These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Intergalactic Summit

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dear God...
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Diana Kim
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#101 - 2012-08-16 03:25:54 UTC
Jev North wrote:

So what was the evidence you're not some kind of deep-cover Gallente fifth columnist, again?

If we take several assumptions about God:
* God exists (as like now, in present time),
* God is active (affects current events),
and
* God is almighty,
then you can make a mind experiment. Call for God to show Himself to you. You can say it out loud, or just think about it, since God is almighty, He will hear you along of millions of others calling to Him at the same time.
But God won't show to you. This means God doesn't WILL you to know about His existence, but rather wants you to believe or not believe.
If God is almighty and doesn't WILL you to know about Him, then whatever experiment you will conduct to find existence or absence of God, you will have no results.

Thus proving or refuting existence of God is both theoretically and practically impossible.

What absurd you are talking about, is, actually, can easily be probed both theoretically and practically by performing some experiments or digging for data. But before I take your claims seriously and will let you make experiments on me, why won't you present any evidences yourself, that you are, actually, Jev North and not a gallentean maneater spaceslug with long purple tentacles, who ate poor girl and is using her skin as a disguise. And that you don't want to lure and eat me too.

Honored are the dead, for their legacy guides us.

In memory of Tibus Heth, Caldari State Executor YC110-115, Hero and Patriot.
Henry Montclaire
New Eden Exploration and Uprising Syndicate
#102 - 2012-08-16 03:58:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Henry Montclaire
What's a giraffe?

Imaginary words aside, the simplest conclusion to a set of evidence is often correct, or closer to the truth than the most complicated conclusion. Why is there a can of quafe on my dresser? Probably because I put it there and then forgot. To see that can there and then jump to the conclusion that it's there because I was abducted by the Jovians, who then used me as a living drone to move that can from my refrigeration unit to the dresser for some indiscernible reason and then returned me to my prior state the next morning with no memory of what transpired is a much less logical or likely. Now is it possible? Perhaps. But it is not plausible, and if I were to make this claim I would be seen as crazy. And indeed I would be because it is a very illogical and highly unlikely possibility that is not at all useful for perceiving the world around me.

Likewise, people see a universe and ask, "Why is this here? Why are we here?" I can say that I do not know. Or that it is unexplainable. The Amarrian looks at this and says "I do know!" When asked, this Amarrian would then say, "This universe was made by God through unknowable means and for an unknowable purpose." Nevermind that this explanation explains nothing, but ask instead "What made God?" and they must respond with, "He was always there." Essentially, they admit ignorance.

So their argument adds no solutions but only more questions. They compound an unknowable universe, which we can at least understand parts of, if not the origin, with an unknowable God who acts not with randomness but with unknowable purpose.
Azdan Amith
Doomheim
#103 - 2012-08-16 13:05:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Azdan Amith
Henry Montclaire wrote:
Likewise, people see a universe and ask, "Why is this here? Why are we here?" I can say that I do not know. Or that it is unexplainable. The Amarrian looks at this and says "I do know!" When asked, this Amarrian would then say, "This universe was made by God through unknowable means and for an unknowable purpose." Nevermind that this explanation explains nothing, but ask instead "What made God?" and they must respond with, "He was always there." Essentially, they admit ignorance.

So their argument adds no solutions but only more questions. They compound an unknowable universe, which we can at least understand parts of, if not the origin, with an unknowable God who acts not with randomness but with unknowable purpose.


I can tell you and I are going to have several interesting interactions over the course of our careers.

God and his purpose are not unknowable, if they were then the pursuit of him would be ultimately futile. That you cannot comprehend does not make it true for all.

The universe likewise is only unknowable for as long as you refuse to know its Creator. In truth, the understanding of God answers far more questions than the denial of him. I would explain in more detail if you seek to listen.

EDIT: Also, the process by which one comes to the conclusion of the existence of God is not inexplicable.

~Archon Azdan Amith,  Order of Light's Retribution
Henry Montclaire
New Eden Exploration and Uprising Syndicate
#104 - 2012-08-16 15:21:16 UTC
It may not be inexplicable, it may even be rational, but it is no more rational and no more understandable than how one comes to be convinced of a godless universe.
Azdan Amith
Doomheim
#105 - 2012-08-16 15:48:06 UTC
Henry Montclaire wrote:
It may not be inexplicable, it may even be rational, but it is no more rational and no more understandable than how one comes to be convinced of a godless universe.


Indeed, I would not attempt to argue otherwise. Yet only one of us has asserted that the other's views are borne of ignorance and lacking in reason or that one leads only to more questions and not answers.

~Archon Azdan Amith,  Order of Light's Retribution
Henry Montclaire
New Eden Exploration and Uprising Syndicate
#106 - 2012-08-16 19:20:43 UTC
Touché. Theological debate is really not my forte, so I will leave it in more capable hands and retreat back to my sinful godless life. Be well Monsieur Amith.
Makkal Hanaya
Revenent Defence Corperation
#107 - 2012-08-16 23:51:08 UTC
Scherezad wrote:
Makkal Hanaya wrote:


Dearest Scherezad,

I have no idea what you just said.


Dearest Lady Hanaya;

I spoke poorly, which is no surprise. I'm frankly more surprised that I'm cogent at all. The only thing I meant to say is that logic systems which allow for "timeless" entities require a different logical intuition than we possess. This would make discussion of such a timeless entity extremely difficult. It was only an aside.


I am no scientist, but as I understand it, time as we perceive it isn't what time actually is, much like color isn't the property of an object but our interpretation of light that reflects off it.

When we call God timeless, some might mean literally 'without time' but I was taught that God's relationship to time was outside of human experience/understanding.

Render unto Khanid the things which are Khanid's; and unto God the things that are God's.
Mardon Hashur
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#108 - 2012-08-17 21:31:27 UTC
Makkal Hanaya wrote:
Scherezad wrote:
Makkal Hanaya wrote:


Dearest Scherezad,

I have no idea what you just said.


Dearest Lady Hanaya;

I spoke poorly, which is no surprise. I'm frankly more surprised that I'm cogent at all. The only thing I meant to say is that logic systems which allow for "timeless" entities require a different logical intuition than we possess. This would make discussion of such a timeless entity extremely difficult. It was only an aside.


I am no scientist, but as I understand it, time as we perceive it isn't what time actually is, much like color isn't the property of an object but our interpretation of light that reflects off it.

When we call God timeless, some might mean literally 'without time' but I was taught that God's relationship to time was outside of human experience/understanding.


That is the way that I understand God Ms.Hanaya and the term "timeless" is used, in my understanding, to explain that Time has no effect on God and that he is not in our understanding of time but one that is unique to God.

Sincerly Mardon Hashur
Scherezad
Revenent Defence Corperation
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#109 - 2012-08-18 04:07:55 UTC
Makkal Hanaya wrote:
I am no scientist, but as I understand it, time as we perceive it isn't what time actually is, much like color isn't the property of an object but our interpretation of light that reflects off it.

When we call God timeless, some might mean literally 'without time' but I was taught that God's relationship to time was outside of human experience/understanding.


Cosmology isn't my field, but I'll try to explain what little I know. Time is properly a dimension of space. This makes the universe, from its beginning to its end, a single, unified entity along four dimensions (well, properly many more dimensions, but that's not important).

Taking this into account, the model becomes a perfect sphere if rendered upon an imaginary four dimensional space. I find this to be a lovely idea in and of itself, but if you want to include a "timeless" entity, this is a good location for it - outside of the sphere.

It's just a thought, and likely wrong. But a lovely thought!
Eric Riso
Russia Caldari
#110 - 2012-08-18 16:06:38 UTC
god is a giraffe
Zanziba'ar
Wolf Brothers INC
United Neopian Federation
#111 - 2012-08-18 17:05:58 UTC
Ah Devil. Still making contentful posts i see..
  • Mulzvich "Zanziba'ar" Gorath
Bruno Adams
#112 - 2012-08-19 01:04:03 UTC
The only true "God" is death, and what do we say to death? Not today!

Do not presume to judge me or the methods I choose to employ, petty-minded fool. You cannot comprehend the magnitude of the task I have undertaken nor the consequences of my failure.
Devils Embrace
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#113 - 2012-08-26 13:06:32 UTC
Zanziba'ar wrote:
Ah Devil. Still making contentful posts i see..


Yes sir, it brightens my day talking to God...about Giraffes

It's like they usually say about fantasy MMO's and men playing female characters: "If I'm going to spend alot of time watching this character, it might as well have a good looking ass".
Devils Embrace
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#114 - 2012-09-04 12:39:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Devils Embrace
Zanzi where have you been?

It's like they usually say about fantasy MMO's and men playing female characters: "If I'm going to spend alot of time watching this character, it might as well have a good looking ass".
Devils Embrace
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#115 - 2012-09-04 12:42:35 UTC
Diana Kim wrote:
Jev North wrote:

So what was the evidence you're not some kind of deep-cover Gallente fifth columnist, again?

If we take several assumptions about God:
* God exists (as like now, in present time),
* God is active (affects current events),
and
* God is almighty,
then you can make a mind experiment. Call for God to show Himself to you. You can say it out loud, or just think about it, since God is almighty, He will hear you along of millions of others calling to Him at the same time.
But God won't show to you. This means God doesn't WILL you to know about His existence, but rather wants you to believe or not believe.
If God is almighty and doesn't WILL you to know about Him, then whatever experiment you will conduct to find existence or absence of God, you will have no results.

Thus proving or refuting existence of God is both theoretically and practically impossible.

What absurd you are talking about, is, actually, can easily be probed both theoretically and practically by performing some experiments or digging for data. But before I take your claims seriously and will let you make experiments on me, why won't you present any evidences yourself, that you are, actually, Jev North and not a gallentean maneater spaceslug with long purple tentacles, who ate poor girl and is using her skin as a disguise. And that you don't want to lure and eat me too.


God def exists, whatever the "scientists" or evolutionists believe something always had to make whatever made our universe. Now come the always popular "who came first the chicken or the egg?"

Now lets hear it.....

It's like they usually say about fantasy MMO's and men playing female characters: "If I'm going to spend alot of time watching this character, it might as well have a good looking ass".
Azdan Amith
Doomheim
#116 - 2012-09-04 13:45:29 UTC
Devils Embrace wrote:

God def exists, whatever the "scientists" or evolutionists believe something always had to make whatever made our universe. Now come the always popular "who came first the chicken or the egg?"

Now lets hear it.....


Neither. God came first and then creation followed.

~Archon Azdan Amith,  Order of Light's Retribution
Devils Embrace
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#117 - 2012-09-05 08:09:12 UTC
Azdan Amith wrote:
Devils Embrace wrote:

God def exists, whatever the "scientists" or evolutionists believe something always had to make whatever made our universe. Now come the always popular "who came first the chicken or the egg?"

Now lets hear it.....


Neither. God came first and then creation followed.


I agree with you wholeheartedly. But the argument always comes up among these discussion

It's like they usually say about fantasy MMO's and men playing female characters: "If I'm going to spend alot of time watching this character, it might as well have a good looking ass".
Jev North
Doomheim
#118 - 2012-09-05 09:16:44 UTC
I understand circular logic is popular in Amarrian circles, but.. are you really complaining about an argument "always coming up" after first bringing it up yourself?

Even though our love is cruel; even though our stars are crossed.
Azdan Amith
Doomheim
#119 - 2012-09-05 12:02:52 UTC
Jev North wrote:
I understand circular logic is popular in Amarrian circles, but.. are you really complaining about an argument "always coming up" after first bringing it up yourself?


Circular reason isn't popular in Amarrian society any moreso than it is anywhere else.

~Archon Azdan Amith,  Order of Light's Retribution
Diana Kim
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#120 - 2012-09-05 12:43:50 UTC
Devils Embrace wrote:
God def exists, whatever the "scientists" or evolutionists believe something always had to make whatever made our universe. Now come the always popular "who came first the chicken or the egg?"

Well, this is simply wrong.
When scientist believe in something, he is no more scientist, but believer.
Scientists operate with facts.
Theologists and philosophers with world views.
Although scientist can refute or prove some postulates from scriptures, there is no use in disputing with scientist: he will have facts and will just show you as fool.
But no scientist can prove or refute the core of any theological or philosophical teaching, for example, existence of God.
If scientist will try to do this, he will become a pseudo-scientist or a clown.

Honored are the dead, for their legacy guides us.

In memory of Tibus Heth, Caldari State Executor YC110-115, Hero and Patriot.