Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: God
Fullmetal Alchemist Discussion Board > General Discussions > Open Talk > Debate District
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
ἀρχή
QUOTE(DarkWater Alchemist @ Feb 1 2005, 02:24 PM)
arche I never realised it but your right about To be honest, proofs for the existence of God are really not meant to actually prove God's existence, but rather to show that it is not irrational to believe in God's existence.
[snapback]103946[/snapback]


FYI: That insight actually comes from Alvin Plangtinga, the protestant philosopher from Notre Dame (yes, he is protestant at Notre Dame tongue.gif).

The Augustinian proof is a bit circular. It' just not very good argument, but fun to state anyway. Probably the shortest argument for the existence of God on record I think tongue.gif
Slashrose1010
QUOTE(Prinz_Zoisit @ Feb 1 2005, 10:44 AM)
[@slash:
you mean like lisa in that episode from the simpsons^^??

[


Exactly tongue.gif Nice example.

Does Queen count as god? JK. God existed before time could possibly exist because God is eternal and can exist without a temporal frame. God first created Heaven. Then he went on to create Hell because Lucifer disobeyed God and was cast to spend eternity in anguish. But God is supposed to be perfect so how did it (again, refercing God as none-sexual being) mess up so bad on Lucifer and the human race? Wouldn't that make God imperfect? Sorry, for not coming up with something better.
dragonofchaos
good point slashrose if god messed up so badly on humans and lucifer then how can he be perfect
love_me_destroyer
Or! ohmy.gif It's not there beacause it doesn't exist.
Betortz
God has no beginning and no end... just because he/she/it is not physical. By that I mean God is only the idea of the perfection, just that... it's only an idea with the purpouse of make humans more perfect. God is perfect, isn't it? Then his creation should be perfect... and it's not. Therefore, God doesn't exist, at least not the God you believe in. I myself believe in the theory of the Big bang, but only for the 'secondary' universes... I think universe it's not perfect and it have been compressed before... to the energy which made the Big bang that created the following universe. But I don't know how could the original one be created, no one can know. We assume in the beginning there was NOTHING. If there was nothing, there was no energy for the Big bang and of course there was no God. Humans' comprehension isn't still at that level, we cannot imagine the nothingness, it's impossible for us... Therefore, if we want to create a theory of the beginning which could be understood by humans, we have to have something like energy for the Big bang or a God. But both theories must be wrong, none of them part from the nothingness. That's all, I think.

PS: Arg, it's so hard for me to explain this in English... I hope I have explained myself properly.
love_me_destroyer
Open your eyes. The very idea of that kind of thing is mad. "god", hmph! Yeah, Right. I assume people turn to this intangible parent figure because of fear. You know in your heart of hearts, that when you die you will be gone forever. None of this "afterlife" buisness. Nothing. You cling to life so desperatly that you are willing to turn to magic and vodoo so that you may live forever, in heaven. Another possible reason: You cannot figure out the world around you, so, like the fool you are you say "Oh, God must have done this too me". No science is, indeed, the end-all answer. Ignorance is what god is made up of. But nobody wants to realize it.
Slashrose1010
I hope you really do fade into existence, LMD. I also hope you die a horrible death and your mother smells lol <-----Copied from Hito.

@LMD: I have heard that so many times. Sceience is not some end-all answer. You still haven't disproved Arche's theories. Call me then, till that day in the distant to not existant future don't shovel that crap in my face.
love_me_destroyer
You're an ignorant fool, Slash. Open your goddamn eyes. Atheists can prove evrything we say. I haven't seen a fucking shred of evidence for your pathetic deity. So, untill you actually can prove that there is a god, Be quiet.
Slashrose1010
@LMD: Cool it with the F***ing swearing. I can prove that God exists because Queen exists There! Freddie Mercury is God, he didn't die he just went to heaven.

You STILL didn't DISPROVE the existence of God.
Betortz
QUOTE(Slashrose1010 @ Feb 2 2005, 12:00 AM)
@LMD: I have heard that so many times. Sceience is not some end-all answer. You still haven't disproved Arche's theories. Call me then, till that day in the distant to not existant future don't shovel that crap in my face.
[snapback]104116[/snapback]


But his theory is wrong from the beginning. He talks about the nothingness but God is eternal... it doesn't make sense. I'll give you an example.

Let's assume 2+2=5. And we know 5+1=6. Then... 2+2+1=6. Is that right? No, we all know it's not right. But can you prove it with the premise I've put? When the basis of a theory is wrong, no matter how good the theory is, it won't be right...
Slashrose1010
@Betorz: Thank you for actually putting up an intelligent arguement. I understand what you are saying. But by the rules you set it could/would be true. So suppose the theory is "correct" and cannot be dismissed/disproved. Then it is neither wrong or right because there is no proof of the existence of god nor a way to disprove it. Then it is really left up to opinion and belief.
Betortz
@Slashrose1010: I understand you too, but I wouldn't call a theory what arche said... I mean, his theory is to prove God exists, right? But the premise of his 'theory' is that God exists! So... the only conclusion is 'If God exists, then God exists'. Therefore, it isn't valid, don't you think? That's what I think... Obviously, just as he said, we cannot prove that his theory is not true. 'If God exists, then God exists'... who can deny that? But it isn't valid to prove anything.
Username05
I think Jesus was the first Green Lantern! biggrin.gif
IPB Image
Slashrose1010
@Betorz: I see. Then it is impossible to "prove" god exists, but you can still believe in god. If god does in deed exist but impossible to prove then you could argue that god does not exist. But how do you prove existence? If by what you mean by feel, see, smell, hear and taste than existence is nothing but electrical signals interprted by your brain. God can exist on a different plain. Perhaps, in a world where our sensory skills cannot sense yet or ever.
Betortz
@Slashrose1010: If there was no way to sense God... how could believers exist? For me, God is an idea, the idea of the perfection... and God can only be an idea, because there are different kind of people and therefore different 'ideas' of the perfection. If God were material and we could notice its presence and actions, it wouldn't be perfect, because it wouldn't be able to be perfect to everyone. I'm not a believer, I only think God is an 'idea' that could guide us if we really believed. I don't think it could be something that 'exist' really. If something is not physical, then we can only notice it by imagination... therefore God must be just an idea. That's my 'theory' of what God is...
Gashole
(Too tired/lazy to read every single post I've missed.)

- What you believe is not equal to what really is true.
- Let's prove that God does not exist. smile.gif
hitokiri
QUOTE(Username05 @ Feb 1 2005, 06:41 PM)
I think Jesus was the first Green Lantern! biggrin.gif
IPB Image
[snapback]104151[/snapback]



laugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.gif w.... thats great... only problem is that the GLC is over 3 billion years old...

maybe the Oans are God? laugh.gif
alchemist x
Good one hito
Username05
QUOTE(hitokiri @ Feb 1 2005, 05:03 PM)
QUOTE(Username05 @ Feb 1 2005, 06:41 PM)
I think Jesus was the first Green Lantern! biggrin.gif
IPB Image
[snapback]104151[/snapback]



laugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.gif w.... thats great... only problem is that the GLC is over 3 billion years old...

maybe the Oans are God? laugh.gif
[snapback]104168[/snapback]


Well he dosn't have to be first then. laugh.gif
Prinz_Zoisit
QUOTE(Betortz @ Feb 2 2005, 12:17 AM)
Let's assume 2+2=5. And we know 5+1=6. Then... 2+2+1=6. Is that right? No, we all know it's not right. But can you prove it with the premise I've put? When the basis of a theory is wrong, no matter how good the theory is, it won't be right...
[snapback]104135[/snapback]


mathematics bases on "complete induction"(dunno the right english word) and because you isolate the "one and only thing(1)", you can calculate every other numbers(even one halfs, or irrational numbers, etc...).^^
it's the "one and only thing(1)" which is the key...^^
Betortz
QUOTE(Prinz_Zoisit @ Feb 2 2005, 02:24 PM)
mathematics bases on "complete induction"(dunno the right english word) and because you isolate the "one and only thing(1)", you can calculate every other numbers(even one halfs, or irrational numbers, etc...).^^
it's the "one and only thing(1)" which is the key...^^
[snapback]104786[/snapback]


So what? I've never said that what I said is true... I've only said that if 2+2=5 and 5+1=6 then 2+2+1=6. That's true, but one of the premises is not, so that sentence isn't valid. That has nothing to do with real mathematics.
ἀρχή
What you're really saying is:

a=b
b=c
therefore a=c

This is a valid argument regardless of what terms you put for a,b,c (under the most basic interpretations). Depending on the interpretation of one term, however, it can be a false argument.

There is a difference between validity/invalidity and truth/falsity of an argument. Many false arguments are valid and many true arguments are invalid smile.gif
Betortz
QUOTE(arche @ Feb 2 2005, 04:02 PM)
What you're really saying is:

a=b
b=c
therefore a=c

This is a valid argument regardless of what terms you put for a,b,c (under the most basic interpretations). Depending on the interpretation of one term, however, it can be a false argument.

There is a difference between validity/invalidity and truth/falsity of an argument. Many false arguments are valid and many true arguments are invalid smile.gif
[snapback]104821[/snapback]


That's not it exactly...

a=5
5 + 1=6
a + 1=6

The argument is perfect, I think... but because of the falsity of one of the premises (a is not 5 really) it can't be valid. But the argument is true. That's the prove of the true and invalid arguments... by false but valid argument I think you mean the kind of the Big bang theory, right? It's not as valid as you could think, no one knows about the origin of the universe. And the same goes for the theory of God... it's valid for some people. Many scientist don't acept the theory of the Big bang and try to find another possible answer, but that couldn't be said about religion... it says God created everything and there is not other possible way. That's why I have more confidance on science... they don't have the answer, but at least they try to find it. Furthermore, just as I said before, there is another reason for both theory not to be right: they assumed there was something (God or just energy) in the nothingness. That's impossible. And that's why I put the perfect and invalid theory... to compare that with the God or the Big bang theory.
ἀρχή
I was just simply bringing up the more logical structure of your argument.

'2+2=5' is true if the signs used ('2' and '5') are not representing the actual numbers (2 and 5). For instance, on February 2nd, the sign '2' actually refers to the number 3 when used in context of the 'God' thread.

So, the statement '2+2=5' can be true, but not using conventional signs.

Anyway, my point was to state that a valid argument is one that is solid (conclusion follows from premises). You're argument technically does, but it's false in that the premise '2+2=5' is false (we aren't in a special condition where the second '2' used in a '2+2=5' statement on February 2nd in the 'God' thread actually means 3).

As far as science, big bang, etc...I'm not going to comment much as it's really a philosophy of science issue and a question of whether reality is external or internal. Perhaps sometime I'll write up a critique of scientific method in the Philosophical Investigations thread as I would rather elevate these discussions from this very muddy thread tongue.gif
Betortz
You have justificated my premise somehow... but what about the presence of someone/something in the nothingness? That is the important question, my 'theory' was just an example to explain myself... If there is something (although it's not physical), there is no longer nothingness, don't you think? I think there origin of the universe is too hard for us to understand, we can't affirm who or what created it right now... in my opinion, being a creation of God is one of the kind of ideas such as 'Earth is the centre of the universe'... it's just that heliocentrism was easier to prove than the origin of the universe. That's it for me, as I said before, for me God is nothing but an idea...
dragonofchaos
here's a thought for you are we basically brains or do we have minds and does our soul, if we have one, interact with the mind and or brain
Betortz
We are not brains, brains are part of us. żA soul? They say we have a soul just because they want to be next to their 'God'. That's also the reason why God have humans' properties: something perfect cannot feel, but something that can't feel can't be perfect... perfection doesn't exists, but as God is the idea of that perfection we try to be on the same level: that's why 'God' feels like us and we have something eternal (the soul) like God. That way we feel ourselves more special.
love_me_destroyer
Proving god exists with numbers smaller than ten....*Deep Sigh*
Betortz
QUOTE(love_me_destroyer @ Feb 2 2005, 07:19 PM)
Proving god exists with numbers smaller than ten....*Deep Sigh*
[snapback]104886[/snapback]


1) It was to prove God doesn't exist. Thanks for reading the posts so carefully happy.gif (if you say that because of the post of arche, 2=2, so if the 2 is 3... 3+3=5 isn't true, then the theory is still wrong).

2) I don't know in your world, but in the world I live we try to make simple those examples that are to make easier the meaning of something. Make them harder wouldn't help anyone, don't you think?
ἀρχή
LMD is an idiot with regards to intellectual thinking. Betortz, you're right about making examples smaller. Thought experiments are important and it's a lot easier to do them if you're using simple examples.
Prinz_Zoisit
QUOTE(Betortz @ Feb 2 2005, 06:17 PM)
something perfect cannot feel, but something that can't feel can't be perfect...
[snapback]104864[/snapback]


This is paradox after the laws of logic!
i already posted another sentence which means the same(that God couldn't create such a big stone he himself couldn't jump over it)...
-> you can't compare God with ridiculous logics^^...

@LMD:
QUOTE
here's a thought for you are we basically brains or do we have minds and does our soul, if we have one, interact with the mind and or brain

you forgot the position of the heart^^
Betortz
QUOTE(Prinz_Zoisit @ Feb 4 2005, 12:09 PM)
QUOTE(Betortz @ Feb 2 2005, 06:17 PM)
something perfect cannot feel, but something that can't feel can't be perfect...
[snapback]104864[/snapback]


This is paradox after the laws of logic!
i already posted another sentence which means the same(that God couldn't create such a big stone he himself couldn't jump over it)...
-> you can't compare God with ridiculous logics^^...
[snapback]106361[/snapback]


Ridiculous...? For me, logic it's much more important than God, since logic is something I can understand and I can understand anything else using it... even if God exists, if it's not logical, I'm not interested... God can evade logic just because it is just an idea, the idea of the perfection. Then God is perfect... but only that way, it's impossible to exist and be perfect, as I said in the post you've quoted.
Prinz_Zoisit
ah so that's the problem...
Slashrose1010
To All None-Believers of God (or like me, various gods):

Fear me, you lords and lady preachers,
I descend upon your earth from the skies;
I command your very souls, you unbelievers,
Bring before me what is mine, the seven seas of Rhye

Can you hear me, you peers and privy councillors,
I stand before you naked to the eyes;
I will destroy any man who dares abuse my trust
I swear that you'll be mine, at the seven seas of Rhye

Sister, I live and lie for you, Mister, do and I'll die;
You are mine, I posess you, belong to you forever Ah

Storm the master marathon I'll fly through by flash and thunder fire
and I'll survive, I'll survive, I'll survive, then I'll defy
the laws of nature and come out alive
Begone with you, you shod and shady senators
Give out the good leave out the bad evil cries;
I challenge the mighty titan and his troubadours,
And with a smile, I'll take you to the seven seas of Rhye
love_me_destroyer
Look. I can put up an argument twelve ways to sunday, and prove that they're logical...Hell, I can even put my case into song form.
But Here is the foundation of my argument:
People turn to "god" because of the fear of death. You cling so desperatley to your life that you are willing to turn to anything just so that the end will be less frightning. You are greedy and foolish and you want to live forever So, You turn to an intangible parental figure as a security blanket...
dragonofchaos
what about the matrix
ἀρχή
QUOTE(love_me_destroyer @ Feb 4 2005, 10:22 PM)
Look. I can put up an argument twelve ways to sunday, and prove that they're logical...Hell, I can even put my case into song form.  
But Here is the foundation of my argument:  
People turn to "god" because of the fear of death. You cling so desperatley to your life that you are willing to turn to anything just so that the end will be less frightning. You are greedy and foolish and you want to live forever So, You turn to an intangible parental figure as a security blanket...
[snapback]106780[/snapback]


That's the freudian way to go tongue.gif

The counter is just as easy. You don't believe in God because you're afraid to have any accountability. You fear that tehre is an afterlife that you will have to live with. Those who don't believe in God are looking for a way to escape their fear of a parental figure.

It's always gone both ways.
also_cursed
QUOTE(arche @ Feb 4 2005, 08:55 PM)
QUOTE(love_me_destroyer @ Feb 4 2005, 10:22 PM)
Look. I can put up an argument twelve ways to sunday, and prove that they're logical...Hell, I can even put my case into song form.  
But Here is the foundation of my argument:  
People turn to "god" because of the fear of death. You cling so desperatley to your life that you are willing to turn to anything just so that the end will be less frightning. You are greedy and foolish and you want to live forever So, You turn to an intangible parental figure as a security blanket...
[snapback]106780[/snapback]


That's the freudian way to go tongue.gif

The counter is just as easy. You don't believe in God because you're afraid to have any accountability. You fear that tehre is an afterlife that you will have to live with. Those who don't believe in God are looking for a way to escape their fear of a parental figure.

It's always gone both ways.
[snapback]106801[/snapback]



Actually, I think it's less about death and more about purpose in life. If you feel that you have no reason to be alive, God can become a reason because believers can feel that they were created by God for a purpose. There is also the idea that "God loves you" which for some people can be very reasuring.
On the other hand, it also creates the idea that one needs to have God/religion in their life to have any purpose at all. mad.gif
ἀρχή
It still stands that one can be projecting no God because of psychological reasons. Basically we're just arguing that because we're all angsty, we either need or don't need God. Since there's enough psychological angst to go around for both sides, it leads nowhere. Also psychology is not a good indicator of whether God does or does not exist as God has nothing to really do with our psychology (his existence at least).

My computer exists regardless of my psychological state tongue.gif. The proofs for the existence of God help to show that it is not irrational to believe in God and that it's not a psychological flaw.
love_me_destroyer
QUOTE(arche @ Feb 4 2005, 08:55 PM)
QUOTE(love_me_destroyer @ Feb 4 2005, 10:22 PM)
Look. I can put up an argument twelve ways to sunday, and prove that they're logical...Hell, I can even put my case into song form.  
But Here is the foundation of my argument:  
People turn to "god" because of the fear of death. You cling so desperatley to your life that you are willing to turn to anything just so that the end will be less frightning. You are greedy and foolish and you want to live forever So, You turn to an intangible parental figure as a security blanket...
[snapback]106780[/snapback]


That's the freudian way to go tongue.gif

The counter is just as easy. You don't believe in God because you're afraid to have any accountability. You fear that tehre is an afterlife that you will have to live with. Those who don't believe in God are looking for a way to escape their fear of a parental figure.

It's always gone both ways.
[snapback]106801[/snapback]


Well, your right. If im wrong, and god exists, that will be an akward conversation.....
Grant"Did I die?!?!?"
God "Yes, You little son of a bitch you did"
Grant "...I'm boned..."
God " Damn Right you are!!!"
BZZZZZZT
Satan "Muahahahaah, now you will have to watch as saddam and I have sex, Ahahahahaha!!!!"
Grant ".....Shit....."
alchemist x
hee hee* Serves the little bitch grant right
~FMAgurl~
teehee^^
Dark Alchemist1
games are good
Chiyo
I do not believe in God. I'm not one of these 'well why would there be so much hurt in the world if he did'.

Its just, magic is not believed by most people, not as much as God at least. Yet surely God was performing some sort of magic when he craeted life.

Well he didn't create life did he? That is explained by science. There is nobody watching our every move to see if we are doing what he believes he should.
Bacon hates sophistry
The existence of 'god' can't be proven or disproven through inductive, let alone deductive reasoning. Therefore, Agnosticism is the only belief system that has any genuine rational backing.
alchemist x
Well, Yeah, but It wouldn't hurt to believe in god now would it?
I mean it IS better safe than sorry, isn't it?
Carnal Malefactor
QUOTE(alchemist x @ Feb 17 2005, 01:58 AM)
Well, Yeah, but It wouldn't hurt to believe in god now would it?
I mean it IS better safe than sorry, isn't it?
[snapback]115438[/snapback]


I don't see what you're trying to get at. If you think believing in god is better than not believing in god, that's also foolishness. There are too many variables that can be involved in either system.

But I will say this: people who believe in god have done a whole hell of a lot more damage throughout history than people who don't.
ἀρχή
Believing in God isn't what would be safe anyway. For Christianity, at least, it requres more.

It's not those who believe in God that are bad/caused all the problems, but the fact that they use God as a means to an end politically.
Thievesvinegar
true, more people have died in the name of god than anything else.

I guess its too much of a challenge to not believe in a god, because there is nothing to fall back on, you are utterly alone in this world. But then again, there is a sense of freedom that no god-fearing religion can have.
alchemist x
Arche: that is what I meant.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.