God. I don't think I can say, though, that I believe based on evidence which clearly supports the existence of God over non-existence. I think that the available evidence is consistent with Christianity, but I find it consistent with other theories as well. I find Christianity a more appealing theory intrinsically, so in the spirit of Pascal's Wager I plan to bet on it. I end up being pretty contrarian in discussions like these, in that I'll argue against anyone who thinks there is compelling evidence or argument either way. The God in whom I believe doesn't want to be believed in by mistake. I believe everyone ought to respect personal judgements professed as such, either way, especially if they have been arrived at through serious effort. Everyone has to make up their own minds, or do their best to do so. I'm not satisfied with my own state of belief; I try to keep looking for more evidence, either way. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 6912
|
written Sunday, April 23 2006 23:06
Profile
Religion is based on faith and faith is not based on evidence. There is absolutely zero evidence that god exists and that’s the way it should be. If you truly believe it should be a feeling something unexplainable not because some one managed to dig up 100% proof of gods existence. I personally despise creationists with a fiery passion of one thousand suns because they mix religious and science (faith and facts). My astronomy teacher is a Vatican priest. I asked him how can how can he teach it if it contradicts so many passages in the bible. He said that in his minds both are parallel lines he never lets one get involved with the other one. Science is for the portion of his brain that only looks at facts and religion is for the part that believes that there is more to life than meets the eye. (something seemed and felt so freaken right about that answer) Posts: 89 | Registered: Wednesday, March 15 2006 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 6652
|
written Monday, April 24 2006 01:29
Profile
quote:Ah, but even Hinduism has books of laws saying that you should not kill, should not lie, etc. Hinduism believes that all forms of God (all the "different gods") are actually one, and in order for man to understand God, he must be seen as different forms. Hindusim also believes in reincarnation. When you die, the body you get in the next life depends on what you did in this life. Unless we add in another, unkind element to do the judging, then God does it. God punishes you for misdeeds. (If anyone else knows anything more about Hinduism please correct me. I got this all from the first site of a "Hindu moral code" google search) quote:Sitaution A: A man walks along on a trail and stumbles over a rock, falling flat on his face. He is hurt. Sitaution B: A man walks along a trail. God places information inside the man's head that there is a rock. The man notices the rock and steps aside. The man is not hurt. Remember, God could do anything. He need not stop you from reading more posts; he could simply cure your eyes. In the situation with the rock, God could cause the rock to disappear, transport the man to an alternate universe where there is no rock for several seconds, or a billion other things. God could do this in every human's life for every second of every day, being omnipresent and omnipowerful. As for Lazarus, I think that argument has been proved wrong already. If it wasn't it certainly is now. I respectfully ask people to stop quoting it. If, however, we strip down this argument into a basic question of God and remove all assumptions about goodness or laws, as Student of Trinity does, the argument comes to a standstill. Neither side can prove anything. The athiests say "How did God come to exist, then?" and the theists reply "How did the Big Bang come to exist, then?" EDIT: Big Bang. Not "Big Band". Stupid keyboard. [ Monday, April 24, 2006 01:56: Message edited by: I Would Have Been Your Daddy ] -------------------- But I don't want to ride the elevator. Posts: 420 | Registered: Sunday, January 8 2006 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 73
|
written Monday, April 24 2006 03:08
Profile
quote:ADoS, not ADS. Just to prevent confusion. quote:That's where you're wrong. You cannot prove anything by making stuff up. I didn't claim that my answers to those questions are proof of God's existance, because they aren't. As I said, I don't believe in God, or anything of a religious nature for that matter. However, they provide a possible counterexample to the statement that "God can't exist because he doesn't make me feel special". This simply means that just because a conceived idea of God doesn't line up with reality, it does not necessarily mean that no god exists. -------------------- My Myspace, with some of my audial and visual art The Lyceum - The Headquarters of the Blades designing community The Louvre - The Blades of Avernum graphics database Alexandria - The Blades of Exile Scenario database BoE Webring - Self explanatory Polaris - Free porn here Odd Todd - Fun for the unemployed (and everyone else too) They Might Be Giants - Four websites for one of the greatest bands in existance -------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Posts: 2957 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Monday, April 24 2006 03:49
