Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

Oh, I'm not saying anything about the definition of demons. They ARE out there, and they DO NOT LIKE us.

What I was trying to refer to is the fact that whether there are other beings out there, other beings created by God besides the angels and the fallen angels, is not really touched upon by Catholic theology.

Some people try to claim that they receive their power from a being that is not angelic, demonic, or God. While the Catholic Church does not say, one way or the other, if these beings exist or not, it still frowns upon 'experimentation' with trying to receive power from said beings, as there is no way to tell whether or not the source is in fact benign or malefic.

The basic fact that the Catholic Church decries magic is not at all in contention.

Atheism is an amusing 'religion', since it is impossible to prove a negative. As far as evidence of God, I believe there is quite a bit of evidence. The fact that some people do not believe so has always rather astonished me.

I do find it amusing, as well, that such a thing as posting a mod can provoke this kind of discussion. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif It's a wonder that my TC mod hasn't provoked a discussion on the exact difference between Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

Was this directed at me? I think it has not been near proven the existence of something before the universe, but it is certainly a strong possibility. I do find the sort of being that most religions describe (mostly concerned with humans/earth as opposed to the rest of universe, answering prayers, sending prophets, and in general constantly tinkering) highly unlikely. I would be interested in your strong evidence, however.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

Actually, it was not directed towards anyone in particular. I will note, though, that as untenable as agnosticism is, atheism is even more so.

If you would like to hear about evidence, please PM me. This thread is too cluttered already.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

Sorry, but I think I'll take a rain check, out of this discussion I have already received one 'preachy' PM. I can see we are already talking past each other anyway.

I must admit I am more than surprised at the number of serious christians on the forum, given how easily most of them are offended.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

Religion is just yet another excuse for people to gain power over others... and it works surprisingly well, too. One would think these people would realize theyre just thralls and drop out of the loop after a while.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

The strange thing is, as much debate as there is about the existence of a god, it is almost about one that is going around commanding people and issuing rewards and punishments. When you boil away all the nonsense about a god(s) setting rules for humans to follow, and the complex myths that inevitably come with organized religions, the question of whether or not something designed the universe becomes not that important.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

Thats true. You could say I believe in god simply because I dont believe that dark matter really exists, yet I find the big bang theory reasonable enough. Without dark matter, there is not enough matter in the universe for it to eventually stop expanding and collapse. So, if there isnt dark matter, some force had to create the universe as it was before the big bang. Why not call that force 'God'? It doesnt really matter, as long as it isnt pointlessly mettling in the affairs of humans. And that I would find nearly impossible to believe. Its pretty damn conceited to think that some all powerful diety would care at all about us.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

Thanks, that is exactly what I was getting at http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

Actually, this is a logical fallacy. You are quickly (and conveniently) explaining away something in the natural universe, that is (as yet) not understood, by means of the supernatural. It's the same reasoning that had humans inventing rain gods not so long ago.

If some deity was all-powerful, why would it create flawed beings? For amusement is the only logical answer. The more advanced the being, the greater the need for play. If you believe in some deity then you must believe we're all a not-so-huge cosmic joke. Unless ... people's pet deities are *not* all-powerful and all-knowing. I'll let folks try to figure out the ramifications of such a concept with regards to organized religions.

Humans invent deities because (most) humans are fundamentally insecure, and want someone or something to provide direction, meaning, and authority. It's also why, despite us having knowledge of democratic principles dating back from ancient times, most humans on this planet continue to tolerate dictatorships (in one form or another) to this day.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

I am not offended, and won't crawl into a hole. You may be right about the "preachy" PM, perhaps it should have been public. Why don't you post it?

All I sent was an encouraging Thank you.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

Actually the ability for a God to meddle in the affairs of men is amazingly limited, because of the, for lack of a better phrase, "butterfly effect".

If you save Janine from cancer (say), and Janine runs into Clarice with her car and kills her, 20 years later, did God just kill Clarice to save Janine? No problem! God can fix that, he's God and can do anything! Sure.... except for that annoying concept of Free Will. If God created us to excerise Free Will, only to be constantly meddling in our everyday activities to reward believers, or subtly changing events without our knowledge at every turn, it rather cheapens the game of life, no?

Of course this logic, rather bizarrely, agrees with the "manifestation mythology" of the Old Testament - when God is going to change things, The Man shows up, not some trivial and lengthy chains of causation. It also means, of course, that you shouldn't bother praying to God since he can't help you anyway. At least if your praying for some temporal aid, although it doesn't exclude "guiding your heart".

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

By offended I didn't mean our discussion, but Dominions in general. I will post the PM if you like:
@arryn: If whatever created the universe is still watching, I think you're right that amusement is more than likely the reason...

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

I in no way meant to imply that whatever this force was is something supernatural.

There is no such thing as free will. That much is a proven fact. If god were truly omniscient, he would be able to completely predict everything that will ever happen. Thus, any entertainment he may derive from actually running the simulation will fall flat, much like watching a movie 1000 times would. So is god not omniscient? Then what makes him so great?

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

Not necessarily, you can create your own game and still have fun playing, particularly with a random element. Plus, there is no particular evidence that anything that may have created the universe would have to be omniscient.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

I don't disagree, but for the sake of argument, would you care to provide us with this proof?

Entertainment derives from being surprised. If you cannot be surprised (kind of goes along with the all-knowing shtick) than how can you be entertained? heh What's the *point* of a universe if you (as the all-knowing almighty deity) already know every possible outcome, and worse, can change outcomes to suit yourself by re-initializing the starting conditions? A deity (or deities) only makes sense precisely if it is *not* all-knowing and all-powerful. Ergo throw out the bulk of what most of our religions teach as "undeniable fact".

Nothing at all, other than that such a hypothetical being is likely just a wee bit more advanced (evolutionarily and technologically) than we are. Whether that requires that others less advanced (and more gullible) worship it ...

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

To an omniscient being, there's no such thing as "random". Which path an event chain might take might be random, but the being would already, in advance, know which path will be taken. It's the very definition of the term "omniscient": knowing the outcome. All possible outcomes and which one, specifically, will come to pass. Logically, then, where's the fun in waiting for what you already know will happen?

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

I suppose it depends on your definition of omniscient. I was defining it as knowing all that is happening, not all that will happen.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

Cause and effect. If you know *all* that is happening *right now*, then you will know what *will* happen. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif "All" is a very encompassing term. When one argues philosophy, then little details like the meanings of almost every word used in the discussion becomes important. It's necessary so that both/all parties in the discussion are using a common frame of reference. Otherwise, one gets the morass that's common when people argue religion ...

No, I'm not picking on you, in case you're wondering. If anything, I'm picking on this very-much-gone-astray thread, which was ostensibly about a mod, and has been hijacked into an ethics and philosophy debate.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

I like to think that the thread "evolved" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif. But yea, these sorts of discussions go on every day by the thousands throughout the net, and aren't appropriate here. But sometimes your bored and just can't resist http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

That's assuming that the universe is completely deterministic, which is possible, but not necessarily true.

Anyways, on the topic of the Arco Blood Mod, if somebody is interested, I'll be starting up another "Modded Nations Only" game in the near future, and this one would be an excellent choice.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

Actually, that only holds for classical physics. Following quantum mechanics, a particle can be in more than one state at once. It is not until it affects something that it solidifies into single state. Thus you could know the states of all the various particles at a single moment, but not know what will happen.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

I think you meant to say "until it is observed", not "affects something".

Any entity that might be able to know the quantum states of every particle in the multiverse might also not be subject to our current understanding (aka physics) of how probability waves collapse. By definition, if you "know" the quantum state of a particle you've already collapsed its wave. We're positing a deity that can observe at the quantum level without interacting (affecting) what's being observed (something we don't currently believe is possible). Another way of looking at this is that according to quantum mechanics you cannot have an all-knowing deity. Which means that either one believes in such a deity and quantum mechanics is wrong, or the science is correct and what many modern religions posit is absurd. I've never been fond of the absurd ... especially my current theocratic government.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

Fair enough, it goes back to the definition of omniscient. If knowing the states of every particle at a single moment is not omniscient, it still seems rather impressive and god-like, so what do you call it?

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

Fantasy. Absurd. (take your pick) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

I'm not saying someone has that ability, but it certainly seems more reasonable than your definition of omniscience, so it seems it should have a distinct term....

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

Omniscience is a religious concept. There's nothing "reasonable" about religion, ergo isn't creating yet more terms to describe shades of the farcical a tad ridiculous?

But since you insist on calling "my" definition of omniscience unreasonable, I'll point you to Merriam-Webster Online's definition. Please note that definition #1 is "infinite awareness", and definition #2 is "universal or complete knowledge". I believe "my" definition fits within both of those official definitions.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

I never said your definition was unreasonable, only that applying such a concept the universe was unreasonable. My only point is that the less extreme version is as deserving of a word for it as the normal definition.

Anyway, I've got to get to sleep, so I'm afraid we will have to shelve our definition nitpicking session for now http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

Why is it incompatable for an omniscient being whom *exists outside of the universe* to be able to know everything about said universe without affecting it? Arguing that God doesn't exist because Quantum Mechanics limits him seems like a particularly pedestrian argument.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

You haven't been reading carefully enough. I did not use quantum mechanics to attempt to disprove the existence of God. I merely said that God and quantum mechanics are incompatible. Quantum mechanics does not, and cannot, be used to disprove the existence of God. Actually, you can no more disprove the existence of God than you can prove any negative.

However, since you seem to be leaning in a certain direction, I'll point out that the burden for showing objective proof falls upon those making the fantastical claims, which are the deists. Anecdotal evidence and belief are not proof. A history book (aka the Bible) isn't proof. Claiming divine intervention for anything that cannot be immediately explained is not proof.

It's an utter waste of time for people to try to argue whether God exists or doesn't. It's up to those who believe in the fantastical to convince those of us who are skeptical with irrefutable proof that they are correct (just as is happening with cold fusion research). Whenever someone tries to pin a believer down, you get a recitation of dogma, or circular logic, or an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

My apologies to Scott for the continued hijacking of his thread.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

> It's an utter waste of time for people to try to argue whether God exists or doesn't.

No it isn't. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif I might discuss whether or not Omega-man is the best movie ever without it being a waste of time. The discussion defines me and my views, not the quality of the movie or the attributes of God.

Strange thread BTW. It seems most threads with philosophical discussions end up in a discussion regarding the existance of a God.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

May I ask how you can prove a negative?

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

I would say that omniscience is a basic concept. The fact that we cannot know everything can easily be juxtaposed against a theoretical 'someone' or 'something' that can know everything. That is an omniscient being, and nothing I've said even touches religion.

Also, I believe that my religion is eminently reasonable.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

I was wondering when Kristoffer would join the discussion.

I don't find it that strange. My views on blood magic/blood sacrifice/selfishness are directly tied to my moral views, which are adequately explained by Catholicism. Naturally, that will bring the god-bashers out of the woodwork.

Rather why I didn't want to bring it up...

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

I just thought I should point out, also, that for those that think the universe is completely deterministic (i.e., no free will), Godel's Incompleteness Theorem can be used in such a circumstance to show that you cannot use that as the basis for saying there is no God.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

Tell me what part of these irrefutables are "dogma, or circular logic, or an attempt to shift the burden of proof.":

Often people are uncertain about the existence of Christ, but few scholars would disagree that a man named Jesus lived roughly between 2 BC and about 33 AD. History documents that this man was not a myth but a real person and the historical evidence for this is excellent. For instance, the Roman historian Tacitus, writing in about 115 A.D., records the events surrounding Emperor Nero in July of A.D. 64. After the fire that destroyed much of Rome, Nero was blamed for being responsible:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition [Christ's resurrection] thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. (Bettenson, p. 2)

And further an eyewittness account:

The popular historian Will Durant, himself not a Christian, wrote concerning Christ's historical validity, "The denial of that existence seems never to have occurred even to the bitterest gentile or Jewish opponents of nascent Christianity" (Durant, The Story of Civilization, vol. 3, p. 555). And again, "That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels" (Ibid., p. 557).

Also, remeber that the Old Testament which foretell Jesus was written far before his divine birth.

Further, an amazing four records record "Why" he was executed. In any case Scholars agree that there must have been at very least 2 such accounts.

Miracles do occur, and most institutions require scientific proof and expert testimony.

So which am I doing: "dogma, or circular logic, or an attempt to shift the burden of proof."

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

Full apologies to Scott, whose mod is quite nice. . .

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

*laughs* Why apologize? You people are silly, with 'apology' this and 'apology' that.

I just wish I could find a way to mod my beloved R'lyeh without changing what's so fun about it.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

I have no problem believing that a few thousand years ago there was a person with a lot of followers, who believed he was the direct son of a god and could thought he could do all sorts of amazing things. It is only when you say that everything he is supposed to have said and done is the absolute truth that things start seem a little rickety.

I do find it quite funny that someone believes that those who believe in magic are a danger to society and themselves, could at the same time believe in miracles...

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

I don't see what is so funny about it. As already established in this thread, the question is not the nature of the power, but the source.

Miracles come from God. Magic does not (by definition). Therefore, there is a marked difference between them, and to treat them the same is the confusing idea.

'Apples and oranges' spring to mind.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

quantum,

Your problem, or attack on my thesis appears to be with your fear of or misunderstanding of Omnipotent and Omniscient. God is both.

Why does God have to lack humor? He see all that was or is or will be humorous at the same time! He calls his creation "Good." He can have feeling of the Whole creation, and a single place and point in time! And yet he gives us free will, so we can make him happy, sad, or angry.

Jesus is the Son of God. His Power comes from His Father, and so He is infallable, because of His Father.

Miracles are not well understood by the church. Mainly, because there don't appear to be concrete rules as to why, or how they work. And so, many christian ask themselves, "Why do children get sick at all?" While the church can has several rules about the faith of the leader, the candidate, and the community, some are healed and some not. A divine mystery I suppose, as "suffering is a part of the human condition" (Pope JPII).

God is definetly to be feared, and he well may be impossible to fit in nice tidy rules. Aetheism is a fools bet; You bet everything that you get nothing rather than betting everything that you get everything. . . Primarily do to a lack of will to SEEK the truth.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

I'm sure that will be seen as 'preachy', BD.

From what I've seen in this thread, I would say that a common issue that runs through the non-deist's thoughts is that God is a being on the same order as humans, only omnipotent and omniscient.

This certainly isn't what Catholic theology says on the point.

To put it another way, if a human were to be omniscient and omnipotent, he still would not be God (or even 'a god'), because his nature is not God's nature.

Christ, BEING God, would not fall under the above.

I guess what I'm trying to say that one nice thing about a Trinitine God is that there's no way to understand such a being (from a human perspective), and so there's need to try. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

For those that want a non-preachy approach to Christianity, I can only refer you to Chesterton's Orthodoxy. Lewis's Mere Christianity would also be profitable, I think.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

I believe this is exactly the sort of post arryn was speaking of. You state your beliefs, but base them upon very little other than 'they are true'. As for the somewhat absurd comparison to betting, being agnostic is the ultimate safe bet. If you consider that in theory, every religion has an
equal chance of being true, at the point when you die there are a lot more religions that would forgive you for being unsure than for choosing the wrong one. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

@scott: Where they believe it comes from does not much make a difference from the point of view of being a danger to society and themselves. Say Bob believes he can walk through fire unharmed because he has studied with the warlocks of Zaxxon, Fred believes that a god is putting a divine shield around him to walk though fire. How can you say Bob is more a danger?

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

Ok, lets say god does exist, yet I dont believe it.

Case 1:
Believing there to be no possiblility of gods existence, I live my life just like I actually do, i.e. putting down religion and people who believe in god. So, god strikes me down and I go to hell.
Case 2:
Even though inside myself I believe there is no possiblility of gods existence, I go around like you do preaching to everyone everywhere about how great god is. So I die. Then what does god do? Does he send me to hell even though I spoke his will? Or do I get into heaven, even though I didnt believe in him? If its the former, then Im screwed no matter what I do, and theres no point in not being atheist. If its the latter, thats one messed up god you got there. Why are you preaching the will of a god who lets people lie to buy redemption?

Either way, theres no reason for me not to be atheist. So stop trying to convert me.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

To be fair, I've seen very little on the opposite side of the argument besides 'This can't be true.' That, and patently unverifiable assertions that are logically impossible.

I think this is a specious example. In EITHER case, what this person believes will not harm anyone else (though it may kill him). However, in other cases, there is quite a large difference. Say, in the idea that I can change your mind for you. Magic has no problem with this idea, but no miracle would do this (for that would abrogate Free Will).

IOW, what is possible with a miracle and what is possible with magic is quite different. Magic (normally) admits no theoretical limits.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

You have made an admittedly common mistake in dealing with God. God does not send anyone to Hell; people go to Hell themselves. Hell, by definition, is being apart from God. If you live your life believing there is no God, when you die and discover there is a God, you will deny Him then (if you have the strength of your convictions). By doing so, you consign yourself to Hell.

Of course, the question then becomes, "Who would willingly consign themselves to Hell?" The reply is, "Who would willingly deny the possibility of God?"

If you don't believe in God, and yet try to do God's will, you sound to be quite confused. If you don't believe in God, do not try to tell people about God. You don't go around to adults preaching about the Tooth Fairy, do you?

Well, you presuppose that you do not, cannot, and will not believe in God. With that presupposition, what can you expect to happen if and when you find out that God does exist?

The problem with your stance is not that you're an atheist, but that you won't even consider the alternative, except from the standpoint of an atheist.

I do agree with you. As long as you're committed to being an atheist, there's no reason for you not to be an atheist.

I do like this quote by a priest, though.

"If the atheist is right, he will never know."
"If the Christian is wrong, he will never know."

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

The atheist makes no claims about gods, but simply observes what is observable and detects what is detectable. It is the theist who makes an existential claim (a claim that the thing described, a god, actually exists). The atheist makes no such claim, but maintains the default position: "I don't see any gods" (or, "I don't detect any gods"; or, "I don't conceive that gods exist"). "One cannot prove a negative, nor is that demanded in [the theistic] system of logic. Since negative is not susceptible to proof, the person posting the positive assertion has the burden of maintaining the assertion."* For this reason, it is the theist -- not the atheist -- who is responsible for backing up her or his claim. Though many atheists are able to provide very strong arguments for the nonexistence of a deity, it is not the atheist's job to make any case whatsoever. The reason for this is simple: Nobody can prove that a thing does not exist unless it cannot possibly exist (such as a square circle).

* Jon Murray and Madalyn Murray O'Hair, All the Questions You Ever Wanted to Ask American Atheists: With All the Answers (1982 ed.) vol. ii., p. 18.


this is from http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/faq1110i.htm

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

Exactly, there is very little argument for or against the existence of a god.

It is true, in this case the only dangers are to themselves, but that was one of the reasons BD gave for needing treatment. And you could easily extend it and say that they believed that they/a god had given the powers to everyone. I would say advocates of magic/miracles are just as likely to put limits on the powers. "Sorry, out of newts eye, no potions tonight","How am I supposed to teleport something made of iron?".

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

How do you know which brand of religion will result a positive outcome of the bet. What if God rewards people for not worshipping him, and sends to hell those that do. Unless you introduce what it to most atheist very unsatisfactory reasoning it is not at all clear what form of worship you should bet on. While there are christians that like to claim that christianity is the only self consistent religion this is not at all evident to most outside observers. And as long as you have no sure knowledge of how to act in order to achieve a positive outcome of the bet and have no idea of what the reward in itself to be there is no particular point in making the bet at all. So without an effective, effective as in convincing to nonbelievers, way of showing that any particular worship dominates the others and results in a positive outcome the Pascals wager is pointless.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

Actually, the atheist claims that God does not exist. A theist (at the minimum) claims that God may exist. Of the two, the one that is the most radical, and least susceptible to argument, is the atheist's position.

Also, if the theists claim (as most do) that God is not directly observable or directly detectable, it should be obvious that someone who relies only on such methods will not find God. That does not mean they are correct.

What you believe is the default position has not been the default position of mankind for most of its history. And yes, this opens the whole 'progress' can of worms.

Lovely. So the theist has to come up with evidence that the atheist can accept, when the atheist fully knows that he can reject anything and everything the theist says.

If someone is looking for something, not looking where it is most likely to find it is absurd.

Please make a case for your assertion that atheism is the default position of mankind. That is a positive assertion, and one that I do not accept by its statement.

Heh. So how can you say that God cannot exist? You just said you can't prove it.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

It appears even god is atheist http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif