There is a God, else we are in hell

[[EAG]Ularg]

No one ever said he had to be a good guy! Why people get so stuck on the fact that god or whatever has to be all good and stuff is beyond me.

Also, here's the real story of 2012:

Like 1100AD

<Mayan Dude 1> Man, we got this calender done till like 900 years from now, can we be done yet?
<Mayan Dude 2> Ok, I guess. People can do more later.
*Mayans die

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God.


And to add on to that, why worship a malevolent God?

[[trNs]Darkstrand]

And to add on to that, why worship a malevolent God?

Kiss ass so you can be saved from the great purge.

[SyKot]

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God.


And to add on to that, why worship a malevolent God?

If God were omnipotent he would be able to create a rock that he couldn't lift. But if he couldn't lift it, he wouldn't be omnipotent.

The paradox of omnipotence.

[Spaztick]

You must define evil. Evil is an abstract concept and too vague and varying between people, so only God would be able to define what evil is, if he is omnipresent then he could see the "big picture" and give a definition to absolutes and abstract concepts.

In the context of that quote you say that a malevolent god will allow evil, but what is evil? Is there such a thing as evil, or is it a human construct we made to give ourselves an understanding of the world? I don't want to sound like some relativist saying good and evil don't exist, but giving a definition of it would be a better start than letting people make their own assumptions on what evil and willingness is. You will then have to define on why what you say evil is evil based on your own subjective experiences (and better yet the experiences of everyone else plus yours) until you can get a better definition of what evil fundamentally is.

Of course, who are we, with 2 pairs of eyes and barring people with extrasensory ability, a very heavily filtered view of the world through our senses, to try and define what is absolute, when we can't even see a measurable part of the world.

[[BADS]cute]

i really hope i dont have to live this terrible life again

[[SOCK]stronK]

http://www.escapeearth2012.com/

[[DoT]Snikmorder]

i am dissapointed, noone has explored the possiblility that the universe does not, in fact, exist

[Sinestro]

Like at the end of MIB?

[Isin]

Ex nihilo nihil fit (from nothing, nothing is produced).

Pretty much a universal law.

From this we can deduce that if the universe exists now, it was either created by God (an entity representing infinite) or it has always existed. There are no other possibilities.

Stopped reading here. Your logic has holes wider than your mother's vagoo.

You must define evil. Evil is an abstract concept and too vague and varying between people, so only God would be able to define what evil is, if he is omnipresent then he could see the "big picture" and give a definition to absolutes and abstract concepts.

In the context of that quote you say that a malevolent god will allow evil, but what is evil? Is there such a thing as evil, or is it a human construct we made to give ourselves an understanding of the world? I don't want to sound like some relativist saying good and evil don't exist, but giving a definition of it would be a better start than letting people make their own assumptions on what evil and willingness is. You will then have to define on why what you say evil is evil based on your own subjective experiences (and better yet the experiences of everyone else plus yours) until you can get a better definition of what evil fundamentally is.

Of course, who are we, with 2 pairs of eyes and barring people with extrasensory ability, a very heavily filtered view of the world through our senses, to try and define what is absolute, when we can't even see a measurable part of the world.

The general Augustinian Christian view of evil is a perversion of free will; however, this leaves a lot of things unanswered.

[Pettypete]

Stopped reading here. Your logic has holes wider than your mother's vagoo.

what are the other possibilities? Don't bother mentioning the big bang as being the absolute beginning of the universe, it's impossible if ex nihilo nihil fit holds true. It's possible for the big bounce to be true, meaning an infinitely recurring universe with no beginning or end.

However, ex nihilo nihil fit may not hold true... but given the condition of its validity, his logic makes sense.

[[S2]IAmRoot]

Well, our physics isn't advanced enough yet to understand the moment of the big bang yet, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible. Using that as proof that there is a god is way worse than the current theories of how things came about after the start of the universe. There was so much energy that nothing really formed atoms, then atoms were able to form, then some molecules, etc. Having that as a start is way better than saying a god created it because you cannot show how god (a much more complex thing) was created out of nothing. Saying that time could be (0, infinity) is very similar to saying that "from nothing, nothing is created" isn't true. It might not be, but having a hole at time=0 doesn't mean that it's false, either. It just means that if true, there was no beginning of time, but you can look very very (infinitely) close to it.

[[TZUL]Narfle]

what are the other possibilities? Don't bother mentioning the big bang as being the absolute beginning of the universe, it's impossible if ex nihilo nihil fit holds true. It's possible for the big bounce to be true, meaning an infinitely recurring universe with no beginning or end.

However, ex nihilo nihil fit may not hold true... but given the condition of its validity, his logic makes sense.

wow, nice one sir.

Or you could have read the thread, or you could have applied your own thought.

To the "what is evil" guy, i agree theres a lot of grey areas, but there are also a lot of quite obvious areas.

The argument that epicurus put forth 33 BC loses nothing from just considering the extremes, which is universally agreed upon.

But sure, God might define it as combining milk and cookies instead of what Fritzl did, IF HE EXISTED.

[Isin]

what are the other possibilities? Don't bother mentioning the big bang as being the absolute beginning of the universe, it's impossible if ex nihilo nihil fit holds true. It's possible for the big bounce to be true, meaning an infinitely recurring universe with no beginning or end.

However, ex nihilo nihil fit may not hold true... but given the condition of its validity, his logic makes sense.

Not knowing something does not justify going with the first idea that pops into our heads, or even the best idea after a thorough analysis. Unless it can be logically proved WITH EVIDENCE we can draw no conclusion.

[[TZUL]Narfle]

Not knowing something does not justify going with the first idea that pops into our heads, or even the best idea after a thorough analysis. Unless it can be logically proved WITH EVIDENCE we can draw no conclusion.

Just to add on top of what Isin said, id like everyone to look up the two different types of conclusions that can be reached.

a priori and a posteriori.

Religion is clearly a priori and seems to love it, whereas science tries its best to reach a posteriori conclusions.

In case you dont wanna look it up, priori = bad and stupid; posteriori = good.

EDIT: And if this really sparks your interest, then you might also enjoy Karl Poppers falsification theory.

[Pettypete]

wow, nice one sir.

Or you could have read the thread, or you could have applied your own thought.

To the "what is evil" guy, i agree theres a lot of grey areas, but there are also a lot of quite obvious areas.

The argument that epicurus put forth 33 BC loses nothing from just considering the extremes, which is universally agreed upon.

But sure, God might define it as combining milk and cookies instead of what Fritzl did, IF HE EXISTED.

You disagree then? If so, what is your logical basis? Remember, I did not claim that ex nihilo nihil fit was true. I only claimed that IF it was true, then the possibilities are limited.

I never suggested I know the origin of the universe, or if anything is certain. The only thing I stated was that IF ex nihilo nihil fit holds true, then it's inevitable that some infinite force must exist, for something cannot be created from nothing. Infinity is the only concept that trumps ex nihilo nihil fit. There's no reason to resort to hostility, I never claimed that is the absolute truth or that anyone is incorrect in their beliefs.

[Pettypete]

Well, our physics isn't advanced enough yet to understand the moment of the big bang yet, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible. Using that as proof that there is a god is way worse than the current theories of how things came about after the start of the universe. There was so much energy that nothing really formed atoms, then atoms were able to form, then some molecules, etc. Having that as a start is way better than saying a god created it because you cannot show how god (a much more complex thing) was created out of nothing. Saying that time could be (0, infinity) is very similar to saying that "from nothing, nothing is created" isn't true. It might not be, but having a hole at time=0 doesn't mean that it's false, either. It just means that if true, there was no beginning of time, but you can look very very (infinitely) close to it.

The big bang is part of the big bounce, I simply wanted to state that it cannot be the beginning of THE universe, just simply one of infinitely many universes. I don't claim to say god, or any infinite entity created the universe, I think it is simply one of the logical answers to the origin of the universe based on ex nihilo nihil fit.

[[TZUL]Narfle]

You disagree then? If so, what is your logical basis? Remember, I did not claim that ex nihilo nihil fit was true. I only claimed that IF it was true, then the possibilities are limited.

I disagree with your assumption that the big bang originated from "nothing".

And you dont have to continually type out the entire latin phrase, although it does make you look pretty damn smart.

And if im mistaken in you assuming that the big bang originated from nothing, then i -really- read your "Don't bother mentioning the big bang as being the absolute beginning of the universe, it's impossible if ex nihilo nihil fit holds true." wrong.

Or maybe you just have a sorta skewed definiton of what the word "universe" means, i dont know. Something is wrong at least.

In general, i prefer the term "multiverse" to "universe" at any rate.

[Pettypete]

I disagree with your assumption that the big bang originated from "nothing".

And you dont have to continually type out the entire latin phrase, although it does make you look pretty damn smart.

And if im mistaken in you assuming that the big bang originated from nothing, then i -really- read your "Don't bother mentioning the big bang as being the absolute beginning of the universe, it's impossible if ex nihilo nihil fit holds true." wrong.

Or maybe you just have a sorta skewed definiton of what the word "universe" means, i dont know. Something is wrong at least.

In general, i prefer the term "multiverse" to "universe" at any rate.

I never claimed the big bang was from nothing. In fact, that was what I wanted to point out was not possible, according to ex nihilo nihil fit. BTW, I type out the latin phrase because it's simpler to type than "from nothing, nothing is produced" but I guess you could just be dispositionally biased and think I'm a pompous forum goer trying to sound as intelligent as possible for the sake of my own self confidence boost...

I mentioned the big bounce, which would be in tune with your idea of the multiuniverse; there are infinite amounts of universes, and the one we reside in happens to be one of infinitely many universes. I'm not 100% sure what you're referring to by multiuniverse though.

[Isin]

The multiverse theory, actually, is a better answer for the problem of evil than pretty much anything else in our current understanding.

[Meem]

Big bounce = boom, x billion years to max entropy -> eek, y billion years to max syntropy -> repeat forever = infinite recursion

that would be answer choice B on the quiz