A Small Question About God
#51
Posted 14 August 2010 - 17:20
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.
#52
Posted 14 August 2010 - 17:38
TehKiller, on 14 Aug 2010, 18:20, said:
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.
#53
Posted 14 August 2010 - 22:59
---------------------------
We got derailed again.
DeviantArt
*RWUAAARAAUGHRWAGH!!*
--------------------------
"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
Posted 14 August 2010 - 23:55
Human idea of religion is silly
#55
Posted 15 August 2010 - 01:30
Aaron, on 15 Aug 2010, 1:55, said:
The brave hide behind technology. The stupid hide from it. The clever have technology, and hide it.
—The Book of Cataclysm
#56
Posted 15 August 2010 - 06:26
Can god make a rock so heavy that he himself,(God), can't lift?
#57
Posted 15 August 2010 - 06:40
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.
#59
Posted 15 August 2010 - 09:23
DeviantArt
*RWUAAARAAUGHRWAGH!!*
--------------------------
"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
Posted 15 August 2010 - 18:14
GuardianTempest, on 15 Aug 2010, 9:23, said:
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.
#61
Posted 15 August 2010 - 19:05
#62
Posted 15 August 2010 - 20:41
#63
Posted 15 August 2010 - 22:04
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.
#64
Posted 16 August 2010 - 08:30
Golan, on 16 Aug 2010, 6:04, said:
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?
DeviantArt
*RWUAAARAAUGHRWAGH!!*
--------------------------
"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
Posted 16 August 2010 - 08:35
GuardianTempest, on 16 Aug 2010, 9:30, said:
Golan, on 16 Aug 2010, 6:04, said:
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.
#66
Posted 16 August 2010 - 13:10
EDIT: Just curious.
Edited by GuardianTempest, 16 August 2010 - 13:18.
DeviantArt
*RWUAAARAAUGHRWAGH!!*
--------------------------
"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
Posted 16 August 2010 - 13:38
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.
#68
Posted 16 August 2010 - 21:34
Golan, on 16 Aug 2010, 21:38, said:
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.
DeviantArt
*RWUAAARAAUGHRWAGH!!*
--------------------------
"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
Posted 07 November 2010 - 12:28
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.
#70
Posted 07 November 2010 - 12:55
Quote
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
#71
Posted 07 November 2010 - 13:02
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.
#72
Posted 07 November 2010 - 14:28
SquigPie, on 7 Nov 2010, 13:55, said:
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.
#73
#74
Posted 07 November 2010 - 15:26
Shirou, on 7 Nov 2010, 14:28, said:
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.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users