Human arrogance + more

[Alt 14]

For the record, I am an atheist. I'm going to show Shredder and others why using human logic to disprove the existence of a deity is ignorant and futile.

Assumed - God is all powerful

Now, what one might attempt to do here is try to form some sort of paradox and use this as to why an all powerful being cannot exist. One Shredder used in the IRC is "Can god create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?". At a first glance, it would seem that no matter what answer given, yes or no, god would not be all powerful. After a little analyzing, one can observe that this is not the case. I could come back and state that because god is all powerful, he doesn't need to follow human logic. Why? He's ALL powerful. Because this is already assumed, why couldn't a god manipulate the meaning of the paradox? Or follow a completely different set of laws? After all, something that is truly all powerful need not follow the rules of nature. I realize that the term all powerful is too deep for many people to comprehend. God to create and destroy any and all laws the universe abides by. Again, I'm not saying this is the case, only that you can't compete with the term "All powerful". You WILL lose.


____________________________________________________________________________________
Now on to human arrogance. For thousands and thousands of years, humans have felt that their ancestors we're complete idiots, but that their generation had figured out the workings of the universe.

For example, the Ancient Egyptians believed that they we're the ones who knew the way the universe worked. These people were not ignorant by far. Their advancements in astrology, astronomy, geometry and more are still a wonder to modern civilizations. The Pyramids for example. Anyway, these people felt that much of their life was controlled by gods or entities that they could please via sacrifice. They, like the Sumerians, also had stories (which some claim to be historical accounts, not folklore), of being genetically engineered by another race.

I don't feel like typing anymore but there are plenty of intelligent civilizations that thought they KNEW how the world worked, beyond a shadow of a doubt. The Mayans, Incas, those who criticized Christopher Columbus about his support in the round earth hypothesis, many many more.

Allow me to talk for a moment about us. Many people feel that the new sciences emerging in front of us are how the world REALLY works. For the most part, we have cut out any forms of spiritual life from of belief systems. Those who study the stars now only practice astronomy, not astrology. We do not believe in any creator. I'm sure you all can see what has happened in the past is bound to happen in the future. Any comments/criticisms/rants? I would just like to ask you all why you feel what you believe is correct, and despite this long lasting cycle of arrogance, what makes you SURE you are the one to finally get it right?

 

[Shredderbeam]

For the record, I am an atheist. I'm going to show Shredder and others why using human logic to disprove the existence of a deity is ignorant and futile.

Assumed - God is all powerful

Now, what one might attempt to do here is try to form some sort of paradox and use this as to why an all powerful being cannot exist. One Shredder used in the IRC is "Can god create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?". At a first glance, it would seem that no matter what answer given, yes or no, god would not be all powerful. After a little analyzing, one can observe that this is not the case. I could come back and state that because god is all powerful, he doesn't need to follow human logic. Why? He's ALL powerful. Because this is already assumed, why couldn't a god manipulate the meaning of the paradox? Or follow a completely different set of laws? After all, something that is truly all powerful need not follow the rules of nature. I realize that the term all powerful is too deep for many people to comprehend. God to create and destroy any and all laws the universe abides by. Again, I'm not saying this is the case, only that you can't compete with the term "All powerful". You WILL lose.

In that hypothetical scenario, God follows our rules. The question is meant to be taken as it appears. There are no work-arounds, no shortcuts, or anything else. God will either be able to lift the rock, or not. Either way, he's not all powerful.

Allow me to talk for a moment about us. Many people feel that the new sciences emerging in front of us are how the world REALLY works. For the most part, we have cut out any forms of spiritual life from of belief systems. Those who study the stars now only practice astronomy, not astrology. We do not believe in any creator. I'm sure you all can see what has happened in the past is bound to happen in the future. Any comments/criticisms/rants? I would just like to ask you all why you feel what you believe is correct, and despite this long lasting cycle of arrogance, what makes you SURE you are the one to finally get it right?

Some of today's science is correct. For example, in the world of chemistry, our understanding of how atoms, molecules, etc. interact has allowed us to develop a vast amount of compounds that have proven to be incredibly useful throughout the ages. This would not be the case if we were still trying to practice alchemy.

Obviously, there is another chunk of modern science that will probably be corrected in generations to come. My guess is that these corrections will be in the areas of astrophysics, quantum mechanics, and the like.

 

[porman]

For the record, I am an atheist. I'm going to show Shredder and others why using human logic to disprove the existence of a deity is ignorant and futile.

people only beleive in the bible because they ignore logic.

 

[I Pwn Faces]

Actually, logic doesn't explain it all, so for those of you who think it's all logic, then explain to me this; What caused the Big Bang that caused the universe to expand? And what caused the cause of the Big Bang, and so forth? I can answer that myself, there is no meaning, until you die, you won't know until you die. You may rot in the ground, you may get reincarnated, or go to Heaven/Hell. One will never know the truth until they die.

 

Actually, logic doesn't explain it all, so for those of you who think it's all logic, then explain to me this; What caused the Big Bang that caused the universe to expand? And what caused the cause of the Big Bang, and so forth? I can answer that myself, there is no meaning, until you die, you won't know until you die. You may rot in the ground, you may get reincarnated, or go to Heaven/Hell. One will never know the truth until they die.

Who says the big bang happened? It is not a rational theory, it need be considered no further.

 

For the record, I am an atheist. I'm going to show Shredder and others why using human logic to disprove the existence of a deity is ignorant and futile.

Assumed - God is all powerful

Now, what one might attempt to do here is try to form some sort of paradox and use this as to why an all powerful being cannot exist. One Shredder used in the IRC is "Can god create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?". At a first glance, it would seem that no matter what answer given, yes or no, god would not be all powerful. After a little analyzing, one can observe that this is not the case. I could come back and state that because god is all powerful, he doesn't need to follow human logic. Why? He's ALL powerful. Because this is already assumed, why couldn't a god manipulate the meaning of the paradox? Or follow a completely different set of laws? After all, something that is truly all powerful need not follow the rules of nature. I realize that the term all powerful is too deep for many people to comprehend. God to create and destroy any and all laws the universe abides by. Again, I'm not saying this is the case, only that you can't compete with the term "All powerful". You WILL lose.

Here you are denying the supremacy of reason, using reason. You are saying "god doesn't need to be rational... and here is the rational explanation as to why". You are in contradiction with yourself; your argument is a fallacy.

To expand on this insane ignorance of reason let us consider why reality must be rational.

Logic is not ingrained in the human mind from inception. It must be learned -- learned by induction. That is to say, a human child learns of rational causality when he learns of the world, by interacting with it. He further learns of causal chains... cause and effect linking up to form chains of events.

Reason and rationality necessarily must be consistent with reality, when they are used as tools with the appropriate and correct input (premises), because it is from reality we have learned rationality to begin with. Rationality itself is not arbitrary -- it is from reality itself that we learn it.

Now on to human arrogance.

Indeed, review your original post and tell me that you are not arrogant in claiming that rationality is invalid, by using rationality.

 

[I Pwn Faces]

Who says the big bang happened? It is not a rational theory, it need be considered no further.

Every theory is contradictory, nobody can prove, or disprove it. Nobody was alive, nor will anybody ever know. We've gotten off-topic though. Human arrogance was the topic I believe?

 

Every theory is contradictory, nobody can prove, or disprove it. Nobody was alive, nor will anybody ever know. We've gotten off-topic though. Human arrogance was the topic I believe?

I disagree with this statement also. It is likely possible to know of the past we have not observed without contradiction; to know the truth. It is just that arm chair philosophers and scientists are unlikely to gain such knowledge by asserting metaphysical absurdities such as dark matter, black holes, and the big bang.

 

[I Pwn Faces]

I disagree with this statement also. It is likely possible to know of the past we have not observed without contradiction; to know the truth. It is just that arm chair philosophers and scientists are unlikely to gain such knowledge by asserting metaphysical absurdities such as dark matter, black holes, and the big bang.

How can we know of the past if we don't try all possible theories? Each can be proved, and disproved, contradicting all, I'm not saying I believe this but; a massive race of aliens could be probing us with memories and we could just be an experiment to them, to see how long we can go without self destructing, eventually.

 

How can we know of the past if we don't try all possible theories? Each can be proved, and disproved, contradicting all, I'm not saying I believe this but; a massive race of aliens could be probing us with memories and we could just be an experiment to them, to see how long we can go without self destructing, eventually.

Firstly a hypothesis must be based on evidence. Secondly it must be internally consistent. Thirdly there must be a null hypothesis -- a way to prove or disprove it.

We know reality is rational, predicable and consistent, so we do not need to concern ourselves with the irrational, the inconsistent, or those theories which have no way to be proved or disproved.

In order to obtain scientific knowledge we must go forth and explore, experiment, and discover. Science is not the art of yelling the loudest that your school of thought is 'right', as it has become, but rather the art of understanding the world, the universe, and how it all hangs together.

Science is a specific area of philosophy concerned with the study of reality and causal links. It has sadly been largely divorced from its philosophical roots, which, indirectly, has lead it to the point we are at now -- arbitrary, inconsistent, theories which are largely accepted by the mass population, with no criticism or rejection, with no thought whatever.

 

[I Pwn Faces]

Firstly a hypothesis must be based on evidence. Secondly it must be internally consistent. Thirdly there must be a null hypothesis -- a way to prove or disprove it.

We know reality is rational, predicable and consistent, so we do not need to concern ourselves with the irrational, the inconsistent, or those theories which have no way to be proved or disproved.

In order to obtain scientific knowledge we must go forth and explore, experiment, and discover. Science is not the art of yelling the loudest that your school of thought is 'right', as it has become, but rather the art of understanding the world, the universe, and how it all hangs together.

Science is a specific area of philosophy concerned with the study of reality and causal links. It has sadly been largely divorced from its philosophical roots, which, indirectly, has lead it to the point we are at now -- arbitrary, inconsistent, theories which are largely accepted by the mass population, with no criticism or rejection, with no thought whatever.

Almighty Sythe enlightens, thanks for the lecture. One final question on the Human arrogance, if humans are arrogant by nature, and therefore prove whose wrong and whose right, then why does it worsen when a situation is irritated, like the maker of this topic, he obviously only made it to sound smart to Shredder and all the other Higher-ups, so is he just proving that he is arrogant himself and the only reason of this thread was to prove nothing and to just start a huge debate? Mind you, this is coming from a 15 year old kid, at 3:12 AM, so if I'm not making sense, please bare with me.