The problem with atheism.

[Rassah]

funny we're arguing about this crap, while living on a tiny spec of dust in an enormous universe that doesn't know or care about anything we do.

Meaning is embedded into the structural syntax of the universe, and necessarily so.  Information catalyzes meaning.  Without meaning, information is useless, chaotic, and impossible to decipher or communicate. 
Without meaning, you wouldn't be able to empirically study anything.

To say the Universe is meaningless is akin to saying that language is meaningless (reality is, by definition, a language).  But, that would be ridiculous because language predicates meaning.

Basically, if you think the Universe is meaningless, then please explain how information is conveyable.

Not meaningless, insignifiicant. In the same way that guessing a private key to a Bitcoin address has a chance that is so insignificant that it's almost meaningless. It has a chance, just like our communication has meaning, but it exists in such a vaste space of probabilities that it might as well be meaningless.

Why do you assume we or our planet is insignificant?  If the definable Universe includes us and the planet, then we aren't insignificant to the Universe, but rather we are integral to its definition.

Simply because our overall effect on the universe is so close to zero it might as well be zero. At most only about 200,000 light year radius around us is even aware of our existence, and that's a teeny tiny insignificant part of the universe, too.

[Rassah]

Wasn't to me, but I'll take a stab...

1) How can a meaningless system exist?  And if you can answer that one, then how can meaningful systems arise from a meaningless one?

Meaning is only subjective to the person experiencing it. A big ball of spinning fusing gas is meaningless. Some carbon-water bag hundreds of thousands of miles away is meaningless to the big ball of spinning fusing gas. But that ball of gas is quite important and meaningful to the carbon-water bag. So everything is generally meaningless to everything else, and only has relative subjective meaning to some...

2) Given the mathematical proof for "the boundary of a boundary = 0" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_(topology)) coupled with the sameness-in-difference principle of logic, how would you explain or model the relationship between you/I and the rest of the Universe?  Then, how would refute the idea that the Universe is as much mental (if not more so) than physical in nature?

I would ignore that proof as irrelevant, and simply point out that "mental" involves chemical and electrical signals perceiving and reacting to the already existing universe. The universe would continue to exist whether there are brains with sensory organs around to sense and react to it. And that's what separates us from the rest of the universe: we react to what exists, and what exists will exist with our without our reaction. For example, people who are wheel chair bound consider their chair as a part of them - as a part or extension of their body - despite it not actually being a part of their body. That's because the chair is such a part of their life and under their control that it might as well be a part of their body. The rest of the world they live in is not.

3) When you realize that you can't refute the Universe is mental in nature, why is the idea of God ridiculous? Or, at least, why is it more ridiculous than the assertion of God's non-existence?

I'll let you know when I realize it. So far I'm nowhere near that.

4) What is your definition of God, and how does it differ (if at all) from "truth" that one might seek, for example, through empirical study and observation?

Fantasy v.s. things supported by empirical evidence and logic.

6) What would you say to someone who tells you that they've directly experienced God, that there is plenty of logical, mathematical, and empirical evidence of God?  Assume this "someone" has no psychiatric history, has multiple collegiate degrees, and strongly grasps the scientific method as well as both inductive and deductive reasoning.

Good for them. Their experience is irrelevant to me, and everyone else, since their experience is singular and theirs alone. It's like if I was to say, the second pea in every pea pod makes me break out in hives and gives me allergies. Not all peas, just that one. That's meaningless to you, and doesn't mean you should start avoiding those peas, or giving them any consideration. So, it's great that you had an experience with god, but it has no effect or relevance to my life, no matter how much you yourself may be convinced that it does (also, there is more evidence to suggest you are crazy than to suggest that God is real).

[Rassah]

it's impossible to ignore the fact that the algebraic structure or "pattern" of language is emergent everywhere, in everything, always.

Actually, it's trivially easy to ignore, when that statement doesn't make any sense. Perhaps you can elaborate on it somewhat? What do you mean by language being emergent everywhere? Obviously there are vast spans of our universe that have never experienced or been subject to the concept of "language."

[Rassah]

Atheism makes no sense. If you want to call yourself an atheist because you don't believe there's a god, that's fine. But to try to claim that there can't be a god is just utterly insane.

In order of logic, from sane to insane:
Agnosticism: "There might be a moose in these woods."
Theism: "There is a moose in these woods, but I have no evidence."
Atheism: "There can't possibly, under any circumstance or at any point in time, be a moose in these woods, but I have no proof."

Sorry, that's not how I look at it, and not how I believe the definition applies. It should be:

Agnosticism: "There might be a moose in these woods."
Theism: "There is a moose in these woods, but I have no evidence."
Atheism: "There is no evidence that there is a moose in the woods, or that there ever was a moose in the woods, and thus the idea of a moose in the woods is simply irrelevant and shouldn't even be taken into consideration."

Clearly the atheist position is the most logical one, as the agnostic one would have to take into consideration every single creature that may or may not exist, or every single god or deity that was ever invented, to stay agnostic. Do you consider that every good w ever thought of might exist? And how does that affect your life?

[Rassah]

I have searched for truth and I have found it.

Does that mean you have quit searching? Because that is the biggest problem with and the biggest evil about religion: people believe they have found the truth, are content in thinking they now know everything important they need to know, and never bother to continue to progress beyond where they are. Like during the Dark Ages, when God was all the truth anyone needed, and anyone continuing to search was obviously not content enough with god, and thus should be burned or killed for being a heathen.

[hawkeye]

 

6) What would you say to someone who tells you that they've directly experienced God, that there is plenty of logical, mathematical, and empirical evidence of God?  Assume this "someone" has no psychiatric history, has multiple collegiate degrees, and strongly grasps the scientific method as well as both inductive and deductive reasoning.

Well firstly they can't show me logical, mathematical and empirical evidence of God because there is none.
 
But it would sound to me like they have taken psychedelic drugs.  Or something like that.  The brain is very imperfect, it doesn't have the precision of a computer hard-drive and can malfunction when on drugs, or if you are just generally feeling unhealthy or for all kinds of reasons.  Or maybe they are just lying.  Who knows?  

Why does God reveal himself to the stoner but not to the many thousands of very normal people who live their lives well and have never claimed to see God?   God must have a strange sense of humour.

And how does having a personal experience of god explain people from other religions who have claimed the same thing about their god or gods and don't have a psychiatric history?  I guess they were just hallucinating?

[cbeast]

Yeah. Too bad that some people don't realise that similar criticisms can also apply to modern empirical science.
A: My scientific methodology is sound.
B: How do you know?
A: The "Scientific Method" indicates that it's sound.

Related: "I don't understand it, but I trust that the scientists are probably correct."

It's not about "the scientists." Anyone can should mustuse the Scientific Method to the best of their abilities. Accept that you or they can be wrong.

[hawkeye]

Atheism makes no sense. If you want to call yourself an atheist because you don't believe there's a god, that's fine. But to try to claim that there can't be a god is just utterly insane.

In order of logic, from sane to insane:
Agnosticism: "There might be a moose in these woods."
Theism: "There is a moose in these woods, but I have no evidence."
Atheism: "There can't possibly, under any circumstance or at any point in time, be a moose in these woods, but I have no proof."

Sorry, that's not how I look at it, and not how I believe the definition applies. It should be:

Agnosticism: "There might be a moose in these woods."
Theism: "There is a moose in these woods, but I have no evidence."
Atheism: "There is no evidence that there is a moose in the woods, or that there ever was a moose in the woods, and thus the idea of a moose in the woods is simply irrelevant and shouldn't even be taken into consideration."

Clearly the atheist position is the most logical one, as the agnostic one would have to take into consideration every single creature that may or may not exist, or every single god or deity that was ever invented, to stay agnostic. Do you consider that every good w ever thought of might exist? And how does that affect your life?

I like these better

Agnosticism: "There might be a monster in Loch Ness."
Theism: "There is a monster in Loch Ness and I know some people who have personally experienced it but I have no evidence."
Atheism: "There is no evidence that there is a monster in Loch Ness, or that there ever was a monster in Loch Ness, and thus the idea of a monster in Loch Ness is simply irrelevant and shouldn't even be taken into consideration.  Knowing what we know the idea is ridiculous and contradictory.  It's basically just an old myth."

[BitChick]

I have searched for truth and I have found it.

Does that mean you have quit searching? Because that is the biggest problem with and the biggest evil about religion: people believe they have found the truth, are content in thinking they now know everything important they need to know, and never bother to continue to progress beyond where they are. Like during the Dark Ages, when God was all the truth anyone needed, and anyone continuing to search was obviously not content enough with god, and thus should be burned or killed for being a heathen.

Of course I am still learning. You can call it arrogant if you want, but I believe the Bible is true.  Sure I see truths in other religions and can study other religions (all religions have some elements of truth in them or no one would follow them) but the Bible has become my yardstick so to speak. It is my measuring stick in which to judge if things are true or not and how I need to live my life.  I need to "Hide God's word in my heart so that I might not sin against him."  The more I know the bible, the less likely I am to fall and make choices that go against God's will.

[BitChick]

I have searched for truth and I have found it.  I believe with everything in my being that the Bible is true. Call me crazy but I say that with great conviction.

So let's say I deny 100% of holy books, not just 99.5% of them like you do.  That means I am going to your cult's hell.  For ALL ETERNITY I am to be punished constantly and furiously with no rest.  And you're sitting up in heaven, knowing I am down there with billions of others, and you can experience paradise?  It doesn't bother you in any way?  

Why do you think Christians come across so desperate?  Christians are hated for witnessing and for sending out missionaries by many because they do not want to sit up in heaven without others.  Hey, I am even hated by some on here for sharing my beliefs.  But we share because we are concerned.  However, we realize that everyone does have free will and can choose to believe or not.  I cannot do anything about that.  The Bible says that there will be no more crying and no more pain in heaven so I am not sure about how it won't bother us that there are people not in heaven with us.  I have pondered that as well but do not have the answer.

In an earlier post I mentioned my unusual thoughts on hell compared to some Christians. I see that the Catholic teaching of Purgatory might be a little more correct (not that indulgences or praying for dead people works) but that God is fair and everyone will get a chance.  So in Sheol people will still get a chance to accept or reject.  I do think that those that reject Jesus here on earth might not get a second chance though.  Perhaps they have already made their choice?    

I have asked priests from both Christian and catholic beliefs and both day that being an atheist is not a sin and it does not equate to a trip to hell in the afterlife if there is one.

So it is better not to believe in God because that equals a free pass to heaven because they are an atheist?  There is nothing in the Bible that says that.  Atheism is a belief more then technically a "sin" I guess.  Perhaps that is where they are going with that?  Regardless,  the Bible is clear that all have sinned.  There is no one righteous. So regardless if Atheism is the sin that damns someone to hell is irrelevant.  There will be plenty of other "sins" to choose from that will be enough to do that.  I look at it like going to a court of law.  Let say I broke a law but did not know it was wrong.  The court could still find me guilty of breaking that law and send me to jail.  But if someone paid my debt for me I would be exonerated.  The same thing applies to us in regards to hell.  We are all damned to go there even if we do not believe in it.  God is the judge.  He will determine if our debt has been paid.  If we accept his free gift of salvation then we will be able to stand in the "trial" and be freed.

You miss my point. What I'm trying to say is that you can believe whatever you want in this life and God (if he exists) won't condemn you based on that. Sure, there are other sins. That's obvious. We all make mistakes and do bad things at points in our life. But not believing in God does not mean he will be more likely to send us to hell (or, in your analogy, judge us guilty). That's my point.

We will all be judged guilty, regardless of our belief or unbelief in God if we do not accept Him.  We are already condemned just by being born into a fallen world.  But there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ.  Jesus pays our debt if we just accept that free gift. This will tick most of you off here but I am saying that to be an athiest does make someone much more likely to go to Hell.  (Perhaps they have a chance in Sheol to accept or deny Christ there) But an athiest will not be able to stand in front of God and say, "Oh sorry.  I did not think you are real."  The Bible says in Matthew 10:33 "But everyone who denies me here on earth, I will also deny before my Father in heaven."

[the joint]

6) What would you say to someone who tells you that they've directly experienced God, that there is plenty of logical, mathematical, and empirical evidence of God?  Assume this "someone" has no psychiatric history, has multiple collegiate degrees, and strongly grasps the scientific method as well as both inductive and deductive reasoning.

Well firstly they can't show me logical, mathematical and empirical evidence of God because there is none.
 
But it would sound to me like they have taken psychedelic drugs.  Or something like that.  The brain is very imperfect, it doesn't have the precision of a computer hard-drive and can malfunction when on drugs, or if you are just generally feeling unhealthy or for all kinds of reasons.  Or maybe they are just lying.  Who knows?  

Why does God reveal himself to the stoner but not to the many thousands of very normal people who live their lives well and have never claimed to see God?   God must have a strange sense of humour.

And how does having a personal experience of god explain people from other religions who have claimed the same thing about their god or gods and don't have a psychiatric history?  I guess they were just hallucinating?

I think that what can be proven you cannot know, and what you can know cannot be proven.  This is because absolute knowledge is obtained through direct experience (not an experience 'of something,' but through experience, period) while 'proving' requires we reach indirectly to 'evidence' that is abstractly interpreted.

If I've felt the warmth of the sun on my face, I can't prove that to you no matter how many thermometers I find or no matter how many times I tell you I felt that warmth.  Ultimately, you need to trust that either I'm not lying or that thermometers are an objective measure of something subjective such as a warm feeling.  The experience of warmth is something that is known but cannot be proven.

As far as "Why does God reveal himself to the stoner," I can tell you that the Bible says, "Seek and you shall find," but note that it does not tell you what to seek.  It simply says to 'seek.'  While I denounced Christianity long ago (I was raised Catholic, denounced it and became a strict atheist, then eventually denounced atheism after I experienced it to be false), my experience resonates with several Bible passages, including this one.  Because of my experience in meditation I understand the power of "seeking" without having a predetermined object of search in mind.  If you observe purely and unbiased, such as in a meditative state where experience clearly diverges from the abstraction of it, absolute truth will reveal itself to you. 

Every photographer knows that to get an image with the most clarity, he must be totally still.  If he's bouncing around or moving while trying to take a picture, the resulting image will be blurry.  You need to learn to be like a good photographer, to still your mind and to observe with single-pointed concentration.  If you do, everything will become much more clear to you.

[the joint]

6) What would you say to someone who tells you that they've directly experienced God, that there is plenty of logical, mathematical, and empirical evidence of God?  Assume this "someone" has no psychiatric history, has multiple collegiate degrees, and strongly grasps the scientific method as well as both inductive and deductive reasoning.

Well firstly they can't show me logical, mathematical and empirical evidence of God because there is none.
 
But it would sound to me like they have taken psychedelic drugs.  Or something like that.  The brain is very imperfect, it doesn't have the precision of a computer hard-drive and can malfunction when on drugs, or if you are just generally feeling unhealthy or for all kinds of reasons.  Or maybe they are just lying.  Who knows?  

Why does God reveal himself to the stoner but not to the many thousands of very normal people who live their lives well and have never claimed to see God?   God must have a strange sense of humour.

And how does having a personal experience of god explain people from other religions who have claimed the same thing about their god or gods and don't have a psychiatric history?  I guess they were just hallucinating?

Logical proof for god is very easy to establish as, at least plausible.

Premise 1: God = absolute truth
Premise 2: Absolute truth exists
Therefore: God exists.

Premise 2 is a no-brainer given that any attempt to deny absolute truth only reaffirms its existence, so that only leaves Premise 1 as an issue, and it's not really a issue given that it's simply ascribing a different name to a constant.

There is plenty of empirical (physical) and mathematical (abstract) evidence for god, but you need to know philosophy which has the tools you need in order to make sense of the relationship between the mathematical and empirical, and this includes understanding the limitations of each discipline, and also the ways in which they compliment each other.

[the joint]

Wasn't to me, but I'll take a stab...

1) How can a meaningless system exist?  And if you can answer that one, then how can meaningful systems arise from a meaningless one?

Meaning is only subjective to the person experiencing it. A big ball of spinning fusing gas is meaningless. Some carbon-water bag hundreds of thousands of miles away is meaningless to the big ball of spinning fusing gas. But that ball of gas is quite important and meaningful to the carbon-water bag. So everything is generally meaningless to everything else, and only has relative subjective meaning to some...

2) Given the mathematical proof for "the boundary of a boundary = 0" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_(topology)) coupled with the sameness-in-difference principle of logic, how would you explain or model the relationship between you/I and the rest of the Universe?  Then, how would refute the idea that the Universe is as much mental (if not more so) than physical in nature?

I would ignore that proof as irrelevant, and simply point out that "mental" involves chemical and electrical signals perceiving and reacting to the already existing universe. The universe would continue to exist whether there are brains with sensory organs around to sense and react to it. And that's what separates us from the rest of the universe: we react to what exists, and what exists will exist with our without our reaction. For example, people who are wheel chair bound consider their chair as a part of them - as a part or extension of their body - despite it not actually being a part of their body. That's because the chair is such a part of their life and under their control that it might as well be a part of their body. The rest of the world they live in is not.

3) When you realize that you can't refute the Universe is mental in nature, why is the idea of God ridiculous? Or, at least, why is it more ridiculous than the assertion of God's non-existence?

I'll let you know when I realize it. So far I'm nowhere near that.

4) What is your definition of God, and how does it differ (if at all) from "truth" that one might seek, for example, through empirical study and observation?

Fantasy v.s. things supported by empirical evidence and logic.

6) What would you say to someone who tells you that they've directly experienced God, that there is plenty of logical, mathematical, and empirical evidence of God?  Assume this "someone" has no psychiatric history, has multiple collegiate degrees, and strongly grasps the scientific method as well as both inductive and deductive reasoning.

Good for them. Their experience is irrelevant to me, and everyone else, since their experience is singular and theirs alone. It's like if I was to say, the second pea in every pea pod makes me break out in hives and gives me allergies. Not all peas, just that one. That's meaningless to you, and doesn't mean you should start avoiding those peas, or giving them any consideration. So, it's great that you had an experience with god, but it has no effect or relevance to my life, no matter how much you yourself may be convinced that it does (also, there is more evidence to suggest you are crazy than to suggest that God is real).

We're talking about different levels of "meaning."  Meaning is what happens whenever information is communicated.  A big ball of spinning gas is not meaningless because you already extracted meaning from it, that is you know it's a big ball of spinning gas.  If it was meaningless, you wouldn't even have been capable of deciding that there was any information there at all.  As far as "relative meaning,"  again, ratio is the root word of "rationale" and you're never going to be able to talk about any kind of truth outside of a relational context.  But, subjectivity and objectivity are not mutually exclusive in all cases, and to that extent it's a false dichotomy.  I'd also like to point out that you conveniently change your contextual vantage point first by acting as though you can talk about a spinning ball of gas as utterly independent of us and existing in a positivistic sense (i.e. if we weren't here, that spinning ball of gas would still be here), but then you act as though this is different from "subjective meaning."  I'd like to point out that your assertions of the Universe's "pointlessness," as well as the interpretation of some information as a 'spinning ball of gas,' is subjectively derived meaning.

My point of bringing up the proof for "the boundary of a boundary = 0" was for you to then think about what this means for the "boundary" you perceive between mental and physical phenomena.

If your definition of god is that God = Fantasy, then I would agree with you that God =/= Absolute Truth.  However, I'm interested in Absolute Truth first and foremost, and I happen to call it god because I've learned that the Absolute Truth is known through the personal experience of it, and it is to that extent, well, 'personal.'  But, of course, this makes sense because you must always have a relationship with any known thing.

The fallacy in assuming that a wheelchair is a self again can easy be explore through the relationship of subject of object.  If I (Subject) perceive a wheelchair (object), then is the subject the object, i.e. am I the same as the wheelchair?  No.  If I (subject) perceive my body (object), then is the subject the object, i.e. am I the same as my body?  Again, no.  This is simply obvious, and to ignore this is mental insanity.  Don't think it isn't insane just because the vast majority of people think that way.  They're all insane to that extent,  just like it's insane that we still believe that things actually 'move' and travel distances in a positivistic world even though that's been debunked by empiricism, math, and theory.

Do you believe absolute truth exists?  What if that person said they directly experienced absolute truth instead of God?  The problem with your '2nd pea in the pod' analogy is that I agree with you 'a priori' that the pea pod exists while you don't agree that God exists, namely because I still suspect our underlying conceptual definition of God is different .  However, if we both believe absolute truth exists, then we both essentially believe 'God' exists since I set God = absolute truth; I simply use another name for it for 'meaningful' reasons, ones that inspire me and bestow the utility that my beliefs lend themselves to.  So, if you do believe absolute truth exists, even if you don't know what that truth is, then I would sure hope that a person's claim that they experienced it would be relevant to you.

If you told me that you the 2nd pea in 'every' pod gave you horrific symptoms, you had better believe that I'd be cautious around the 2nd pea in every pod, or I'd try to find out if there was any truth to the claim.  I might, for example, look to see if anybody else has claimed similar experiences and then explore the similarities and differences between those cases and yours.

[termhn]

6) What would you say to someone who tells you that they've directly experienced God, that there is plenty of logical, mathematical, and empirical evidence of God?  Assume this "someone" has no psychiatric history, has multiple collegiate degrees, and strongly grasps the scientific method as well as both inductive and deductive reasoning.

Well firstly they can't show me logical, mathematical and empirical evidence of God because there is none.
 
But it would sound to me like they have taken psychedelic drugs.  Or something like that.  The brain is very imperfect, it doesn't have the precision of a computer hard-drive and can malfunction when on drugs, or if you are just generally feeling unhealthy or for all kinds of reasons.  Or maybe they are just lying.  Who knows?  

Why does God reveal himself to the stoner but not to the many thousands of very normal people who live their lives well and have never claimed to see God?   God must have a strange sense of humour.

And how does having a personal experience of god explain people from other religions who have claimed the same thing about their god or gods and don't have a psychiatric history?  I guess they were just hallucinating?

Logical proof for god is very easy to establish as, at least plausible.

Premise 1: God = absolute truth
Premise 2: Absolute truth exists
Therefore: God exists.

Premise 2 is a no-brainer given that any attempt to deny absolute truth only reaffirms its existence, so that only leaves Premise 1 as an issue, and it's not really a issue given that it's simply ascribing a different name to a constant.

There is plenty of empirical (physical) and mathematical (abstract) evidence for god, but you need to know philosophy which has the tools you need in order to make sense of the relationship between the mathematical and empirical, and this includes understanding the limitations of each discipline, and also the ways in which they compliment each other.

Except that Christian God is not just absolute truth. He is not a concept. He is a sentient being. Sure, he is not a human. He is depicted to be everything that is good. But that still means that he makes decisions. Many of the things he does in the Bible (the flood for example, which he sends to earth because the angels are having sons with the daughters of man, therefore creating the nephilim, a behavior of which he does not approve) could be argued to not be the correct response to something. So, premise 1 is absolutely not true. Premise 2 on the other hand doesn't really make sense either but you can't empirically prove that there is no absolute truth either so I would be hypocritical if I said it didn't exist.

[the joint]

@"the joint" you have a hard time with local loop.

The fact that life give itself some meaning is just a local loop, and as so doesn't impose condition on the rest of the universe.

If the sun explode, earth would be reduced to dust, and the universe will continue as pointless as it was before.
The universe is pointless because the universe has no will.

The problem with human thinking, is it try to search meaning and patterns everywhere, that's how we evolved. Because it's useful to know that a lion wants to eat or that an other person has an aim, as it help us anticipate action of others and so survive with more efficiency.
Alas searching pattern where there is none is detrimental, and the worse is we will find (false) patterns.
Just like when you look in the sky and see faces, our brain is hard-wired to see faces everywhere, this doesn't mean there is faces drawn everywhere, you have just been tricked by your brain.

The same happen with the universe : "it has to have a meaning because otherwise my brain is lost".
So what an atheist do, is accept the fact that universe has no will, despite the fact that his primal brain cry for a meaning.
Other people would invent a supreme been that look like them to give them this meaning that they what so much.

The same goes for infinity or emptiness (or the absence of everything) , infinity and void are difficult concept to grasp. That's why people don't accept void, and always want to put something there, whether it is a god or a super alien.

Um, no.

Laws distribute to systems contained therein, and smaller systems owe their constructs to the syntactic structure of the larger systems they are nestled within.  You say I have a problem with "local loop," I say you have a problem understanding systems.  You're isolating certain parts of reality and trying to explain them without accounting for the larger systems in which they inhabit (e.g. life as utterly independent from non-life, etc.).  This is just plain unsound reasoning.  Start with the sameness-in-difference principle that states "any two relands x and y must necessarily share a common medium, even a medium of absolute difference" and you'll understand why this isn't a "local loop" problem.  The syntax of the "set of all sets" necessarily distributes to all sets nested therein. I'm not suggesting, as I think that you think I am, that the syntax of a smaller system necessarily distributes to larger systems.  

Yet, that's what you say. ( if A is in B,then B having a property P => A having a property P, but does not mean : A having a property X => B having a property X )
The "meaning" is a local property that we create to qualify life.
This property is irrelevant to the universe as a all.
So yes by saying the universe is meaningless we are wrong, we should say meaning is irrelevant to the universe.

Your statement about the sun blowing up and the Universe remaining "pointless" is hard to respond to, namely because it's just wrong.  I think it's interesting that you said the Universe has no will, but then you state that it "will continue" (semantic arguments hold more weight than you think).  Why will it continue?  Because of pointlessness?  Or because of some Universal laws that govern and guide Universal content in a particular way?

Your semantic argument is irrelevant because it exist "only" in English. So the second "will" is only denoting future. Please spare me those arguments.

Universal law of physique that is.
Opposing science and religion is merely a lost cause for religion.
It's been century that science push back religion from every material point of view (science don't deal with immaterial).
Centuries ago every bit of strange things was because of god (cloud, firefly, aurora Borealis, etc... ).
But now science explain those things, and will explain more and more in the future.
So resistance is futile.
You are deluding yourself if you think you can find any trace of god in the material world.

So what is left is "pure god", that is an invisible omniscient omnipotent yet unwilling to intervene as yet, supreme been.
Any other materialist assertion about religion is mass manipulation. (and if you are not the manipulator, then you are the manipulated, or both if you are into self-delusion)

That leave you with faith, that we may discuss, but only in philosophical term.

To say that finding patterns is a "problem" is utterly retarded.  Yes, I get what you mean about the "faces" and such (Mommy look! An elephant in the clouds!) but that's a cliche argument that goes nowhere quickly.  "Pattern" and "structure" are virtually synonymous, and it's impossible to ignore the fact that the algebraic structure or "pattern" of language is emergent everywhere, in everything, always.  

You keep saying that but without anything to sustain it.
Language is used for communication between two being.
I see no language in the universe, despite the fact that you think the universe is talking to you in some way, this is just caused by the drug you are taking, that release the same brain mechanism I was talking about, and make you see things !

Moreover, you can't even formulate a concept, thought, or sentence without utilizing patterns.  The simple communication of information is a necessary pattern inherent in any system, and there could be no system without patterns.

Can you see the pattern in the prime numbers ?
May be there is one, may be not, we don't know yet, but anyway that won't mean god/theUniverse is talking to you.

The Universe doesn't need to have meaning "otherwise my brain will be lost."  The fact that there is meaning (this is directly evident, we're talking about meaningful things right now) necessitates a meaningful syntax.  If you're suggesting that a smaller, meaningful system can emerge from a larger, utterly meaningless system, then you would be wrong.

I'm not invoking god to fill a patternless void.  I think you're invoking a void because you can't make sense of the patterns in front of you.

What pattern are you talking about ?
Every pattern I see make sense to me, even the fact that there is people believing in god.

You're misunderstanding my argument.  I'm making a deduction, not an inference.

To make it simple, let's say there are three systems:  1)  Me, 2) Universe, 3) Language.  Obviously there are far more, perhaps an infinite amount of identifiable systems, but these three should help clarify my position a bit.   I chose 'me' because it is a smaller, obviously known system.  I chose 'Universe' because I am equating it to the largest observable system.  Finally, I chose 'Language' because it is a special type of system, for it itself is an archetype of what a system is.  You could say that language as an algebraic structure is the most fundamental of all systems, a metasystem.  It's structure inherently allows for all other systems to arise.

Knowledge of this structure of this archetype allows us to make deductions not only about any identifiable system we ever encounter, but also about the relationships between systems in general.

Archetype S′ has a metaproperty P₁′ that deductively applies to all other systems P₁′(S₁, S₂, S₃, S₄...)

This metaproperty is the catalyst for the communication of information or content in a series of conditional operations x₁, x₂, x₃... contained within each system.

These conditional operations, the manipulation and communication of content, create the definition of the system as the result of definable boundaries -- meaning is the inevitable result.  To say there is no meaning is to say that there is no successful communication of any information occurring whatsoever, and thus that there is no definable system of any kind.  Systems absolutely rely on the communication of information not only within itself (throughput), but with other systems (input and output).

This metaproperty, as the catalyst for communication, naturally provides some rules of operation for how information is to be conveyed.  Particularly, it (the object of information) needs to be transmitted from a point A to a point B, there must be a subject to which the object of information relates, and there must be a processor or metaprocessor that interprets the information as definable/meaningful.  A metaprocessor is simply a processor that processes an object of information as related to some other subject; this 'other subject' is also an 'object of information' to the metaprocessor.

[the joint]

6) What would you say to someone who tells you that they've directly experienced God, that there is plenty of logical, mathematical, and empirical evidence of God?  Assume this "someone" has no psychiatric history, has multiple collegiate degrees, and strongly grasps the scientific method as well as both inductive and deductive reasoning.

Well firstly they can't show me logical, mathematical and empirical evidence of God because there is none.
 
But it would sound to me like they have taken psychedelic drugs.  Or something like that.  The brain is very imperfect, it doesn't have the precision of a computer hard-drive and can malfunction when on drugs, or if you are just generally feeling unhealthy or for all kinds of reasons.  Or maybe they are just lying.  Who knows?  

Why does God reveal himself to the stoner but not to the many thousands of very normal people who live their lives well and have never claimed to see God?   God must have a strange sense of humour.

And how does having a personal experience of god explain people from other religions who have claimed the same thing about their god or gods and don't have a psychiatric history?  I guess they were just hallucinating?

Logical proof for god is very easy to establish as, at least plausible.

Premise 1: God = absolute truth
Premise 2: Absolute truth exists
Therefore: God exists.

Premise 2 is a no-brainer given that any attempt to deny absolute truth only reaffirms its existence, so that only leaves Premise 1 as an issue, and it's not really a issue given that it's simply ascribing a different name to a constant.

There is plenty of empirical (physical) and mathematical (abstract) evidence for god, but you need to know philosophy which has the tools you need in order to make sense of the relationship between the mathematical and empirical, and this includes understanding the limitations of each discipline, and also the ways in which they compliment each other.

Except that Christian God is not just absolute truth. He is not a concept. He is a sentient being. Sure, he is not a human. He is depicted to be everything that is good. But that still means that he makes decisions. Many of the things he does in the Bible (the flood for example, which he sends to earth because the angels are having sons with the daughters of man, therefore creating the nephilim, a behavior of which he does not approve) could be argued to not be the correct response to something. So, premise 1 is absolutely not true. Premise 2 on the other hand doesn't really make sense either but you can't empirically prove that there is no absolute truth either so I would be hypocritical if I said it didn't exist.

The Christian God is interpreted in so many different ways -- and I haven't done nearly enough research on Christian history or the Bible to comment too much otherwise -- that it's hard to debate with you about it and know that we're talking about the same thing.  That being said, I agree that there are some ridiculous beliefs about God that are just plain unsound know matter how you try to spin it.

I think of the Christian God as omnipotent. omnipresent, and omniscient, that he was also Jesus, and that he "am who am."  I think we can at least agree that this is at least a broad, but general, start to the Christian definition of God.

Assuming for fuck's sake that God exists and he is omnipotent.  Well, an omnipotent being would also be able to stratify himself such that he would be less than himself at the same time that he is himself.  To that extent of Jesus and his relationship with God as de facto (basically the crux of 'christ'ianity), plausible based on the commonly held beliefs about the Christian god.

Your problem with premise 1 is because you have problems with premise 2.  You can't empirically 'prove' anything because of the problem of induction.  You can only 'prove' within a certain margin of error, and if you find any academic article that asserts a conclusion without allowing a margin of error (e.g. The results indicate a positive correlation between x and y, p < .05), then they totally fucked the scientific method.

True logic exists according to what the rules of logic indicate true logic to be.  Logic is a closed system, and it's a self-reinforcing system.  When you try to break this system, you will find that it's impossible too because it will automatically lead yourself to a contradiction.

It's absolutely impossible to deny absolute truth.  To deny absolute truth is to say it is the absolute truth there is no absolute truth.  If you say truth is relative, you are saying it is the absolute truth that truth is relative.  If you say there is more than one absolute truth, then you are saying that it is the absolute truth that...well...you get it. 

[termhn]

The Christian God is interpreted in so many different ways -- and I haven't done nearly enough research on Christian history or the Bible to comment too much otherwise -- that it's hard to debate with you about it and know that we're talking about the same thing.  That being said, I agree that there are some ridiculous beliefs about God that are just plain unsound know matter how you try to spin it.

In exodus, God confronts Moses by appearing as a burning bush. He tells moses to rescue the Israelites from egypt, where they are currently enslaved. Moses asks God what his name is, and God says his name is "I am." That is open to much interpretation, yes, but as he is actually HAVING a CONVERSATION with someone, and he is making decisions, he is SENTIENT. This whole abstract "absolute truth" BS cannot fit.

I think of the Christian God as omnipotent. omnipresent, and omniscient, that he was also Jesus, and that he "am who am."  I think we can at least agree that this is at least a broad, but general, start to the Christian definition of God.

If you think he is also jesus, or that jesus isn't the son of christ, then you hold Jewish beliefs.

Assuming for fuck's sake that God exists and he is omnipotent.  Well, an omnipotent being would also be able to stratify himself such that he would be less than himself at the same time that he is himself.  To that extent of Jesus and his relationship with God as de facto (basically the crux of 'christ'ianity), plausible based on the commonly held beliefs about the Christian god.

Why are we assuming for fuck's sake that God exists? Isn't that what we are debating right now? I'm not just going to assume he exists because you tell me to.

Your problem with premise 1 is because you have problems with premise 2.  You can't empirically 'prove' anything because of the problem of induction.  You can only 'prove' within a certain margin of error, and if you find any academic article that asserts a conclusion without allowing a margin of error (e.g. The results indicate a positive correlation between x and y, p < .05), then they totally fucked the scientific method.

Actually, no, my problem with premise one is NOT because I have a problem with premise 2. It's because God cannot equal absolute truth. It doesn't work. Absolute truth is not a sentient thing.

True logic exists according to what the rules of logic indicate true logic to be.  Logic is a closed system, and it's a self-reinforcing system.  When you try to break this system, you will find that it's impossible too because it will automatically lead yourself to a contradiction.

Yes, and your logic is flawed. The truth of your argument you can see above "Assuming for fuck's sake that god exists and he is omnipotent." You believe this because you think that god is absolute truth, but god cannot be absolute truth because absolute truth is not sentient and god is.

It's absolutely impossible to deny absolute truth.  To deny absolute truth is to say it is the absolute truth there is no absolute truth.  If you say truth is relative, you are saying it is the absolute truth that truth is relative.  If you say there is more than one absolute truth, then you are saying that it is the absolute truth that...well...you get it. 

This is just some abstract bullshit that is part of a completely different argument. I don't give a fuck whether absolute truth exists, because it has nothing to do with the existence of god.

[dank]

If one cannot believe in Jesus, is one ready to become Jesus?

The entirety of genesis 1-15 is about humans trying to become divine or become god and god punishing them for that. So, even of one does believe in Jesus, one is not ready to become Jesus.

Yall can not be jesus, that is fine.  I however will be jesus when I fly in a few years from now.  I have had visions of it.  I know someone who has experienced levitation spontaneously.

If he could achieve that, I could achieve that, anyone could.  You don't have to but it is possible.  When you are completely in the present, anything is possible.

The question becomes, if you had that chance, would you prefer to the bounds of a normal human life living normal human deaths?  Or would you prefer to be as boundless and powerful as the universe itself?

God cannot equal absolute truth. It doesn't work. Absolute truth is not a sentient thing.

God is absolute truth.  It is everything.

[the joint]

The Christian God is interpreted in so many different ways -- and I haven't done nearly enough research on Christian history or the Bible to comment too much otherwise -- that it's hard to debate with you about it and know that we're talking about the same thing.  That being said, I agree that there are some ridiculous beliefs about God that are just plain unsound know matter how you try to spin it.

In exodus, God confronts Moses by appearing as a burning bush. He tells moses to rescue the Israelites from egypt, where they are currently enslaved. Moses asks God what his name is, and God says his name is "I am." That is open to much interpretation, yes, but as he is actually HAVING a CONVERSATION with someone, and he is making decisions, he is SENTIENT. This whole abstract "absolute truth" BS cannot fit.

I think of the Christian God as omnipotent. omnipresent, and omniscient, that he was also Jesus, and that he "am who am."  I think we can at least agree that this is at least a broad, but general, start to the Christian definition of God.

If you think he is also jesus, or that jesus isn't the son of christ, then you hold Jewish beliefs.

Assuming for fuck's sake that God exists and he is omnipotent.  Well, an omnipotent being would also be able to stratify himself such that he would be less than himself at the same time that he is himself.  To that extent of Jesus and his relationship with God as de facto (basically the crux of 'christ'ianity), plausible based on the commonly held beliefs about the Christian god.

Why are we assuming for fuck's sake that God exists? Isn't that what we are debating right now? I'm not just going to assume he exists because you tell me to.

Your problem with premise 1 is because you have problems with premise 2.  You can't empirically 'prove' anything because of the problem of induction.  You can only 'prove' within a certain margin of error, and if you find any academic article that asserts a conclusion without allowing a margin of error (e.g. The results indicate a positive correlation between x and y, p < .05), then they totally fucked the scientific method.

Actually, no, my problem with premise one is NOT because I have a problem with premise 2. It's because God cannot equal absolute truth. It doesn't work. Absolute truth is not a sentient thing.

True logic exists according to what the rules of logic indicate true logic to be.  Logic is a closed system, and it's a self-reinforcing system.  When you try to break this system, you will find that it's impossible too because it will automatically lead yourself to a contradiction.

Yes, and your logic is flawed. The truth of your argument you can see above "Assuming for fuck's sake that god exists and he is omnipotent." You believe this because you think that god is absolute truth, but god cannot be absolute truth because absolute truth is not sentient and god is.

It's absolutely impossible to deny absolute truth.  To deny absolute truth is to say it is the absolute truth there is no absolute truth.  If you say truth is relative, you are saying it is the absolute truth that truth is relative.  If you say there is more than one absolute truth, then you are saying that it is the absolute truth that...well...you get it. 

This is just some abstract bullshit that is part of a completely different argument. I don't give a fuck whether absolute truth exists, because it has nothing to do with the existence of god.

Read it again. 

[termhn]

The Christian God is interpreted in so many different ways -- and I haven't done nearly enough research on Christian history or the Bible to comment too much otherwise -- that it's hard to debate with you about it and know that we're talking about the same thing.  That being said, I agree that there are some ridiculous beliefs about God that are just plain unsound know matter how you try to spin it.

In exodus, God confronts Moses by appearing as a burning bush. He tells moses to rescue the Israelites from egypt, where they are currently enslaved. Moses asks God what his name is, and God says his name is "I am." That is open to much interpretation, yes, but as he is actually HAVING a CONVERSATION with someone, and he is making decisions, he is SENTIENT. This whole abstract "absolute truth" BS cannot fit.

I think of the Christian God as omnipotent. omnipresent, and omniscient, that he was also Jesus, and that he "am who am."  I think we can at least agree that this is at least a broad, but general, start to the Christian definition of God.

If you think he is also jesus, or that jesus isn't the son of christ, then you hold Jewish beliefs.

Assuming for fuck's sake that God exists and he is omnipotent.  Well, an omnipotent being would also be able to stratify himself such that he would be less than himself at the same time that he is himself.  To that extent of Jesus and his relationship with God as de facto (basically the crux of 'christ'ianity), plausible based on the commonly held beliefs about the Christian god.

Why are we assuming for fuck's sake that God exists? Isn't that what we are debating right now? I'm not just going to assume he exists because you tell me to.

Your problem with premise 1 is because you have problems with premise 2.  You can't empirically 'prove' anything because of the problem of induction.  You can only 'prove' within a certain margin of error, and if you find any academic article that asserts a conclusion without allowing a margin of error (e.g. The results indicate a positive correlation between x and y, p < .05), then they totally fucked the scientific method.

Actually, no, my problem with premise one is NOT because I have a problem with premise 2. It's because God cannot equal absolute truth. It doesn't work. Absolute truth is not a sentient thing.

True logic exists according to what the rules of logic indicate true logic to be.  Logic is a closed system, and it's a self-reinforcing system.  When you try to break this system, you will find that it's impossible too because it will automatically lead yourself to a contradiction.

Yes, and your logic is flawed. The truth of your argument you can see above "Assuming for fuck's sake that god exists and he is omnipotent." You believe this because you think that god is absolute truth, but god cannot be absolute truth because absolute truth is not sentient and god is.

It's absolutely impossible to deny absolute truth.  To deny absolute truth is to say it is the absolute truth there is no absolute truth.  If you say truth is relative, you are saying it is the absolute truth that truth is relative.  If you say there is more than one absolute truth, then you are saying that it is the absolute truth that...well...you get it. 

This is just some abstract bullshit that is part of a completely different argument. I don't give a fuck whether absolute truth exists, because it has nothing to do with the existence of god.

Read it again. 

Read over it twice before submitting and once after.