By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Atheists, don't worry! This site will save you!

Tagged games:

 

Should atheists be banned from VGChartz?

Yes 20 15.50%
 
Yes 3 2.33%
 
Yes 3 2.33%
 
Yes 0 0%
 
Yes 2 1.55%
 
Yes 0 0%
 
Hail Satan! 94 72.87%
 
Yes 3 2.33%
 
Yes 1 0.78%
 
Yes 3 2.33%
 
Total:129
WolfpackN64 said:
Pemalite said:

That is just nonsensical, babble.

It's not a satisfactory or serious answer. I do believe you are tolling if you can't make a proper coherant reply though. But I'll give you the benefit of a doubt.

By the way. Do you have evidence that something cannot appear from nothing? Because I have evidence on the contrary.

It's just not possible from a physics standpoint, so it's also not possible from a theological standpoint. I implore you to observe my above points more carefully. They're not mine, but they stem from one of the greatest philosophers to have ever lived, it's not babble if you open your eyes to it.

Are you entirely sure that the laws of Physics... Or more specifically... Virtual Particles and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle don't allow for something to come from nothing? ;)

Because if you aren't. You should do your research.

Here is some light reading so you can get up to speed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/

Don't forget to be a good boy and check the citations either.

*********************

If it's not possible from a theistic standpoint, than that's the problem for the theistic standpoint and not a problem for the real world.

And the reason why your post was "babble" is because you provided zero context for anything.
For example "The existance of God can be attested in the concept of change. There must be an origin for all change. This prime mover is God."

WHAT specific change are they alluring to? Because most forces that influence "change" have scientific/observational evidence and do not require a God to happen.

Ergo. Your post was babble.

WolfpackN64 said:
Peh said:

Whatever the argument. If it's premise is falacious, the conclusion can be, too. Even Newton was wrong on many occasions. But go on, tell me the philosopher and I will conclude the same. I don't care about who he is. I judge all equally. 

It's Thomas Aquinas if you're curious.

A Theist. Lol.
Explains why it was worded the way it was.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Around the Network
Peh said:
WolfpackN64 said:

It's Thomas Aquinas if you're curious.

Saint Thomas Aquinas O.P. (/əˈkwnəs/; Italian: Tommaso d'Aquino, lit. 'Thomas of Aquino'; 1225 – 7 March 1274), was an Italian[3][4] Dominican friar, Catholic priest, and Doctor of the Church. He was an immensely influential philosopher, theologian, and jurist in the tradition of scholasticism, within which he is also known as the Doctor Angelicus and the Doctor Communis.[5] The name Aquinas identifies his ancestral origins in the county of Aquino in present-day Lazio.

He was the foremost classical proponent of natural theology and the father of Thomism; of which he argued that reason is found in God.

There's the falacious premise. There goes the credibility. He was born in the 13th century. So science was pretty much in his baby steps. He may be influencal and of value for theists and theologians, but he has no value for me and modern science.  

All he probably did was reverse engineering. 

That's an ad hominem argument. Modern philosophers still quote Plato and Aristotle left and right in a serious manner. It's not because he's religious that you can just shove him aside.



Pemalite said:
WolfpackN64 said:

It's just not possible from a physics standpoint, so it's also not possible from a theological standpoint. I implore you to observe my above points more carefully. They're not mine, but they stem from one of the greatest philosophers to have ever lived, it's not babble if you open your eyes to it.

Are you entirely sure that the laws of Physics... Or more specifically... Virtual Particles and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle don't allow for something to come from nothing? ;)

Because if you aren't. You should do your research.

Here is some light reading so you can get up to speed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/

Don't forget to be a good boy and check the citations either.

*********************

If it's not possible from a theistic standpoint, than that's the problem for the theistic standpoint and not a problem for the real world.

And the reason why your post was "babble" is because you provided zero context for anything.
For example "The existance of God can be attested in the concept of change. There must be an origin for all change. This prime mover is God."

WHAT specific change are they alluring to? Because most forces that influence "change" have scientific/observational evidence and do not require a God to happen.

Ergo. Your post was babble.

WolfpackN64 said:

It's Thomas Aquinas if you're curious.

A Theist. Lol.
Explains why it was worded the way it was.

Can I ask you to be a bit more respectful in this discussion. Thank you.

It's not really ideal to counter my argument by way of abstract physics.

The change that's reffered to is the original change in the chain of cause and effect. Things have to be set in motion somewhere and this prime mover is God.



WolfpackN64 said:

That's an ad hominem argument. Modern philosophers still quote Plato and Aristotle left and right in a serious manner. It's not because he's religious that you can just shove him aside.

If he pushes religion as fact. Then yes. He can be "shoved aside".

You can take any scientist and take their claim with a pinch of salt.
It is only untill they have sufficient supporting evidence, models and been peer reviewed that they gain any legitimacy for their claims.

And none of that can be done with "God" because God isn't a tangible thing. There is zero evidence God exists. - It rely's on an entirely faith-based concept which by it's very definition is belief without evidence.

WolfpackN64 said:

Can I ask you to be a bit more respectful in this discussion. Thank you.

It's not really ideal to counter my argument by way of abstract physics.

The change that's reffered to is the original change in the chain of cause and effect. Things have to be set in motion somewhere and this prime mover is God.

Quantum Mechanics is not "Abstract Physics".

And no. Your God isn't a requirement for anything.

Besides, even if we don't fully understand something, doesn't mean a God did it anyway.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Ka-pi96 said:
WolfpackN64 said:

Can I ask you to be a bit more respectful in this discussion. Thank you.

It's not really ideal to counter my argument by way of abstract physics.

The change that's reffered to is the original change in the chain of cause and effect. Things have to be set in motion somewhere and this prime mover is God.

To be fair, when we're talking about evidence/proof of something abstract physics have more relevance than philosophy so...

Quantum Mechanics is not abstract Physics.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Around the Network
WolfpackN64 said:
JWeinCom said:

Yesterday, you made sweet love to Jaleel White.  You asked him to pour hot sauce on a gerbil, and put it into your anus.

Call me when you can present empirical evidence to the contrary.  Otherwise, I'll continue to believe it.

1.  This is basically a weird version of the Kalam, but there is no demonstration for that premise.  I'm guessing they changed (or you if you developed this) cause to change so they can avoid special pleading by claiming god is changeless.  But, if you're talking about the Christian god that does not work because that one does change, in the old testament and the new.

There also is no reason to suggest there is an origin for change.  If we have a dimension of time, that's pretty much enough on its own.

Even though if I were to grant everything you said though, and there was a prime mover, first cause, or whatever, that does not get to god.  There's no way to ascribe characteristics to whatever this thing is.  

2.  So then, this is pretty much a straight up Kalam.  And this is an example of special pleading that directly contradicts itself.  If everything needs a cause, god needs one too.  

3.  Appear and disappear are terms that apply to the human eye.  So, because my eye can no longer perceive something, doesn't mean it's not there.  I assume that what you meant is more along the lines of things come into existence and leave existence, but that's absolutely not true.  In fact, to the best of our knowledge, the opposite is the case.  The laws of conservation of energy and conservation of mass indicate that neither energy or mass can be created or destroyed. Things don't pop in and out of existence.  Just change form.

4.  Ummm, I think that's the ontological?  A weird phrasing of it that doesn't make sense, or I should say makes less sense then the typical phrasing off the ontological argument.

Suppose I have a rock.  I can fashion that rock into a cube.  The cube has a perfect quality of cubiness, but it came from something that has no quality of cubiness. 

If I take two hydrogen molecules and an oxygen molecule, the resulting combination is something that has properties (wetness, thirst quenchigness, can put out fire), that neither of the things it came from had.  So, things with certain qualities do not have to come from other things with lesser amounts of that quality.

Beyond that, though, it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  Are you saying god possesses the maximmum amount of every quality?  Is he spicy?  Chocolatey?  Sweet?  Brave?  Cowardly?  Papery?  Pointy?  Smooth?  Heavy?  Light?  Flippant?  Serious?  Green?  Blue?  Smoky?  Smelly?  Cheesy?  Salty?

By this argument, if every quality has to come from something with a perfect form of that quality, god would have to possess all of those traits which would be logically impossible.  Otherwise, those traits exist without a god, and there's no reason other traits can not.

5.  That's just a completely unfounded premise.  Can you demonstrate that everything has a goal?  As far as I can tell, only living things do, which is a very small subset of everything.

If everything has a goal, why would that imply a spirit?  

1. The Church recognizes that our understanding of God's wil can change, that's a change on us, not on God.

2. God needs no cause because he's the prime mover. He's not subject to dependant origination.

3. True, that implies there must always have been something that has been put into effect to change into the world we know today. The originator of that change is God.

4. It's based on the ideological world of Aristotle. In which every object and being exist in a perfect form and everything in our world is in a way a reflection of this perfect object.

5. Of course immaterial objects have no spirit and goal, but they're created by things that do. A goal implies a spirit insofar it allows us to understand the wil of God and act accordingly.

1.  You picked out the least important part of what I said, but let's go with that.  In the story of Sodom and Gomorah, Abraham is able to argue with god, and change his mind.  So that's a change.

And if you believe that Jesus is god, or an aspect of god, that is most assuredly a change.  And you better hope he changed, because earlier he was kind of a dick.  Supported slavery and rape and such.

2.  Yeah.  That's what special pleading is.  You create a rule that everything has a cause, and then say your god doesn't need a cause.  If god doesn't need a cause, then the first premise is invalidated and the argument is invalidated.

3.  True?  Ok then.  If what I said is true the argument is invalidated.  If the premise is false (as I said) the argument doesn't hold.  

4.  Ok?  Wherever it came from, it's nonsensical, for the reasons I mentioned.

5.   Dude.  You just said that everything has a goal.  That was the first premise of the argument.  So they don't?  Good, then the argument is invalidated.  I'm not going to address the second part, because using god to prove god is entirely circular.



WolfpackN64 said:
Peh said:

Saint Thomas Aquinas O.P. (/əˈkwnəs/; Italian: Tommaso d'Aquino, lit. 'Thomas of Aquino'; 1225 – 7 March 1274), was an Italian[3][4] Dominican friar, Catholic priest, and Doctor of the Church. He was an immensely influential philosopher, theologian, and jurist in the tradition of scholasticism, within which he is also known as the Doctor Angelicus and the Doctor Communis.[5] The name Aquinas identifies his ancestral origins in the county of Aquino in present-day Lazio.

He was the foremost classical proponent of natural theology and the father of Thomism; of which he argued that reason is found in God.

There's the falacious premise. There goes the credibility. He was born in the 13th century. So science was pretty much in his baby steps. He may be influencal and of value for theists and theologians, but he has no value for me and modern science.  

All he probably did was reverse engineering. 

That's an ad hominem argument. Modern philosophers still quote Plato and Aristotle left and right in a serious manner. It's not because he's religious that you can just shove him aside.

Oh sure it is. Just like saying that Charles Darwin was on many of his conclusions wrong, because he didn't know better. From all the theologians I've heard and read, it was just nonsensical babble like Pemalite is saying. Those people just didn't know better. The time they've lived in didn't offered them the possibilities like it does today.

Plato and Aristotle were also wrong on a lot of stuff. There are quoted on the things they've actually got right. No one is quoting the false stuff and saying that it WAS Aristotle, Plato or whoever who said it and therefore makes it right. 

But that's exactly what you are doing now. Because it was Thomas Aquinas who said it, he must be right on what he said. Well, no. It's not. Simple as that. And why it's wrong I already told you. Argument from Ignorance -> God of gaps argument. That's simply a falacy. No need to waste any more time on it. 



Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | RTX 3090 FE| Crappy Monitor| HTC Vive Pro :3

Pemalite said:
WolfpackN64 said:

That's an ad hominem argument. Modern philosophers still quote Plato and Aristotle left and right in a serious manner. It's not because he's religious that you can just shove him aside.

If he pushes religion as fact. Then yes. He can be "shoved aside".

You can take any scientist and take their claim with a pinch of salt.
It is only untill they have sufficient supporting evidence, models and been peer reviewed that they gain any legitimacy for their claims.

And none of that can be done with "God" because God isn't a tangible thing. There is zero evidence God exists. - It rely's on an entirely faith-based concept which by it's very definition is belief without evidence.

WolfpackN64 said:

Can I ask you to be a bit more respectful in this discussion. Thank you.

It's not really ideal to counter my argument by way of abstract physics.

The change that's reffered to is the original change in the chain of cause and effect. Things have to be set in motion somewhere and this prime mover is God.

Quantum Mechanics is not "Abstract Physics".

And no. Your God isn't a requirement for anything.

Besides, even if we don't fully understand something, doesn't mean a God did it anyway.

You can't just shove the man responsible for the foundation of modern theology and one of the prime instigaters of Arestotelian philosophy aside because he inconveniances you.

And quantum physics can be abstract. You can't come and throw virtual particles at the equation since it incorporates the uncertainty principle which is completely abstract and not a certainty in itself.



Even if god existed, he could very well kiss my atheist ass. He would be a complete dick for creating such an imperfect world. A perfect being could be able to create a perfect world where everyone is just happy and there is no war or suffering or whatever. The only reason why a perfect being wouldn't do that is because he or she is a bastard. And don't tell me about that bullshit about Eva and the apple. Punishing billions of people for tha stupid shit? That's even worse! No way I would ever prey to such an asshole, let alone live forever with him. I wouldn't want to exist in such a world. The imagination of an infinite life itself is pure horror to me. Think about it, friggin' infinity! No matter how long you have been aroung or what you have done, it all has been nothing in compariosn what lies ahead of you. It just never ends. Holy hell, no thanks, just destroy me completely and get me the hell outta that world!

So, I still don't believe in god, but even if there was cold hard evidence, I wouldn't prey to him or something. Screw him. Nobody needs him.



Official member of VGC's Nintendo family, approved by the one and only RolStoppable. I feel honored.

Peh said:
WolfpackN64 said:

That's an ad hominem argument. Modern philosophers still quote Plato and Aristotle left and right in a serious manner. It's not because he's religious that you can just shove him aside.

Oh sure it is. Just like saying that Charles Darwin was on many of his conclusions wrong, because he didn't know better. From all the theologians I've heard and read, it was just nonsensical babble like Pemalite is saying. Those people just didn't know better. The time they've lived in didn't offered them the possibilities like it does today.

Plato and Aristotle were also wrong on a lot of stuff. There are quoted on the things they've actually got right. No one is quoting the false stuff and saying that it WAS Aristotle, Plato or whoever who said it and therefore makes it right. 

But that's exactly what you are doing now. Because it was Thomas Aquinas who said it, he must be right on what he said. Well, no. It's not. Simple as that. And why it's wrong I already told you. Argument from Ignorance -> God of gaps argument. That's simply a falacy. No need to waste any more time on it. 

Maybe for you. But these philosophers served as a base on which our thoughts evolved. That doesn't mean you can pull the rug away entirely. Aquinas himself stated that our view on the world should change according to what is known, since it brings us closer to God.