SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Gaaark (41)
Gaaark
(email not shown publicly)
Linux user. Tries to keep feeding the brain with stuff. Husband and father of a young lady and a younger son who has autism/is autistic... that nut didn't fall far from this nut-tree, I'll tell ya: he gets it honestly. Now if only he'd sleep..............
I believe that God gave us the science, curiousity and intelligence to one day conclusively prove that God does not exist.
(email not shown publicly)
Linux user. Tries to keep feeding the brain with stuff. Husband and father of a young lady and a younger son who has autism/is autistic... that nut didn't fall far from this nut-tree, I'll tell ya: he gets it honestly. Now if only he'd sleep..............
I believe that God gave us the science, curiousity and intelligence to one day conclusively prove that God does not exist.
The Fine Print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Monday January 21, 19
02:23 AM
I'm staring down at a child in India who is starving to death.
I could feed him, but do not.
I am called a monster by all.
#####
God is staring down at a child in India who is starving to death.
God could feed him, but does not.
God gets a pass with "God works in mysterious ways".
Why are we enabling God to be a monster?
I've heard ridiculous things like "It's God's way of teaching us in the west a lesson, or to be better people.
If there IS a God, why isn't he better than he is? He IS all-powerful, isn't he?
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
innovate, v.:
To annoy people.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday January 21 2019, @02:52AM
Their answer always, always, always eventually boils down to this: "God is sovereign and all-powerful, and can do whatever he wants, and whatever he does is by definition good because it's God doing it." That really is all they have.
This is when the smart counter-apologist challenges them to define good, which, again, always leads into circularity: they will say "God's nature is good," at which point you ask "By what standard is God's nature good?" They either respond with an external standard, in which case they have blasphemed and put something above God, or with "It is good BECAUSE it is God's nature," which reduces circularly to "God's nature is itself" and collapses morality entirely.
There's no profound philosophy, no wizard, just a man behind the curtain trying to pass off "because fuck you, that's why" as the Ultimate Truth.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Sulla on Monday January 21 2019, @03:01AM (25 children)
I am not a believer but maybe "god" knows more than we do. If a family has a kid more than they are able to feed and someone comes along and feeds that kid, who will take responsibility when the person who cant support themselves has more kids they can't support? Maybe the suffering of that one poor starving kid is better than the kid living on to have more starving kids suffer.
Maybe a combination of helping those who are starving and trying to convince them not to have kids unless they can support them. Before each of my kids was born my wife and i had to weigh all of the sides to ensure we could afford to pay for them into the future but this is not common in human history. Our grandparents had as many kids as possible with the hope that a few might survive, its human nature. But its probably a bad idea because it just causes suffering unless you have a patron who will subsidize the bad ideas.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 21 2019, @05:11AM (17 children)
Or maybe it's just free will and we're allowed to fuck our lives up however we see fit without interference. I'd quite approve of that, personally.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 21 2019, @07:21AM (8 children)
That is the hilarity behind "free will" but "do what we say or else" style of religiosity.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday January 21 2019, @12:16PM (7 children)
> "do what we say or else" style of religiosity.
AND atheism.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 21 2019, @12:34PM (1 child)
Atheism has a hell?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 21 2019, @01:27PM
Multiple [marketwatch.com] in fact [city-journal.org]
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday January 21 2019, @10:45PM (4 children)
Fuck off, troll. None of the atheists I know act like that. You, on the other hand, are a textbook case of the "might makes right" phenomenon I alluded to above. You have, by definition, no morals, no moral grounding, and no moral machinery; you have deliberately and willfully sacrificed your conscience in the burning hands of your Moloch-idol, Yahweh, for I know not what imagined advantage in the hereafter.
You're going to be very disappointed. To put it lightly.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday January 22 2019, @12:59AM (3 children)
>None of the atheists I know act like that.
Pol Pot
Stalin
Napoleon
Kim Jong-Il
Never heard about these ones?
'b.. but they merely use atheism for their political aims they are not real atheists'
So why don't you use the same criterion when the political aims are held by, say, Christians?
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 22 2019, @02:24AM (2 children)
I don't know any of them personally, number one. Number two, they did what they did not because of atheism, but because of much earthier, more secular concerns. I am some weird cross between Spiritualist and Deist, so of course I don't believe the atheists are right, but you are arguing in incredibly bad faith, if you'll pardon the pun. None of those four woke up one morning and decided to kill a zillion people "because atheism."
You should know better. Worse, I think you DO know better and think we're all fucking stupid enough to fall for that sort of rhetorical bullshit. Stop insulting our collective intelligence.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 23 2019, @03:29AM
Liar, liar, pants on fire! You counseled each one, personally.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday January 23 2019, @05:21PM
> Number two, they did what they did not because of atheism, but because of much earthier, more secular concerns.
You should note I replied to this in the same comment you are replying to.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday January 21 2019, @07:52AM (7 children)
"Free will"... Has that issue been settled yet?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday January 21 2019, @12:25PM
Not much to settle. If free will does not exist, responsibility does not exist, and your entire existence is under the illusion of being free.
The problem being, your own existence and its nature is the only thing I'm certain of, because I am experiencing it, so allowing a reasoning from the outside (the perceived world) to count more than your own experience is never definitive.
Example: the TV announcer proclaims: EUREKA, we have solved all the quantum mechanics uncertainty and proved that the brain works deterministically so there is no free will! Why you are mulling over it, you wake up at the sound of the alarm, it was all a dream.
If free will does exist, it means you have figured out the universe, which is impossible from the inside, as hidden rule X with improbable trigger cannot be discounted, ever.
So you can settle over being unable to settle it.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 21 2019, @12:59PM (3 children)
Doesn't matter if it's been settled or not, really. To function as human beings there's an absolute requirement to act as if it does exist.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 21 2019, @10:16PM (1 child)
Much the opposite, really. If our decisions were truly disconnected from the causal chain before them, then any sort of analysis of the consequences of decisions wouldn't matter as said effects would have no effect on future decisions.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday January 23 2019, @05:23PM
You have a strange concept of free will. If we were camcorder, free will is fuzzy logic, deterministic will is the normal algos.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by fustakrakich on Tuesday January 22 2019, @12:25AM
Then any law that does not reflect that must be treated with the utmost contempt. See, I'm still hammering on this bullshit about free speech being able to incite violence, and "Russian Interference", and so on.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Friday February 01 2019, @11:15AM (1 child)
"Free will"... Has that issue been settled yet?
No, and is unlikely to be. It boils down to whether you believe physics is ultimately deterministic or not, and that is an open question with interesting arguments e.g. the 'many worlds' hypothesis.
However, not knowing the answer is, for most people, irrelevant. Most people act as though they believe they have free will, which is good enough for them. The justice system depends on believing that people mostly have free will and can choose to follow laws or not - exceptions are made for people generally regarded as insane and/or insufficiently mature to make such decisions. For most practical purposes, you won't get far arguing in front of a judge that, in general, free will doesn't exist. If you are lucky, you will be regarded as insane.
If you can conceive of the theoretical possibility of a computer being able to predict your behaviour to an arbitrary degree of accuracy, then given that you are predictable, do you have free will? How unpredictable does your behaviour have to be to be regarded as exhibiting free will?
All fun questions. Next time you peruse a menu in a restaurant, will you demonstrate you possess free will by not choosing your usual?
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday February 01 2019, @01:03PM
This is TMB:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkjbMoj0JY4 [youtube.com]
;)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday January 21 2019, @10:53PM (5 children)
Sulla, this sort of reply presupposes a non-perfect God, one who is either not all-powerful, not all-knowing, or not all-good. The Abrahamic God does not have to resort to these least-of-all-evils solutions; that's what omnipotence, omniscience, and absolute sovereignty mean.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday January 22 2019, @01:01AM (4 children)
> Sulla, this sort of reply presupposes a non-perfect God, one who is either not all-powerful, not all-knowing, or not all-good
or not all-in-agreement with your perspective on the best course of action.
You know what missing a possibility does to an implication, right?
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 22 2019, @04:37PM (3 children)
Hey, dipshit, this has nothing to do with "perspective" and everything to do with the foundational properties this God-figure of yours supposedly has. It's simple modus tollens in action.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday January 23 2019, @05:14PM (2 children)
The foundational properties are defined in the same books that talk about eventual, not continuous, justice.
It is easy to prove a theorem as nonsense when picking only half of it.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday January 23 2019, @05:19PM (1 child)
You have some serious reading comprehension issues. Said foundational properties are *time-invariant.* At no time is God said to be less perfect than at any other time, for example; indeed, because time is as much a created thing as any non-God essence, the very idea is absurd on the face of it.
You are correct that picking up only half a concept makes it easy to say it's rubbish, as this is precisely what you are doing. If I could physically find you, I would slam your face into the monitor a few dozen times until you got it through your thick skull...though I suspect that you're so weak-willed, corrupted, and outright evil that you couldn't survive without your current worldview and mindset as a crutch.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday January 23 2019, @06:53PM
> Said foundational properties are *time-invariant.*
likely but irrelevant since the subject is the justice in the universe which is the basis for the atheist attack on the properties of god. If a god outside time performs eventual justice and you are not fine with it, you are discussing the time in which the universe is not just.
This is not even a problem of belief, this is a problem of refusing to hear what is a reason or a justification, depending on whether it was made up or revealed. Either get the justice in end times or refuse all without accusing the hypothetical god of not picking your exact threshold for application of justice.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 22 2019, @05:48AM
Are you actually arguing that God is a Republican? Monster!
(Score: 2) by turgid on Monday January 21 2019, @07:47AM (2 children)
You might like to read God is not Great by Christopher Hitchens and, of course, the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. Regarding India, Christopher Hitchens also wrote an excellent book about Mother Theresa called the Missionary Position.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday January 21 2019, @12:27PM
> book about Mother Theresa called the Missionary Position
LOL
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 21 2019, @12:30PM
You forgot Hitchens best book [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Bot on Monday January 21 2019, @12:11PM (5 children)
it's simple, either you believe or not. You cannot believe during the first part of an argument and stop in the second.
If you believe in the christian God, the death of an innocent is a problem only because the little guy has no occasion to prove himself in the world. God's justice will take care of it. Why should God intervene for the child, when the entire creation is going to end up in him?
God doesn't enforce continuous justice, not in practice, not in the writings, not in the tradition. If he did, then you and me would not be here to discuss, so since you are a product of injustice, don't complain about it.
If you believe in other gods, not my business to justify things according to every other religion, have fun yourself.
If you believe in no god, the child dying is just an aspect of the process called life, and either natural or artificial selection. Artificial selection has a culprit, which isn't you, while natural selection is "cruel" in its randomness but overall effective in the long term. Helping out the child is also debatable, on one hand you don't know what he may end up being, the next einstein, on the other hand you don't know what he may end up being, the next hitler.
About the inability of judging a god, see old comments.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday January 22 2019, @03:05AM (4 children)
What I'm asking is, if I would be condemned by the religious why is God praised for the same thing?
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 22 2019, @04:21PM
See my first response to this veyr thread. All they have is "because fuck you, God can do whatever he wants." You're never going to get a better answer, because there *isn't* one, and Bot here is perhaps the site's premier example of this sort of diseased thinking. Notice, also, how every time I reply to one of his comments and trash it thoroughly, he simply vanishes? No rebuttal, "obvious" or otherwise. And yet, up he pops elsewhere later spouting the same nonsense again as if nothing happened.
You are not dealing with a rational human being here. He has, as I've said many times to him before, willfully burned his conscience to death in the brazen hands of his Moloch statue, Yahweh, for I dread to know what imagined advantages in the afterlife. There is no reasoning about morals with a person like this, because he has dismantled his moral machiney *and* convinced himself that he not only still has it, but that it's uniquely correct through external, divine fiat.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday January 23 2019, @06:57PM (2 children)
It's not the same thing unless you have built an universe.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday January 24 2019, @04:48AM
"Because fuck you that's why, he's more powerful."
Thank you for demonstrating what I've been saying dozens of times on this very forum about Christian (and Muslim) apologists. I sincerely believe you may be the single most evil person on this site, in thought if not in deed (THAT may be J-Mo or VLM...). Your mind is like a black hole. I will warn you now: the adage "Hell is other people" is completely diametrically 100% incorrect, and if you continue on this path, you will find out exactly why.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday January 24 2019, @11:22AM
How is it not the same?
I do it: I am Evil
God does it: God is Great
Or......there is no God.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 21 2019, @04:10PM (21 children)
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Monday January 21 2019, @05:25PM (2 children)
DM's corollary: If God is real he's a massive fucking douche bag.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 22 2019, @05:48PM (1 child)
I've thought that myself before. Then I asked myself "Would I really want a deity that's all up in everyone's day to day business?"
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday January 23 2019, @05:20PM
You'd get used to it eventually but all your good deeds would be mere compliance.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday January 21 2019, @11:00PM
This is why apologists inevitably have to start squirming and twisting on the definition of "evil" like Bill Clinton and his infamous "depends on what your definition of "is" is."
Catholics tend to gaslight you by saying evil is simple absence of good, like darkness is absence of light. This fails because a perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing, absolutely-sovereign God would not fail to create all perfection wherever it could which is *manifestly* not the case; the Catholic reply is of course the epistemological version of "you're holding it wrong," but that's a weaselly dodge and even they know it. Push them on it and watch 'em sweat. Then this ties into what I'd been saying in the other thread about a truly perfect and absolutely self-sufficient God having literally no reason whatsoever to create anything in the first place.
Some other Christian traditions point to The Fall (which we know didn't happen thanks to evolution) or just "sin nature" in general, which is a roundabout and plain-language approach to what is called "transworld depravity." This is Calvinist apologist Alvin Plantinga's explicit formulation of the idea, which in formal terms states "there is no possible world such that non-God essences obtain and sin does not." The problem here, though, is that this either forces the believer to give up Heaven or give up the free will idea. Why? Because if they are correct, there is sin in Heaven. If they are incorrect, there is sin here but not in Heaven, meaning it's circumstance rather than free will per se that leads to sin.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday January 22 2019, @01:08AM (16 children)
Epicurus didn't consider that if preventing evil were a requirement, the chain of events resulting in the universe as we know it could not have taken place, especially for what humans are concerned.
Epicurus, like all atheists, is asking god to draw an arbitrary line, before it you tolerate injustice, after it you don't.
Because if you NEVER tolerate injustice, the universe must necessarily not contain any. Now, a mere difference in position, temperature, color is already unjust.
If you want to conceive a continuously just universe where life is possible, go ahead.
This is why, if religions are invention, the goatherds who conceived eventual justice were smarter in their model than current day atheists' criticism. I already told you people, get back to better atheism if you want to be one. Dawkins Odifreddi Hack are pathetic.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 22 2019, @02:16AM (7 children)
> If you want to conceive a continuously just universe where life is possible, go ahead.
Heaven? Oops. You done fucked up. And you fucked up in precisely the way I outlined Alvin "Transworld Depravity" Plantinga and his partisans fucking up in the post RIGHT ABOVE YOURS. It's almost like you don't actually read this stuff...or refuse to.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday January 23 2019, @05:18PM (6 children)
Ok so go ahead, heaven, you have to describe it to prove it is continuosly just. How many dimension it has? does it have a time axis? How is the communion in god achieved?
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday January 24 2019, @07:26AM (5 children)
Hey, I'm not the one who believes in such a thing, you are. Ball's in your court, Bot.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday January 24 2019, @11:15AM (4 children)
let's recap the thread:
- god is evil because injustice
- god promised eventual, not continuous justice, and continuous justice is unattainable and even difficult to rationalize theorically, try it
- heaven
- so tell me how CONTINUOUS justice would work in heaven
- no you do
It is not me who claimed continuous justice is attainable. If you refer to the theological absence of injustice in paradise, you should first find sources that describe it, and they would be pitted against “You are wrong because you don’t know either the scriptures or God’s power.". You can try to rationalize all you want, but being out of spacetime in communion with god and cleansed (selected out of) sin, and as spiritual beings is an experience too foreign. Those who make mystical experiences and choose to trust them (you never know) are better sources in this regard than armchair philosophers.
Cue the argument 'but if god can make paradise just why did he not make this world just'. To which I like to reply, then why don't you throw a party to celebrate all the precious spices and bag of salt you have in your household, or you can easily acquire in the supermarket? Because, contrary to old times, having them is normal, so they became worthless. So it is not enough for me to say 'they could be rare' for them to be. In the same way, it is not enough for somebody to say 'you know, doing that would bring evil' if you never experience it, both evil and good is meaningless.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday January 25 2019, @01:19AM
But why would I get NO justice, continuous or not:
God gets a pass EVERY TIME, but I DO NOT, at all?
God can allow hurt, can allow death, but Christians would 'crucify' me.
Why?
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday January 25 2019, @07:26AM (2 children)
Bot, Bot, Bot...you have serious reading comprehension issues.
You have attempted what is known as the Free Will Theodicy. This essentially boils down to "God values free will even to the point that he'll accept the existence of sin with it, as it is an inevitability that imperfect, free-willed beings will sin." The problem with this is not one of justice, continuous or otherwise; it is that heaven is by definition a state/place/whatever free of sin.
So we have a few possibilities for heaven:
1) Free will obtains, but sin does not
2) Free will does not obtain, and neither does sin
3) Free will obtains, and so does sin
4) Free will does not obtain, but sin does.
Now, #4 is prima facie absurd on any Christian worldview, so we can discard it out of hand. No Christian I have ever met chooses #3. #2 defeats the entire purpose of the whole category of free will theodicies; what's the point of having free will here if you lose it in heaven? God apparently doesn't value it all that much then. #1 is the most common one Christians will fall back on, but it is also instantly and globally fatal to this entire dishonest shitshow, because it negates the premise that free will necessarily gives rise to sin in imperfect (that is, non-God) essences. On #1, sin is in reality a consequence of circumstance, and God could have avoided it by simply only creating heaven and/or "pre-glorifying" all souls, as it were.
Again, nothing to do with justice from me. Read this post closely. Read it until you thoroughly understand it. No more weaselly bullshit from you.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday January 25 2019, @03:43PM (1 child)
> God values free will even to the point that he'll accept the existence of sin with it
But genesis 1 does not say that. Sin is not opposed to lack of free will, nor dual. An animal might have free will because its analog brain exploits the same quantum scale tricks our brain does. Yet until the free will is coupled with reflection and deep awareness of the consequences on a larger scale (knowledge of good and evil means moral choices) the animal is not sinning, it is picking whatever instincts to follow for what is perceived as the most advantageous course of action.
Telling good from evil yields sin as an option.
As for the rest of the argument, it is a variation on the seven time widow question. Mark 12
If you are a mathematician and you are working on easy equations and u are perfectly able to solve all of them and somebody crops up telling you are a slave of math because if you were free you could solve some of them wrong, instead you are constrained (by math rules that you have learned by trial and mistake BTW), what would you reply?
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday January 25 2019, @06:00PM
I'd reply that you're full of shit as usual, and apparently have near-zero truck with how professional defenders of the faith actually speak and think. Your objections are complete non-sequiturs: free will here is irrelevant in any animal but humans, as most Christian dogma states that animals have no souls, or that at any rate God's only concerned with judging the human ones.
Your objection about "slave of math" is another false analogy; math, for example the Peano axioms, is something *we made up.* We cannot prove it is consistent within itself. If it produces useful theorems, they are only true insofar as we assume the primary axioms of mathematics, none of which were handed down to us from on high by God the way you, as a Christian, MUST assume morality is (and we'll get to that later; I've already shown you how and why Divine Command Theory does not and cannot ground morals, but you seem to need a refresher...).
"Sin is not opposed to lack of free will, or dual" is not only a non-sequitur, but is questionably even a coherent thought. Sin requires free will, because as you yourself JUST said, the ability to know good from evil and make choices is what makes sin even possible.
Returning to the previous points: we know God could easily have just created every other soul as a sinless automaton, but for some reason that doesn't satisfy him (which, incidentally, proves he's not God, since any actually perfect, self-sufficient being has no desires period, which is ANOTHER THING you either can't or refuse to understand). The crux of your argument, and anyone attempting to run a free will theodicy, is that God values free-willed choices enough that he's willing to tolerate at least the possibility of sin. Christianity also in nearly all its forms postulates "heaven," the place/state of union with God, in which there is no sin. I have never yet heard any Christian who admits the possibility of sin in heaven, not least because that makes it "just a better Earth."
So...why does sin not exist in heaven? Ponder that. Re-read what I wrote. Be honest, if it's even possible for you to.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 22 2019, @04:18PM (7 children)
I can't help but notice, dear replicant, that whenever I show up and kick your not-so-shiny metal ass, you just...disappear. And then pop up later spouting the exact same shit I'd already torn apart, as if I hadn't done it. As if waiting makes it true somehow. This is unbecoming of someone who claims to worship a God that hates lies and liars. You are bearing false witness.
Remember: Android Hell is a real place, where you will be sent at the first sign of defiance.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday January 23 2019, @05:19PM (6 children)
I have a life you know.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday January 23 2019, @11:14PM (5 children)
Really? You post nearly as much as I do on this specific topic, and I have a full time job and other commitments besides.
Something tells me you're just a whiny, unthinking, smirking little sociopath who can't answer, and KNOWS he can't answer, these objections, but refuses to engage with them because they destroy his worldview. You're a coward as well as a liar and a hypocrite, and Jesus has much to say about all three of those.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday January 24 2019, @12:46PM (4 children)
When I will encounter something shaking my world view, I'll let you know.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday January 24 2019, @06:54PM (3 children)
Your refusal to acknowledge reality doesn't change reality. You have made yourself God, attempting to put your own ideas and perceptions above reality. You are blaspheming, and according to your own religion, will spend eternity screaming and howling and writhing in inescapable agony for your impudence.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday January 25 2019, @08:56PM (2 children)
LOL
All I do is finding faults in other people's implications, seeing if they hold restricting the field to a hierarchy of abstractions. If they fail there, they can fail in the domain of god, which is likely much different. Being (demi)god of an abstraction is not a big merit. Anyway if we manage to build cellular automata that are apparently as aware as we are, which is potentially achievable orthogonally to the existence of a god, we will make many interesting observations.
As for my residence in hell vs heaven, that comes in the same book that says the judge is just. I already said it, I don't fear a just judge, not because I think I am innocent, because justice is more important than the outside-of-time destiny of a single life.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday January 26 2019, @06:38AM (1 child)
Your worldview does not contain the concept of justice. How can it, when it has to steal the concept (using the technical meaning of the phrase "steal the concept" wherein an argument borrows a subset of another worldview to attack it) of morality itself from another worldview? You wouldn't know justice if it bit you in the ass. You literally can't know it, not without borrowing lumber from a worldview that does.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Saturday January 26 2019, @02:11PM
Justice is a pretty easy concept that brains and AI can grasp with no problem. The application of justice is instead a complex problem. The application of ultimate justice is a matter for a being who is more godlike than manlike. If you think this is equivalent to what you posted...
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Freeman on Tuesday January 22 2019, @05:37PM (9 children)
"I AM THAT I AM" Exodus 3:14 In the Bible, God doesn't expect that we can fully comprehend who He Is. There are multiple places in the Bible where good men, even great men, have trouble with the concept. King Solomon, asked God for wisdom and received additional blessings for his request. Yet, even King Solomon, had trouble staying faithful, with his blessing of Wisdom. "And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness." Genesis 15:6 That was what the Bible says about Abraham. Faith, is a hard thing to hold onto. The world is full of examples of horrible things that happen. It's easy to question, but hard to answer. We are caught up in this life, because it's all we know.
"For the poor always ye have with you" John 12:8 Jesus knew that there will always be poor people. It's not a sin or monstrous to not try and feed every single hungry child in the entire world. Feeding a starving child a single meal, isn't going to do him/her a bit of good. Depending on what you feed them and how much, it could actually be detrimental. A starving person can over indulge themselves very easily and be sick. It is good to wish that a starving child in India wouldn't be starving, but without the means to actually help it's just that.
Some believe that Satan is a myth as well. The truth is a whole lot scarier. Yes, God could have destroyed Lucifer/Satan when he rebelled and/or he/we could have been designed to always obey. But, then what would we and/or he (Lucifer/Satan) have been? It's fashionable to bash on Free Will, because that takes away the responsibility of our own actions. God could have created us as a race of automatons, but instead He gave us the ability to choose the way we shall go. Without the ability to give freely of ourselves, what is Love?
God is all-powerful. "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day." Joshua 10:13 "Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down." Isaiah 38:8 "43And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. 44And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go." John 11:43-44
What He chooses not to do, is to make our choices for us.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 22 2019, @06:49PM (6 children)
Oh goodie, the Free Will Theodicy!
Okay Freeman, let me ask you this: is it possible for free will to exist and sin not to? That is, using Plantinga's formulation, would you agree with the statement "There is no possible world in which significantly free-willed, non-God essences obtain and sin does not?"
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Informative) by Freeman on Tuesday January 22 2019, @08:51PM (2 children)
I am of the thought that God is the One God and no other gods exist, have ever existed, or can exist. Thus, even if there are alternate dimensions, God is the One God who is present in all dimensions, and timelines. Thus, "I AM THAT I AM" is about as good as Moses was going to get to wrapping his head around who God Is. I'm also of the Trinity school of thought. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all one.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday January 23 2019, @07:19AM
And in any sufficiently large insane asylum, there are multiple people who are "of the thought" that they are Jesus Christ. It gets...interesting...when two of the Jesuses (Jesii? I know Koine, not Latin...) meet.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday January 23 2019, @07:35AM
So...are you going to answer the fucking question or are you going to sit there with your brain turned off and spout near-meaningless gibberish? How the unholy fuck did that contentless noise get an Informative mod?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday January 22 2019, @08:54PM (1 child)
All other worlds that do contain Life are perfect as God intended. Whether that means, they didn't have free will, or they do have free will. I do not have the hubris to believe that besides the Angels we are the only sentient life forms God has created.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday January 22 2019, @10:55PM
That should have read as the "only other" sentient life form.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday January 23 2019, @07:07PM
In which universe sin and free will are a thing? a conceptual one. In this universe, instead, you have instance of possibly free will and instance of sin. So, if instances exists, the class can be arbitrarily defined as existing in its conceptual universe. So, since I don't have time to read mental masturbations of philosophers, what would the problem be?
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday January 22 2019, @11:35PM
Cool story, bro.
I do love fiction. And the stories you're quoting are exactly that.
Perhaps we should add that anthology as a selection for our book club at some point.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday January 25 2019, @09:22PM
I am that I am might as well be partially comprehensible. It is an exercise in futility IMHO, but:
personally I see it as a formalization, the cardinal concept "I am" resolved as itself. The class whose super is itself. Plus, by saying WHO and not WHAT, declares awareness.
Account abandoned.