Witty title that has a Poképun in it.
WHY MPE
YOU HERE:
means ,
IF YOU WANT IT,
YOU GOTTA
Francis Pope
wants to Fight!
YOU HERE:
means ,
IF YOU WANT IT,
YOU GOTTA
Francis Pope
wants to Fight!
...
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
230 comments displayed.
#3
-
brantod ONLINE (09/15/2015) [-] 
pope kind enough to give the kid a chance and not use his fourth pokemon
#6 to #5
-
solidderking (09/15/2015) [-] and then give him a beaten pokemon if he looses ? he has some dignity, you know
#8 to #7
-
solidderking (09/15/2015) [-] the poke nurse might be possible, but full revive is forbidden in the bible except if jesus uses it
#11 to #9
-
solidderking (09/15/2015) [-] nothing.
jesus used rest, thats why he slept for some days until he recovered, he wasn't actually beaten
jesus used rest, thats why he slept for some days until he recovered, he wasn't actually beaten
#12 to #11
-
hitlerwasokiguess (09/15/2015) [-]
Holy **** . He slept for 3 days. Rest makes you sleep for 3 turns. Jesus is a pokemon.
#2
-
thebluedream ONLINE (09/15/2015) [-] I am down with the pope being a pokemon master for so many reasons
#20 to #2
-
abcschachcba (09/15/2015) [-]
How about the pope being the Mahjong Master?
Mudazumo Naki Kaikaku
Mudazumo Naki Kaikaku
#49 to #48
-
badtrollisbad (09/16/2015) [-] I stand corrected, still seems like a funny concept though lol
#178 to #51
-
theblobbiest (09/16/2015) [-]
Well you can trust the catholics to ruin a 12 years old day
#142 to #48
-
rainbowrush ONLINE (09/16/2015) [-] Not a single protestant in my country denies evolution. Pretty sure this only happen in the americas.
#144 to #142
-
lamentation (09/16/2015) [-] happens here in the philippines.
I go to a protestant private school. We had a seminar as to why the Big Bang Theory was ******** .
I went tumblretarded and asked for citations .-.
I go to a protestant private school. We had a seminar as to why the Big Bang Theory was ******** .
I went tumblretarded and asked for citations .-.
#189 to #142
-
sooshishef (09/16/2015) [-] It happens wherever religious belief is held to a higher degree than science.
Imo, religion is fine if used as a moral system and not as a guide to life. As long as you take the parts about not being a dick, and ignore stupid **** like no gays or no evolution, it can be pretty chill.
Imo, religion is fine if used as a moral system and not as a guide to life. As long as you take the parts about not being a dick, and ignore stupid **** like no gays or no evolution, it can be pretty chill.
#52 to #48
-
infinitereaper (09/16/2015) [-] Evolution is great evidence that life raised on it's own. That means without the need for a creator. Theists seem to think that saying "well we don't believe evolution conflicts with our religion" is a trump card or something, like it proves their Zues or sun god is the real deal. When in reality, no.
#53 to #52
-
amuzen ONLINE (09/16/2015) [-]
Thiests don't seek to prove god exists and in no way is proving the existence of god part of their motivations. By definition their own definition if god was 'provable' then he would conflict with their religions. During the crusading period it was a lot more important to them to 'prove' the existence of god since everyone had some religion or rather and there couldn't be peace until they shared a singular religion.
The part that doesn't conflict with their religions is that even though they believe god made man kind, they don't generally Generally is a really loose term here as thiests are a very diverse lot with sub groups within subgroups believing in different things pretend to know how this process all worked, a rather common lynchpin for god is that he works in mysterious ways which implies he doesn't usually just do **** like pull up a lump of clay and turn it into a living being, meaning his method for say, creating life could very well be far more complicated than the common man could hope understand at the time. just that man was raised out of the mud and then put in the garden of Eden.
Further more to a large extent the bible is supposed to be taken as allegory and not a literal representation of historical events, that means where it says god created man from mud it could very well mean god who isn't supposed to be a man with super powers sitting in some phyical location look down on everything but rather an ever present divine force pushing things along a vague unknowable path towards some greater mysterious goal used a combination of earth, water, and life essence bacteria, life in it's simplest form to create man over an undetermined amount of time.
The god created man in his image thing is the only thing that really hints at the exact nature of god, but that could just as well mean he created their minds/soul in his image.
The part that doesn't conflict with their religions is that even though they believe god made man kind, they don't generally Generally is a really loose term here as thiests are a very diverse lot with sub groups within subgroups believing in different things pretend to know how this process all worked, a rather common lynchpin for god is that he works in mysterious ways which implies he doesn't usually just do **** like pull up a lump of clay and turn it into a living being, meaning his method for say, creating life could very well be far more complicated than the common man could hope understand at the time. just that man was raised out of the mud and then put in the garden of Eden.
Further more to a large extent the bible is supposed to be taken as allegory and not a literal representation of historical events, that means where it says god created man from mud it could very well mean god who isn't supposed to be a man with super powers sitting in some phyical location look down on everything but rather an ever present divine force pushing things along a vague unknowable path towards some greater mysterious goal used a combination of earth, water, and life essence bacteria, life in it's simplest form to create man over an undetermined amount of time.
The god created man in his image thing is the only thing that really hints at the exact nature of god, but that could just as well mean he created their minds/soul in his image.
#101 to #53
-
lodisboeg (09/16/2015) [-] Isn't this just the "god of gaps"? Before theory of evolution, people literally believed that god created everything as is, then Darwin came along and *poof*, now god suddenly maybe only started the process, or created our 'souls' or whatever. So, now when we come up with a good theory for the forming of life god will have to leave yet another gap.
It's dangerous for any theist to try to insert god into things that can be explained scientifically, since it gives science a way to show that that particular aspect of belief was wrong, which has happened many times already.
It's dangerous for any theist to try to insert god into things that can be explained scientifically, since it gives science a way to show that that particular aspect of belief was wrong, which has happened many times already.
#172 to #163
-
ninjaroo ONLINE (09/16/2015) [-] Well yeah, but science discards explanations that are repeatedly demonstrated to be less useful or correct than new ones, rather than using the old explanation to fit every phenomena that hasn't been explained yet.
Not to bash on religion at all, but that comparison is not a good one. Science is always moving forward and explaining more things, where the "God of the gaps" thing is always moving backwards and arguably never really explaining anything.
Not to bash on religion at all, but that comparison is not a good one. Science is always moving forward and explaining more things, where the "God of the gaps" thing is always moving backwards and arguably never really explaining anything.
#124 to #101
-
amuzen ONLINE (09/16/2015) [-]
I think most theists don't actually believe their script in a literal sense and that for the most part religion has been a sort of fluid system since it's conception built up from a series of allegorical stories passed on from shamans and wise men in order to better grant their wisdom to the common man. But yeah as I said religion is a crazy variable thing and the exact interpretation changes from religion to religion, region to region, city to city, family to family and person to person so that's sort of a huge blanket statement. I guess what I actually mean is that I don't believe most religions were 'meant' to be taken in a literal sense.
#55 to #53
-
infinitereaper (09/16/2015) [-] The reason god "looks like us" is not because he created us in his image, it's because we created him in our image. As we do many gods. Throw out the nonsense and the rest becomes pretty clear.
#56 to #55
-
amuzen ONLINE (09/16/2015) [-]
Frankly I'm not even religious so I don't particularly feel like arguing for the other side, it just feels like your argument is saying 'you guys are wrong nahnahnahnahnah not listening nahnahnahnahnahnah not listening can't hear you over how wroooooooooong you are Nahnahnahnahnah'
#87 to #56
-
infinitereaper (09/16/2015) [-] It's really sad how people justify their delusions. I'm just stating facts, and common sense. 1000 gods came and went. A lot of them looked human because we humans like to personify things. We do it all the time in movies and stories. It's the same thing. We created gods in our own image.
Don't you dare, pretend you have any sort of validity with your ad hominem ******** .
Don't you dare, pretend you have any sort of validity with your ad hominem ******** .
#96 to #87
-
masterspectre (09/16/2015) [-] You like that term "common sense." But remember "common sense" used to hold that the sun and other planets revolved around the Earth.
#99 to #96
-
infinitereaper (09/16/2015) [-] And what exactly did the church do to Galileo when he tried to tell people the truth?
any of this seem familiar?
any of this seem familiar?
#108 to #99
-
masterspectre (09/16/2015) [-] Yes the church attempted to silence him, somewhat unsuccessfully, but still Galileo didn't follow that "common sense" that you so value. It shows that common sense can be foolish and unwilling to listen to reason or accept change. You stand on your great pedestal of common sense and call those with a belief idiots to somehow show everyone that you're right which you never will . You seek only to bring down others and you try to hide your childish anger at the idea of God behind a mask of faux intellectualism and "common sense."
