The Black Vault Message Forums

Discover the Truth!        

Religion & Spirituality

A Case for Intelligent Design: Part 2

Whether you believe in a higher power or not, this forum is dedicated to the topic of religion and spirituality. We live in a diverse world with different morals and ideas when it comes to our beliefs, so come in and share your thoughts.

Postby frrostedman » Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:51 pm

at1with0 wrote:As far as humans being a virus, well, I do not judge the importance of humanity as either supremely important or supremely insignificant.

I don't think you understood the context of what I said. If we are all just part of God, yet, as in the case of humans we war against one another... saying we are all part of the body of God reduces us to the equivalent of warring antibodies and virus (or bacteria) cells.
Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man. - Albert Einstein
User avatar
frrostedman
 
Posts: 3774
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 7:01 pm

Postby frrostedman » Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:54 pm

frrostedman wrote:
at1with0 wrote:As far as humans being a virus, well, I do not judge the importance of humanity as either supremely important or supremely insignificant.

I don't think you understood the context of what I said. If we are all just part of God, yet, as in the case of humans we war against one another... saying we are all part of the body of God reduces us to the equivalent of warring antibodies and virus (or bacteria) cells.


Taken a step further, unless somehow we are fighting to keep the body of the Creator alive while warring against one another inside it's body, our existence is reduced to mere trivial pointlessness. That may be aknowledged by you and ok by you, but, I feel that the constant triumph over adversity in each individual human life points to a higher purpose.
Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man. - Albert Einstein
User avatar
frrostedman
 
Posts: 3774
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 7:01 pm

Postby at1with0 » Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:34 pm

humphreys wrote:So god is all that exists. That means the ontological argument proves that everything that exists exists.

That doesn't seem silly to you?


Silly to define God before proving it exists? No. That's how existence proofs go: you start by defining what you want to prove exists.

frrostedman wrote:Taken a step further, unless somehow we are fighting to keep the body of the Creator alive while warring against one another inside it's body, our existence is reduced to mere trivial pointlessness. That may be aknowledged by you and ok by you, but, I feel that the constant triumph over adversity in each individual human life points to a higher purpose.


Like I said, I neither consider humanity to be supremely important in the universe nor supremely insignificant. I don't judge that. Are you suggesting that God isn't the totality of all that exists? If it is less than the totality, then God is not omnipresent. And there isn't anything beyond the totality either.
"it is easy to grow crazy"
User avatar
at1with0
 
Posts: 9182
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: the coproduct of the amalgam of all structures

Postby frrostedman » Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:52 pm

at1with0 wrote:
humphreys wrote:So god is all that exists. That means the ontological argument proves that everything that exists exists.

That doesn't seem silly to you?


Silly to define God before proving it exists? No. That's how existence proofs go: you start by defining what you want to prove exists.

frrostedman wrote:Taken a step further, unless somehow we are fighting to keep the body of the Creator alive while warring against one another inside it's body, our existence is reduced to mere trivial pointlessness. That may be aknowledged by you and ok by you, but, I feel that the constant triumph over adversity in each individual human life points to a higher purpose.


Like I said, I neither consider humanity to be supremely important in the universe nor supremely insignificant. I don't judge that. Are you suggesting that God isn't the totality of all that exists? If it is less than the totality, then God is not omnipresent. And there isn't anything beyond the totality either.

Omnipresence is not defined that way by any Christian that I'm aware of. God's omnipresence to a Christian merely means that He is watching and seeing all that we do, no matter where we are. Admittedly without the bible to completely back me up on this, I also believe that God's omnipresence is made possible by ever-watching angels who watch all of us and report to Him. The bible doesn't go far enough in its explanation to refute or support that belief so it boils down to opinion.

Many times in the Old Testament, God's "presence" often ends up being an angelic representative of God and not God Himself. For example, an angel of God led the Hebrews in their Exodus out of Egypt. Apart from the time God took human form (Jesus, Melchizadek), it's primarily been the Spirit of God or an angelic representative of God that has been witnessed and written about.

My opinion is that God resides outside this universe and outside this dimension, which would obviously rule out the possibility of this universe or anything in it being a literal part of the Creator.
Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man. - Albert Einstein
User avatar
frrostedman
 
Posts: 3774
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 7:01 pm

Postby at1with0 » Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:55 pm

I guess I define omnipresence differently.
"it is easy to grow crazy"
User avatar
at1with0
 
Posts: 9182
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: the coproduct of the amalgam of all structures

Postby greeney2 » Sat Jun 09, 2012 8:55 pm

humphreys wrote:
khanster wrote:I find that the ontological argument is pretty solid but it is difficult for many people to comprehend and thus it is not a universally acceptable proof.

It boils down to a simple realization.

It is possible for God to exist.

If it is possible for God to exist then God cannot not-exist.

Therefore God exists.


Ignoring the issues with defining "God", let's just assume I accept step 1, why does something that can exist have to exist?

Why is it not logically possible for something to exist, and yet not exist in actuality?

It is logically possible for a 1000 headed dragon to exist, does that mean that a 1000 headed dragon must exist, and therefore does exist?


And you think I've been drinking! :wtf: :lol:
greeney2
 
Posts: 9632
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby event_horizon » Sat Jun 09, 2012 10:39 pm

greeney2 wrote:However you did say in reply you are a strong Atheist, and Humphrey stated a weak athiest just does not believe, and also has no proof, where a strong Atheist presents proof of the non-existance of God. Is that true, a strong Atheist can proove God does not exist, since a weak Atheist claim he can not?


"Strong atheism, also sometimes referred to as explicit atheism, goes one step further and involves denying the existence of at least one god, usually multiple gods, and sometimes the possible existence of any gods at all. Strong atheism is sometimes called "gnostic atheism" because people who take this position often incorporate knowledge claims into it — that is to say, they claim to know in some fashion that certain gods or indeed all gods do not or cannot exist."

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismques ... g_weak.htm

I deny the existence of the "Biblical God," and also any "omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent God." But I do not deny the existence of "any gods at all." For instance, if an alien race created us, you could call them our gods. Or if a race in another dimension created this universe (as I stated previously) you could call them our gods.

The most obvious proof that the "Biblical God" does not exist is the fact that modern humans have existed for much more than 6,000 years. That's all the proof anyone should need, but obviously many people deny the facts.

The omnipotence paradox states that:

"Could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even he could not lift it?" If he could lift the rock, then it seems that the being could cease to be omnipotent, as the rock was not heavy enough; if he could not, it seems that the being was not omnipotent to begin with."

Omnipotence combined with omniscience creates another paradox:

"Does God know what he's going to do tomorrow? If so, could he do something else?" If God knows what will happen, and does something else, he's not omniscient. If he knows and can't change it, he's not omnipotent."

As far as omnipresence goes...

The "omnipresent God" was invented at a time when humans thought that Earth was all there was -- it was flat, and was comprised of just several continents. For such a finite space, such a being is easy to conceive. But it's ridiculous to think that a "God" can exist at all locations at once in this vast cosmos of hundreds of billions of galaxies...unless this universe were some sort of computer program (or hologram), and even if so, the actual creator of it wouldn't be omnipresent, just the program would.

Of course, I know that's not absolute proof of non-omnipresence...that's just my take on it. You could call it logical proof.
I don't believe what I believe because it's what I desire to believe. I believe what I believe because it's what logic and reason cause me to believe. All I want is to live with the truth -- nothing more, nothing less.
User avatar
event_horizon
 
Posts: 1621
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:51 am
Location: Colorado

Postby DIss0n80r » Sun Jun 10, 2012 1:20 am

The catch with defining a limitless being is that existence is defined from within itself in terms of limitation. To be This is to not-be That.

In that sense, existence as we know it could be called intrinsically dualistic. Even a fundamental logical formulation of existence/non-existence is, in essence, a form of organizational cognizance. The knower cannot be totally separated from the known.

Unity is definitively inclusive of separation. There must be a totality of existence to necessarily subsume conceptual contrast in order for existence to be organized into discrete perceivables.

The ultimate context in which all else is arbitrarily-arranged content may itself be an approximate information-state eluding its own mechanism of actualization.
"I can conceive of nothing in religion, science, or philosophy, that is anything more than the proper thing to wear, for a while." ~ Charles Fort
User avatar
DIss0n80r
 
Posts: 4162
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 2:45 am

Postby humphreys » Sun Jun 10, 2012 1:46 am

greeney2 wrote:
humphreys wrote:
khanster wrote:I find that the ontological argument is pretty solid but it is difficult for many people to comprehend and thus it is not a universally acceptable proof.

It boils down to a simple realization.

It is possible for God to exist.

If it is possible for God to exist then God cannot not-exist.

Therefore God exists.


Ignoring the issues with defining "God", let's just assume I accept step 1, why does something that can exist have to exist?

Why is it not logically possible for something to exist, and yet not exist in actuality?

It is logically possible for a 1000 headed dragon to exist, does that mean that a 1000 headed dragon must exist, and therefore does exist?


And you think I've been drinking! :wtf: :lol:


Answer the question then.

Why is it not logically possible for something to exist, and yet not exist in actuality? I doubt you even understand the question.
Last edited by humphreys on Sun Jun 10, 2012 2:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
"All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge: this has always suggested that free will is an illusion."

- Sam Harris
User avatar
humphreys
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:51 pm
Location: Inside your head.

Postby humphreys » Sun Jun 10, 2012 1:47 am

at1with0 wrote:
humphreys wrote:So god is all that exists. That means the ontological argument proves that everything that exists exists.

That doesn't seem silly to you?


Silly to define God before proving it exists? No. That's how existence proofs go: you start by defining what you want to prove exists.


But you've basically defined God as "existence", so yes it seems pretty silly to write a proof stating that existence exists.
"All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge: this has always suggested that free will is an illusion."

- Sam Harris
User avatar
humphreys
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:51 pm
Location: Inside your head.

PreviousNext

Return to Religion & Spirituality

cron
  • View new posts
  • View unanswered posts
  • Who is online
  • In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 10 minutes)
  • Most users ever online was 292 on Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:19 pm
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest