So really this isn't proof of anything.
...
1. God is made up, religious folks didn't study god and then wrote about his properties, they made them up.
...
I showed you that many of these assumptions are actually wrong,
...
Sigh you were doing so well Astargath. Yes you can posit anything and in isolation and this may be a logical belief. However, beliefs do not exist in isolation. They are tested against other beliefs and the world itself. If for example I was blind and had never seen the color of the sky and no one had told me what color it was. I could say that I believe the sky is green because when I had inquired in the past that was the most common color of things outside. Now this belief is false but at this stage it is logical. The belief will fail, however, when it is tested because the color of the sky can be known and defined within our system of knowledge. If I ask someone who is not blind what color the sky is or build a machine to measure the wavelengths of light in the sky both will return the answer blue. Belief that the sky is green while initially logical fails and is disproven as we grow in knowledge. What Perry Marshall shows is that there are some beliefs that cannot fail in this way. This does not "prove" or "disprove" these beliefs it simply shows us that for some questions we must infer knowledge rather then prove it. Such knowledge must be accepted apriori. This is a logical necessity of an incomplete universe. Perry Marshall's conclusion follows from his primary assumptions but most people with a background in philosophy or epistemology will acknowledge this and there are other ways of arriving at the same conclusion. For example we had that guy nihilnegativum here a while back who was a hardcore nihilist with a clear background in philosophy. the main distinction of metaphysics (serious buisness as it teaches how to use one's understanding), is the epistemological distinction between a priori and a posteriori that can hold only when this distinction is a pure difference. When one assumes this distinction to be based on some from of positivity, it either assumes a theistic ontology (an ontology where the pure infinite is the ground of everything and time a mere illusion), and thus lose the reality of a posteriori or the opposite, assume there is not pure ground, lose the a priori and be stuck with mere empiricism.
I agree, atheism is false, but that it is false exactly to the extent that its still not absolute nihilism.
What both nihilnegativum and Perry Marshall are telling us is that both theism and nihilism are logical positions. It is only the atheist who keeps asking for proof and refusing to define his own basis in knowledge who is behaving illogically because he is repeatedly asking the wrong questions. This makes traditional atheism easy to dismiss as a credible position. Nihilism on the other hand is a much tougher nut to crack for nihilism is a logical system. To reject nihilism The best course of action is probably to build out a theist world view alongside the worldview of the nihilist and honestly ask yourself which of these constitutes your reality. Thus Perry Marshall's argument or nihilnegativum's if you prefer to start from a position of nihilism is only the first step in an argument for religion. P.S. If God was truly made up by primitive people thousands of years ago then it should be a trivial matter to disprove him just like the blind man can disprove that the sky is green. The fact that we not only cannot disprove God but in all probability will never disprove God hints that this is something much deeper and more fundamental. P.P.S You have not disproven Perry Marshall's three assumptions but if you think you can have at it. They are: 1) That the universe is finite 2) That the universe is rational 3) That the question of God cannot be answered from within the system. ''If God was truly made up by primitive people thousands of years ago then it should be a trivial matter to disprove him'' It is, the bible is extremely easy to prove wrong, I already showed you many examples of it's big big flaws. For instance, humans, God made humans purposely imperfect and then they failed by eating the fruit he told them not to, this already makes no sense if your god is omniscient and omnipotent. From there we have the same problems trough the whole bible, God always knows things in advance yet he still gets mad? He then proceeds to kill everyone but a few people with the flood, why? If he was going to kill people anyways, why not just save all the time and start by making them perfect? |
|
|
|
So many IF's in your argument.
...
no one else said anything about what he says because no one cares
...
why don't you just admit that he is wrong?
how do you know what he is saying is right when literally everyone else says the incompleteness theorem cannot be applied to the universe?
Logical arguments are a series of conditional IF-THEN statements built upon axioms. This is what logic is. It is also how we "know" an argument is "right". That fact that famous atheist have not challenged Perry Marshall argument is not relevant. Upthread you said Perry Marshall was an electrical engineer I did not actually know that but that's also irrelevant. Logical arguments stand or fail on their merits. Without meaning to be insulting your posts sometimes give the impression that you rely on others sources you consider to be authoritative to tell you what to believe. You do not need to do this as you are intelligent and capable of breaking an argument down to its basic assumptions as you demonstrate below. '''What GIT shows is that any coherent and logical system can ask questions about itself that it cannot answer.'' That doesn't imply that the existence of something outside the universe is logical or possible a question we cannot answer, does it?
...
There's no reason why you should be unable to draw a circle around an "uncaused cause" (I suppose you might call that a source term, mathematically). If you can characterise it, you can put it in a system.
Good job you have found the third and final major assumption in Perry Marshall's argument. I was not going to tell you this one unless you figured it out for yourself. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem tell's us that any logical system can ask questions about itself that it cannot answer. Is God one of those questions that cannot be answered from within the system? Perry Marshall assumes that it is but he does not prove this. As you said the property of being an uncaused cause alone could potentially be characterized. With this we have identified all of the primary assumptions in Perry Marshall's argument. These are: 1) That the universe is finite 2) That the universe is rational 3) That the question of God cannot be answered from within the system. If all three of these assumptions are true THEN Perry Marshall's conclusions logically follow. All of the assumptions Perry Marshall makes are reasonable I do not believe any of them can be proven false but that does not mean they are true. We can as asema did argue that the universe is not finite. A strong nihilist might argue that the universe may not be rational. Finally a theist may argue that God can be proven directly so assumption three is false and Perry Marshall's argument is unnecessary. IF all three of Perry Marshall's assumptions are true THEN his conclusions follow. Do we agree? So really this isn't proof of anything. This doesn't mean belief in god is logical either since I could switch god with literally anything I make up and I can say it's logical to believe in that thing. There is no point in talking about ''IF's'' because we can be stuck there forever, there are many if's possible, there is really no point in any of them and they are not necessarily true either, they might be true or not, just because something might be true doesn't mean it's logical to believe in it. Another big problem with your silly argument is when you say ''These basic properties match very well with the religious concept of God'' Big problems with this is: 1. God is made up, religious folks didn't study god and then wrote about his properties, they made them up. 2. These basic properties can also be applied to infinite things including infinite gods. Bottom line is, this is not proof of anything really, it's just a bunch of if's and assumptions. Not only that but I showed you that many of these assumptions are actually wrong, anyhow, as I said before, I'm pretty sure you started believing in god for other reasons, not these. |
|
|
|
From the "Do you believe in god?" topic: ... I will be waiting for the white paper on your made up concept of your god..<<Should be a good read 
Ahhhhh, great question, now before I answer your "not so stupid" question, before I argue about what God I believe in,
(I'm having fun really, nowadays no one gives a shit about the topics here so I thank you  )
Judging from your "not so stupid" questions, you seem to incorrectly identify what a God is.
I have neglected everything related to a God ever since, but you see, you have to be a God to declare there is no God.
That if you clearly understand what the concept of a God is.
So let me have the pleasure of telling you so,
A God doesn't have to be related to any religion,
A God doesn't have to care about the lower beings,
A God doesn't have to be something, a being, a happening.
A God doesn't have to be something you can name.
A God is just there, consider it as a "Higher" form of what we cannot fathom.
A God is just something that's in/out there.
And lastly you don't have to worship whatever God there is.
It doesn't have to rule us, govern us, care about us,
It's just something that's much bigger than what our Human brains can ever fathom.
I stumbled upon this conclusion because no one can ever prove or disprove a God.
And that is God for me, something we cannot understand or fathom but is just there.
Now, since you seem to love saying "Stupid", how about you? what's so amazing about you yourself that made you conclude as everything that contradicts your opinion as "Stupid/Stupidity" are you oh-so-powerful?
Aren't your ideas and conclusions just as vague?
Aren't your opinions just as unclear as what a God truly is?
Aren't you the stupid one to declare something as a fact and critique someone as being stupid, with your understanding that a subject related to a God can never be proved or disproved?
Now aren't you the stupid one claiming something as a fact without the true knowledge?
I suggest you continue to seek the truth before coming up with a hasty judgement.
Because honestly, you know yourself that you ain't that smart.
Your life and knowledge is still full of uncertainties. How did anyone come with those definitions? What experiments has he performed to claim ''god'' has those properties? Or is he just making it up, who knows  |
|
|
|
Yeah, god's general attributes don't make any sense when you look at the real world. If god already knows everything and also has the power to change it then why are we here. I guess this easy concepts don't work for religious folks. |
|
|
|
If the universe is incomplete it means that logic and science cannot tell us what lies outside of the system aka outside of the universe. We can only extrapolate general proprieties. For example we know it's not more universe meaning it is not time, space, energy, or matter.
You said yourself what GIT shows, it doesn't show that there must be something outside the universe, you just said it? We don't know if there is something outside the universe to begin with.
Correct GIT does not tell us that there is something outside the universe. Instead it tells us that the existence of something outside the universe is logical and possible. It also suggests that if there is something outside the universe we not only cannot but will likely never be able to confirm or deny its existence with logic and science alone. It tells us that this question will forever be beyond science. It will always be a question of metaphysical axioms or faith. We can deduce as Perry Marshall does that whatever is outside of the universe is boundless, immaterial, indivisible and an uncaused cause. These basic properties match very well with the religious concept of God but this is not the only possibility. Nihilist believe that there is nothing outside the universe. Infinite nothingness could perhaps be argued to also fulfill these criteria.
Why? How are we deducing this?
We can deduce some basic properties of what may lie outside of the universe by what it is not. It is not more universe. I will repeat Perry Marshal's circle analogy here because although this is an oversimplification it is probably the simplist way of conceptualizing this point. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem: The #1 Mathematical Discovery of the 20th Centuryhttps://www.perrymarshall.com/articles/religion/godels-incompleteness-theorem/“Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle – something you have to assume but cannot prove.”
You can draw a circle around all of the concepts in your high school geometry book. But they’re all built on Euclid’s 5 postulates which are clearly true but cannot be proven. Those 5 postulates are outside the book, outside the circle.
You can draw a circle around a bicycle but the existence of that bicycle relies on a factory that is outside that circle. The bicycle cannot explain itself.
...
Here’s what it means:
Faith and Reason are not enemies. In fact, the exact opposite is true! One is absolutely necessary for the other to exist. All reasoning ultimately traces back to faith in something that you cannot prove.
All closed systems depend on something outside the system.
You can always draw a bigger circle but there will still be something outside the circle.
...
Now please consider what happens when we draw the biggest circle possibly can – around the whole universe. (If there are multiple universes, we’re drawing a circle around all of them too):
There has to be something outside that circle. Something which we have to assume but cannot prove
The universe as we know it is finite – finite matter, finite energy, finite space and 13.7 billion years time
The universe is mathematical. Any physical system subjected to measurement performs arithmetic. (You don’t need to know math to do addition – you can use an abacus instead and it will give you the right answer every time.)
The universe (all matter, energy, space and time) cannot explain itself
Whatever is outside the biggest circle is boundless. By definition it is not possible to draw a circle around it.
If we draw a circle around all matter, energy, space and time and apply Gödel’s theorem, then we know what is outside that circle is not matter, is not energy, is not space and is not time. It’s immaterial.
Whatever is outside the biggest circle is not a system – i.e. is not an assemblage of parts. Otherwise we could draw a circle around them. The thing outside the biggest circle is indivisible.
Whatever is outside the biggest circle is an uncaused cause,because you can always draw a circle around an effect.
Note the circle here is not a literal circle but a metaphor for the part of the system in this case the universe that is defined and proven. Also note that there are two assumptions in the argument 1) that the universe is finite and 2) that the universe is mathematical aka rational. Both of these assumptions are reasonable ones given our current understanding but neither has been proven to apply across the entire universe. ''Instead it tells us that the existence of something outside the universe is logical and possible.'' Where does it tell us that? You already said ''What GIT shows is that any coherent and logical system can ask questions about itself that it cannot answer.'' That doesn't imply that the existence of something outside the universe is logical or possible, does it? So many IF's in your argument. And IF there is something outside the universe, why does it have to be something different from our universe? ''Whatever is outside the biggest circle is not a system – i.e. is not an assemblage of parts. Otherwise we could draw a circle around them. The thing outside the biggest circle is indivisible. Well, let's play along for now, then - let's assume that GIT does imply that something exists outside of the universal system. Then: GIT doesn't imply that that's "indivisible" or unencirclable at all. Godel's 2nd theorem again.'' ''Whatever is outside the biggest circle is an uncaused cause, because you can always draw a circle around an effect. There's no reason why you should be unable to draw a circle around an "uncaused cause" (I suppose you might call that a source term, mathematically). If you can characterise it, you can put it in a system. This is the same point as the previous one again - so it also falls against Godel's 2nd theorem.'' You keep quoting perry, obviously since no one else said anything about what he says because no one cares since he is wrong, why don't you just admit that he is wrong? He used the same typical theist argument and added the incompleteness theorems, nothing really special, the same ''logic'' bullshit arguments. |
|
|
|
As discussed, GIT doesn't imply the existence of things outside of a system - simply that the system can ask questions about itself that it can't answer.''
I mean we can already stop here because he is already wrong, do you not agree?
Ok let's break this down step by step. For now lets assume that we can apply Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem (GIT) to the universe. We can circle back and challenge that assumption later if you wish. What GIT shows is that any coherent and logical system can ask questions about itself that it cannot answer.
If the universe is incomplete it means that logic and science cannot tell us what lies outside of the system aka outside of the universe. We can only extrapolate general proprieties. For example we know it's not more universe meaning it is not time, space, energy, or matter. You said yourself what GIT shows, it doesn't show that there must be something outside the universe, you just said it? We don't know if there is something outside the universe to begin with.We can deduce as Perry Marshall does that whatever is outside of the universe is boundless, immaterial, indivisible and an uncaused cause. These basic properties match very well with the religious concept of God but this is not the only possibility. Nihilist believe that there is nothing outside the universe. Infinite nothingness could perhaps be argued to also fulfill these criteria. Why? How are we deducing this? GIT does not prove God it simply shows that the concept of God is logical. It also suggests that it may never be possible to prove God with logic. Logic may only be able to show us that God is possible, logical, and consistent. Why is this important? 1) GIT is useful as it provides an counter to those who argue that God is illogical. It shows that God as described by monotheism is consistent with what we can logically conclude may exist outside of the universe. GIT does not prove God. 2) GIT also highlights the limitations of science and logic. It suggests that God is a logical first axiom. It also suggests that nihilism is a logical first axiom. 3) GIT suggests that science may never be able to resolve this question. No matter how sophisticated intelligent or advanced we become this fundamental tension between theism and nihilism may never go away as the answer to this question lies outside of the system. Faith therefore will probably always remain necessary and refusal to take a position in the hopes of some scientific breakthrough is unlikely to be fruitful. 4) Finally GIT it highlights the symmetry between religious and nihilist thinking at the level of first principles. Both the nihilist and the theist must ultimately relay on faith. |
|
|
|
The Christian religion talks about Man having free will. I think nihilism is exactly that : life has no purpose, be free to do whatever you want with it. Seems much more healthy than following all kinds of ridiculous religious rules, but that's just me. I think even religious people should hope they're wrong, because none of them really manages to follow the rules, so if there is an heaven and a hell, the first one must be empty and the second one overcrowded. Soren Kierkegaard, a famous 19th century existentialist philosopher, noted quite logically that religious people simply lived better lives, and whether or not there heaven or hell existed or not did not outweigh the cons of not believing in God.
His logic was simple, which he coined "the leap of faith:"
1. Believe in God, die, nothing happens.
2. Don't believe in God, die, nothing happens.
OR
1. Believe in God, die, go to heaven.
2. Don't believe in God, die, bathe in a lake of fire.
I actually wish I could be religious, but sadly, I'm a helpless empiricist. I know too much!
That's a retelling of the much more famous (and 2 centuries older) wager from Pascal : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_WagerAesma I respect your position here as it was very similar to my own beliefs not all that long ago. Here is some food for thought: Regarding the lake of fire: Not everyone who believes in God believes in eternal punishment and damnation. Many Jews for example believe that hell is a very painful but temporary process. A purification process to remove falsehood and evil. See: Do Jews Believe in Hell? http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1594422/jewish/Do-Jews-Believe-in-Hell.htmSince you are an empiricist here is my empirical argument in favour of religion. 1) Belief in God is logical in that the belief is internally consistent and cannot be falsified. This conclusion can be derived in numerous ways one of which is via the application of incompleteness theorem. See: The #1 Mathematical Discovery of the 20th Century2) All knowledge ultimately traces back to assumed axioms. Without knowledge, scientific enquiry including empiric enquiry is meaningless and we can’t analyse the world around us. 3) Our fundamental metaphysical first axioms are therefore a critical step in the formation of a sound empirical model of the universe and our place within it. See: Metaphysical Attitudes4) Human progress and civilisation requires the growth of knowledge and is ultimately cooperation dependent. Our first premises and axioms directly impact the degree of cooperation that the system can support. See: Superrationality and the Infinite 5) Competing first axioms such as nihilism may grant "freedom" to do whatever you want but for humanity as a whole this is an illusion and such axioms reduce overall freedom. See: Freedom and God6) Thus the first axiom of God is not only largely responsible for the progress we have made so far it in all is likely necessary for continued progress. See: Religion and Progress and See: Faith and Future7) Finally and least important accepting the first axiom of God appears to be correlated with good health. See: Health and Religion8 ) For these reason accepting the first axiom of God is a superior choice for the empiricist then accepting the first axiom of nihilism or refusing to define ones metaphysics. Don't listen to him. He probably started believing in god because his family told to not because of the reasons mentioned above. He searched for those reasons because he had doubts about his beliefs and now claims that belief in god is the best choice. I already showed him it's not but you can't reason with these people. |
|
|
|
So you didn't really mention almost anything, you also didn't explain why you believe in anything perry marshall says or why we should trust him or why do you think what he said is true, are you a scientist expert in the incompleteness theory?
...
It seems to me that you are the one who needs to read more about the incompleteness theorem and what it means. The argument of perry marshall is the same god of gaps, as always.
You are starting to sound like badecker.
Ok let's review some logic 101: If you want to try and prove that an argument is internally inconsistent you first have to state it in formal language. In the case of Perry Marshall's argument the talk of circles is non-formal language that he used to simplify and conceptualise his argument for lay readers. Below is his argument in formal language.
Stated in Formal Language:
Gödel’s theorem says: “Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory.”
The Church-Turing thesis says that a physical system can express elementary arithmetic just as a human can, and that the arithmetic of a Turing Machine (computer) is not provable within the system and is likewise subject to incompleteness.
Any physical system subjected to measurement is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic. (In other words, children can do math by counting their fingers, water flowing into a bucket does integration, and physical systems always give the right answer.)
Therefore the universe is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic and like both mathematics itself and a Turing machine, is incomplete.
Syllogism:
1. All non-trivial computational systems are incomplete
2. The universe is a non-trivial computational system
3. Therefore the universe is incomplete
The rest of his essay starts from the assumption that the universe is finite. If the universe is both finite and incomplete we can then deduce certain basic properties of what lies outside of the universe. You ask why believe in anything perry marshall says, why we should trust him, and why do you think what he said is true? Logic is not about belief or trust it is about identifying arguments. Logic tells us that if something is true then something else must be true. You don't need to trust or believe Perry Marshall you just need to follow his logic and then decide if you agree with his assumptions. As Perry Marshall stated "Incompleteness of the universe isn’t proof that God exists. However, it is proof that in constructing a rational, scientific model of the universe, belief in God is 100% logical." You have already essentially conceded the same point upthread. God as a concept is obviously not possible to be proved false You might follow his logic but how do you know what he is saying is right when literally everyone else says the incompleteness theorem cannot be applied to the universe? You are trusting perry marshall which is a random guy on the internet because you think his logic is right. I already gave you arguments on why his logic is wrong. ''Now please consider what happens when we draw the biggest circle possibly can – around the whole universe. (If there are multiple universes, we’re drawing a circle around all of them too): • There has to be something outside that circle. Something which we have to assume but cannot prove As discussed, GIT doesn't imply the existence of things outside of a system - simply that the system can ask questions about itself that it can't answer.'' I mean we can already stop here because he is already wrong, do you not agree? ''nteresting angle. But, even allowing the step where he claims that GIT implies the existence of something physically outside the universe (of which more below), it breaks down quite trivially where Perry Marshall then inserts a religious position into that, and claims that that is the logical thing to do. No, the logical thing to do at that point would be to recognise that one had reached a point where a consequence of incompleteness had become crucial, and then explore further axioms that one might assume in order to complete the particular gap that one had arrived at. One could use a religious position as an axiom - but what would be the point, scientifically? Axioms should be as simple as possible, and the assumption that there is a complex set of interacting and anthropomorphic forces out there acting on us (as described by most religions in their god concept) would be both way more complex and less specific than would be sensible. It is worth remembering that the devisings of religions are always in response to a sense of incompleteness (though not the mathematical sense used by Godel) - and so GIT will naturally make people think of religious comparisons, whatever they personally may think of religiousness. But existing religions are all a throwing up of the hands that occurred in response to problems that we as a people have now long since solved... Sun gods and creation stories? We know a bit more about cosmology, geology and biology now. Maybe one day we will demonstrate that we have reached the limit of knowledge in some direction - but we don't seem to be anywhere near that limit in any direction yet! However, to return to an earlier point as promised, there is a second big philosophical hole in this... GIT asserts that, in any sufficiently interesting system (and "interesting" has quite a low threshold here), there exist statements about that system that you cannot prove - not that things physically exist outside of that system. It says that a system cannot physically describe itself in total completeness, not that things are required to exist outside that system in order to make it look more complete. Using GIT to assert that things must exist outside of the universe is not logical.'' If you like logic so much. Aren't the points mentioned above logical? Again all the logical flaws and wrong assumptions are stated here: http://tromboneforum.org/index.php?topic=55839.0;imodeYou just chose to believe perry marshall for some reason. |
|
|
|
Astargath upthread you challenged Perry Marshals argument on the applicability of applying "Godel's incompleteness theorem to systems beyond mathematics. His essay can be found here: The #1 Mathematical Discovery of the 20th CenturySpecifically you asked. "And how do you know Perry Marshal is right? " and "How did you determine that what he said is right?" You then go on to challenge his use of the word coherence and quoted a couple of half hearted challenges to Perry Marshal's logic. Clearly you could use your a little help here so I will give you a hand. It is indeed possible to challenge the logic behind Perry Marshal's essay but you have to use actual logic to do so. Sometimes you can still find a rational and logical atheist. John Gould over at Quora appears to be such an atheist and he appears to understand logic. If you truly want to understand how to challenge Perry Marshal's argument consider taking the time to understand his challenge. https://www.quora.com/Can-Gödels-incompleteness-theorem-applied-to-the-universe-prove-the-existence-of-God What John Gould shows is that Godel's incompleteness theorem can also lead to a second possibility that deity is an undisprovable falsehood. This juxtaposition of necessary truth versus undisprovable falsehood may be as far as logic can ever take us if the universe is indeed incomplete. It is possible that logic can only show us that it is coherent and logical to believe in God. To actually internalize and live by that logic requires faith. My own opinion is that this fundamental bifurcation this necessity for faith persists as we climb towards perfection. Perhaps there will always be a need for faith and this fundamental spiritual struggle scales in difficulty matching future growth in intellect and ability. This persistent need for faith as we grow closer to perfection may also be the answer to your question above. Why might a being approaching perfection throw that perfection away? Said being may simply have lost faith. In regards to your questioning the word coherence and how to ultimately determine right or truth. These are very deep topics. There are several philosophical theories of truth. The most known are the correspondence theory of truth, the pragmatic theories of truth, and the coherence theory of truth since you are interested in coherence I recommend reading up on this third theory. A brief summary of these theories can be found here. Truth, Theories of http://www.encyclopedia.com/education/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/truth-theoriesSo you didn't really mention almost anything, you also didn't explain why you believe in anything perry marshall says or why we should trust him or why do you think what he said is true, are you a scientist expert in the incompleteness theory? http://tromboneforum.org/index.php?topic=55839.0;imode''We jump from the explanation of what the theorems ACTUALLY say, to the way the religious misuse it. They start by saying, if we dishonestly extrapolate from number theory to the entire universe, and then draw a circle around the universe, then by Godel's theorem there must be something outside that circle upon which our system is dependent. They then non-sequitur their god into that place. Even if we allow for the extrapolation from pure number theory (which is where Godel's theorem actually applies) to the whole universe, what the religious folks don't realize is that this approach suffers from an infinite regression problem in the same way as the prime-mover argument. Draw a circle around god and the universe both, and by their own logic, there must be something external to both that they are dependent on. So, not only do they misuse the theorem, but their logic in doing so is flawed.'' https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/#MysExiGodIt seems to me that you are the one who needs to read more about the incompleteness theorem and what it means. The argument of perry marshall is the same god of gaps, as always. You are starting to sound like badecker. |
|
|
|
Are you saying god can't make perfect people? Then why call him a god?
God made perfect people... Adam and Eve.
''So, He has devised a plan whereby he will get perfect people that don't have a hint of evil in them. He will let all people live for a short while - maybe 100 years or less - in their evil''
Why would an omniscient god need to wait if he already knows who is going to be evil and who is not, can't you see the stupidity in your sentence?
Wait for what? Didn't you even read what I said? ALL people are evil, and God knows it. God is waiting for people to be born so He can make a Heaven-agreement with as many as are willing.
''During that time He will find those people who want to be made into good and perfect people''
An omniscient god doesn't need to find anything he already knows, just stop already, you are stupid.
That's right. But the people need to find God so that they can make an agreement with Him... or not.
You fail to understand even a little the greatness of God, and the greatness to which He is bringing His people. God is bringing people into God-ness. How in the world stupid are you trying to proclaim yourself to be? God doesn't coerce God. God doesn't want to coerce God. In other words, God has essentially made us in so great of a way that we have enough God-like qualities in us that He "can't" always tell exactly where we as individuals stand in our minds and spirits way down deep. God is making perfect people. He made them when He made Adam and Eve. Part of perfection is the ability to choose anything, even to become imperfect. And that is what they chose. We would do the same. So why go through the trouble of making us all perfect from scratch? We are that deep, way down inside of ourselves. I have made my Heaven-agreement with God. I did it by accepting Jesus-salvation. I will be made perfect withouit evil in the new universe. If you don't want to be made perfect, good ridance, because you and your evil won't be there. But if you want perfection and loss fo all evil, make your agreement with God for Jesus-salvation before it is too late for you, and you are locked into your evil by death... where you won't be able to make any more decisions. Not really? Why would that be part of perfection? If you can become imperfect then you are not perfect, perfect doesn't mean to have the ability to do anything. In fact the definition is: excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement, meaning that it can't get any better, going from perfect to imperfect is stupid and makes no sense, a perfect being wouldn't pick to go to hell and wouldn't pick to be imperfect. If Adam and Eve were perfect they wouldn't have committed a sin and made whole humanity suffer, it's clear they were not perfect. God doesn't need to wait for anyone to be born, he can simply create more people, in fact he could create an infinite amount of people so I don't see the point of your comment there. People don't need to find God because he already knows who would make the agreement with him and who wouldn't, so again he wouldn't need to wait on anything. Your logic is flawed, quit saying stupid shit and go to bed. Being perfect involves not only having the ability to become imperfect, but also the not-using of this ability. And that is what Adam and Eve were before they used their ability and became imperfect. At the exact instant that they used their ability to become imperfect, their imperfection started. Before that they were still perfect, because they chose to not become imperfect even though they had that ability all along. You are not a perfect being, but you are choosing to remain imperfect and go to Hell. You can choose otherwise, because God opened up the agreement to you, to His salvation by your accepting of Jesus. As I said, you are judging perfection from an imperfect standpoint. God is love. Love of God is most important. People were given a touch of God. God loves people as He loves Himself. In that love, He does what is good for them - offers them a way back into perfection. But also, in that love, God gives them Hell if that is what they want. What do you want? The people don't know about the agreement until they find out about it. They don't make the agreement with God until they make it. Look up simple contract law. There must be a meeting of the minds before there can be a contract (agreement). If the people don't know, they won't have a meeting of the minds. The simple fact that God in His wisdom knows ahead of time who those people of the agreement will be, doesn't make the agreement to already have been consummated. Look at yourself, for example. (It seems) you haven't made the salvation agreement with God, yet. If you haven't, God still knows whether or not you will. If you will, that doesn't mean you have done it, yet. How can God give you salvation when you are not agreeing to it? Agree to it, and be saved. Please, stop. You can't say, this car is perfect but when it stops working it wont be perfect anymore. That would mean the car wasn't perfect to begin with. If you are perfect, even if you have the ability to do stupid things like becoming imperfect you wouldn't do it BECAUSE YOU ARE PERFECT, WHY WOULD A PERFECT BEING CHOOSE TO BECOME IMPERFECT ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED? You are making my eyes bleed, stop. When they put true, perfect AI in the car, and give it the choice to make itself imperfect, then your example will have something to do with what we are talking about. EDIT: Lack of experience.Holy shit you are dense, aren't you? DO YOU KNOW THE DEFINITION OF PERFECT? OH WAIT, I JUST FUCKING QUOTED IT, LET ME QUOTE IT AGAIN ''definition is: excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement'' Do you understand what this means? BEYOND improvement? A perfect being wouldn't have lack of experience you dumbfuck, he wouldn't make mistakes, otherwise he wouldn't be fucking perfect. How in the world dense are you? A perfect clock doesn't have any experience. Yet it is perfect, and possibly perfect in a way that it will never become imperfect. So why do you think experience has anything to do with perfection? Your definition doesn't have anything to do with improving or not improving, having experience or lack of experience. What's the matter with you? You provide a definition that doesn't have anything to do with what we are talking about. And you don't even realize it it. Your density reaches even beyond the gravity of that other thread. If you are perfect you don't need experience because that would mean that experience would make you better therefore you WOULDN'T BE PERFECT IF EXPERIENCE CAN MAKE YOU BETTER. Except for one little detail. When Adam and Eve got their experience, it made them imperfect. How is imperfect better? But you. You have the knowledge of their experience to fall back on. And you still don't want perfection. What? Are you after more experience? Do you know you keep saying the same thing? Let me break it down for you so it's easier to understand. 1. You are claiming Adam and Eve were perfect 2. You claim they made a mistake (Eating the fruit and disobeying god) which you claim made them imperfect Here is the problem, you are defining a perfect being as someone who is able to make mistakes and transforms itself into an imperfect being. Maybe your definition of perfection is different than mine so I would like to read your definition because otherwise we talk in circles here. For me a perfect being means someone who wont make mistakes, otherwise why would I call him perfect? Let's say you have a gun. Nothing wrong with having a gun. Can use it for target practice, hunting, and protection. Can also shoot yourself in the foot. Foot wounds never really heal up correctly, especially if they are bad ones. Wouldn't want to do it. But can do it. Freedom. Choice. Perfection of ability, and of foot Foot is in perfect shape until you shoot it. Not so perfect after you do. You learn your lesson after you do. But foot never perfect again. If a friend warns you not to do it ahead of time, you don't need to gain the experience. But if you shoot, perfection lost. If you are perfect you can't lose perfection otherwise you are not perfect to begin with, again just give me your definition of perfect, this is pointless. Someone perfect wouldn't shoot himself. If you are perfect, and don't have the ability to throw perfection away, you are a robot without a will. You are missing out on part of perfection. I'm not talking about the ability to throw away your perfection, you can have that but why would a perfect being use it? |
|
|
|
Don't ignore the most important. From 1996 to 2015, James Randi, magician, escape artist, and skeptic, offered $1,000,000 to anyone who could demonstrate, under conditions he and the claimant agreed upon, any paranormal powers including psychokinesis. The prize was never claimed. There are similar offers around the world.
If your ''experts'' really want so hard to convince people, why not do it and win a lot of money as well, why haven't they claimed all the prizes? They could not only be rich but also prove everything they want to prove, yet we haven't seen them do it.
You cannot explain away these data points by merely pointing to Randi's Prize; you have to think clearly and be capable of intelligently assessing new ideas when presented. Your claim that PK is "not proven" is asserted without evidence unless you address the data or conduct your own tests. You cited the experts (Bosch, et al) who conducted an exhaustive search for these types of tests, that is essentially your only source. What is important is that PK is measured and tested by means of methodologically sound experimental procedures which are repeatable, and that your own source admits this. Furthermore, your own source failed at reproducing the results using their "File Drawer" explanation. Refusing to intelligently assess this new idea means that you are acting irrationally. Yes I can, what I cannot do is disprove every single ''test'' or ''argument'' you throw at me simply because scientists are not interested in them so no one really tried to debunk them. My argument goes beyond specific tests that nutjobs still claim they have done and they worked. Scientists were interested in this phenomena long ago but as I said, they stopped because everyone realized it's not true, this is not like god where a good amount of scientists still actually believe in it, basically 99.9% of scientists have said telekinesis is not real, get over it. If your scammer scientists were interested in proving their stupid shit, they would have done so publishing the results in a lot of scientific journals and they would have claimed the prizes but they didn't. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS? Scientists have made up all kinds of theories about the life-cycle of stars. But they have no proof for any of it. Google "electric universe" to find theory that opposes standard star theory, and that is more credible than, if not as well known as, current star theory. This is simply an example of how you want to believe science theory to be true when it is not known to be true. Stick with science law... the stuff that happens... rather than the reasons why you think it happens (science theory). If you do this, you just might see God in science, whereas you will probably miss Him in science theory. How did you come up with the conclusion that ''electric universe'' is more credible than the current theories? Are you a scientist? Last time I checked electric universe was pseudo-science. I know you love to believe in bullshit but give me a break will you? The only people who call electric universe pseudo-science, are those who have something to gain by it. Standard astronomy science is more messed up by far than electric universe science. You didn't really answer the question though. How did you come up with the conclusion that ''electric universe'' is more credible than the current theories? Are you a scientist? ''Standard astronomy science is more messed up by far than electric universe science.'' How do you know that? Are you an expert in astronomy? ''The only people who call electric universe pseudo-science, are those who have something to gain by it'' It seems to me the other way around because advocates of the electric universe usually use it to prove god. The point wasn't to go off topic into electric universe theory. The point was to show that standard scientific theory is an insecure thing, and that the only science that works is that which is engineered, often outside what the theory for the engineering says should happen. Then they change the theory. So, why accept the ever-fluctuating theory as truth? Accept the science fact... cause and effect, entropy (not the theory of it), and complexity... which, when combined, prove God exists. There is no other way for these scientific laws to exist in a universe like we have. So, why God? Because God fills all the criteria: intelligent design as shown by complexity, emotion, identity, great power in all of it. These things are all part of the universe. Nothing other than God fulfills these things. God might be very different than we imagine. But He has all these things for them to exist. That's why we call Him God. I already showed you how those things combined do not prove god exists, I don't see your point here. |
|
|
|
Are you saying god can't make perfect people? Then why call him a god?
God made perfect people... Adam and Eve.
''So, He has devised a plan whereby he will get perfect people that don't have a hint of evil in them. He will let all people live for a short while - maybe 100 years or less - in their evil''
Why would an omniscient god need to wait if he already knows who is going to be evil and who is not, can't you see the stupidity in your sentence?
Wait for what? Didn't you even read what I said? ALL people are evil, and God knows it. God is waiting for people to be born so He can make a Heaven-agreement with as many as are willing.
''During that time He will find those people who want to be made into good and perfect people''
An omniscient god doesn't need to find anything he already knows, just stop already, you are stupid.
That's right. But the people need to find God so that they can make an agreement with Him... or not.
You fail to understand even a little the greatness of God, and the greatness to which He is bringing His people. God is bringing people into God-ness. How in the world stupid are you trying to proclaim yourself to be? God doesn't coerce God. God doesn't want to coerce God. In other words, God has essentially made us in so great of a way that we have enough God-like qualities in us that He "can't" always tell exactly where we as individuals stand in our minds and spirits way down deep. God is making perfect people. He made them when He made Adam and Eve. Part of perfection is the ability to choose anything, even to become imperfect. And that is what they chose. We would do the same. So why go through the trouble of making us all perfect from scratch? We are that deep, way down inside of ourselves. I have made my Heaven-agreement with God. I did it by accepting Jesus-salvation. I will be made perfect withouit evil in the new universe. If you don't want to be made perfect, good ridance, because you and your evil won't be there. But if you want perfection and loss fo all evil, make your agreement with God for Jesus-salvation before it is too late for you, and you are locked into your evil by death... where you won't be able to make any more decisions. Not really? Why would that be part of perfection? If you can become imperfect then you are not perfect, perfect doesn't mean to have the ability to do anything. In fact the definition is: excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement, meaning that it can't get any better, going from perfect to imperfect is stupid and makes no sense, a perfect being wouldn't pick to go to hell and wouldn't pick to be imperfect. If Adam and Eve were perfect they wouldn't have committed a sin and made whole humanity suffer, it's clear they were not perfect. God doesn't need to wait for anyone to be born, he can simply create more people, in fact he could create an infinite amount of people so I don't see the point of your comment there. People don't need to find God because he already knows who would make the agreement with him and who wouldn't, so again he wouldn't need to wait on anything. Your logic is flawed, quit saying stupid shit and go to bed. Being perfect involves not only having the ability to become imperfect, but also the not-using of this ability. And that is what Adam and Eve were before they used their ability and became imperfect. At the exact instant that they used their ability to become imperfect, their imperfection started. Before that they were still perfect, because they chose to not become imperfect even though they had that ability all along. You are not a perfect being, but you are choosing to remain imperfect and go to Hell. You can choose otherwise, because God opened up the agreement to you, to His salvation by your accepting of Jesus. As I said, you are judging perfection from an imperfect standpoint. God is love. Love of God is most important. People were given a touch of God. God loves people as He loves Himself. In that love, He does what is good for them - offers them a way back into perfection. But also, in that love, God gives them Hell if that is what they want. What do you want? The people don't know about the agreement until they find out about it. They don't make the agreement with God until they make it. Look up simple contract law. There must be a meeting of the minds before there can be a contract (agreement). If the people don't know, they won't have a meeting of the minds. The simple fact that God in His wisdom knows ahead of time who those people of the agreement will be, doesn't make the agreement to already have been consummated. Look at yourself, for example. (It seems) you haven't made the salvation agreement with God, yet. If you haven't, God still knows whether or not you will. If you will, that doesn't mean you have done it, yet. How can God give you salvation when you are not agreeing to it? Agree to it, and be saved. Please, stop. You can't say, this car is perfect but when it stops working it wont be perfect anymore. That would mean the car wasn't perfect to begin with. If you are perfect, even if you have the ability to do stupid things like becoming imperfect you wouldn't do it BECAUSE YOU ARE PERFECT, WHY WOULD A PERFECT BEING CHOOSE TO BECOME IMPERFECT ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED? You are making my eyes bleed, stop. When they put true, perfect AI in the car, and give it the choice to make itself imperfect, then your example will have something to do with what we are talking about. EDIT: Lack of experience.Holy shit you are dense, aren't you? DO YOU KNOW THE DEFINITION OF PERFECT? OH WAIT, I JUST FUCKING QUOTED IT, LET ME QUOTE IT AGAIN ''definition is: excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement'' Do you understand what this means? BEYOND improvement? A perfect being wouldn't have lack of experience you dumbfuck, he wouldn't make mistakes, otherwise he wouldn't be fucking perfect. How in the world dense are you? A perfect clock doesn't have any experience. Yet it is perfect, and possibly perfect in a way that it will never become imperfect. So why do you think experience has anything to do with perfection? Your definition doesn't have anything to do with improving or not improving, having experience or lack of experience. What's the matter with you? You provide a definition that doesn't have anything to do with what we are talking about. And you don't even realize it it. Your density reaches even beyond the gravity of that other thread. If you are perfect you don't need experience because that would mean that experience would make you better therefore you WOULDN'T BE PERFECT IF EXPERIENCE CAN MAKE YOU BETTER. Except for one little detail. When Adam and Eve got their experience, it made them imperfect. How is imperfect better? But you. You have the knowledge of their experience to fall back on. And you still don't want perfection. What? Are you after more experience? Do you know you keep saying the same thing? Let me break it down for you so it's easier to understand. 1. You are claiming Adam and Eve were perfect 2. You claim they made a mistake (Eating the fruit and disobeying god) which you claim made them imperfect Here is the problem, you are defining a perfect being as someone who is able to make mistakes and transforms itself into an imperfect being. Maybe your definition of perfection is different than mine so I would like to read your definition because otherwise we talk in circles here. For me a perfect being means someone who wont make mistakes, otherwise why would I call him perfect? Let's say you have a gun. Nothing wrong with having a gun. Can use it for target practice, hunting, and protection. Can also shoot yourself in the foot. Foot wounds never really heal up correctly, especially if they are bad ones. Wouldn't want to do it. But can do it. Freedom. Choice. Perfection of ability, and of foot Foot is in perfect shape until you shoot it. Not so perfect after you do. You learn your lesson after you do. But foot never perfect again. If a friend warns you not to do it ahead of time, you don't need to gain the experience. But if you shoot, perfection lost. If you are perfect you can't lose perfection otherwise you are not perfect to begin with, again just give me your definition of perfect, this is pointless. Someone perfect wouldn't shoot himself. |
|
|
|
Don't ignore the most important. From 1996 to 2015, James Randi, magician, escape artist, and skeptic, offered $1,000,000 to anyone who could demonstrate, under conditions he and the claimant agreed upon, any paranormal powers including psychokinesis. The prize was never claimed. There are similar offers around the world.
If your ''experts'' really want so hard to convince people, why not do it and win a lot of money as well, why haven't they claimed all the prizes? They could not only be rich but also prove everything they want to prove, yet we haven't seen them do it.
You cannot explain away these data points by merely pointing to Randi's Prize; you have to think clearly and be capable of intelligently assessing new ideas when presented. Your claim that PK is "not proven" is asserted without evidence unless you address the data or conduct your own tests. You cited the experts (Bosch, et al) who conducted an exhaustive search for these types of tests, that is essentially your only source. What is important is that PK is measured and tested by means of methodologically sound experimental procedures which are repeatable, and that your own source admits this. Furthermore, your own source failed at reproducing the results using their "File Drawer" explanation. Refusing to intelligently assess this new idea means that you are acting irrationally. Yes I can, what I cannot do is disprove every single ''test'' or ''argument'' you throw at me simply because scientists are not interested in them so no one really tried to debunk them. My argument goes beyond specific tests that nutjobs still claim they have done and they worked. Scientists were interested in this phenomena long ago but as I said, they stopped because everyone realized it's not true, this is not like god where a good amount of scientists still actually believe in it, basically 99.9% of scientists have said telekinesis is not real, get over it. If your scammer scientists were interested in proving their stupid shit, they would have done so publishing the results in a lot of scientific journals and they would have claimed the prizes but they didn't. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS? Scientists have made up all kinds of theories about the life-cycle of stars. But they have no proof for any of it. Google "electric universe" to find theory that opposes standard star theory, and that is more credible than, if not as well known as, current star theory. This is simply an example of how you want to believe science theory to be true when it is not known to be true. Stick with science law... the stuff that happens... rather than the reasons why you think it happens (science theory). If you do this, you just might see God in science, whereas you will probably miss Him in science theory. How did you come up with the conclusion that ''electric universe'' is more credible than the current theories? Are you a scientist? Last time I checked electric universe was pseudo-science. I know you love to believe in bullshit but give me a break will you? The only people who call electric universe pseudo-science, are those who have something to gain by it. Standard astronomy science is more messed up by far than electric universe science. You didn't really answer the question though. How did you come up with the conclusion that ''electric universe'' is more credible than the current theories? Are you a scientist? ''Standard astronomy science is more messed up by far than electric universe science.'' How do you know that? Are you an expert in astronomy? ''The only people who call electric universe pseudo-science, are those who have something to gain by it'' It seems to me the other way around because advocates of the electric universe usually use it to prove god. |
|
|
|
Yes I can, what I cannot do is disprove every single ''test'' or ''argument'' you throw at me simply because scientists are not interested in them so no one really tried to debunk them. You cannot disprove these tests, but you did try your best. You cited Bosch, et al as an example of debunking. It was a thorough and well-researched paper (despite some errors). That means that someone tried very hard to debunk these tests; that paper is the best that you can hope for in terms of "debunking" unless you have a better paper to cite. You cannot "debunk" these tests by merely saying that they are not interesting, your very own source states that these tests are scientifically valid (i.e. methodologically sound). Why are you repeating what I said? I already said I can't, are you blind? ''what I cannot do is disprove every single ''test'' or ''argument'' My argument is: 1. How do you know the tests were well done if you are not an expert in the field? (You are taking for granted the opinion of the scientist that did them and you are believing them) 2. Why haven't this scientists that are so eager to prove telekinesis claimed prizes of millions of dollars around the world? Which would not only give them money but also help them prove what they are trying to prove because they would become famous 3. If there is indeed such thing as telekinesis why aren't we seeing the applications of it? 4. Science has ruled telekinesis and other ''magic'' like that as not true, pseudo-science and garbage. And this has been done after many many years of study where scientists actually took these things very seriously but eventually no one was able to prove them just like we don't believe in witches anymore. |
|
|
|
Please tell me you are trolling You think the CNN link is any better you stupid twat? Everything the MSM media promotes is garbage especially all the crap from NASA. Yes I think it's better and not because it's CNN but because NASA themselves said it. You have no idea what you are talking about do you? |
|
|
|
Are you saying god can't make perfect people? Then why call him a god?
God made perfect people... Adam and Eve.
''So, He has devised a plan whereby he will get perfect people that don't have a hint of evil in them. He will let all people live for a short while - maybe 100 years or less - in their evil''
Why would an omniscient god need to wait if he already knows who is going to be evil and who is not, can't you see the stupidity in your sentence?
Wait for what? Didn't you even read what I said? ALL people are evil, and God knows it. God is waiting for people to be born so He can make a Heaven-agreement with as many as are willing.
''During that time He will find those people who want to be made into good and perfect people''
An omniscient god doesn't need to find anything he already knows, just stop already, you are stupid.
That's right. But the people need to find God so that they can make an agreement with Him... or not.
You fail to understand even a little the greatness of God, and the greatness to which He is bringing His people. God is bringing people into God-ness. How in the world stupid are you trying to proclaim yourself to be? God doesn't coerce God. God doesn't want to coerce God. In other words, God has essentially made us in so great of a way that we have enough God-like qualities in us that He "can't" always tell exactly where we as individuals stand in our minds and spirits way down deep. God is making perfect people. He made them when He made Adam and Eve. Part of perfection is the ability to choose anything, even to become imperfect. And that is what they chose. We would do the same. So why go through the trouble of making us all perfect from scratch? We are that deep, way down inside of ourselves. I have made my Heaven-agreement with God. I did it by accepting Jesus-salvation. I will be made perfect withouit evil in the new universe. If you don't want to be made perfect, good ridance, because you and your evil won't be there. But if you want perfection and loss fo all evil, make your agreement with God for Jesus-salvation before it is too late for you, and you are locked into your evil by death... where you won't be able to make any more decisions. Not really? Why would that be part of perfection? If you can become imperfect then you are not perfect, perfect doesn't mean to have the ability to do anything. In fact the definition is: excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement, meaning that it can't get any better, going from perfect to imperfect is stupid and makes no sense, a perfect being wouldn't pick to go to hell and wouldn't pick to be imperfect. If Adam and Eve were perfect they wouldn't have committed a sin and made whole humanity suffer, it's clear they were not perfect. God doesn't need to wait for anyone to be born, he can simply create more people, in fact he could create an infinite amount of people so I don't see the point of your comment there. People don't need to find God because he already knows who would make the agreement with him and who wouldn't, so again he wouldn't need to wait on anything. Your logic is flawed, quit saying stupid shit and go to bed. Being perfect involves not only having the ability to become imperfect, but also the not-using of this ability. And that is what Adam and Eve were before they used their ability and became imperfect. At the exact instant that they used their ability to become imperfect, their imperfection started. Before that they were still perfect, because they chose to not become imperfect even though they had that ability all along. You are not a perfect being, but you are choosing to remain imperfect and go to Hell. You can choose otherwise, because God opened up the agreement to you, to His salvation by your accepting of Jesus. As I said, you are judging perfection from an imperfect standpoint. God is love. Love of God is most important. People were given a touch of God. God loves people as He loves Himself. In that love, He does what is good for them - offers them a way back into perfection. But also, in that love, God gives them Hell if that is what they want. What do you want? The people don't know about the agreement until they find out about it. They don't make the agreement with God until they make it. Look up simple contract law. There must be a meeting of the minds before there can be a contract (agreement). If the people don't know, they won't have a meeting of the minds. The simple fact that God in His wisdom knows ahead of time who those people of the agreement will be, doesn't make the agreement to already have been consummated. Look at yourself, for example. (It seems) you haven't made the salvation agreement with God, yet. If you haven't, God still knows whether or not you will. If you will, that doesn't mean you have done it, yet. How can God give you salvation when you are not agreeing to it? Agree to it, and be saved. Please, stop. You can't say, this car is perfect but when it stops working it wont be perfect anymore. That would mean the car wasn't perfect to begin with. If you are perfect, even if you have the ability to do stupid things like becoming imperfect you wouldn't do it BECAUSE YOU ARE PERFECT, WHY WOULD A PERFECT BEING CHOOSE TO BECOME IMPERFECT ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED? You are making my eyes bleed, stop. When they put true, perfect AI in the car, and give it the choice to make itself imperfect, then your example will have something to do with what we are talking about. EDIT: Lack of experience.Holy shit you are dense, aren't you? DO YOU KNOW THE DEFINITION OF PERFECT? OH WAIT, I JUST FUCKING QUOTED IT, LET ME QUOTE IT AGAIN ''definition is: excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement'' Do you understand what this means? BEYOND improvement? A perfect being wouldn't have lack of experience you dumbfuck, he wouldn't make mistakes, otherwise he wouldn't be fucking perfect. How in the world dense are you? A perfect clock doesn't have any experience. Yet it is perfect, and possibly perfect in a way that it will never become imperfect. So why do you think experience has anything to do with perfection? Your definition doesn't have anything to do with improving or not improving, having experience or lack of experience. What's the matter with you? You provide a definition that doesn't have anything to do with what we are talking about. And you don't even realize it it. Your density reaches even beyond the gravity of that other thread. If you are perfect you don't need experience because that would mean that experience would make you better therefore you WOULDN'T BE PERFECT IF EXPERIENCE CAN MAKE YOU BETTER. Except for one little detail. When Adam and Eve got their experience, it made them imperfect. How is imperfect better? But you. You have the knowledge of their experience to fall back on. And you still don't want perfection. What? Are you after more experience? Do you know you keep saying the same thing? Let me break it down for you so it's easier to understand. 1. You are claiming Adam and Eve were perfect 2. You claim they made a mistake (Eating the fruit and disobeying god) which you claim made them imperfect Here is the problem, you are defining a perfect being as someone who is able to make mistakes and transforms itself into an imperfect being. Maybe your definition of perfection is different than mine so I would like to read your definition because otherwise we talk in circles here. For me a perfect being means someone who wont make mistakes, otherwise why would I call him perfect? |
|
|
|
Religion is increasing as we get closer to the second coming of Jesus. From Matthew 24: 4 Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many. 6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of birth pains.
9 “Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13 but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house. 18 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 19 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.
22 “If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. 23 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time.
26 “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. 27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28 Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.
29 “Immediately after the distress of those days
“ ‘the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’
30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
32 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that ite is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. Hundreds of years ago virtually everyone believed in god and jesus didn't come, why would he come now lol. Why would He wait for thousands of years to come the first time? He'll come when the time is right, just like He did the first time. Why would he wait at all lol |
|
|
|
Don't ignore the most important. From 1996 to 2015, James Randi, magician, escape artist, and skeptic, offered $1,000,000 to anyone who could demonstrate, under conditions he and the claimant agreed upon, any paranormal powers including psychokinesis. The prize was never claimed. There are similar offers around the world.
If your ''experts'' really want so hard to convince people, why not do it and win a lot of money as well, why haven't they claimed all the prizes? They could not only be rich but also prove everything they want to prove, yet we haven't seen them do it.
You cannot explain away these data points by merely pointing to Randi's Prize; you have to think clearly and be capable of intelligently assessing new ideas when presented. Your claim that PK is "not proven" is asserted without evidence unless you address the data or conduct your own tests. You cited the experts (Bosch, et al) who conducted an exhaustive search for these types of tests, that is essentially your only source. What is important is that PK is measured and tested by means of methodologically sound experimental procedures which are repeatable, and that your own source admits this. Furthermore, your own source failed at reproducing the results using their "File Drawer" explanation. Refusing to intelligently assess this new idea means that you are acting irrationally. Yes I can, what I cannot do is disprove every single ''test'' or ''argument'' you throw at me simply because scientists are not interested in them so no one really tried to debunk them. My argument goes beyond specific tests that nutjobs still claim they have done and they worked. Scientists were interested in this phenomena long ago but as I said, they stopped because everyone realized it's not true, this is not like god where a good amount of scientists still actually believe in it, basically 99.9% of scientists have said telekinesis is not real, get over it. If your scammer scientists were interested in proving their stupid shit, they would have done so publishing the results in a lot of scientific journals and they would have claimed the prizes but they didn't. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS? Scientists have made up all kinds of theories about the life-cycle of stars. But they have no proof for any of it. Google "electric universe" to find theory that opposes standard star theory, and that is more credible than, if not as well known as, current star theory. This is simply an example of how you want to believe science theory to be true when it is not known to be true. Stick with science law... the stuff that happens... rather than the reasons why you think it happens (science theory). If you do this, you just might see God in science, whereas you will probably miss Him in science theory. How did you come up with the conclusion that ''electric universe'' is more credible than the current theories? Are you a scientist? Last time I checked electric universe was pseudo-science. I know you love to believe in bullshit but give me a break will you? |
|
|
|
Are you saying god can't make perfect people? Then why call him a god?
God made perfect people... Adam and Eve.
''So, He has devised a plan whereby he will get perfect people that don't have a hint of evil in them. He will let all people live for a short while - maybe 100 years or less - in their evil''
Why would an omniscient god need to wait if he already knows who is going to be evil and who is not, can't you see the stupidity in your sentence?
Wait for what? Didn't you even read what I said? ALL people are evil, and God knows it. God is waiting for people to be born so He can make a Heaven-agreement with as many as are willing.
''During that time He will find those people who want to be made into good and perfect people''
An omniscient god doesn't need to find anything he already knows, just stop already, you are stupid.
That's right. But the people need to find God so that they can make an agreement with Him... or not.
You fail to understand even a little the greatness of God, and the greatness to which He is bringing His people. God is bringing people into God-ness. How in the world stupid are you trying to proclaim yourself to be? God doesn't coerce God. God doesn't want to coerce God. In other words, God has essentially made us in so great of a way that we have enough God-like qualities in us that He "can't" always tell exactly where we as individuals stand in our minds and spirits way down deep. God is making perfect people. He made them when He made Adam and Eve. Part of perfection is the ability to choose anything, even to become imperfect. And that is what they chose. We would do the same. So why go through the trouble of making us all perfect from scratch? We are that deep, way down inside of ourselves. I have made my Heaven-agreement with God. I did it by accepting Jesus-salvation. I will be made perfect withouit evil in the new universe. If you don't want to be made perfect, good ridance, because you and your evil won't be there. But if you want perfection and loss fo all evil, make your agreement with God for Jesus-salvation before it is too late for you, and you are locked into your evil by death... where you won't be able to make any more decisions. Not really? Why would that be part of perfection? If you can become imperfect then you are not perfect, perfect doesn't mean to have the ability to do anything. In fact the definition is: excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement, meaning that it can't get any better, going from perfect to imperfect is stupid and makes no sense, a perfect being wouldn't pick to go to hell and wouldn't pick to be imperfect. If Adam and Eve were perfect they wouldn't have committed a sin and made whole humanity suffer, it's clear they were not perfect. God doesn't need to wait for anyone to be born, he can simply create more people, in fact he could create an infinite amount of people so I don't see the point of your comment there. People don't need to find God because he already knows who would make the agreement with him and who wouldn't, so again he wouldn't need to wait on anything. Your logic is flawed, quit saying stupid shit and go to bed. Being perfect involves not only having the ability to become imperfect, but also the not-using of this ability. And that is what Adam and Eve were before they used their ability and became imperfect. At the exact instant that they used their ability to become imperfect, their imperfection started. Before that they were still perfect, because they chose to not become imperfect even though they had that ability all along. You are not a perfect being, but you are choosing to remain imperfect and go to Hell. You can choose otherwise, because God opened up the agreement to you, to His salvation by your accepting of Jesus. As I said, you are judging perfection from an imperfect standpoint. God is love. Love of God is most important. People were given a touch of God. God loves people as He loves Himself. In that love, He does what is good for them - offers them a way back into perfection. But also, in that love, God gives them Hell if that is what they want. What do you want? The people don't know about the agreement until they find out about it. They don't make the agreement with God until they make it. Look up simple contract law. There must be a meeting of the minds before there can be a contract (agreement). If the people don't know, they won't have a meeting of the minds. The simple fact that God in His wisdom knows ahead of time who those people of the agreement will be, doesn't make the agreement to already have been consummated. Look at yourself, for example. (It seems) you haven't made the salvation agreement with God, yet. If you haven't, God still knows whether or not you will. If you will, that doesn't mean you have done it, yet. How can God give you salvation when you are not agreeing to it? Agree to it, and be saved. Please, stop. You can't say, this car is perfect but when it stops working it wont be perfect anymore. That would mean the car wasn't perfect to begin with. If you are perfect, even if you have the ability to do stupid things like becoming imperfect you wouldn't do it BECAUSE YOU ARE PERFECT, WHY WOULD A PERFECT BEING CHOOSE TO BECOME IMPERFECT ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED? You are making my eyes bleed, stop. When they put true, perfect AI in the car, and give it the choice to make itself imperfect, then your example will have something to do with what we are talking about. EDIT: Lack of experience.Holy shit you are dense, aren't you? DO YOU KNOW THE DEFINITION OF PERFECT? OH WAIT, I JUST FUCKING QUOTED IT, LET ME QUOTE IT AGAIN ''definition is: excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement'' Do you understand what this means? BEYOND improvement? A perfect being wouldn't have lack of experience you dumbfuck, he wouldn't make mistakes, otherwise he wouldn't be fucking perfect. How in the world dense are you? A perfect clock doesn't have any experience. Yet it is perfect, and possibly perfect in a way that it will never become imperfect. So why do you think experience has anything to do with perfection? Your definition doesn't have anything to do with improving or not improving, having experience or lack of experience. What's the matter with you? You provide a definition that doesn't have anything to do with what we are talking about. And you don't even realize it it. Your density reaches even beyond the gravity of that other thread. If you are perfect you don't need experience because that would mean that experience would make you better therefore you WOULDN'T BE PERFECT IF EXPERIENCE CAN MAKE YOU BETTER. |
|
|
|
Are you saying god can't make perfect people? Then why call him a god?
God made perfect people... Adam and Eve.
''So, He has devised a plan whereby he will get perfect people that don't have a hint of evil in them. He will let all people live for a short while - maybe 100 years or less - in their evil''
Why would an omniscient god need to wait if he already knows who is going to be evil and who is not, can't you see the stupidity in your sentence?
Wait for what? Didn't you even read what I said? ALL people are evil, and God knows it. God is waiting for people to be born so He can make a Heaven-agreement with as many as are willing.
''During that time He will find those people who want to be made into good and perfect people''
An omniscient god doesn't need to find anything he already knows, just stop already, you are stupid.
That's right. But the people need to find God so that they can make an agreement with Him... or not.
You fail to understand even a little the greatness of God, and the greatness to which He is bringing His people. God is bringing people into God-ness. How in the world stupid are you trying to proclaim yourself to be? God doesn't coerce God. God doesn't want to coerce God. In other words, God has essentially made us in so great of a way that we have enough God-like qualities in us that He "can't" always tell exactly where we as individuals stand in our minds and spirits way down deep. God is making perfect people. He made them when He made Adam and Eve. Part of perfection is the ability to choose anything, even to become imperfect. And that is what they chose. We would do the same. So why go through the trouble of making us all perfect from scratch? We are that deep, way down inside of ourselves. I have made my Heaven-agreement with God. I did it by accepting Jesus-salvation. I will be made perfect withouit evil in the new universe. If you don't want to be made perfect, good ridance, because you and your evil won't be there. But if you want perfection and loss fo all evil, make your agreement with God for Jesus-salvation before it is too late for you, and you are locked into your evil by death... where you won't be able to make any more decisions. Not really? Why would that be part of perfection? If you can become imperfect then you are not perfect, perfect doesn't mean to have the ability to do anything. In fact the definition is: excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement, meaning that it can't get any better, going from perfect to imperfect is stupid and makes no sense, a perfect being wouldn't pick to go to hell and wouldn't pick to be imperfect. If Adam and Eve were perfect they wouldn't have committed a sin and made whole humanity suffer, it's clear they were not perfect. God doesn't need to wait for anyone to be born, he can simply create more people, in fact he could create an infinite amount of people so I don't see the point of your comment there. People don't need to find God because he already knows who would make the agreement with him and who wouldn't, so again he wouldn't need to wait on anything. Your logic is flawed, quit saying stupid shit and go to bed. Being perfect involves not only having the ability to become imperfect, but also the not-using of this ability. And that is what Adam and Eve were before they used their ability and became imperfect. At the exact instant that they used their ability to become imperfect, their imperfection started. Before that they were still perfect, because they chose to not become imperfect even though they had that ability all along. You are not a perfect being, but you are choosing to remain imperfect and go to Hell. You can choose otherwise, because God opened up the agreement to you, to His salvation by your accepting of Jesus. As I said, you are judging perfection from an imperfect standpoint. God is love. Love of God is most important. People were given a touch of God. God loves people as He loves Himself. In that love, He does what is good for them - offers them a way back into perfection. But also, in that love, God gives them Hell if that is what they want. What do you want? The people don't know about the agreement until they find out about it. They don't make the agreement with God until they make it. Look up simple contract law. There must be a meeting of the minds before there can be a contract (agreement). If the people don't know, they won't have a meeting of the minds. The simple fact that God in His wisdom knows ahead of time who those people of the agreement will be, doesn't make the agreement to already have been consummated. Look at yourself, for example. (It seems) you haven't made the salvation agreement with God, yet. If you haven't, God still knows whether or not you will. If you will, that doesn't mean you have done it, yet. How can God give you salvation when you are not agreeing to it? Agree to it, and be saved. Please, stop. You can't say, this car is perfect but when it stops working it wont be perfect anymore. That would mean the car wasn't perfect to begin with. If you are perfect, even if you have the ability to do stupid things like becoming imperfect you wouldn't do it BECAUSE YOU ARE PERFECT, WHY WOULD A PERFECT BEING CHOOSE TO BECOME IMPERFECT ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED? You are making my eyes bleed, stop. When they put true, perfect AI in the car, and give it the choice to make itself imperfect, then your example will have something to do with what we are talking about. EDIT: Lack of experience.Holy shit you are dense, aren't you? DO YOU KNOW THE DEFINITION OF PERFECT? OH WAIT, I JUST FUCKING QUOTED IT, LET ME QUOTE IT AGAIN ''definition is: excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement'' Do you understand what this means? BEYOND improvement? A perfect being wouldn't have lack of experience you dumbfuck, he wouldn't make mistakes, otherwise he wouldn't be fucking perfect. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
