patrick.net

God does not give life. People do. God gave people free will.

Parents should not have children if they cannot provide.

There is no God. Unless there is. Damn this agnosticism!

Raw says

If God decides life and and gives them life, it is his responsibility to make sure they have the means to live.

So now you are telling God what to do?

MsBennet says

Raw says

If God decides life and and gives them life, it is his responsibility to make sure they have the means to live.

So now you are telling God what to do?

I am merely reminding God of his responsibilities. If you create babies you better take care of them, or don't create them in the first place.
If I was God I would not let a single baby starve. Even I, a totally imperfect human, would make a better God.

God has no responsibilities. Anything that is bound by anything isn't quite omnipotent, is it?

God does not make babies. Humans who fail to use contraceptives do.

Raw says

Even I, a totally imperfect human, would make a better God.

That is precisely why you are no god.

Raw says

I have forgiven others and always will, but I will never forgive God for letting a billion babies starve to death.

Good view.

Regards
DL

Raw says

I'd rather have those babies not be born in the first place.

If God decides life and and gives them life, it is his responsibility to make sure they have the means to live.

If a human gives birth to a child and does not take care of it by letting it starve, the parent would go to jail.

God is so cruel!

No argument but if we did jail the parents, it would cost us more to do as you suggest than to just put our resources and funding to feeding the poor and showing them how to feed themselves.

Demographics show that we are well on that road but it will take two more generations for us to gain the upper hand on child mortality.

Regards
DL

Peter P says

God does not give life. People do. God gave people free will.

Parents should not have children if they cannot provide.

I agree with your last but your first goes against what the bible says.

It says that God creates all things and thus FMPOV, he is responsible for all and free will is not free at all and you are using it to get God off the hook.

Let me give you something to ponder.

It was God's plan from the beginning to have Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit. This can be demonstrated by the fact that the bible says that Jesus "was crucified from the foundations of the Earth," that is to say, God planned to crucify Jesus as atonement for sin before he even created human beings or God damned sin.

1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

This indicates that Jesus had no choice.

If God had not intended humans to sin from the beginning, why did he build into the Creation this "solution" for sin? Why create a solution for a problem you do not anticipate?

God knew that the moment he said "don't eat from that tree," the die was cast. The eating was inevitable. Eve was merely following the plan.

This then begs the question.

What kind of God would plan and execute the murder of his own son when there was absolutely no need to?

Only an insane God. That’s who.

The cornerstone of Christianity is human sacrifice, thus showing it‘s immorality.

One of Christianity's highest form of immorality is what they have done to women.
They have denied them equality and subjugated them to men.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/jqN8EYIIR3g&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/embed/9dspWh9g3hU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/embed/9c0RFxXrYzg&feature=related

------------------------

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin.

Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil is all human generated. Evil is our responsibility.

Much has been written to explain what I see as a natural part of evolution.

Consider.
First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created.

Evil then is only human to human.
As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil at all times.

Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.

This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.

Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, we should all see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us.

There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.

I even have Christian backing on this view with their views on Theistic evolution.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/XXOvYn1OAL0&list=UUDXjzOeZRqLxhYaaEhWLb_A&index=9

Regards
DL

Peter P says

God has no responsibilities. Anything that is bound by anything isn't quite omnipotent, is it?

God does not make babies. Humans who fail to use contraceptives do.

Raw says

Even I, a totally imperfect human, would make a better God.

That is precisely why you are no god.

And that is also why people reject an immoral God. Because human morality is superior to his.

For instance, No noble and gracious human would demand the sacrifice of a so called son just to prove his benevolence yet your genocidal son murdering God did just that.

Regards
DL

Peter P says

God has no responsibilities. Anything that is bound by anything isn't quite omnipotent, is it?

God does not make babies. Humans who fail to use contraceptives do.

Raw says

Even I, a totally imperfect human, would make a better God.

That is precisely why you are no god.

Take this example:
A 14 year old illeterate, in a developing country marries a 15 year old. They are poor, have very little food, and no money for contaceptives. They are also religious, and as commanded by their God, they will not use contraceptives.
They cannot be stopped from bringing a baby into this world, and they cannot take care of it. If God exists it is his responsibility to prevent this human rights abuse.
God does not give a damn.

No, they are not commanded by their God. Rather, a manmade religion.

Why should God care about human rights? It is a human concept.

God only cares about the human rights of unborn fetuses and fat middle aged white guys from USA.

God is Cthulhu. Mystery Solved.

gracer says

I am talking about the spiritual realm, not in a judicial sense.

No, your talking in the fantasy, made up nonsense sense.

Peter P says

So you rather have overpopulation?

Let's say I'm god. So then I'm omnipotent. The stupid humans are breeding faster than their food supply. I snap my fingers and make food no longer necessary. Humans now can extract all the energy they need from false vacuum energy. They can get all the materials they need from the air. They can convert the nitrogen, etc. into other elements as necessary in little bio-fusion chambers I've added. Fuck, I'm god, so this is easy shit.

As a result, the humans can breed all they want and no babies will starve. Problem solved.

Alternative solution, I dial down the fertility of females or make female fertility an inverse function of the number of offspring she bares. Again, problem solved. Worked for the Salarians when the Krogans got out of control.

While I'm at it, let's get rid of predation. Totally unnecessary in a universe created by an omnipotent god, and obviously predation is a great source of evil as any omniscient god would know.

This is exactly why I should be god instead of that dumbass slacker Yahweh/Jesus. Both of them are smelly hippies.

gracer says

Mankind is already forgiven by God, except for unbelief. Jesus' cross cancelled the law of sin and death. Now the only requirement is to be born again of the Spirit because we are all born spiritually dead. Without Christ's cross which forgave sins, we would still be under the exacting requirements of the old covenant law to please God, but Christ set us free from that. Now we just place our faith in Christ to please God, and not worry about the forgiveness issue.

I am talking about the spiritual realm, not in a judicial sense.

So all we need do then is embrace the notion of human sacrifice and also that it is good justice to punish the innocent instead of the guilty.

IOW, we have to sell our souls to the devil to get to heaven.

You have sure come up with a good theology. Not.

Check your morals. Do you really thing God will let you into heaven with such a compromised morality?

Regards
DL

only delusional people would believe in such a stupid thing as a "God."

And only irrational people will deny the existence of God. See Pascal's Wager.

Peter P says

And only irrational people will deny the existence of God. See Pascal's Wager.

He was a christian so by definition he was irrational therefore his wager is irrational.
See, it's easy being a philosopher!

Peter P says

And only irrational people will deny the existence of God. See Pascal's Wager.

We disproved that conjecture on this site several times already. See the old threads.

Oh, and if Pascal's Wager were correct, then your god would be evil.

You did not disprove the conjecture. You simply invalidated parts of one proof of the conjecture.

Peter P says

You did not disprove the conjecture. You simply invalidated parts of one proof of the conjecture.

You cannot disprove or prove conjecture.

Hence invalid.

Peter P says

Hence invalid.

Yes, God is invalid.
thank you.

Greatest I am says

We cannot help but to do so.

you grasp excuses, and shun personal accountability, in one sentence.

Dan8267 says

While I'm at it, let's get rid of predation. Totally unnecessary in a
universe created by an omnipotent god, and obviously predation is a great source
of evil as any omniscient god would know.

see there, humor, right when we need it.

Moderate Infidel says

You cannot disprove or prove conjecture.

Sure you can. Example...

Conjecture: There are no even prime numbers.
Disproof: Two is even and a prime.

Peter P says

You did not disprove the conjecture.

Pascal's Wager is based on the assumption that there is zero cost to belief in god, something that the Middle East has repeatedly demonstrated is not true. Hell, this assumption is even explicitly stated in the wager.

Given the enormous toll on life inflicted by belief in god throughout history, it is perfectly rational to disbelieve in the entity.

Dan8267 says

Moderate Infidel says

You cannot disprove or prove conjecture.

Sure you can. Example...

Conjecture: There are no even prime numbers.

Disproof: Two is even and a prime.

Prove "two".

According to wikipedia...

A conjecture is a proposition that is unproven.

But I guess it is not necessarily unprovable. (See Gödel's incompleteness theorems.)

Moderate Infidel says

Prove "two".

Read Principia Mathematica.

What do you guys think of the the axiom of choice?

It is a bizarre truth with counter-intuitive consequences.

Peter P says

Moderate Infidel says

Prove "two".

Read Principia Mathematica.

No. I won't.

Moderate Infidel says

Dan8267 says

Moderate Infidel says

You cannot disprove or prove conjecture.

Sure you can. Example...

Conjecture: There are no even prime numbers.

Disproof: Two is even and a prime.

Prove "two".

What the fuck does that even mean?

Peter P says

According to wikipedia...

Plato was taught by Barney the Purple Dinosaur.

Dan8267 says

What the fuck does that even mean?

He wants to know what the fuck "even" means.

Dan8267 says

Plato was taught by Barney the Purple Dinosaur.

I love you, you love me...

Anyone remembers Microsoft Barney?

Peter P says

What do you guys think of the the axiom of choice?

It's late and I'm a bit tired, but I did look up Axiom of Choice. You didn't have a specific question, but here are my initial thoughts on the subject.

From Vanderbilt Univeristy Math Department

Axiom of Choice. Let C be a collection of nonempty sets. Then we can choose a member from each set in that collection. In other words, there exists a function f defined on C with the property that, for each set S in the collection, f(S) is a member of S.

From Wolfram MathWorld: Collection and Wolfram MathWorld: Multiset, a collection is just an entity like a set but that can contain repeated elements.

The problem is how to "find" or determine the existence of a function, f, that satisfies the Axiom of Choice when C is the collection of all nonempty subsets of the real number line.

So here are my initial thoughts...

Who cares if C is a collection, i.e. multiset, instead of a set? If a function, f, satisfies the Axiom of Choice for a collection C than it would for the equivalent set C' with the repeats removed since the f would pick the same value for each instance of element X in C.

So, let's simplify and make C be a set of nonempty sets instead of a collection of nonempty sets.

Second thought. I take it that we are presuming that randomness cannot be defined as a function. I.e., you cannot let f mean, "pick a random element of the set". If we allowed that, than the random function would be sufficient.

Third thought. OK, C is the set of all nonempty subsets of the real numbers. Let X be any element of C, a particular nonempty subset of the real numbers. X can be partitioned into a set, P, of individual real numbers and non-overlapping opened and closed intervals of real numbers. There can be no element in X that isn't either a real number in P or a real number within an interval in P.

OK, so sort the elements of P like this:
1. The zero or one interval containing negative infinity as the lower end.
2. The individual real number or the individual real number at the lower end of an interval not containing negative infinity.
3. The zero or one interval containing positive infinity as the upper end if it was not already included in #1.

There are four cases.

1. X is the entire set of real numbers and P contains only one element, X. Pick zero.
2. P contains an interval N with negative infinity but not positive infinity, so the upper end has either a closed or opened end at a real number. Pick the integer i that is the maximum integer less than the upper end point of N. This integer must be in N and therefore a member of X.

3. P does not contain an interval with negative infinity but does contain an interval N with positive infinity. In this case, the lower end has either a closed or open end at a real number. Pick the integer i that is the minimum integer greater than the lower end point of N. This integer must be in N and therefore a member of X.

4. P does not contain any intervals with either negative or positive infinity. P may still contain an infinite number of intervals, but those intervals and the individual real numbers in P are still sorted and thus only countably infinite. This means they can be placed in one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers (0, 1, 2, 3, ...). We could do that, but we only need to map the first (zeroth) element.

Let H be the set of all real numbers that serve as the upper end of an interval in X. (Remember, X contains no intervals with negative or positive infinity, so all intervals in X are closed or opened at a finite real number). Let L be the set of all real numbers that serve as the lower end of an interval in X. Let R be the set of real numbers in X that are not contained in an interval in P, i.e., the individual real numbers isolated from intervals. Finally, let Q be the intersection of sets H, L, and R. Q is basically any real number that is contained in P or any interval endpoint of P, and thus Q is composed of all of the boundaries and isolated elements of X.

Let n be the absolute value of the element of Q with the smallest absolute value. There is one and only one possible value of n, and it is positive.

If R contains n then f(X) returns n, else if R contains -n then f(X) returns -n, else X contains a closed or opened interval with n and/or -n as one of the two endpoints. (Actually, it must be opened at n or -n since neither n nor -n are members of X, but that's not really important to us). If X contains an interval with n as one of the two endpoints, then pick the average value of that interval, as the average value will be within the interval and thus a member of X. If X does not contain an interval with n as one of the two endpoints, then it must contain an interval with -n as one of the two endpoints. Pick the average value of the two endpoints for that interval. Of course, X could contain two intervals, one with n as and endpoint and one with -n as an endpoint, but our function can simply favor the endpoint with +n. Of course, X could contain an interval with both n and -n, but that doesn't matter either as we just need to pick a value and can do so using any interval.

The above algorithm will not only choose a value for any set X in C, but it will always choose the same value for any set X in C, so even if we turned C back into a multiset, our function would still pick consistent values for each occurrence of X in C, not that doing so was a constraint on the problem.

Now since we can use this function for any possible set X in C, we can use it over C when C is the set of all nonempty subsets of the real number line.

Finally, disclaimer: these are just my initial thoughts on the subject and I haven't gotten anyone to check them. Also, no bitching over minor typos. I'm writing this at 1:50 a.m.

Dan8267 says

Moderate Infidel says

Dan8267 says

Moderate Infidel says

You cannot disprove or prove conjecture.

Sure you can. Example...

Conjecture: There are no even prime numbers.

Disproof: Two is even and a prime.

Prove "two".

What the fuck does that even mean?

Exactly!

Dan, I was referring to the Banach-Tarski Paradox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach%E2%80%93Tarski_paradox

With that axiom, you can "cut" a sphere in the R3 space into a finite number of pieces and then reassemble them into TWO spheres that are identical to the first one.