So My Highschool "European History" Teacher

[Random User]

^Looked into that character and nooo I don't hold a hatred of the human race. I can't stress that enough. I just also don't care for the general population. I put everyone on the same level of importance to me until I befriend them or get to know them. So if a group of people I have absolutely no connection to die in a Wal Mart fire and it doesn't affect my life it doesn't really seem an issue to me.

[I REALLY HATE POKEMON!]

None of you believes in God. Simultaneous eternity and omnipotence are just words for things you can't comprehend. You believe in the effects of God, and have no concept for God.

I do believe in God, and those are simple concepts, even to me. The possibilities are virtually unlimited when considering what you could do when you have always existed and can do anything, but that doesn't mean you can't get the gist of it. Any fool can, more or less. In fact, I remember hearing about studies done on religious folk and Atheists. Generally, the Atheists were more intelligent. But still the unintelligent can even grasp the concept enough.

The application of "because God" is a subjective judgement.

God is as real as you or I. So then, what He says goes, no ands, ifs or buts. It's out of our hands now. I'm not making a judgement other than the one to obey Him. Do you read "2+2=4" and then make any judgement about its application? How could you? You're making it seem as if you or I have much say in the matter.

I am interested in absolute truth. This is an agnostic point of view. The difference here, is that I am able to evaluate based on the situation: God creates earth, God creates time, God causes effects - rainstorms, eruptions, whatever you want - and it has the same result as if it did on its own. So from my objective standpoint, it's an irrelevant discussion.

You miss the point. It's not about eruptions or tsunamis but about God's views. He views murder as a sin. The man shouldn't have died, a moral wrong has been done and should be viewed in such a light, not because of our way of thinking but because God says so.

Bear with me; if I'm missing your point, it's an accident.

[Bomby]

Good evening,

I'd just like to arbitrarily break into this topic and remark that the title of the thread makes it look like European History is a hypothetical, incorrect, or unfulfilled subject matter.

Thank you. Good night.

[Deepfake]

I do believe in God, and those are simple concepts, even to me. The possibilities are virtually unlimited when considering what you could do when you have always existed and can do anything, but that doesn't mean you can't get the gist of it. Any fool can, more or less. In fact, I remember hearing about studies done on religious folk and Atheists. Generally, the Atheists were more intelligent. But still the unintelligent can even grasp the concept enough.

God is as real as you or I. So then, what He says goes, no ands, ifs or buts. It's out of our hands now. I'm not making a judgement other than the one to obey Him. Do you read "2+2=4" and then make any judgement about its application? How could you? You're making it seem as if you or I have much say in the matter.

You miss the point. It's not about eruptions or tsunamis but about God's views. He views murder as a sin. The man shouldn't have died, a moral wrong has been done and should be viewed in such a light, not because of our way of thinking but because God says so.

Bear with me; if I'm missing your point, it's an accident.

Omnipotence and Omniscience are names for the absence of restrictions, so is eternity. Because you have no means via which to even describe these concepts save the lack of an experienced and recognisable definition (time, location, etc), you are only admitting that time or power are limited to a context. Removal of that context only makes the term inapplicable.

We're not going to be able to continue a discussion, because you are focusing on whether or not my statements conflict with your own understanding. The answer to that will be "of course they do," because you have a very limited understanding of my statements. This is a very open-mind/closed-mind situation.


The 2 plus 2 argument is an inane fallacy in itself, because we have no perception for multiples of instance. To have 2 of the exact same bottle would only cause the bottle to exist twice. Existence is an all or nothing, a binary value. It has the options of "yes" or "no" - for the bottle in front of me to actually exist fully and then again exist fully again, simultaneously, it will only cause this single bottle to exist once.

Your understanding of multiples is limited to your grouping concept - you label the potential for a group and numerate the instances of objects in that group. You're only counting the amount of times that you can recognise similarity between separate objects. The group is your concept. If we were to say "how many instances can this single bottle exist" the answer is once. Every time you add an instance of bottle, it still only exists once.

[CaptHayfever]

So perhaps it would be more accurate to say "congruent twins" instead of "identical twins."

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

[Deepfake]

Numbers are fun, as a concept. My description is actually a Platonistic concept pertaining to the way in which your perceptions must compare to your ideal standard; your perfect idea of a chair or a girl or a flower - the concept to which you must compare to determine recognition. Ideas are corollary, though, and they're simply a recognition method. You perceive ideas so you can correctly assess whether an object is subjectively similar enough to another object.

Some idiots have decided, over time, that Plato actually meant that there is some sort of perfect god chair via which all chair ideas must have originated, in imitation. That's blatant gibberish and a clear misunderstanding of an otherwise perfectly reasonable concept.



I don't mean to say that nobody has invested their trust and their being into their religion, though, but the God concept inherently lacks definition. It is unlike other perceptions, because it is literally a recognition of the inability to perceive. Because of the inability to perceive or describe a limitless God or the intent of a limitless being (here's a clue: intent is specific, specificity implies restriction) you are inherently stating that you believe in nothing, because you are perceiving nothing.

The lightning statement has not a thing to do with whether or not you think Zeus is lobbing bolts at the earth below him. It has everything to do with you perceiving that there are things, and perceiving that they began somehow in some regard.

Your logic would be as follows:

There are things, they need to have come from somewhere. They must have been created by someone or something. When asked "what proof do you have of this creator" you point to all of the things that the creator must have created. Essentially, you are using your perception of a thing existing as justification for its creator, and then using the creator's creation as justification for the creator.

You're naming your inability to perceive an exit to a circular rationalization. You and your demand have created the necessity for the circular rationalization. Labelling the (unavailable) exit to your self-argument with the word God does not explain it any further. You've simply hit the roof on your own ability to understand being.

[I REALLY HATE POKEMON!]

[quote="Cosmonautical]Your logic would be as follows: There are things"]

I get lazy when talking with you. I do intend to respond to the rest of what you've said, but it takes extra effort to adequately word my opinions so they don't look so bad by comparison, hahahah.

Anyway, the "Look around, it must be God" argument actually holds some weight when you trace back the origins of existence. Once you go back far enough, even the likes of Richard Dawkins can't account for everything, namely life and its inherent complexity. So religion comes in with its explanation, and throws in its two cents.

See, I personally try and fail to make sense of the universe, life, and God. My perceptions and logic fail me when attempting to figure it all out. That goes for every living person today, to different extents. Nobody has all of the answers.

What I'm trying to get at is God is beyond us. The Bible puts that plainly. We're unable to fully understand God and His ways, thus we rely on faith in what we can only begin to understand. We know he's capable of anything, simply put. That includes creating us and everything and that's good enough.

Not to say I'm against intellectual pursuits, but I'm not gonna waste my time figuring out what can't be understood.

I'm not sure you understand the stance the Bible wants us to take, so that's where some of our problems in this conversation come from.

[Spritedude]

Oh man, now religion's coming into play. It was only a matter of time.

[QUOTE=IRHP]Anyway, the "Look around, it must be God" argument actually holds some weight when you trace back the origins of existence. Once you go back far enough, even the likes of Richard Dawkins can't account for everything, namely life and its inherent complexity. So religion comes in with its explanation, and throws in its two cents.[/QUOTE]

You're speaking from the standpoint that every question must have an definite answer, which may or may not be true, but often we don't have enough information to form a belief one way or the other. Nobody knows how the universe was created. The Big Bang Theory is the closest we can get, which is still only a theory, but theories are strongly supported by evidence, they aren't just hypothetical ideas scientists made up. That being said, it's only a theory because nobody knows absolutely for sure how this existence started, and we most likely never will. You're right that scientists and intellectuals such as Richard Dawkins can't answer how the universe began or where it came from (although they can answer how it didn't), but that doesn't necessarily place any demand for an answer in place of the one we don't have, especially not one that has no evidence to support it. Admitting you don't know something is a much more honorable answer than filling in the blanks with supernatural entities.

Life seems complex, remarkable, and "right" to us because we're familiar with it. This state of being just happens to be how the universe played out, there's nothing remarkable about it. Say you're watching a lottery game with 1 million people and one person is chosen as the winner, are you surprised when someone wins? No, because someone had to. The chance of someone winning is 1 in 1, same with the way the universe is, it had to end up somewhere, and this is it. The universe could've turned out any other way and it wouldn't be any more remarkable.

[quote="IRHP]What I'm trying to get at is God is beyond us. The Bible puts that plainly. We're unable to fully understand God and His ways"]

If God was "beyond" us, then how would we even know of his existence? Saying we can't understand something is simply a disguised way of admitting you can't prove it, and that you can't justify or back up your claim. Wording answers poetically doesn't give them a free pass from reason. The Bible isn't an valid answer, it's an ancient book full of impossibilities and contradictions, and honestly, it perplexes me that people take it so seriously and let it govern their lives.

Faith has no place in logical arguments. Faith may justify belief for yourself, but it does nothing for others, not without irrefutable evidence. Something isn't true just because you're dedicated to believing it, and vice versa.

In no way am I trying to insult you (or any other theists), nor do I think of you as inferior because of your beliefs, but I do believe humanity needs to become more educated in logic and reasoning, and this flawed way of thinking "I don't know, therefore God" is definitely keeping this from happening.

[Deepfake]

I get lazy when talking with you. I do intend to respond to the rest of what you've said, but it takes extra effort to adequately word my opinions so they don't look so bad by comparison, hahahah.

I appreciate your effort, but I'd rather not continue the discussion because you are reading all of these observations as separate points, and potentially opinion. They are a single compounded fact. I'm not disagreeing with you, because you are essentially stating to me over and over again that your understanding is subjective and it is preventing you from acquiring an objective understanding. I agree with that sentiment, even though it is not your intended statement.

The actual concept of absolute right or wrong is impossible, because right and wrong is like left or right - they are relative or subjective statements. Even in your impractical religion, you believe that a God gives you free will in a world with circumstance. Even your own religion is declaring this concept of God's will to be contradictory and therefore impossible in the realm of "absolute truths." For you to have a will apart from God's means that you have evaluated God's will. That means there is no universal will, only a will that you are necessitated to comply with, were you to chose a road that is simple to travel.

Listen to the language defining the terms: a "universal" will MUST contain all wills, as it is universal. It would not be possible to have free will, were a universal will present.

If God was "beyond" us, then how would we even know of his existence? Saying we can't understand something is simply a disguised way of admitting you can't prove it, and that you can't justify or back up your claim. Wording answers poetically doesn't give them a free pass from reason.

This is actually a corollary point to the statement that I've made, where it is inherently impossible to believe in God because God is an undefinable anti-concept. It is very silly to say that "Things exist, they must have come from somwhere. I know, they came from the guy that was ALWAYS THERE." because essentially you are refusing to accept that existence must be of its own accord, otherwise it is not existence. You rationalize that a thing cannot always have been, it must have an origin, and then you explain its creation via the concept of a creator that has no origin and does not need one.

This is an "I think, therefore I am" scenario. You perceive there is an existence, there is a reality, there is a world, and thus you are the creator of it. Without your action of perception, there is no world, because the world concept is your concept. It is the limit to a human's perception of his own perception. Every rational statement becomes circular, because you are perceiving that you must a perceive a thing to acknowledge its existence. Your motivation for perceiving that thing is to verify that it exists. Your concept of it existing only occurs because you have perceived it to exist.

Life seems complex, remarkable, and "right" to us because we're familiar with it. This state of being just happens to be how the universe played out, there's nothing remarkable about it. Say you're watching a lottery game with 1 million people and one person is chosen as the winner, are you surprised when someone wins? No, because someone had to. The chance of someone winning is 1 in 1, same with the way the universe is, it had to end up somewhere, and this is it. The universe could've turned out any other way and it wouldn't be any more remarkable.

I think an accurate and parallel way to explain this is that we value life because life is a question that answers itself. It is a repeating cycle, a pattern. We can measure this in protein strands, etc, but the fact is that we are hard-wired to sustain ourselves. We cannot imagine a way in which that can be impractical or wrong or bad, because these concepts of good and bad were created by us. Our consciousness, our method of thought arose via the gradual evolution of this repeating, self-fulfilling pattern in time. You cannot think a thought that prevents you from thinking.

[Kil'jaeden]

This "free will" thing is a rather new idea.