#112 to #108
-
infinitereaper (09/16/2015) [-] He was attacked and placed under house arrest until he died.
What you're saying is retarded. I'm just stating facts. And history.
You're just reaching for ad hominem ******** because you don't like what I have to say.
What you're saying is retarded. I'm just stating facts. And history.
You're just reaching for ad hominem ******** because you don't like what I have to say.
#116 to #112
-
masterspectre (09/16/2015) [-] You're right, I don't like what you have to say. Mostly because you're trying to tear down peoples ideals even if they just say something as simple as "I believe in God."
#117 to #116
-
infinitereaper (09/16/2015) [-] Which god? Zues? The sun god? The god of the mayans? The Native Americans spirits? Are you talking about the old African Gods? Cave men deities? The greeks?
Education is good. Knowing things is good. If that invalidates something you believe then maybe you are just wrong?
No it couldn't possibly be.
Education is good. Knowing things is good. If that invalidates something you believe then maybe you are just wrong?
No it couldn't possibly be.
#197 to #151
-
infinitereaper (09/16/2015) [-] You can't say **** about god because people get their feelings hurt. They attack anyone who says anything, they can't handle it.
#125 to #117
-
masterspectre (09/16/2015) [-] And please do tell how I'm so wrong. I've argued with you before and it's just boiled down to "common sense" and "You're delusional, get over it" so if you can please make it a but more solid than that.
#126 to #125
-
infinitereaper (09/16/2015) [-] Well it's simple.
1) There have been thousands of gods throughout history. They can't ALL be real, but logically there's no reason to think yours is any more real.
2) Evolution states that life evolved on it's own, that means without help, ergo, no creator
3) Theoretical phsyics and modern science says that whatever the big bang event was, it didn't need to be caused by anything sentient, it was a natural processes, and some even say that everything came from nothing, literally, but that's the more deep maths
4) People are only religious usually because that's what there parents taught them, so how can it be true when people are that fickle? Had they had different parents of a different religion of a different god they'd believe something else.
I could go on and on with legitimate reasons,
but you would ignore all of them as you have don and continue to do so
all the while trying to justify the lies you tell yourself
1) There have been thousands of gods throughout history. They can't ALL be real, but logically there's no reason to think yours is any more real.
2) Evolution states that life evolved on it's own, that means without help, ergo, no creator
3) Theoretical phsyics and modern science says that whatever the big bang event was, it didn't need to be caused by anything sentient, it was a natural processes, and some even say that everything came from nothing, literally, but that's the more deep maths
4) People are only religious usually because that's what there parents taught them, so how can it be true when people are that fickle? Had they had different parents of a different religion of a different god they'd believe something else.
I could go on and on with legitimate reasons,
but you would ignore all of them as you have don and continue to do so
all the while trying to justify the lies you tell yourself
#128 to #126
-
masterspectre (09/16/2015) [-] 1) People change and so you believe this makes God change, which is false
2) Who says God can't work through natural processes? If God originally made everything, isn't everything that he does natural?
3) Again if God made everything isn't everything he does natural anyway? But really? "deep maths"
4) And here again you expect God to change just because people do. If I say the Sun isn't hot that doesn't change the nature of the Sun.
You have a very one-dimensional view of who God is. You only see him as an idea you need to disprove and not as a ideal that people believe in. In the end God is an idea that can not be proven nor disproven. It is up to each person to decide what they want to believe. You have chosen not to believe in God and that's alright, but you also chosen to try and destroy another person's faith and that's wrong.
2) Who says God can't work through natural processes? If God originally made everything, isn't everything that he does natural?
3) Again if God made everything isn't everything he does natural anyway? But really? "deep maths"
4) And here again you expect God to change just because people do. If I say the Sun isn't hot that doesn't change the nature of the Sun.
You have a very one-dimensional view of who God is. You only see him as an idea you need to disprove and not as a ideal that people believe in. In the end God is an idea that can not be proven nor disproven. It is up to each person to decide what they want to believe. You have chosen not to believe in God and that's alright, but you also chosen to try and destroy another person's faith and that's wrong.
#177 to #128
-
ninjaroo ONLINE (09/16/2015) [-] My two cents. Infinitereaper, you're exactly what people think when they think of annoying atheists. You're blindly making points that have no real bearing on the existence of a god, attacking ideas that the majority of churches haven't held for decades. That's a strawman.
Masterspectre, you either don't recognize the value in arguing about such things, or wouldn't agree that it's valuable. Personally, I hold the ultimate fate of humanity as a thing that should be talked about. Further, you seem to be missing the point of infinitereapers argument. He's asking why, you're responding with why not. Trying to make his argument as clear as possible here, since we can reasonably confidently trace the origin of almost all major mythologies and religions back to the first cultures that held them as deities, and almost all of those religions and mythologies have been accepted as false, and Christianity has no significant difference, why would a person accept it as true? It is silly to discard all of those possibilities out of hand, but take this one or any other with literally religious fervor.
Additionally, I would argue that anything valuable that can be achieved by holding god as an ideal can be achieved in ways that don't have such potentially disastrous consequences as religion does.
Masterspectre, you either don't recognize the value in arguing about such things, or wouldn't agree that it's valuable. Personally, I hold the ultimate fate of humanity as a thing that should be talked about. Further, you seem to be missing the point of infinitereapers argument. He's asking why, you're responding with why not. Trying to make his argument as clear as possible here, since we can reasonably confidently trace the origin of almost all major mythologies and religions back to the first cultures that held them as deities, and almost all of those religions and mythologies have been accepted as false, and Christianity has no significant difference, why would a person accept it as true? It is silly to discard all of those possibilities out of hand, but take this one or any other with literally religious fervor.
Additionally, I would argue that anything valuable that can be achieved by holding god as an ideal can be achieved in ways that don't have such potentially disastrous consequences as religion does.
#199 to #177
-
infinitereaper (09/16/2015) [-] ******** . I'm just making sense. But religious people all act the same. The same psychological patterns. On FJ is simple. Comments supporting or justifying the delusion of god, green, anything criticizing or even questioning god, red.
Whether or not you are nice about it.
So why be nice about it?
Whether or not you are nice about it.
So why be nice about it?
#209 to #199
-
ninjaroo ONLINE (09/17/2015) [-] You're making sense on a teenage level. To take your four points in >>#126, point 1 doesn't disprove any theoretical god, just points out that people used to believe in stuff and don't anymore. Point 2 is straight wrong, evolution makes no comment on the origin of life, and even if it did people have already pointed out that divine intervention is still a possibility. Point 3 is also flat wrong, science has no idea what caused the big bang, or even if that question makes sense. And point 4 is an assumption connected to a conclusion that gods existence would depend on our loyalty. Again, not necessarily true.
At best, you're pointing out that a certain sub group of religious people as a whole are hypocritical about their beliefs. That's not an argument.
Also, you might notice I was being nice and I got green thumbs, despite being atheist.
At best, you're pointing out that a certain sub group of religious people as a whole are hypocritical about their beliefs. That's not an argument.
Also, you might notice I was being nice and I got green thumbs, despite being atheist.
#210 to #209
-
infinitereaper (09/17/2015) [-] Oh fallacious ******** .
Appealing to these idiots doesn't make you right, it just means you're stopping to their level.
Appealing to these idiots doesn't make you right, it just means you're stopping to their level.
#182 to #128
-
ohgodmysides (09/16/2015) [-] 1) Not "God", but "gods". Humanity invented thousands of them. What reason do we have to believe one of them actually exists?
2) Because natural processes are deterministic. Whenever a god reaches in to intervene his hands should be dropping in physics. Think of it that way; you can build a clock that runs on its own, but whenever you manually change the time on it you intervene. You made it, but you can still interrupt its process and it's not "natural".
3) No, because everything that happens normally is natural. An intervening god would change how things normally happen. Unless you try to justify a deistic god.
4) He pointed out that there is more tradition to it than truth. Apparantly people have no idea and just go with the same wish thinking their parents had.
Ideas can be disproven, they can be shown to be wrong. And no, everybody deciding what they want to believe doesn't quite work with reality. It's not up to you to decide whether the earth is flat or not. It's not personal opinion if a god exists. Either there is (at least) one, or there isn't.
In essence you are saying, people should decide for themselves, what they WISH to be true. But we should be more concerned about what APPEARS to be true.
Every idea should be up for ridicule, so is every religion/faith. Otherwise you just gave up all rights on critizing people that kill in the name of their faith.
2) Because natural processes are deterministic. Whenever a god reaches in to intervene his hands should be dropping in physics. Think of it that way; you can build a clock that runs on its own, but whenever you manually change the time on it you intervene. You made it, but you can still interrupt its process and it's not "natural".
3) No, because everything that happens normally is natural. An intervening god would change how things normally happen. Unless you try to justify a deistic god.
4) He pointed out that there is more tradition to it than truth. Apparantly people have no idea and just go with the same wish thinking their parents had.
Ideas can be disproven, they can be shown to be wrong. And no, everybody deciding what they want to believe doesn't quite work with reality. It's not up to you to decide whether the earth is flat or not. It's not personal opinion if a god exists. Either there is (at least) one, or there isn't.
In essence you are saying, people should decide for themselves, what they WISH to be true. But we should be more concerned about what APPEARS to be true.
Every idea should be up for ridicule, so is every religion/faith. Otherwise you just gave up all rights on critizing people that kill in the name of their faith.
#176 to #128
-
babyanalraper (09/16/2015) [-] Consider religion instead of faith though. Which iteration of religion should one follow? Jewish God? Early Christian God? Renaissance God? Modern? There's no credibility to religions when humans change God as they please.
Also, if God works through nature then he is, by nature of his nature, obsolete and irrelevant as he lacks actual influence on our world. Thus the only way to make him relevant is through afterlife, but we know nothing about that so why bother?
Also, if God works through nature then he is, by nature of his nature, obsolete and irrelevant as he lacks actual influence on our world. Thus the only way to make him relevant is through afterlife, but we know nothing about that so why bother?
#200 to #127
-
infinitereaper (09/16/2015) [-] Another fallacious argument is that it's people who are bad not religion, but this isn't a question of good or bad, it's a question of right and wrong. On whether this stuff is true or not. People can never handle you telling them the truth about this.
Like every single ******* religion ever.
The people just call you a heretic and want to burn you at the stake.
Evey last one of them.
For every last god.
At what point does anyone realize they're insane?
Like every single ******* religion ever.
The people just call you a heretic and want to burn you at the stake.
Evey last one of them.
For every last god.
At what point does anyone realize they're insane?
#169 to #53
-
babyanalraper (09/16/2015) [-] So did Jesus do magic stuff, die for our sins and rescurrect or not?
#60 to #53
-
destismad (09/16/2015) [-] When focusing on just Christianity (the only religion I really know much of personally), the Bible states God created everything in just 6 days, while evolution has taken approximately 3-4 billion years (to my knowledge). That seems to conflict to a great extent.
#65 to #60
-
tck (09/16/2015) [-]
Except we've no way to know whether that's literal.
When God said he works in mysterious ways, that's the sort of thing I'd point out to prove it. What I've always thought is that he usually spoke extremely poetically, because part of his whole plan is for us to figure it out for ourselves.
When God said he works in mysterious ways, that's the sort of thing I'd point out to prove it. What I've always thought is that he usually spoke extremely poetically, because part of his whole plan is for us to figure it out for ourselves.
#207 to #76
-
destismad (09/17/2015) [-] God (Christianity) doesn't prove his own existence to us. Regardless of what "plan" he has or what he wants from us/etc, the Bible states non-believers will go to hell. I don't have a choice in not believing in God. I have a choice in whether or not I say I believe in God, but I can't just believe in him/her/it simply because I want to. If what Christians generally say about God is true, the omnipotence, omniscience, and the omnipotence, then he not only knows that I'm an Atheist, he also knows exactly why I'm an Atheist, with a greater understanding of how the cumulative of experiences I've had in my life has lead to my atheism than I could ever hope to have. He's known this even before he created the universe, and known, due to his rule, that I would go to hell for it, the hell that he created. He is fully capable of proving his existence in way which could not be anything else, saving me from that, which I would consider as the all merciful, caring, loving father many Christians say he is as well. This is an enormous logical contradiction, and many people believe it still somehow works.
"God works in mysterious ways." No, if he exists, he works in illogical, nonsensical, insane ways. If a being like this really does exist, he well and truly must be insane.
"God works in mysterious ways." No, if he exists, he works in illogical, nonsensical, insane ways. If a being like this really does exist, he well and truly must be insane.
#212 to #207
-
tck (09/17/2015) [-]
Assuming God exists: that's all between you and him. We will all meet him face to face, and we will all make our plea. Those who plea their acceptance of Jesus's sacrifice, will be forgiven. It's a simple plan, and I don't claim to know how the ending works, but if that's true then it means we all have one final chance to say yes or no. We will know him for sure; and some will truly reject God even when staring directly at him.
God does not damn people; people damn themselves. I've had to explain this quite a few times, and I'll link you to another long post I wrote if you want to read more on it, but think about this - God is love. This doesn't just mean he is love, but it also means that love is God. A separation from God is a separation from all love. To me it sounds like Hell would be the only place imaginable that could be described as separation from all love.
I'm not saying this to be insulting, because it applies to everyone, but it's crazy to hear someone (humanity at all) judge God's actions. Every time I hear it, I'm reminded of a 5 year-old who says, "if you loved me you'd give me everything I want and you wouldn't punish me or make me do chores." Again, not against you personally, it applies to everyone. It just seems like a counterproductive argument to me; by criticizing God's actions and explaining why he's wrong if he exists, Christians see that as a lack of understanding of God. You can disbelieve in God but to try to disprove his existence philosophically by saying he's wrong if he exists, is unthinkable; because part of the core of the entire premise of God is that if he exists then he is infallible.
God does not damn people; people damn themselves. I've had to explain this quite a few times, and I'll link you to another long post I wrote if you want to read more on it, but think about this - God is love. This doesn't just mean he is love, but it also means that love is God. A separation from God is a separation from all love. To me it sounds like Hell would be the only place imaginable that could be described as separation from all love.
I'm not saying this to be insulting, because it applies to everyone, but it's crazy to hear someone (humanity at all) judge God's actions. Every time I hear it, I'm reminded of a 5 year-old who says, "if you loved me you'd give me everything I want and you wouldn't punish me or make me do chores." Again, not against you personally, it applies to everyone. It just seems like a counterproductive argument to me; by criticizing God's actions and explaining why he's wrong if he exists, Christians see that as a lack of understanding of God. You can disbelieve in God but to try to disprove his existence philosophically by saying he's wrong if he exists, is unthinkable; because part of the core of the entire premise of God is that if he exists then he is infallible.
#230 to #212
-
destismad (09/17/2015) [-] There's no such thing as an infallible being. Paradoxes exist, it's simply reality. If God is capable of everything, then he can make a boulder heavy enough for him to be unable to move it, however if he does that, then he is not capable of everything. Problems like this not only exist, but they are numerous. The one I described is one of them. This being knows everything that is going to happen to me and why long before I even exist, and he's the one that chooses to set it all in motion then punish me for the outcome. This can't be accurately compared to a child and a parent, as parents are not omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent, and cannot control every single aspect of their child's lives and world. That comparison is only an absurdly enormous simplification. Christians see it as a lack of understanding God? Well, I would love to understand God, truly, no sarcasm, if only he would let me.
(As a sidenote - I wasn't attempting to disprove the existence of a deity with logic and philosophy, as that would require some form of physical evidence to back it up, of which there is none.)
Yeah sure, link me to your other post if you don't mind. I can't guarantee I'll read it immediately but I'll try to get to it.
(As a sidenote - I wasn't attempting to disprove the existence of a deity with logic and philosophy, as that would require some form of physical evidence to back it up, of which there is none.)
Yeah sure, link me to your other post if you don't mind. I can't guarantee I'll read it immediately but I'll try to get to it.
#236 to #230
-
tck (09/17/2015) [-]
>There's no such thing as an infallible being.
One who knows all would surely be infallible, wouldn't he? Every action is done with intended consequence; "mistakes" would be intentional, and no longer mistakes (the fall of man, for example).
In the other post, there's a spoiler which answers the classic boulder dilemma. Let me know what you think about the post overall whenever you get to it.
One who knows all would surely be infallible, wouldn't he? Every action is done with intended consequence; "mistakes" would be intentional, and no longer mistakes (the fall of man, for example).
In the other post, there's a spoiler which answers the classic boulder dilemma. Let me know what you think about the post overall whenever you get to it.
#241 to #236
-
destismad (09/17/2015) [-] I apologize, my words didn't mean quite what I wanted them to mean. The paradox I pointed out wouldn't do anything to prove an omniscient being is impossible. What I meant was more along the lines of there can be no such thing as a perfect being, like the god described.
I've read your other post, and your answer to the boulder paradox is that God has made something that could choose to separate itself from him. To be honest, I don't entirely understand what you're saying, but if you're comparing the boulder to humanity, then the comparison is illogical. We have conscious minds, and free will, and the boulder does not. Whether or not God, in infinite power, can lift a boulder he made to be to heavy for him to lift can't really be compared to humans choosing to separate themselves from God after their creation. I, I honestly don't really know what you were getting at here.
(Regardless of this difference, I'd like to add you to my Friends List. You seem like an interesting person who won't get out of control because of this. If you find someone else that you're debating with is interesting or you'd like help in explaining something, or want another opinion, message me with a link. I'll come and talk to, regardless of whether that person is and atheist or a theist, or what exactly the topic is. I'd like to do the same if you don't mind.)
I've read your other post, and your answer to the boulder paradox is that God has made something that could choose to separate itself from him. To be honest, I don't entirely understand what you're saying, but if you're comparing the boulder to humanity, then the comparison is illogical. We have conscious minds, and free will, and the boulder does not. Whether or not God, in infinite power, can lift a boulder he made to be to heavy for him to lift can't really be compared to humans choosing to separate themselves from God after their creation. I, I honestly don't really know what you were getting at here.
(Regardless of this difference, I'd like to add you to my Friends List. You seem like an interesting person who won't get out of control because of this. If you find someone else that you're debating with is interesting or you'd like help in explaining something, or want another opinion, message me with a link. I'll come and talk to, regardless of whether that person is and atheist or a theist, or what exactly the topic is. I'd like to do the same if you don't mind.)
#242 to #241
-
tck (09/18/2015) [-]
Maybe you'd also like to add ninjaroo since he seems to enjoy the same thing. We could be the Desert Trio, or perhaps something equally cringeworthy and unrelated. Ninjaroo, please do speak up if you'd like to join in on the summoning for discussions in the future.
The part about answering the boulder is this: God is omnipresent, he is everywhere and in everything. The fact that he is able to create something which can choose to separate itself from him is metaphorically equatable to the "boulder so big he can't lift it" (surely that question was intended metaphorically as well) in that it is equally paradoxical, yet fully possible as we see (in theory).
Another interpretation of that paradox is to see the question as, "can God choose to be incapable of something even though he is all-capable?" The answer is, of course, yes. He limited himself in the form of Jesus (which reminds me of a recent debate I had with someone as frustrating as infinite reaper, which I'll summon you to and show you) in that Jesus was fully a man, and all his miracles were performed through faith in the Father. He was capable of death, needed to eat, and was even tempted by the Devil. That last part specifically is awesome (in the literal sense of the word) to me, God being tempted. I'd consider that another example of something similarly paradoxical, being demonstrated.
The part about answering the boulder is this: God is omnipresent, he is everywhere and in everything. The fact that he is able to create something which can choose to separate itself from him is metaphorically equatable to the "boulder so big he can't lift it" (surely that question was intended metaphorically as well) in that it is equally paradoxical, yet fully possible as we see (in theory).
Another interpretation of that paradox is to see the question as, "can God choose to be incapable of something even though he is all-capable?" The answer is, of course, yes. He limited himself in the form of Jesus (which reminds me of a recent debate I had with someone as frustrating as infinite reaper, which I'll summon you to and show you) in that Jesus was fully a man, and all his miracles were performed through faith in the Father. He was capable of death, needed to eat, and was even tempted by the Devil. That last part specifically is awesome (in the literal sense of the word) to me, God being tempted. I'd consider that another example of something similarly paradoxical, being demonstrated.
#243 to #242
-
ninjaroo ONLINE (09/18/2015) [-] I would indeed like to be summoned to these discussions. Even if I'm late to the party, they're interesting to read.
About the omnipotence boulder thing - I find your answer unsatisfactory. Sure, Jesus couldn't lift the boulder, but then he doesn't fully represent god, does he? If you ask me whether or not I can play the piano and I say "well, not with my tongue", then I haven't answered the question. Similarly, if asked "Can god create a task that he is incapable of completing", responding with "Yes, if he places limitations on himself." Put simply, the question is not about desire or self imposed restrictions, it's about power and ability.
About the omnipotence boulder thing - I find your answer unsatisfactory. Sure, Jesus couldn't lift the boulder, but then he doesn't fully represent god, does he? If you ask me whether or not I can play the piano and I say "well, not with my tongue", then I haven't answered the question. Similarly, if asked "Can god create a task that he is incapable of completing", responding with "Yes, if he places limitations on himself." Put simply, the question is not about desire or self imposed restrictions, it's about power and ability.
#63 to #60
-
fourfangedferret ONLINE (09/16/2015) [-] Allegory mate. Take a desert dwelling peasant from 2, 2 and a half thousand years ago and try explaining gravity and the big bang to him. Its a lot easier to just say some omnipotent force said "you know what, im tired of sitting on my ass in the empty void, lets pimp this **** up."
#70 to #52
-
matthewonetwothree (09/16/2015) [-]
why are you so against religion you are borderline cringe. just let people do them
#95 to #70
-
infinitereaper (09/16/2015) [-] It's not that I'm against religion so much as I'm for educating the public, and common sense.
People grow up being force fed different **** so they get brainwashed and it becomes a part of them.
If you need proof how irrational that can make people just look at Islamic extremists or refugees.
People grow up being force fed different **** so they get brainwashed and it becomes a part of them.
If you need proof how irrational that can make people just look at Islamic extremists or refugees.
#202 to #201
-
infinitereaper (09/16/2015) [-] You're just an idiot, if talking sense is cringy then humanity truly is in decline.
#204 to #202
-
matthewonetwothree (09/16/2015) [-]
haha as everyziggy said you tell them my euphoric brother
#205 to #204
-
infinitereaper (09/16/2015) [-] I could be nice about telling the truth to people, but people would still resort to buzzwords.
So I'm not nice about it since it doesn't make a difference. Still, no matter what you call me, god still isn't real.
So I'm not nice about it since it doesn't make a difference. Still, no matter what you call me, god still isn't real.
#62 to #52
-
tck (09/16/2015) [-]
And >>#53
>Evolution is great evidence that life raised on it's own. That means without the need for a creator.
No, in fact the theory of evolution is not meant to offer an explanation for the origin of life. Any theory or hypothesis which attempts to explain that is a separate concept from evolution.
The concept of the origin of life without requiring a god is abiogenesis.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
The scenario found most likely is that lightning hitting water caused unlikely chemical reactions to be easier, and form early life. The theory basically says, "the probability of this happening is so low that it's almost mathematically impossible; however the number of planets is so high that it's almost a mathematical certainty for it to occur at least somewhere."
I've not found any atheistic explanations for the existence of matter or energy themselves.
And considering the context in which you mentioned them, I doubt you're one to care about theology; but just in case, here is something to consider. A reason that God (the Christian god) is more likely to be the true god than any others, is that Christianity is the only theology to propose a god who is simultaneously omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. This puts him at a much higher level of power than, for example, Zeus or Ra in their stories.
As a Christian, I think that evolution certainly doesn't interfere with my beliefs. I also think that the likelihood of a god is high, considering the perfect mathematical nature of the universe and the fact that it is impossible for the universe to create or destroy matter or energy. My take on theology is that other gods do exist; and they are demons posing their limited (yet still incredible) power for the adoration of humanity. To be perfectly honest, I believe the Egyptians had a frightening level of closeness to demons (in terms of how successful their society was despite their, from my perspective, worship of demons).
>Evolution is great evidence that life raised on it's own. That means without the need for a creator.
No, in fact the theory of evolution is not meant to offer an explanation for the origin of life. Any theory or hypothesis which attempts to explain that is a separate concept from evolution.
The concept of the origin of life without requiring a god is abiogenesis.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
The scenario found most likely is that lightning hitting water caused unlikely chemical reactions to be easier, and form early life. The theory basically says, "the probability of this happening is so low that it's almost mathematically impossible; however the number of planets is so high that it's almost a mathematical certainty for it to occur at least somewhere."
I've not found any atheistic explanations for the existence of matter or energy themselves.
And considering the context in which you mentioned them, I doubt you're one to care about theology; but just in case, here is something to consider. A reason that God (the Christian god) is more likely to be the true god than any others, is that Christianity is the only theology to propose a god who is simultaneously omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. This puts him at a much higher level of power than, for example, Zeus or Ra in their stories.
As a Christian, I think that evolution certainly doesn't interfere with my beliefs. I also think that the likelihood of a god is high, considering the perfect mathematical nature of the universe and the fact that it is impossible for the universe to create or destroy matter or energy. My take on theology is that other gods do exist; and they are demons posing their limited (yet still incredible) power for the adoration of humanity. To be perfectly honest, I believe the Egyptians had a frightening level of closeness to demons (in terms of how successful their society was despite their, from my perspective, worship of demons).
#81 to #62
-
infinitereaper (09/16/2015) [-] You are ******* delusional.
So many gods have come and gone in the history of man.
Far far older and more archaic than yours.
And theoretical physics. It's mathematically possible for something to come from nothing. Hence the big bang. Think of it like a hole in the ground, you get a huge pile of stuff, and a hole in the ground. Equivalent exchange so to speak.
I'm sorry to say this but you're brainwashed. Had it been any other time, you'd be defending a different god. They were all wrong. And so are you. This is the reality. Just think about the size of the observable universe and what science is telling us.
We came from the void and to the void we will probably return.
So many gods have come and gone in the history of man.
Far far older and more archaic than yours.
And theoretical physics. It's mathematically possible for something to come from nothing. Hence the big bang. Think of it like a hole in the ground, you get a huge pile of stuff, and a hole in the ground. Equivalent exchange so to speak.
I'm sorry to say this but you're brainwashed. Had it been any other time, you'd be defending a different god. They were all wrong. And so are you. This is the reality. Just think about the size of the observable universe and what science is telling us.
We came from the void and to the void we will probably return.
#89 to #81
-
tck (09/16/2015) [-]
>So many gods have come and gone in the history of man. Far far older and more archaic than yours.
The age of the writings matters very little.
>It's mathematically possible for something to come from nothing.
I provided a source, you can too.
>Hence the big bang.
The big bang doesn't explain how matter was created. The big bang says how the universe began expansion. "All matter and energy was condensed into an infinitely small point."
>Think of it like a hole in the ground, you get a huge pile of stuff, and a hole in the ground. Equivalent exchange so to speak.
Not even close to being coherent or related.
>I'm sorry to say this but you're brainwashed. Had it been any other time, you'd be defending a different god.
No, I wouldn't. A simultaneously omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent god is the only logical conclusion when considering what a god must be if one exists. I defend the notion of a god (of God himself) because it is what I've arrived at after careful consideration; not because it was forced upon me by others.
Overall you just seem interested in being "more enlightened" than everyone, in an angsty sense, than in actually finding out what's true. You seem to have strong beliefs while having little knowledge, and as >>#56 said, you seem to want to just tell people they're wrong when you don't actually have reasons why.
The age of the writings matters very little.
>It's mathematically possible for something to come from nothing.
I provided a source, you can too.
>Hence the big bang.
The big bang doesn't explain how matter was created. The big bang says how the universe began expansion. "All matter and energy was condensed into an infinitely small point."
>Think of it like a hole in the ground, you get a huge pile of stuff, and a hole in the ground. Equivalent exchange so to speak.
Not even close to being coherent or related.
>I'm sorry to say this but you're brainwashed. Had it been any other time, you'd be defending a different god.
No, I wouldn't. A simultaneously omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent god is the only logical conclusion when considering what a god must be if one exists. I defend the notion of a god (of God himself) because it is what I've arrived at after careful consideration; not because it was forced upon me by others.
Overall you just seem interested in being "more enlightened" than everyone, in an angsty sense, than in actually finding out what's true. You seem to have strong beliefs while having little knowledge, and as >>#56 said, you seem to want to just tell people they're wrong when you don't actually have reasons why.
#90 to #89
-
infinitereaper (09/16/2015) [-] You'll tell yourself anything in order to justify these fantasies.
For whatever reason you want to believe.
But the universe doesn't care what you want.
There is no divine plan.
You get one life.
That's it.
Then you die.
You can't handle that so you hold onto fantasies.
That's all this is.
And people have done it since teh dawn of time.
Your god is just as real as theirs.
For whatever reason you want to believe.
But the universe doesn't care what you want.
There is no divine plan.
You get one life.
That's it.
Then you die.
You can't handle that so you hold onto fantasies.
That's all this is.
And people have done it since teh dawn of time.
Your god is just as real as theirs.
#92 to #91
-
infinitereaper (09/16/2015) [-] Any historian or scientist will tell you these things.
Hell anyone with common sense will tell you these things.
You want to believe in these things to make yourselves feel better then fine.
But that doesn't make it true.
And I for one believe the truth is more important than anything.
Because humanity thirsts for answers. It's called science.
Instead of relying on fantasies we search and toil and work hard to find things out.
And thus we progress.
How religious people react when their worldviews are criticized is always the same.
Like when Galileo tried to tell people that the Earth revolved around the sun.
In modern days you think "well the church was crazy and wrong"
As if they themselves are any different now.
Hell anyone with common sense will tell you these things.
You want to believe in these things to make yourselves feel better then fine.
But that doesn't make it true.
And I for one believe the truth is more important than anything.
Because humanity thirsts for answers. It's called science.
Instead of relying on fantasies we search and toil and work hard to find things out.
And thus we progress.
How religious people react when their worldviews are criticized is always the same.
Like when Galileo tried to tell people that the Earth revolved around the sun.
In modern days you think "well the church was crazy and wrong"
As if they themselves are any different now.
#141 to #81
-
alfonshister (09/16/2015) [-] >spraying insultive accents here and there
that's not how you try to find the truth
not sorry to tell you that. someone had to tell you where your reds came from
that's not how you try to find the truth
not sorry to tell you that. someone had to tell you where your reds came from
#198 to #141
-
infinitereaper (09/16/2015) [-] You say anything against Christianity or Islam or whatever and people will thumb you down.
It's almost guaranteed. Because religious people outnumber sane people.
It's almost guaranteed. Because religious people outnumber sane people.
#218 to #198
-
alfonshister (09/17/2015) [-] >because your criticism was expressed objectively
>because you can't be religious and sane at the same time, MORE insults
and you're just like hurr durr, why are people thumbing me down.
Work on the way you communicate.
>because you can't be religious and sane at the same time, MORE insults
and you're just like hurr durr, why are people thumbing me down.
Work on the way you communicate.
#220 to #218
-
infinitereaper (09/17/2015) [-] No faggot. You're an idiot.
This is all objective. There is nothing rational about religion. They need to be told that.
Because it's the truth. But they can't handle it. Because they're irrational.
I've quite literally illustrated this.
This is all objective. There is nothing rational about religion. They need to be told that.
Because it's the truth. But they can't handle it. Because they're irrational.
I've quite literally illustrated this.
#221 to #220
-
alfonshister (09/17/2015) [-] >no faggot, you're an idiot
learn how to respect people and then they might respect you too.
until then you're just a patheric hater
learn how to respect people and then they might respect you too.
until then you're just a patheric hater
#222 to #221
-
infinitereaper (09/17/2015) [-] Respect needs to be earned, and it's hard to respect people who believe in fiction and think they're being rational.
#223 to #222
-
alfonshister (09/17/2015) [-] "respect needs to be earned"
yea, i too spit in everyone's face on the street. those strangers don't have my respect yet
yea, i too spit in everyone's face on the street. those strangers don't have my respect yet
#225 to #223
-
infinitereaper (09/17/2015) [-] The stranger did not do anything. These people are declaring that their irrational behaviors and fallacies somehow justify or make god real, when in reality, he's not. It's all fiction, and they're practically insane. They prove it themselves. You can't reason with them. What point is there in being nice?
Either way, morons won't listen. So **** um, and **** you.
Either way, morons won't listen. So **** um, and **** you.
#238 to #225
-
alfonshister (09/17/2015) [-] Oh damn! People disagree with me! they HAVE to be wrong, and that gives me the right to discriminate them!
Cmon dude. No matter ow convinced you are, you can still be wrong.
there are christians, jews, hindus, muslims and atheists that are MORE convinced than you that they are right. Being stubborn and insutive will NOT help us find the correct solution.
So please. Less arrogance, less slurs, more arguments.
More offense =/= being right
Cmon dude. No matter ow convinced you are, you can still be wrong.
there are christians, jews, hindus, muslims and atheists that are MORE convinced than you that they are right. Being stubborn and insutive will NOT help us find the correct solution.
So please. Less arrogance, less slurs, more arguments.
More offense =/= being right
#240 to #239
-
alfonshister (09/17/2015) [-] instead of saying "hurr, there is no god" in a twisted way just cut the cheese and give me your arguments. your sick burns will get us nowhere.
#179 to #62
-
ninjaroo ONLINE (09/16/2015) [-] You're right about evolution and abiogenesis, although I'd say you're sort of twisting the probability aspect. There are plenty of proposed steps for how you can go from an unorganized mess of chemicals to life, using heat or chemical potential energy or even kinetic energy. The problem is we don't have a planet to test our hypothesis on, so it sits squarely in a theoretical space between chemistry and biology.
As for atheistic explanations of matter and energy, there's no real answer that will satisfy you. Go back far enough and there just was a whole mess of energy that didn't really follow any laws, and everything just kind of plopped out of that when laws as we understand them began to make sense. Don't get me wrong, there's very specific mathematical modeling as to how and why all of that happened, but it's no more well explained than the origin of god. "Well he just was", yeah, well so was the universe. Pushing one step further doesn't answer the question.
As for your explanation as to why the Christian god is more likely to be true, that has no logical basis. The fact that your god is hypothetically more powerful has no bearing on whether or not your god is more likely to exist. I believe it's the Ontological Argument that goes like this:
P1 - God is the greatest imaginable being
P2 - For a being to be maximally great, it must exist
C - As god is the greatest imaginable being, and the greatest imaginable being must exist, god must exist.
Which is pretty similar to what you're arguing, and has the same flaws. What if I imagined a god who also had those traits, but was also a great surfer and could punch your god in the face and win? No, being stronger is not a trait that makes something more likely to exist.
As for atheistic explanations of matter and energy, there's no real answer that will satisfy you. Go back far enough and there just was a whole mess of energy that didn't really follow any laws, and everything just kind of plopped out of that when laws as we understand them began to make sense. Don't get me wrong, there's very specific mathematical modeling as to how and why all of that happened, but it's no more well explained than the origin of god. "Well he just was", yeah, well so was the universe. Pushing one step further doesn't answer the question.
As for your explanation as to why the Christian god is more likely to be true, that has no logical basis. The fact that your god is hypothetically more powerful has no bearing on whether or not your god is more likely to exist. I believe it's the Ontological Argument that goes like this:
P1 - God is the greatest imaginable being
P2 - For a being to be maximally great, it must exist
C - As god is the greatest imaginable being, and the greatest imaginable being must exist, god must exist.
Which is pretty similar to what you're arguing, and has the same flaws. What if I imagined a god who also had those traits, but was also a great surfer and could punch your god in the face and win? No, being stronger is not a trait that makes something more likely to exist.
#203 to #179
-
tck (09/16/2015) [-]
>As for your explanation as to why the Christian god is more likely to be true, that has no logical basis.
I put it in layman's terms; and it was not to say that it makes God more likely to exist, rather saying that if a god exists, it's more likely to be God.
The philosophy I'm referencing says that a god would have to be as great as possible; an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent god is the only logical conclusion because there is nothing else that can be above such an entity. All three of these things are inherent to being a god, and a lack of them is a lack of absolute power over the universe. Lacking any of them means ceasing to be a god.
I put it in layman's terms; and it was not to say that it makes God more likely to exist, rather saying that if a god exists, it's more likely to be God.
The philosophy I'm referencing says that a god would have to be as great as possible; an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent god is the only logical conclusion because there is nothing else that can be above such an entity. All three of these things are inherent to being a god, and a lack of them is a lack of absolute power over the universe. Lacking any of them means ceasing to be a god.
#211 to #208
-
tck (09/17/2015) [-]
"As great as possible," is not subjective, because it refers to absolute power. Omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience are not subjective; they are objective measures of power. I also said it was a reference to philosophy, meaning you can't expect something like numerical proofs for concepts.
A god, in order to truly be a god, must be all of those things in order to have absolute control; or else he is simply a powerful being.
A god, in order to truly be a god, must be all of those things in order to have absolute control; or else he is simply a powerful being.
#213 to #211
-
ninjaroo ONLINE (09/17/2015) [-] "God
ɡɒd/
noun
1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity."
Again, a god has no obligation to be "as great as possible", might not even agree that those traits make one as great as possible, and that's not part of the definition of a god.
I could just as easily propose another trait - that to be maximally great, you have to be unique. If someone else is equally powerful to you, you're not truly omnipotent.
P1 - A maximally great being has the aforementioned traits
P2 - It is possible for being A and being B to exist in some possible universe
P3 - From omnipresence, being A and being B exist in all possible universes
C1 - From uniqueness, being A and being B exist in no possible universes
C2 - From C1, the ontological argument is therefore incoherent.
ɡɒd/
noun
1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity."
Again, a god has no obligation to be "as great as possible", might not even agree that those traits make one as great as possible, and that's not part of the definition of a god.
I could just as easily propose another trait - that to be maximally great, you have to be unique. If someone else is equally powerful to you, you're not truly omnipotent.
P1 - A maximally great being has the aforementioned traits
P2 - It is possible for being A and being B to exist in some possible universe
P3 - From omnipresence, being A and being B exist in all possible universes
C1 - From uniqueness, being A and being B exist in no possible universes
C2 - From C1, the ontological argument is therefore incoherent.
#214 to #213
-
tck (09/17/2015) [-]
You can't use the dictionary definition to overrule philosophical discussion; obviously the dictionary is going to include the fact that the word can refer to that since, historically, other religions have worshiped deities which would simply be called "powerful beings" rather than "omnipotent beings."
You're not proposing any additional traits though; omnipotence implies uniqueness, because an omnipotent being cannot be omnipotent if there is another being which has power over him and/or which he has no power over. This is why monotheism is the philosophically logical conclusion to what God must be if he exists. Your example chain of thought is correct until you say they exist nowhere; the correct next step would be that they are the same being (the Trinity, in fact, is a prime example of just such an occurrence; they are three, but because of omnipotence, they are one).
You're not proposing any additional traits though; omnipotence implies uniqueness, because an omnipotent being cannot be omnipotent if there is another being which has power over him and/or which he has no power over. This is why monotheism is the philosophically logical conclusion to what God must be if he exists. Your example chain of thought is correct until you say they exist nowhere; the correct next step would be that they are the same being (the Trinity, in fact, is a prime example of just such an occurrence; they are three, but because of omnipotence, they are one).
#216 to #214
-
ninjaroo ONLINE (09/17/2015) [-] You're saying that to truly be the thing, they have to have traits that the thing doesn't necessarily have. That's not a philosophical problem.
You're stepping past my argument by ignoring the main axes of it. The trinity is internally consistent because they are the same being, I'm proposing two completely distinct and incompatible beings. Suppose being A was omnibenevolent and being B was omnimalevolent. Totally incompatible, but equally great.
You're stepping past my argument by ignoring the main axes of it. The trinity is internally consistent because they are the same being, I'm proposing two completely distinct and incompatible beings. Suppose being A was omnibenevolent and being B was omnimalevolent. Totally incompatible, but equally great.
#217 to #216
-
tck (09/17/2015) [-]
I understand completely that you were proposing two omnipotent beings. My response was that, logically, we can conclude that omnipotence "implies uniqueness, because an omnipotent being cannot be omnipotent if there is another being which has power over him and/or which he has no power over."
If two beings, one omnibenevolent and the other omnimalevolent, did exist then it can be concluded that only one is omnipotent (if either are). I'm explaining to you that your proposition of two distinct beings, both omnipotent, can be logically reduced to either (1) they are distinct parts of the same being or (2) either one or both is/are not omnipotent.
You can't destroy a premise by forcing a paradox. Just because a paradox is conceivable does not mean it has to be possible, even in the supernatural. It will always be able to be logically reduced, in this case by the fact that dual omnipotence is self-defeating and would not be true omnipotence for either side.
If two beings, one omnibenevolent and the other omnimalevolent, did exist then it can be concluded that only one is omnipotent (if either are). I'm explaining to you that your proposition of two distinct beings, both omnipotent, can be logically reduced to either (1) they are distinct parts of the same being or (2) either one or both is/are not omnipotent.
You can't destroy a premise by forcing a paradox. Just because a paradox is conceivable does not mean it has to be possible, even in the supernatural. It will always be able to be logically reduced, in this case by the fact that dual omnipotence is self-defeating and would not be true omnipotence for either side.
#219 to #217
-
ninjaroo ONLINE (09/17/2015) [-] I'm not forcing a paradox. It's equivalent modal logic, that is inconsistent. It demonstrates that the logic does not work, you can't respond to "These two separate beings with the traits you describe follow the same logic and therefore don't work" with "But they're either the same thing or don't have the traits"
#224 to #219
-
tck (09/17/2015) [-]
It is not a response to it, it's a philosophical conclusion OF it. You're ignoring the fact that logical deduction is possible - if you define two beings as omnipotent, then the very next step is to realize that at least one of those beings is not omnipotent because it defeats the meaning of omnipotence.
If two beings are defined as equally omnipotent, then neither is truly omnipotent; and in fact they may have power over everything in the universe except each other, and still it would not be true omnipotence.
You also cannot say that they both have power over the other and simply choose to allow the other to exist, because a truly omnipotent being is not under the power of any other being.
If two beings are defined as equally omnipotent, then neither is truly omnipotent; and in fact they may have power over everything in the universe except each other, and still it would not be true omnipotence.
You also cannot say that they both have power over the other and simply choose to allow the other to exist, because a truly omnipotent being is not under the power of any other being.
#226 to #224
-
ninjaroo ONLINE (09/17/2015) [-] Which is exactly why the ontological argument is incoherent. Hell, we can even break it up into two steps.
P1 - A maximally great being has the aforementioned traits
P2 - It is possible for being A to exist in some possible universe
P3 - From omnipresence, being A exists in all possible universes
C1 - From P3, being A exists in our universe
P1 - A maximally great being has the aforementioned traits
P2 - It is possible for being B to exist in some possible universe
P3 - From omnipresence, being B exists in all possible universes
C1 - From P3, being B exists in our universe
The argument works equally well for incompatible beings, and is therefore itself incoherent. Your logical deduction "But that doesn't work" is in the wrong place, the premises are sound because the initial premises don't place them in the same universe, with power over each other. Their traits do that, making them impossible beings.
P1 - A maximally great being has the aforementioned traits
P2 - It is possible for being A to exist in some possible universe
P3 - From omnipresence, being A exists in all possible universes
C1 - From P3, being A exists in our universe
P1 - A maximally great being has the aforementioned traits
P2 - It is possible for being B to exist in some possible universe
P3 - From omnipresence, being B exists in all possible universes
C1 - From P3, being B exists in our universe
The argument works equally well for incompatible beings, and is therefore itself incoherent. Your logical deduction "But that doesn't work" is in the wrong place, the premises are sound because the initial premises don't place them in the same universe, with power over each other. Their traits do that, making them impossible beings.
#227 to #226
-
tck (09/17/2015) [-]
Yes, I understand what you're trying to say with that. Let me be more specific - it's not possible to assert being B as omnipotent if you have already asserted being A as omnipotent. It is a unique case by definition, and it is obviously going to become an incoherent argument if part of the definition is ignored. You cannot simply prove the concept of omnipotence as incoherent by proving that it is incoherent to assert two omnipotent beings. When you assert one, it is impossible to assert another.
In fact that's nearly the entire reason philosophy beyond pure logic is necessary to understand the idea of God or a god. Pure logic is dependent on the idea that all concepts are replicable; philosophy becomes necessary when a concept is not replicable, when it is only possible once.
In fact that's nearly the entire reason philosophy beyond pure logic is necessary to understand the idea of God or a god. Pure logic is dependent on the idea that all concepts are replicable; philosophy becomes necessary when a concept is not replicable, when it is only possible once.
#229 to #227
-
ninjaroo ONLINE (09/17/2015) [-] In the comment you replied to, the arguments were made separately and have no bearing on each other. If one is true, then so is the other, but since that's impossible it must not be true. I'm not asserting simultaneously. If it is then impossible to assert one anyway, then it's impossible to assert it in the first place, and therefore the idea of a god is still an incoherent one. Stating otherwise is special pleading towards either being A or being B.
#234 to #229
-
tck (09/17/2015) [-]
I believe I already addressed that:
"That's nearly the entire reason philosophy beyond pure logic is necessary to understand the idea of God or a god. Pure logic is dependent on the idea that all concepts are replicable; philosophy becomes necessary when a concept is not replicable, when it is only possible once."
Pure logic says that if both cannot be true, neither can be true, since they state the same thing; however, the idea that some things are true without being replicable is not an insane one. It is highly abstract, yes, but I'd expect no less from a being outside the comprehensible universe.
"That's nearly the entire reason philosophy beyond pure logic is necessary to understand the idea of God or a god. Pure logic is dependent on the idea that all concepts are replicable; philosophy becomes necessary when a concept is not replicable, when it is only possible once."
Pure logic says that if both cannot be true, neither can be true, since they state the same thing; however, the idea that some things are true without being replicable is not an insane one. It is highly abstract, yes, but I'd expect no less from a being outside the comprehensible universe.
#235 to #234
-
ninjaroo ONLINE (09/17/2015) [-] Well, really we're talking about modal logic and the ontological argument here, this entire conversation happened around the single point that the Christian god is more likely to be the true god than any of the historical pantheons because of the ultimate power thing. There are other means of logically deducing these things.
#180 to #52
-
everyziggy (09/16/2015) [-] Or that is just your opinion on what evolution means and in reality there are many different schools of thought regarding evolution.
#195 to #180
-
infinitereaper (09/16/2015) [-] Or you'll all retarded. Grasping at straws. You'll do and say anything to justify your delusions.
#78 to #52
-
zacoren (09/16/2015) [-] That doesn't make sense tho, if a god did exist, it wouldn't have to create everything the way it is right now, it could have created the initial conditions, and then let the universe run itself, if life was made, cool, if not doesn't matter, evolution is just a happenstance of conditions here on earth being exactly right, however, it doesn't disprove a god. You can disprove something if you can't test it.
#79 to #78
-
infinitereaper (09/16/2015) [-] You also can't prove something if you can't test it, 99.99% of the time that means it either doesn't exist or the technology to test it doesn't exist. There a lot of evidence against gone. This kind of fallacious thinking is tantamount to ******** .
#82 to #79
-
zacoren (09/16/2015) [-] But that's the point, both religions and science claims things without testing it, the only difference is that most of the time science tests things. However, it only tests things we have the capability to test, you can't test to see if god exists, so you can't say for a fact that he doesn't. Evolution doesn't mean that there wasn't a god that set it into motion, it just means that evolution happened
#83 to #82
-
infinitereaper (09/16/2015) [-] I also can't test that the flying Spaghetti monster doesn't exist, so you can't say that he doesn't. All hail meatballs, the true lords and saviors.
Eventually you got to realize how retarded it sounds.
Eventually you got to realize how retarded it sounds.
#85 to #84
-
infinitereaper (09/16/2015) [-] You're delusional m8. I could say that about the 1000 gods that came before. Or the 100 that may come after. Doesn't make any of it any more than fiction. You were brainwashed growing up to believe the ******** .
Even I was that ignorant once, until I learned more about science, reality, humanity and the universe, and I realized how stupid it was. The truth is the truth. Eventually you gotta deal with it. Or just live a life of lies.
You can lie to yourself all you want, what you can't do is tell me to not call you out on your ******** .
God isn't real.
Even I was that ignorant once, until I learned more about science, reality, humanity and the universe, and I realized how stupid it was. The truth is the truth. Eventually you gotta deal with it. Or just live a life of lies.
You can lie to yourself all you want, what you can't do is tell me to not call you out on your ******** .
God isn't real.
#88 to #86
-
infinitereaper (09/16/2015) [-] And only an idiot thinks "You can't prove x" argument isn't fallacious and moronic.
In reality people are grasping at straws.
They've built their whole world views on this fragile idea that we go somewhere when we die, when in reality, we just die. They're scared. Scared of the truth, and scared of a world without any answers. They aren't strong enough to live any other way. So lie to themselves.
That' is why religion exists. To make people feel better.
Even if it's not true.
In reality people are grasping at straws.
They've built their whole world views on this fragile idea that we go somewhere when we die, when in reality, we just die. They're scared. Scared of the truth, and scared of a world without any answers. They aren't strong enough to live any other way. So lie to themselves.
That' is why religion exists. To make people feel better.
Even if it's not true.
#94 to #93
-
infinitereaper (09/16/2015) [-] I'm not sure you fully understand the scientific method, but the day will come, if humanity doesn't destroy itself, when we figure out everything and it's a very safe bet that nothing even like a god is going to be discovered. My bet is that we'll discover something far more sinister.
After all, current models suggest, that this is just a tiny pocket of reality, twisted and warped in more dimensions, reality being a some sort of large plane of different frequencies that make up different universes with different rules and such. Shapes that only make sense mathematically.
By all means. God doesn't have anything to do with it.
We are just one tiny planet among trillions in the observable universe.
There are billions of sentient species out there. Maybe they all have gods of their own.
It's just insanity.
Doesn't mean I make **** up to explain it all.
After all, current models suggest, that this is just a tiny pocket of reality, twisted and warped in more dimensions, reality being a some sort of large plane of different frequencies that make up different universes with different rules and such. Shapes that only make sense mathematically.
By all means. God doesn't have anything to do with it.
We are just one tiny planet among trillions in the observable universe.
There are billions of sentient species out there. Maybe they all have gods of their own.
It's just insanity.
Doesn't mean I make **** up to explain it all.
#100 to #98
-
infinitereaper (09/16/2015) [-] By that logic we should just let criminals kill people. I mean they believe they have a right to. You've got no argument. You're literally promoting ignorance over education. Shame on you.
#121 to #111
-
infinitereaper (09/16/2015) [-] anon the true cringe is you using the "live and let live" "I'm on your side guys" ******** argument. You keep mentioning fallacies but you are full of **** . There's a reason schools aren't allowed to teach religion in schools. Because schools is for learning. Education not spreading lies.
Just because I'm mentioning these things DOESNT make me a neckbeard atheist or whatever. That's ******* ******** . Just buzzwords people use to discredit the truth.
Just because I'm mentioning these things DOESNT make me a neckbeard atheist or whatever. That's ******* ******** . Just buzzwords people use to discredit the truth.
#114 to #111
-
infinitereaper (09/16/2015) [-] And yet religious people think they know everything because "god did it'
while science admits that we don't know everything but are willing to find out with testing and evidence
while science admits that we don't know everything but are willing to find out with testing and evidence
#103 to #94
-
zacoren (09/16/2015) [-] I didn't say such, you are misreading, I know about multiverse theories, pocket dimensions, quantum mechanics, if we to manage to finally come up with a grand unified theory, then that would be awesome, the point still stands and will always stand, we don't know everything, we can't know everything, and we can't count anything out until we can prove otherwise, to do so would mean that we would make less progress by limiting our options, we may never be able to disprove an all knowing creator, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.
#104 to #103
-
infinitereaper (09/16/2015) [-] We can know everything. And when we do, this argument can no longer be used. Granted, we'll all probably die when the universe collapses. Or who knows, maybe not. But do you really think religion will stick around after humanity evolves?
#105 to #104
-
zacoren (09/16/2015) [-] No we can't know everything, we can only know what we can observe, and we , at least as far as our technology goes, wouldn't be able to observe other universes and live in their confines to examine them, if other universes exist, then its possible an infinite number exist, if an infinite number exist then they could have an infinite different set of rules, meaning we would have to know infinity before we could know everything. And that's not possible
#106 to #105
-
infinitereaper (09/16/2015) [-] Human flight used to be impossible, getting to space used to be impossible, if you limit yourself by what you know now you'll never get anywhere. I get the feeling you're trying to rationalize this **** so you can keep your sense of wonder, but that's not the reality. Humans may even become multidimensional one day. Anyways, if time is infinite, then infinity is possible. But for that to happen it'll probably be a singularity. Humanity that is.
#123 to #113
-
infinitereaper (09/16/2015) [-] Impossible for a human. But you said it yourself we might not be "human" in the future. An evolved species may be able to become infinite. Via hive mind or singularity of some sort. You say you can't know, yet, you also can't know if it's possible for us to understand it all. See where your logic starts to crumble? You're contradicting yourself.
#115 to #113
-
infinitereaper (09/16/2015) [-] We'd still be human, just evolved. Why are you so afraid of knowing? Not even that. What are you so afraid of? I seem it. Infinity. What do you seek?
Dude, I'm with you on almost all your points. But honestly, why the **** do you even bother?
These people clearly doesn't listen.
These people clearly doesn't listen.
#155 to #43
-
glayn (09/16/2015) [-]
It only seems to be americans who go into a foamy fit of rage at evolution. Most of my family is religious, with my grandparents going to church every Sunday (My granddad is actually the church's caretaker). They all believe in evolution, and think science is something god put in place so **** works. Personally I'm indifferent about a god, gods, omnipotent being etc, but each to their own.
#14
-
asasqw (09/15/2015) [-] The new pope seems like he would be the kind of guy who would do this if the pokemon guys ask
#24
-
battletechmech (09/15/2015) [-] Pokemon is officially whitelisted by the Catholic Church. whitelisted by Benedict XVI No less!
nypost.com/2000/04/21/pokemon-earns-papal-blessing/
nypost.com/2000/04/21/pokemon-earns-papal-blessing/
#119
-
SilverBullet (09/16/2015) [-] What if you had to battle your way into the Vatican, like an Elite Four type of deal, battling the various bishops and cardinals, and ultimately ending with his holiness. Also, what kind of pokemon would he even use anyway?
#50
-
infinitereaper (09/16/2015) [-] If I was in the pokemon world, my main goal would be to dominate and capture the supreme being of the pokemon world
and **** it
and **** it
#59 to #50
-
goodguygary ONLINE (09/16/2015) [-] ******* the poke-god is what every true pokemon trainer strives for
#27
-
mrdeviljho (09/15/2015) [-] I say BRING IT ON!!!
This is Zygarde at 100% power. The one we know and love is only 50% power. At 50% he has 600 base stats. Do the math.
This is Zygarde at 100% power. The one we know and love is only 50% power. At 50% he has 600 base stats. Do the math.
#149 to #133
-
aggronlover [OP](09/16/2015) [-] Actually, the new Zygarde forms are based on the children of Loki from Norse Mythology. I'll admit theis one looks a bit outlandish, but it's hardly the first pokémon to resemble a digimon, and there are several digimon that resemble pokémon as well.
#168 to #149
-
mrdeviljho (09/16/2015) [-] For those wondering what he refers to when he says the "Children of Loki", lets just say Loki is one frisky sonofabitch who had several different monster children. They include:
Sleipnir the eight legged horse:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleipnir
Fenrir the monstrous wolf:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenrir
Jörmungandr the World Serpent:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B6rmungandr
Hel, the giantess and Norse goddess of the underworld:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hel_ (being)
Though it seems the game is just basing it off of (in order of Zygarde forms) Fenrir, Jörmungandr, and Hel
Sleipnir the eight legged horse:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleipnir
Fenrir the monstrous wolf:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenrir
Jörmungandr the World Serpent:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B6rmungandr
Hel, the giantess and Norse goddess of the underworld:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hel_ (being)
Though it seems the game is just basing it off of (in order of Zygarde forms) Fenrir, Jörmungandr, and Hel
#170 to #168
-
mrdeviljho (09/16/2015) [-] Seems the link for Hel messed up, let me see if I can fix that, here's a better link
norse-mythology.org/gods-and-creatures/giants/hel/
norse-mythology.org/gods-and-creatures/giants/hel/
#28 to #27
-
mrdeviljho (09/15/2015) [-] Apparently, Zygarde is getting 3 new forms. This leads to a safe assumption that we can expect a "Pokemon Z" game announcement soon!
#41 to #40
-
mrdeviljho (09/16/2015) [-] Naw, they call it "Ash Greninja" and it's... *sigh* "the form that Greninja takes when the bond between it and Ash is raised to the limit. The strength of their bond changes Greninja's appearance, and it takes on the characteristic look of Ash's attire"
Source: www.pokemon.com/us/pokemon-news/see-new-zygarde-formes-in-animation-news-from-japan/
Source: www.pokemon.com/us/pokemon-news/see-new-zygarde-formes-in-animation-news-from-japan/
#57 to #45
-
bohemianblasphemy (09/16/2015) [-] Maybe it would work if Pikachu was fully evolved into a Raichu.
Besides Slowbro getting a Mega while Slowking did not, I don't know of any other Pokémon with an alternate form that isn't fully evolved. Cosplay Pikachu doesn't count either.
Besides Slowbro getting a Mega while Slowking did not, I don't know of any other Pokémon with an alternate form that isn't fully evolved. Cosplay Pikachu doesn't count either.
#58 to #57
-
asthmetheus (09/16/2015) [-] The more I think about it, the more I think mega evolutions are retarded, they should have done something more like, "Jurassic evolutions" where they turn more beast like instead of, tacking on glitter and more items.
#135 to #57
-
sexyhimself (09/16/2015) [-] Isn't Slowking and alternate evolution of Slowbro tho. So technically they're both final evolutions
#134 to #41
-
sexyhimself (09/16/2015) [-] Didn't they realize that was a bad idea when they tried that in a manga.
#42 to #40
-
immapikacu (09/16/2015) [-] you mean...ash greninja........ www.pokemon.com/us/pokemon-news/see-new-zygarde-formes-in-animation-news-from-japan/ dont quote on da source
#19
-
ShinyMetapod (09/15/2015) [-] Only bringing 2 pokemon to catch Arceus?
WTF are you casul?
Why the pope only got 2 pokemon?
WTF are you casul?
Why the pope only got 2 pokemon?
#21 to #19
-
karvarausku (09/15/2015) [-] **karvarausku used "*roll picture*"**
**karvarausku rolled image** I bet one of those pokemons is magikarp.
also pope has 3
**karvarausku rolled image** I bet one of those pokemons is magikarp.
also pope has 3
#183
-
borderlineparanoid ONLINE (09/16/2015) [-] for your right.
to paaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaartyyyyy
to paaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaartyyyyy
