ArcoBlood Mod Finished

[Arryn]

quantum_mechani said:
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....

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.

[quantum_mechani]

Arryn said:

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.

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

[TheSelfishGene]

Arryn said:

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.

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.

[Arryn]

TheSelfishGene said:
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.

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.

[Kristoffer O]

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

No it isn't. 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.

[Scott Hebert]

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

No it isn't. 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.

I was wondering when Kristoffer would join the discussion.

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

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...

[Scott Hebert]

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.

[BigDaddy]

Arryn said:
. . .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.

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."

[BigDaddy]

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

[Scott Hebert]

*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.