Total posts: 3,159
-->
@ethang5
Ok, let’s start over with the main question:
Does god exist?
Follow up question:
Who is that god?
Is he/she/it the only god, or are there other gods?
Hopefully you'll be able to go further than Athias.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Hot damnWaterPhoenix - You are the TOWN SANE COP. Each night you may visit another player. You will receive a report of “innocent” if town or “guilty” if third party or mafia.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
How much money you got?
How many problems you got?
How many people done doubted you?
Left you out to rot?
How many pray that you flop?
How many lawyers you got?
How many times you got shot?
How many people you shot?
How many times did you ride?
How many time you done died?
How many times did you cheat?
How many times did you lie?
How many times did she leave?
How many times did she cry?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
What you consider to be good debates is completely up to you, and it may not match my definition of what is a good debate. Everyone likes to debate on their own topics in their own styles, so just let them be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
First two I agree with.
Third point is subjective
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Abattoir or slaughterhouse.
And are you aware of how they treat the animals they slaughter?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Then we get into a 1-1-1 and it’s a 3-way tie
Created:
-->
@Speedrace
If I were maf and I was guaranteed to lose, I would want to screw over town lol
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Or I could just abstain from voting altogether
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
If you outed yourself as scum, well then you would look like jester and I would look like scum.
If there were two town votes on you, I would do something to convince everyone that I’m scum without explicitly saying it.
Created:
-->
@Speedrace
If you were mafia, who would you rather NK?
Town confirmed players or one jester boi?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
If it came down to that point I would hammer myself lol
My play was scummy af so it wouldn’t be too difficult to convince everyone that I was scum
Created:
-->
@Lunatic
Well shit. Game is over due to a mod fuck up lol.Nobody wins. Sorry to waste your time. Speed wasn't supposed to send a second key, motivator shouldnt have been able to visit him.I feel bad but not that bad since its only a quickfire.
For real?
<br>
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
It's AXIOMATIC. (IFF) god = infinite (AND) god = exists (THEN) exists = god
This would work, if the premises are substantiated. They’re not.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
That works great for a DEISTIC god.But it's important to remember that DEISM is functionally identical to ATHEISM.
I’m very aware of this.
Every religion that believes in a holy-lawmaker believes in a logically incoherent description of gods.
This doesn’t mean that there is 100% no god.
Created:
-->
@Athias
If you expect others to substantiate their claims, then you should be able to substantiate your own.Ok, then I will assume that you do not have any evidence to begin with.Assume away.
Either you are seriously messed up, or the syllogism presented holds no weight whatsoever.It's your argument. I did not invoke Hitler. I merely corrected the logical structure.
Yes, and I'm showing that it's either useless or horrible via reductio ad absurdum
"This means an infinite number of things exist. Ok then."Everything we perceive must exist. This is irrefutable.
What about the things people perceive during hallucinations?
Created:
-->
@Athias
This means an infinite number of things exist. Ok then.No, it isn't. Belief is a component of cognition; cognition is a component of perception; perception is a component of subjective existence.
Created:
-->
@Athias
<br>"Our" not having the evidence is not the same as "there is no evidence." The latter is clearly ontological. You'd have to inform and substantiate that claim.
"Evidence" is the information that is available to us. See the definition.
But, I'm not interested in engaging beyond this point.
Fine with me.
I'm not dodging your point. I'm choosing to not respond.
Ok, then I will assume that you do not have any evidence to begin with.
Fine.p: I can believe that Hitler did nothing wrong.q: Therefore, I do believe that Hitler did nothing wrong.Exactly.
Either you are seriously messed up, or the syllogism presented holds no weight whatsoever.
If I told you that I had a BlimGlorp, which I describe to you as a ten-story-tall, 700 ton elephant sculpture in my room, and when you came over, you found that it was actually a small plastic toy that could fit in the palm of your hand, would you consider my original claim "true" (with a false or inaccurate description)?I mean, I did indeed have a BlimGlorp, so...And it was 10 stories tall (if you compare it to a miniature skyscraper)...And it was 700 tons (if you use purely imaginary measurements)...I believe you've answered your own question.
I didn't say this. 3RU7AL did.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Also, whether you believe something is completely irrelevant to whether or not it actually exists.p: I can believe Xq: therefore, I do believe X.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Similarly, since God exists outside of the observable universe,Not necessarily, consider Spinoza's perfectly logical god.
Where did this "perfectly logical god" come from? Did it create itself?
...and we are unable to observe anything outside of the universe,At least at this particular moment.
Unless we can figure out how to observe something at faster than the speed of light, no.
...we will never be able to 100% know whether a particular god/set of gods exists or not.But what we CAN do is analyze the DESCRIPTIONS of these god claims and identify multiple critical and fundamental logical incongruities.We can be quite certain that incoherent descriptions of gods are FALSE descriptions.
True, but this isn't addressed to a particular god, only "god" in the general sense.
Created:
-->
@Athias
I never said it was this thread. It was in reference to a past thread you created, "there's no evidence for a particular god's existence." You led me to believe that you were constructing a proof that you would, as of yet, abandon, and when prompted for further information, you, as far as I'm concerned, lied. I choose whom I engage in debate over certain subjects, and I sustain a certain level of decorum.
To be plainly honest, I forgot about this. To make it up with you, I'll present a proof now:
From Oxford [1]:
evidenceNOUNmass noun
In all of the available body or facts of information we have regarding the existence of god, we don't have any evidence that definitively, and completely, prove any one deity. If we did, then everyone would believe that god/those gods that the evidence proved the existence of. Since this is not the case, we can say that there is no evidence for any particular god/gods.
Anyways, the person stating something (in this case, asking someone else making the claim to substantiate it) has nothing to do with the statement itself, since literally anyone else could have made the exact same statement that I made to you. In other words, it's not an excuse to dodge my point.
That's not his argument.It's:p: I can believe Xq: therefore, I do believe X.
Fine.
p: I can believe that Hitler did nothing wrong.
q: Therefore, I do believe that Hitler did nothing wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Are you aware of how most (if not all) grocery stores obtain their meat?Also, where do you usually get your meat from?Grocery store.
Created:
-->
@Athias
p: I can believe X.q: Therefore, I do X.
p: I can believe that daily human sacrifices are necessary to ensure that the sun rises tomorrow.
q: Therefore, I do human sacrifices on a daily basis.
Is this solid?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
@3RU7AL
@Athias
@Athias
I won't. I will not answer the supplication of one who has denied me the same courtesy.
I haven't made a claim on this thread, so I have nothing to substantiate.
But if you really want me to answer my own questions, fine.
@3RU7AL, Athias, ethang5
1. We don't know
2. We don't know
3. We don't know
The reason that "we don't know" is the only answer that we can say is because of the fact that God (or gods) exist outside of the observable universe. How is this always the case? Because God (or one out of more than one gods) created the observable universe. The observable universe consists of everything inside it, so if the god/gods were inside the universe, that means that they created themself/themselves. Unless this is what you believe (in which case you also have to substantiate it), we can come to the conclusion that God/gods must exist outside of the observable universe.
The observable universe contains everything that we can observe. It is contingent upon the speed of light, c, which is the speed of causality. Any experiments that we do can only affect the surroundings at the speed of causality, which means that no matter what experiments we do, they can never determine something outside of the observable universe. Hence, God is unobservable.
As demonstrated by thought experiments such as Schrödinger's Cat and Russel's Teapot, if we are unable to obtain all information in a system, then we are unable to come to a conclusive answer. No one can say that the cat in the box is 100% alive or 100% dead, or that there is or isn't a teapot in between Earth and Mars. If we opened the box, or were able to observe every cubic inch of space in between Earth and Mars, we would be able to answer "yes" or "no", "alive" or "dead". However, since we aren't able to do so, we are left with "we don't know". Similarly, since God exists outside of the observable universe, and we are unable to observe anything outside of the universe, we will never be able to 100% know whether a particular god/set of gods exists or not.
@Athias
Your turn
Created:
-->
@Athias
Does god exist?YesIs he/she/it the only god, or are there other gods?Other gods do exist, yes.
Good. Now substantiate your claims.
- God exists
- He/she/it is accompanied by other gods
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I object also to anyone who causes unnecessary suffering or takes pleasure in killing an animal. The killing of the animal should be done quickly, in the most humane way possible for the purpose of sustaining your life and/or providing you with much-needed nutrients. That is why we give thanks for the food. We, as Christians recognize God permits us to kill animals for our survival and nourishment.
If you kill an animal when you aren’t hungry, would that be immoral?
Also, where do you usually get your meat from?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
@Athias
Ok, let’s take a step back and start from square one.
Does god exist?
Follow up question:
Who is that god?
Is he/she/it the only god, or are there other gods?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
@Athias
Also, how is the bible credible?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
<br>True, if you are starving, and the only thing to eat is a cow or antelope, you would be justified in killing an animal. However, in the developed world, it is entirely possible to subsist purely off of a vegan diet. https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/the-vegan-diet/ This, according to some people, means that eating meat when you don’t have to is immoral, since it leads to the unnecessary death of an animal.Why would that be immoral?
Because it causes unnecessary suffering upon the animals killed to provide you with the meat, and causing unnecessary suffering is immoral. This is their rationale.
So, if you were a Christian and believed it is wrong to eat animals I should not pass judgment on you or tempt you beyond what you are able to accept. Maybe one day your understanding would chance. But, if I am invited to a vegetarian's house for dinner I should not offend them by refusing to eat what the offer. In the same way, when my brother-in-law, who is a vegetarian, comes to visit I prepare vegetarian dishes for his stay.Again, I’m not saying that this is my personal stance, but it is certainly a valid one.And, if that is a person's choice then I respect it.
Ok, so you and I have different stances on this moral issue, and both of them are acceptable. Is this the case?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
@Athias
Is the Judeo-Christian god the one and only god?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
True, if you are starving, and the only thing to eat is a cow or antelope, you would be justified in killing an animal. However, in the developed world, it is entirely possible to subsist purely off of a vegan diet. https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/the-vegan-diet/ This, according to some people, means that eating meat when you don’t have to is immoral, since it leads to the unnecessary death of an animal.
Also, certain religions ban the consumption of certain meats. For example, in Hinduism, cows are sacred, so killing them would be immoral from a religious perspective.
Again, I’m not saying that this is my personal stance, but it is certainly a valid one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Ok. Some people would consider what you are doing to be immoral.Beef, chicken, lamb, poultry, and other meat when travelling in different cultures. I've eaten all kinds of antelope, ostriches, elk, giraffe, buffalo, raw eel, 21-day duck eggs, numerous kinds of fish, etc.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
@Athias
All spirituality is delusional except for the spiritual followers of JESUS.
It's pretty obvious that 3RUTAL was parodying what he expected to be the Christian response.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Yes, I do.
Beef?
Do you think it is a moral issue?
I don't, but some people do. I'll get there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
I DON'T FEEL VERY MOTIVATEDI'm motivator
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
What does that do?Sure, I’m the Justice
Created: