Jump to content


A Small Question About God


73 replies to this topic

#51 TehKiller

    Silent Assassin

  • Member
  • 2,696 posts

Posted 14 August 2010 - 17:20

Well the irony I see is that a single priest is preaching about God's existence while in contrast atheists seem to swarm like flies on turd to preach how God doesnt exist.

If you converted to Atheism because of "getting your head filled" then its kinda dumb for you to start filling other peoples heads with bollocks they dont want to be annoyed with.
Posted Image

#52 CJ

    Rocket soldier

  • Member Test
  • 2,144 posts
  • Projects: Nothing yet

Posted 14 August 2010 - 17:38

View PostTehKiller, on 14 Aug 2010, 18:20, said:

Well the irony I see is that a single priest is preaching about God's existence while in contrast atheists seem to swarm like flies on turd to preach how God doesnt exist.

If you converted to Atheism because of "getting your head filled" then its kinda dumb for you to start filling other peoples heads with bollocks they dont want to be annoyed with.

You aren't make any sense, how could I have "got my head filled" if I believed in god? I mean, no one would try to convince me that god exists if I already believed that...
And maybe you're only seeing that atheists are swarming you because you believe in god? I am atheist, and all I see is that everyone (friends included) are always judging me for that and trying to convert me.

View PostChyros, on 11 November 2013 - 18:21, said:

I bet I could program an internet


#53 GuardianTempest

    Regular

  • Member
  • 180 posts

Posted 14 August 2010 - 22:59

And thus religious wars begun, how many throats can you shove your beliefs in, how many people converted, if we, like my best friend(atheist) IRL, respect each others belief and leave each other alone, then peace is restored.
---------------------------
We got derailed again.
OC's and stuff
DeviantArt
*RWUAAARAAUGHRWAGH!!*
--------------------------
Posted Image
"I am an artist of daydreams. With just a little material, be it a picture, audio or a simple thought, it could fuel a derivative masterpiece."
And I also do Walfas Comics...when I feel like it.

#54 Zhao

    That pro guy.

  • Project Team
  • 619 posts
  • Projects: Situation Zero

Posted 14 August 2010 - 23:55

Meh just play it safe by believing there's a god but don't get sucked into peoples way "God "Intended"

Human idea of religion is silly :read:

#55 Chyros

    Forum Keymist

  • Gold Member
  • 7,569 posts

Posted 15 August 2010 - 01:30

View PostAaron, on 15 Aug 2010, 1:55, said:

Meh just play it safe by believing there's a god
I.e. the Ancient Greek way. With mainstream religions like Christianity and Islam that trick doesn't work though :read: .
TN



Our Master has no need of money. But still he sits and counts it. As a meditation.
-The Book of Cataclysm


Posted ImagePosted Image

#56 Genrail

    Semi-Pro

  • Project Team
  • 234 posts
  • Projects: Private Map Contractor

Posted 15 August 2010 - 06:26

:read: this has gotten horribly off track... But the First Question still stands, in witch I found my question,

Can god make a rock so heavy that he himself,(God), can't lift?
This place still exists?

#57 Alias

    Member Title Goes Here

  • Member
  • 11,705 posts

Posted 15 August 2010 - 06:40

The first question was answered long ago.

Yes, an omnipotent God can create an infinitely heavy rock.
But an omnipotent God also has infinite strength, so the omnipotent God can lift the said infinitely heavy rock.

When dealing with infinites they do not have to cancel each other out.

Edited by Alias, 15 August 2010 - 06:42.

Posted Image

#58 BeefJeRKy

    Formerly known as Scopejim

  • Gold Member
  • 5,114 posts
  • Projects: Life

Posted 15 August 2010 - 09:09

You could probably prove that fact mathematically but that would take the fun out of God no?
Posted Image

#59 GuardianTempest

    Regular

  • Member
  • 180 posts

Posted 15 August 2010 - 09:23

Or he could just remove the paradox applying to him and instead imply it on Chuck Norris.
OC's and stuff
DeviantArt
*RWUAAARAAUGHRWAGH!!*
--------------------------
Posted Image
"I am an artist of daydreams. With just a little material, be it a picture, audio or a simple thought, it could fuel a derivative masterpiece."
And I also do Walfas Comics...when I feel like it.

#60 Camille

    girl eater

  • Project Team
  • 2,351 posts

Posted 15 August 2010 - 18:14

View PostGuardianTempest, on 15 Aug 2010, 9:23, said:

Or he could just remove the paradox applying to him and instead imply it on Chuck Norris.


right... no.

god could never create a rock of infinite weight because he doesn't physically exists.

it's goddamn religion, what is there to argue about? just keep that to yourself and enjoy it if you must.

OP could have handled this paradox without the involvement of a deity.
it's time to wake up

#61 Golan

    <Charcoal tiles available>

  • Member Test
  • 3,300 posts

Posted 15 August 2010 - 19:05

Without a deity, there isn't a paradox, as an infinite mass and the creation of it wouldn't make sense in the boundary of our university, making the question void.
Now go out and procreate. IN THE NAME OF DOOM!

#62 Camille

    girl eater

  • Project Team
  • 2,351 posts

Posted 15 August 2010 - 20:41

which makes me wonder if this 'discussion' is really of any value at all...
it's time to wake up

#63 Golan

    <Charcoal tiles available>

  • Member Test
  • 3,300 posts

Posted 15 August 2010 - 22:04

It's about burritos and time manipulation... so yeah, pretty sensible.

The real problem though is that not only is the issue void for a non-deity, it is also undefined regardless of any actual deity, as the current concept of mass/heat/whatever is used in this question does not support an "infinite" quality of any kind in our understanding of existence. For example, an infinitely heavy stone (as well as an infinitely hot burrito, due to mass–energy equivalence) would simply break the rules known to us, thus it's impossible to predict what would actually happen.

Edited by Golan, 15 August 2010 - 22:05.

Now go out and procreate. IN THE NAME OF DOOM!

#64 GuardianTempest

    Regular

  • Member
  • 180 posts

Posted 16 August 2010 - 08:30

View PostGolan, on 16 Aug 2010, 6:04, said:

It's about burritos and time manipulation... so yeah, pretty sensible.

The real problem though is that not only is the issue void for a non-deity, it is also undefined regardless of any actual deity, as the current concept of mass/heat/whatever is used in this question does not support an "infinite" quality of any kind in our understanding of existence. For example, an infinitely heavy stone (as well as an infinitely hot burrito, due to mass–energy equivalence) would simply break the rules known to us, thus it's impossible to predict what would actually happen.


So let's say Chuck Norris roundhouse kicked an infinitely hot and infinitely heavy rock-hard burrito in front of the whitehouse, then what?
OC's and stuff
DeviantArt
*RWUAAARAAUGHRWAGH!!*
--------------------------
Posted Image
"I am an artist of daydreams. With just a little material, be it a picture, audio or a simple thought, it could fuel a derivative masterpiece."
And I also do Walfas Comics...when I feel like it.

#65 CJ

    Rocket soldier

  • Member Test
  • 2,144 posts
  • Projects: Nothing yet

Posted 16 August 2010 - 08:35

View PostGuardianTempest, on 16 Aug 2010, 9:30, said:

View PostGolan, on 16 Aug 2010, 6:04, said:

It's about burritos and time manipulation... so yeah, pretty sensible.

The real problem though is that not only is the issue void for a non-deity, it is also undefined regardless of any actual deity, as the current concept of mass/heat/whatever is used in this question does not support an "infinite" quality of any kind in our understanding of existence. For example, an infinitely heavy stone (as well as an infinitely hot burrito, due to mass–energy equivalence) would simply break the rules known to us, thus it's impossible to predict what would actually happen.


So let's say Chuck Norris roundhouse kicked an infinitely hot and infinitely heavy rock-hard burrito in front of the whitehouse, then what?

You're aware that you're in a subforum which is supposed to hold serious discussions? Babbling around random things which doesn't even amuse the other users would normally lead to getting a warning.

View PostChyros, on 11 November 2013 - 18:21, said:

I bet I could program an internet


#66 GuardianTempest

    Regular

  • Member
  • 180 posts

Posted 16 August 2010 - 13:10

Ok fine, but I want to know why physics won't allow that and what will happen if it did.


EDIT: Just curious.

Edited by GuardianTempest, 16 August 2010 - 13:18.

OC's and stuff
DeviantArt
*RWUAAARAAUGHRWAGH!!*
--------------------------
Posted Image
"I am an artist of daydreams. With just a little material, be it a picture, audio or a simple thought, it could fuel a derivative masterpiece."
And I also do Walfas Comics...when I feel like it.

#67 Golan

    <Charcoal tiles available>

  • Member Test
  • 3,300 posts

Posted 16 August 2010 - 13:38

It's not per se not allowed, it's simply undefined - with our understanding of mass and energy, it doesn't make sense to have either being infinite. Heat and mass are defined by quantifiable features - infinity is not quantifiable. The models we use to describe the phenomenon of heat and mass simply do not cover this case, so no sensible information can be derived from them.
Anyways, in a mathematical sense, in the newton'ian model an infinitely heavy object would be by definition impossible to accelerate. Which kinda clashes with infinite heat, as infinitely fast Brownian motion (a direct result of infinite heat in the kinetic theory) also requires infinitely fast trajectory reflection, read acceleration. Not to speak of the fact that an infinitely heavy object would create an infinitely strong gravitational field that a) crushes the entire universe infinitely fast and b) makes every single physical law invalid anyways. It's also very likely that you won't get invited to the next party of Quantum Physicists. So yeah...

Edited by Golan, 16 August 2010 - 13:57.

Now go out and procreate. IN THE NAME OF DOOM!

#68 GuardianTempest

    Regular

  • Member
  • 180 posts

Posted 16 August 2010 - 21:34

View PostGolan, on 16 Aug 2010, 21:38, said:

It's not per se not allowed, it's simply undefined - with our understanding of mass and energy, it doesn't make sense to have either being infinite. Heat and mass are defined by quantifiable features - infinity is not quantifiable. The models we use to describe the phenomenon of heat and mass simply do not cover this case, so no sensible information can be derived from them.
Anyways, in a mathematical sense, in the newton'ian model an infinitely heavy object would be by definition impossible to accelerate. Which kinda clashes with infinite heat, as infinitely fast Brownian motion (a direct result of infinite heat in the kinetic theory) also requires infinitely fast trajectory reflection, read acceleration. Not to speak of the fact that an infinitely heavy object would create an infinitely strong gravitational field that a) crushes the entire universe infinitely fast and b) makes every single physical law invalid anyways. It's also very likely that you won't get invited to the next party of Quantum Physicists. So yeah...


Thank you very much.
OC's and stuff
DeviantArt
*RWUAAARAAUGHRWAGH!!*
--------------------------
Posted Image
"I am an artist of daydreams. With just a little material, be it a picture, audio or a simple thought, it could fuel a derivative masterpiece."
And I also do Walfas Comics...when I feel like it.

#69 Shirou

    Humble darkspawn

  • Member
  • 3,328 posts

Posted 07 November 2010 - 12:28

Necro



A very nice video from this nice atheist guy who does his very best in many videos trying to tell everyone why religion is nonsense, using the question of 'omnipotence' as well.

Please take 15 minutes of your time for this (or 12, the ending is a music vid)

Edited by Shirou, 07 November 2010 - 12:28.

Posted Image

#70 SquigPie

    Forum Pet

  • Member Test
  • 1,388 posts

Posted 07 November 2010 - 12:55

I wouldn't exactly call someone whom deems others opinions as "nonsense" nice.

Quote

As long as the dark foundation of our nature, grim in its all-encompassing egoism, mad in its drive to make that egoism into reality, to devour everything and to define everything by itself, as long as that foundation is visible, as long as this truly original sin exists within us, we have no business here and there is no logical answer to our existence.
Imagine a group of people who are all blind, deaf and slightly demented and suddenly someone in the crowd asks, "What are we to do?"... The only possible answer is, "Look for a cure". Until you are cured, there is nothing you can do.
And since you don't believe you are sick, there can be no cure.
- Vladimir Solovyov

Posted Image

#71 Alias

    Member Title Goes Here

  • Member
  • 11,705 posts

Posted 07 November 2010 - 13:02

He generalises quite a lot, but I do agree with him quite a bit (he pulls from Sagan quite a lot), and I'm a religious person.

Organised religion as a whole is what he is against, "personal religion", or what my beliefs tend to lean on conform with his reasoning. His points do not discredit the possibility of a creator. I agree with him on points such as 'hell' being an invention of fear and the like, though.
Posted Image

#72 Shirou

    Humble darkspawn

  • Member
  • 3,328 posts

Posted 07 November 2010 - 14:28

View PostSquigPie, on 7 Nov 2010, 13:55, said:

I wouldn't exactly call someone whom deems others opinions as "nonsense" nice.

Opinions are nonsense by definition because they are opinions, and not facts, and if an opinion differs from yours then what else would you do to it, than to deem it untrue?

Edited by Shirou, 07 November 2010 - 14:31.

Posted Image

#73 TehKiller

    Silent Assassin

  • Member
  • 2,696 posts

Posted 07 November 2010 - 14:49

View PostShirou, on 7 Nov 2010, 15:28, said:

View PostSquigPie, on 7 Nov 2010, 13:55, said:

I wouldn't exactly call someone whom deems others opinions as "nonsense" nice.

Opinions are nonsense by definition because they are opinions, and not facts, and if an opinion differs from yours then what else would you do to it, than to deem it untrue?


It works both ways. My opinion would be nonsense, by your definition, but so is his also considered nonsense.

That is if your definition isnt nonsense by itself.
Posted Image

#74 Golan

    <Charcoal tiles available>

  • Member Test
  • 3,300 posts

Posted 07 November 2010 - 15:26

View PostShirou, on 7 Nov 2010, 14:28, said:

View PostSquigPie, on 7 Nov 2010, 13:55, said:

I wouldn't exactly call someone whom deems others opinions as "nonsense" nice.

Opinions are nonsense by definition because they are opinions, and not facts, and if an opinion differs from yours then what else would you do to it, than to deem it untrue?

An opinion can be true and thus isn't nonsense by definition, nor is it compulsory to label differing opinions as untrue - one could *ghasp* even go so far as to reflect on one's own.

Besides, labeling something as nonsense or untrue are a whole different caliber of claiming something isn't correct.

Edited by Golan, 07 November 2010 - 15:44.

Now go out and procreate. IN THE NAME OF DOOM!





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users