Profile
Homepage
quote:I believe without any external evidence that all racial minorities can and must be subjugated for the good of god's chosen people. Something seems and feels so freaken right about not taking a fellow human being at face value to me too. -------------------- * Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Monday, April 24 2006 06:18
Profile
Homepage
quote:Hey, claiming that the universe was created by a jazz ensemble is as good an explanation as any. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Monday, April 24 2006 08:08
Profile
Homepage
I suppose the Music of the Ainur could be jazz. I've always thought of it as something closer to klezmer, myself. —Alorael, who can at least find some scientific evidence of divinity. All the most sophisticated tests have revealed that the Invisibile Pink Unicorn is, in fact, invisible. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5437
|
written Monday, April 24 2006 09:12
Profile
quote:In this case we are starting to debate whether God is cruel or kind, and not whether God exists. Even if God does his own smiting in one form or anther that in no way has anything to do with his existence. I don't, however, see this a corruption. Humans do something bad they suffer, we all do. Using the bible as the example; if God is thought to be our father in some sense I suppose it would be like punishing your child. Though I dislike using this example, as I really don't support such theories. If God works with us using our karma to judge our behavior, and determine where we go next it is somewhat easier to explain why bad things happen to good people. A drop at a time will fill a bucked over time. quote:That is really not realistic. I wouldn't want all the mistakes I've made in life or all the things I've endured to have never happened. Our experiences make us who we are. Going back to the bible as an example. They say laziness is a sin, as is sex before marriage, by the logic you have offered God should constantly nudge us away from such things. Since the bible says that sinning will lead to suffering in the thereafter God would have to save them from their sinning. In addition everyone perception of suffering is different. I don't see a man stubbing his toe on a rock as suffering, and to some people being five pounds overweight is suffering. I suppose God could change a person's self image or confidence in such away that they wouldn't care that they were slightly overweight, but the deeper that gets the less you are you. Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6700
|
written Monday, April 24 2006 10:29
Profile
Homepage
quote:Um... no. One of the greatest and most influential "modern" misunderstandings about religion, especially religions like Christianity (as well as Islam, Mormons, Satanists, gnostics, and others, to a point) is the fact that "faith" has nothing to do with evidence. This derives directly from a misunderstanding of what faith is. The accepted definition of "Faith" is some sort of blind trust that has no proof. Wrong. Faith is the logical hope that accompanies a trust that is earned by evidence. Or, in simpler terms, Faith is trust. Contrary to Rantalot, evidence has everything to do with it, because with no evidence, faith is useless. Belief in Christianity without evidence of a Resurrection is about the same as a belief in the idea the Jimmy Hoffa is alive and well and owns a bar in LA. Logic and evidence part are the foundation of the Christian faith. Because, frankly, baseless trust is either desperate or stupid. Evidence? Judaism was formed at Mt. Sinai, after the entire nation had been exposed to miracle after miracle, culminating in an announcement of God in front of the entire people, and then a huge banquet with Him and the national leaders. All of this followed by more miracle witnessed by a nation. Ask about evidence? In the Gospels, there are many references to eyewitnesses to the Miracles of Christ, including the Resurrection; speaking in Tongues, the survival of the Church. You want to argue about logic in religion? In the Old Testament, there are countless points where writers and prophets ask their audience to listen to God and use common sense. The Apostle Paul argued for Christianity using simple talk and logic. In fact, he argued against not having an intelligent faith. What more is faith than trust? How else to earn trust than to do the impossible? Of other note, it is my not-so-humble opinion that if a Vatican priest can't reconcile the "spiritual" and "secular" worlds, he doesn't deserve to be a priest. Being a priest is all about bridging that gap, or so I am told by what friends I have who are Jesuit priests. -------------------- The Silent Assassin has demanded a pay raise. So I doubled his lack of pay. Huzzah for loopholes. -------------------- -Lenar Labs What's Your Destiny? Ushmushmeifa: Lenar's power is almighty and ineffable. All hail lord Noric, god of... well, something important, I'm sure. Posts: 735 | Registered: Monday, January 16 2006 08:00 |
|
Nuke and Pave
Member # 24
|
written Monday, April 24 2006 11:18
Profile
Homepage
quote:I am still curious about this, so I'll try again, this time with a more detailed explanation. By the way, could you summarize (or give a link to a summary of) Kant's argument. First let me switch steps 1 and 2 of the proof, because that doesn't change the meaning, but makes my arguments shorter: 1. A non-existent being is clearly less great than one which exists. 2. By definition, God is the greatest of all possible beings. 3. Therefore God must exist. Here is what you are doing in the proof: Step 0: Define a quantity X ("greatness") that can be compared for all beings. Step 1: Modify definition of X to say that it's greater for existing beings than for non-existing ones. (Let's say positive for existing beings, negative for non-existing ones.) Step 2: Define "God" (G) as a being that has the largest X (maxX) and a set of other qualities (Y). (Omnipotense and omniscentience are some of the qualities included in Y.) Step 3: G has maxX, so it must exist. The problem here is in Step 2, where you assume that an object G combines two sets of qualities: maxX (which implies existance) and Y (which doesn't). Just because this assumption is called "definition" doesn't make it true. It could be a false definition. It's true that there is an object O1 that exists and has maxX. (Because that's how we defined X.) It's also true that we can make up an object O2 which has Y, but doesn't necessarily exist. However, nothing in our proof implies that O1 = O2. To be more presice, we still have to prove that O1 and O2 are the same object. We can't just "define" an object G that is both O1 and O2 simultaneously. [ Monday, April 24, 2006 11:31: Message edited by: Zeviz ] -------------------- Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword, For it too has the power to kill. However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword, Can also have the power to heal. Posts: 2649 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 6652
|
written Monday, April 24 2006 12:02
Profile
quote:Suppose a person decides to overthrow the government. They are successful and enjoy a happy lifetime of luxury and opressing people as a dictator. Presumably after this person dies they will go to hell, and be punished for their misdeeds. This raises the question: Why would God wait until someone dies to punish them? He could just as easily do it while they're alive. Yet he doesn't. There are numerous records, in history and today, of criminals that were never caught and never punished; dictators that opressed happily for the rest of their lives. Now suppose, in the future, someone discovers how to live forever. Perhaps cryogenics work; perhaps it's a miracle drug; it doesn't matter. Suppose it becomes widespread. If one of the people that lives forever becomes a criminal and is never caught, when is God going to punish him? Aside from that argument, the whole position feels rather phony to me. God says "Do what you want, but if you do something bad, I'll punish you." What is the general purpose of punishment? An incentive not to do something. The police fine criminals as an incentive to not commit the crime again. Punishing us isn't going to do any good if we're stuck in hell and can't reform or fix our mistakes. It seems to me that "they get punished after they die" is very convenient for the clergy and preachers; they don't have to provide an example of divine punishment since no one can see what happens after we die. quote:Okay. The rock was a metaphoric example. Let's switch the "falling flat on his face" with "dying". Let's switch the rock with "cancer". The man contracts cancer and dies. I trust that you would prefer not to die? We cannot learn from our mistakes (if indeed there's anything to be learned by catching a disease) if we're dead. If God does not protect us from trivial mistakes, he should at least protect us from deadly ones. I'm not talking suicide, which clearly falls under "free will." I'm not talking being shot, which falls under others's free will. Cancer is nobody's fault. As a side note, if God created everything, why did God create deadly diseases? Sorry for not addressing's ADoS's argument. My full mental energy is devoted to arguing with Dolphin right now. Maybe in the morning. -------------------- But I don't want to ride the elevator. Posts: 420 | Registered: Sunday, January 8 2006 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 73
|
written Monday, April 24 2006 12:20
Profile
If you're that unhappy with your religion, then get a new one. If you just want to be loved, get a dog. We were having a good debate here before you started derailing it with your whiny teenage angst. You're leading the thread away from the sort of intelligent religious discussion we never have, into the direction of something we've discussed countless times before. If complaining about the seemingly illogical workings of your specific god is that important to you, start a new thread. Or even better, get a blog. -------------------- My Myspace, with some of my audial and visual art The Lyceum - The Headquarters of the Blades designing community The Louvre - The Blades of Avernum graphics database Alexandria - The Blades of Exile Scenario database BoE Webring - Self explanatory Polaris - Free porn here Odd Todd - Fun for the unemployed (and everyone else too) They Might Be Giants - Four websites for one of the greatest bands in existance -------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Posts: 2957 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 6652
|
written Monday, April 24 2006 12:22
Profile
Sheesh. What have I done but argue in a debate? -------------------- But I don't want to ride the elevator. Posts: 420 | Registered: Sunday, January 8 2006 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 73
|
written Monday, April 24 2006 12:25
Profile
You started debating something nobody else in the thread is debating, that's what. Specifically, you're trying to change the topic from a general discussion about the nature and logic of religion into a discussion of one specific concept of God. Start a new thread. Hell, I'll start one for you. Wait a few minutes while I gather up the relevant posts. EDIT: Screw it, I can't be bothered. I have stuff to do. [ Monday, April 24, 2006 12:27: Message edited by: The Almighty Do-er of Stuff ] -------------------- My Myspace, with some of my audial and visual art The Lyceum - The Headquarters of the Blades designing community The Louvre - The Blades of Avernum graphics database Alexandria - The Blades of Exile Scenario database BoE Webring - Self explanatory Polaris - Free porn here Odd Todd - Fun for the unemployed (and everyone else too) They Might Be Giants - Four websites for one of the greatest bands in existance -------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Posts: 2957 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 6652
|
written Monday, April 24 2006 12:31
Profile
Okay. I thought that this topic was about that and that definition of God. Dolphin used the Bible as an example. It appears, however, that I have been delusional. My apologies. A less personal attack might've informed that this was the case sooner. But if people in the thread want me to leave the thread, I'll leave the thread. -------------------- But I don't want to ride the elevator. Posts: 420 | Registered: Sunday, January 8 2006 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Monday, April 24 2006 12:40
Profile
The idea of the ontological argument is that you can imagine some great but non-existent being, but then imagine an exactly similar being which exists. The second one is clearly greater. So whatever other good qualities God should have, existence must be added to ensure maximum greatness. Kant's objection as I understand it is to present the concept of the greatest conceivable $100 bill (originally some other currency, talers I think). He further specifies, and I can't help but feel he is right in this, that a bill which is in my wallet is greater than one which is not. Therefore there must be a $100 bill there. *checks Rats. So much for ontological arguments. Well, that's the catchy part, which I like. Kant elaborated by saying that 'existence is not a predicate', but somehow I've never really been as gripped by this part of his argument. There's a lot of literature on this, and you'd be better off consulting it if you're seriously interested. I'm not a professional in this stuff. I certainly don't want to defend the argument, since I'm quite sure it's bogus; I was just pointing out that its waters are murky. But I think I may be passing the point where demonstrating murkiness is informative. So amusing as it would be to realize a lawyer's dream, and play God's and Devil's advocate simultaneously, I think I'll bow out of defending Anselm any further. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Dollop of Whipped Cream
Member # 391
|
written Monday, April 24 2006 12:55
Profile
Homepage
I hate myself for doing this. SoT: I believe that you are referring to Gaunilo and not Kant when you mention the $100 bill example. I could be wrong though. Gaunilo was the one who used the "Lost Island" as an example, which agrees with your point. On the other hand, I found Anselm interesting, and I like his idea of "The greatest conceivable being." If God is not the greatest, than something else is the greatest which would make that God and the argument just continues infinitely. However, I do not believe that is sufficient proof for God's existence, and his reply to Guanilo was rather weak which is why I will restraint myself from defending him. -------------------- "Tyranicus is about the only one that still posts in the Nethergate Forum." —Randomizer Spiderweb Chat Room Shadow Vale - My site, home of the Spiderweb Chat Database, BoA Scenario Database, & the A1 Quest List, among other things. Posts: 562 | Registered: Friday, December 14 2001 08:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Monday, April 24 2006 13:02
Profile
Homepage
quote:I've been staying out of this thread, by and large, but I simply had to respond to this one. This is exactly the opposite of what God says, in my understanding at least. The most fundamental concept of Christianity is forgiveness - that's why we put so much emphasis on that guy on the cross. The whole point of him doing that was to pay all debts and take all punishment on himself. Imagine Uriah the Hittite getting to Heaven - he might justifiably be upset that King David, who stole his wife and arranged for him to be killed, was up there with him. People say "Jesus died for our sins" a lot, but not too many people actually understand what that means. To my mind, it was to reconcile us to each other. He loved David, so he took the punishment David deserved on himself. Whatever punishment Uriah could have demanded for David, I doubt it could be as bad as what Jesus went through. Or, as Bono would put it, Daddy's Gonna Pay For Your Crashed Car. EDIT: Geez, this topic moves fast. [ Monday, April 24, 2006 13:06: Message edited by: Ash Lael ] -------------------- SupaNik: Aran, you're not big enough to threaten Ash. Dammit, even JV had to think twice. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 6652
|
written Monday, April 24 2006 13:10
Profile
I apologize for this post so soon after I swore to leave the thread, but Ash isn't permitting PMs and I couldn't resist. If God is all about forgiveness, then why is there Hell? Please allow PMs so we can argue away from this thread. Thanks. -------------------- But I don't want to ride the elevator. Posts: 420 | Registered: Sunday, January 8 2006 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Monday, April 24 2006 13:26
Profile
Homepage
From my six degrees of separation from someone who knows anything about Swedenborg, I believe he addresses hell interestingly by essentially saying hell is something we do to ourselves, not something God does to us. I'm not sure how well he argues it, but it's a different persepective and one that I would pursue further if I were really interested in hell. LL, you're still describing blind belief. Instead of faith in God, it's faith in the accuracy of the Bible as a testimony of God's existence. Nobody denies that if the Bible is accurate then God must exist. Many dispute that the Bible is accurate. If a scientist claimed to be able to cure cancer and published a paper about how he had done so, but his paper expressly stated that no one else could do it and that the methods were not reproducible by anyone but this one man, everyone would be very skeptical. That is exactly the same as the Bible. It could be true. There's some evidence for it. There's some evidence against it, but it's not overwhelming. The problem is that the burden of proof is on the scientist or the Bible, and there's not enough evidence in favor for many people. —Alorael, whose knowledge of Swedenborg extends only to the fact that William Blake rejected his theology and that Kant apparently debunked his alleged psychic abilities. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 73
|
written Monday, April 24 2006 13:28
Profile
Umm... I've had some time to think about what I've said, and, looking over your posts, I realize that you have actually contributed some useful stuff to the discussion. I don't know what set me off, exactly. It probably had something to do with my brother not getting me paper and pencil despite being right next to it, so I ended up forgetting the number and times the recorded message on the phone said for my mother to call to discuss important, time-sensitive estate matters. But ultimately, that's just an excuse, and I shouldn't have acted the way I did. I apologize profusely and earnestly. Still, I'd like to keep this thread more general, as threads discussing specific variations of Yahweh are generally wrought with disagreement of basic concept, flames (like my post, unfortunately), and end up getting nowhere. If it's important to you, though, you should still discuss it. I'd just like it to be in another thread, so that this one stays alive a bit longer. Feel free to continue participating in this thread too, though. I'd encourage it, actually. -------------------- My Myspace, with some of my audial and visual art The Lyceum - The Headquarters of the Blades designing community The Louvre - The Blades of Avernum graphics database Alexandria - The Blades of Exile Scenario database BoE Webring - Self explanatory Polaris - Free porn here Odd Todd - Fun for the unemployed (and everyone else too) They Might Be Giants - Four websites for one of the greatest bands in existance -------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Posts: 2957 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 6652
|
written Monday, April 24 2006 13:33
Profile
Yay. I've realized that the stuff that I said didn't really relate to the topic, and that I was rather hasty in jumping between a no-religion god, and a religion-god. I'm used to the idea of god coming with those ideas, too, and it's hard to separate the two. Apology accepted. I'll relate to the topic from now on. EDIT: UBB's finally cracked. This post makes this topic the top in the General forum view, but not the view of the entire boards. Huh? [ Monday, April 24, 2006 13:36: Message edited by: I Would Have Been Your Daddy ] -------------------- But I don't want to ride the elevator. Posts: 420 | Registered: Sunday, January 8 2006 08:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Monday, April 24 2006 13:40
Profile
Homepage
PMs enabled, though the short answer is pretty much what Alorael said. In scripture, at least according to my incomplete knowledge of it, Hell is not portrayed as a hot place that people get thrown into to burn in for eternity (except in one of Jesus' parables, and I think it's fair to say that it's allowable to interpret those as not being completely literal) as much as simply being "outside" paradise. -------------------- SupaNik: Aran, you're not big enough to threaten Ash. Dammit, even JV had to think twice. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |