Darkblade

Why would all bets be off? If something is caused, it must have a specific effect. If something randomly occurred, then that randomness must be uncaused, for if it were specifically caused, it would have a specific, nonrandom outcome. I guess I just don’t see how a specific event could cause a truly random effect. I don’t understand how R+1=? could make sense, where R is given a value. (Remember that it is not humans or any conscious being perceiving, predicting, or calculating the equation; the equation is forced to be solved by reality itself, as a function of reality.) I understand R+x=? to make sense, as x is truly random, its value having not been determined by anything before it, i.e., uncaused. (In those equations, R represented the before state of the reality of the equations.) This has nothing to do with the perception or predictability of the outcome, just whether it is truly deterministic or truly random.

long winded fool

But the programmer could intervene in his program all he wants. He can make anything happen, but in order to make a thing happen, he must program it to happen. Therefore when the thing takes place, a digital skeptic will be able to show without fail the code, which allows for the thing to occur and assume that it's just the natural way the program runs, because it is. The programmer could also theoretically program a messenger to deliver a specific message. He couldn't make the digital people understand his nature, being outside the program, but he could program one of the people to communicate a specific message. But the programmed entity that communicates the message could also then be proven to be just a digital man. Any miracles that the programmer could program his digital avatar to perform could be proven to be perfectly understandable applications of the programming code. The only perceptible way he can intervene is by using the syntax of the program, i.e. naturally. Was the formation of the solar system a divine intervention or a natural random process? In the programming analogy, there can be no difference. Whatever the intervention is, it is always completely natural.

I'm not trying to prove the existence of God. I'm showing that the existence of God not as illogical a notion as most atheists think. Unless you maintain the assumption that the universe is not created and just a random thing in motion, it is very difficult to present logical dilemmas to the existence of God. Why should one assume that the universe is a created system? I'm not sure one should. If this is why atheism is more logical than theism, this makes sense to me. Most of the other reasons usually presented by atheists do not contradict the notion of a God not subject to space and time. Once you grant "God," it is hard to find rational contradictions. This doesn't mean you ought to assume "God," but it does mean that "God" is not so ridiculous a concept as is often portrayed. The universe executes in a cause and effect manner much like a program. This doesn't mean that it is a program, but it appears similar. Since all programs have programmers, what if the universe had a programmer? And then on into theistic ideas. No reason for a logical jump into assuming a programmer, but an understandable speculation that leads to a surprisingly stable possibility of a "God."

Jobar

For those interested in lwf's interesting, though- you guessed it!- long-winded take on theology, look at the excellent discussion here.

mike_decock

You could substitute the possibility of a "God" with "The Matrix" or assume that you are God living in a program of your own design and the speculation is equally stable.

Are "The Matrix" or "I am God" any less logical than "God".

-Mike...

long winded fool

Interesting. I don't understand how one could be their own programmer, but yes, "God" would merely be a label for an abstract thing, like The Matrix, The Great Pumpkin, Santa Claus, or what have you. Since there is no way to wrap your mind around the nature of "the programmer," any word which connotes anything tangible would be innaccurate. Since "God" seems to connote an intangible thing which cannot be logically understood, it would be an acceptable label, in my opinion. It would be an unnacceptable label for any who think of something that can be comprehended when they think of God, (i.e. white beard, robes, crown.) If "The Matrix" is the word one uses for the space-time continuum, then "The designer of The Matrix" could be substituted for God. You can subsitute terms in any analogy, as long the analogy remains apt. If you don't like "God" insert whatever label in your mind most closely fits with the programmer in the analogy. Maybe you can describe it better than I can.

7thangel

IMO, we are decieved having free will because we were given the knowledge. But our knowledge is not under our control. Sure we have schools to increase our knowledge, yet not "everyone" can go to school and learn the same, or gain the same knowledge as we "will expect." And since is our free will depends on our knowledge, we are therefore not in control of our will.

And the funny thing is that learning, does not really mold us to have free will. On the contrary, we learn to adopt deterministic systems.

What can I say, "the TRUTH will set as free because where ever we turn we are somebody's/somethings plaything!!" The only advantage I have, I think, is knowing that my God had known such secret before me, or even before the world knew it. It is a very strong reason that convinces me that my God exist.

7thangel

Understand, Mike, learning is important fo you to know the enjoyment you are talking about. That is my argument of the existence of evil, and the flaw in what you were saying.

mike_decock

I'm sorta particular to the "I am God" concept right now.

Using your analogy of the computer program, let's say that I wrote a program and defined the rules of a universe. This universe is a sort of infinite "Memory Palace". I store everything I know in different places, people, books, history and place myself in an interesting point in time.

Then, in a Matrix-like fashion (or Star Trek Holodeck, if you prefer), I enter the program I wrote. My current life isn't actually "real", but it doesn't matter because the experience is. I am omnipotent in my universe, but I have chosen to forget about my omnipotence. I am omniscient but I have chosen to forget everything before my virtual "birth". When I die, I'll wake up in the holodeck I may design/modify my universe or I will reinsert myself at a differnt point in history.

I may be God, but the most thrilling thing for me is to experience mortality. It's entertaining and nobody gets hurt.

-Mike...

mike_decock

Are you saying that one cannot learn or enjoy without suffering?

I know you don't want any more examples of why I don't believe this is so. Perhaps you can demonstrate why evil is necessary to understand. You've given examples why evil is necessary to discourage evil, but that still assumes the presence of evil.

I'm talking about the absence of evil altogether.

-Mike...

Conchobar

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Eric H
[B]Hello T.E. Lords welcome.

-----------------------------------------------
quote T.E. Lords The premise of a being with free will being created by a being with absolute power and absolute knowledge of the future is intrinsically contradictory.
------------------------------------------------



If a definition of God is intrinsically contradictory, then maybe it is our definition or perception that is wrong.

God is never rationally defined becasue there is no evidence. All definitions of God are purely arbitrary, should I say it, imaginary.

If, and only if God exists, then he must be more knowledgeable and more powerful then we are.

You define the Abrahamic God. But who said with any evidence taht God must have any poser or knowledge. Perhaps he doesn't even have consciousness or cognition. Probably he ain't a he or she but an IT. IT may as likely be a natural force or combination of forces that led to the formation of the universe and that is its only function. To posutlate that it is intelligent is without basis.

Now if this all powerful God was to create life, he would presumably have choices in how he could create.

Maybe so, maybe not. We don't know if he has cognition let alone ability to make choices. This is a assumption on your part.

He could retain all his power and create as an all powerful dictator might create by retaining overall control of everything, so that it would suit his purpose.

Only if all of your other assumptions are correct, which I challenge.

Or he could create in a democratic way and empower the life that he creates. This would then take away God’s overall control of the life he creates.

It sounds better, but again you can't assume that God ever had any control over anything.

If there is a God then it seems he created us in a democratic way, and gave us the freedom to totally reject him if we wish. Or we have the freedom to worship him in any of the ways that the thousands of diverse religions worship him.

Yes, assuming your God to be real for discussion.

.
I have the freedom to come to God in any way I choose, I can choose the things about God that suit me, which means I am likely to be wrong in many ways. That is probably why there are so many faiths.

Assuming that God is real, the fact that we have so many cults, is suggestive that God doesn't give a shite if we believe or not. It it mattered he would tell us all the same message or have all of his prophets give the same speel. But they don't, and he doesn't.

And probably like everyone else who is free I have the freedom to kill, as long as I don't get caught.

But you also have a human brain that is the product of millions of years of evolution that selected out behaviours best suited to a group or social animal. Killing your clansmen or women is socially disruptive and violators were eliminated removing their genes from the gene pool. I have no fear of Hell or other bollocks. But I am not capable of killing another person even if it is in the mddle of the Austrailian outback and there are no witness for 200 km. I am strongly inhibited from killing because for me it is wrong apart from any superstition about Hell or going to Gaol. I could only kill in self-defence or family defence. My brain finds it wrong from 4 million years of evolution.

Maybe there are rules that govern what God can create; maybe creation is a risk even for a God

I define God as more likely non-conscious, non-cognitive, and acting on innate properties not choice. It has no more choice than a black hole pulling in matter from around it including light. Not choice, but natural properties. There is no evidence of a supernature. Everything that we know is natural. So far there are no exceptions.


peace

Eric

May the Force be with you.

Conchobar