Wouldn't it be nice is there really was a ? ?
Options
Comments
-
The bible is the book of death as I stated a year or so ago. If we did not have to die I doubt anyone would be worried about some ? that is not going to do anything for you directly rather he exists or not.
-
-
INB4 determinism.BiblicalAtheist wrote: » -
What do you think would happen after a long while of always thinking of determinism before any thought or action? If before you thought or did anything, you brought to your awareness how determinism determines everything, how wonderful would life be?
-
It wouldn't be particularly bothersome.
So any "clever" ideas or thoughts I have are simply the product of pre-established factors that I have no control over.
Big whoop. Just means I'm "clever" by default. -
Your life would suck.
Constantly aware that everything you do is naught but because there was no other choice.
This being true, we ignore it, we don't want to think about it.
We want to believe we have choices.
I think constantly focusing on determinism would cause a lack of determinism in an individual.
-
I'm totally cool with the bolded.BiblicalAtheist wrote: »Your life would suck.
Constantly aware that everything you do is naught but because there was no other choice.
This being true, we ignore it, we don't want to think about it.
We want to believe we have choices.
I think constantly focusing on determinism would cause a lack of determinism in an individual.
Even if someone gets in a vehicle and determines its path completely by evaluating every physical factor that will act upon it, it doesn't mean that the ride can't be enjoyable. -
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »Apparently, ? needs people to know him. If no one knew of him, would he exist? He's omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent: need, want.. what's the difference?
Oh...? would still exist. It's kind of like this. You don't need me to tell you who you are. You will be you regardless of who knows you or doesn't know you. Your existence is not depended on whether I find out who you are. Your life expectancy doesn't increase by how many people know you. But, if you want me to know you, you would communicate that to me.
-
alissowack wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »Apparently, ? needs people to know him. If no one knew of him, would he exist? He's omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent: need, want.. what's the difference?
Oh...? would still exist. It's kind of like this. You don't need me to tell you who you are. You will be you regardless of who knows you or doesn't know you. Your existence is not depended on whether I find out who you are. Your life expectancy doesn't increase by how many people know you. But, if you want me to know you, you would communicate that to me.
If ? would exist without you knowing he existed and will not do anything to directly prove he exists a sensible person that is not trying to make a point to state something they can't prove would most likely conclude that he really does not care where you stand about him. -
alissowack wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »Apparently, ? needs people to know him. If no one knew of him, would he exist? He's omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent: need, want.. what's the difference?
Oh...? would still exist. It's kind of like this. You don't need me to tell you who you are. You will be you regardless of who knows you or doesn't know you. Your existence is not depended on whether I find out who you are. Your life expectancy doesn't increase by how many people know you. But, if you want me to know you, you would communicate that to me.
Where and how would he exist if no one knew of him (could feel, see, hear, touch, smell the effects of his existance or was influenced by his actions)?
As a human being, you may not know me personally but my existence is still observable. Obviously, I'm typing to you and you can read what I'm typing as I'm typing thoughts that arise within myself. My existence is observable. But you don't really KNOW me. I don't need you to tell me who I am but just because you don't personally know me doesn't mean I'm not observable in some way. If I wasn't observable to you, I am to someone else. If I'm not observable at all to anyone or anything, there's a high probablity that I just don't exist.
You said yourself that ? is not observable, so going by what you said, we have no clue at all as to whether he exists or not. You're just making an assumption that he exists, based on what? Because you're not observing any of his actions. And you said yourself also that we can't rest on assumptions about ? so what are you really doing?
And right, if I wanted you to know me, I would tell you everything you need to know right here right now so you could get a better understanding. Maybe I would call you or even possibly come to visit you and your family so that you can know who I am. That's possible for me, even in human form and recognizing the limits I have AS a human. ? , on the other hand, can do whatever he wants at any time, however he wants to do it (according to the Bible) but he isn't observable in the slightest way. And the odd part is, ? WANTS you to know him. (also, according to the Bible)
Either ? is hiding from us. Or he doesn't exist. -
The bible is the book of death as I stated a year or so ago. If we did not have to die I doubt anyone would be worried about some ? that is not going to do anything for you directly rather he exists or not.
Im saying tho, without the false translation and concepts inserted, the bible doesnt really say there is an afterlife so your premise is flawed. And just to say its a book of depth and gross generalization.
-
? wrote:A real higher power that would actually help us out and settle all the confusion. Not an ? ass ? though.
If there were to be, I'd prefer a female ? . -
alissowack wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »Apparently, ? needs people to know him. If no one knew of him, would he exist? He's omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent: need, want.. what's the difference?
Oh...? would still exist. It's kind of like this. You don't need me to tell you who you are. You will be you regardless of who knows you or doesn't know you. Your existence is not depended on whether I find out who you are. Your life expectancy doesn't increase by how many people know you. But, if you want me to know you, you would communicate that to me.
If ? would exist without you knowing he existed and will not do anything to directly prove he exists a sensible person that is not trying to make a point to state something they can't prove would most likely conclude that he really does not care where you stand about him.
Who is to say that ? hasn't done anything? There is just this sense that if ? exists, that this deity needs to put on a spectacular show of cosmic proportions to get people to be like..."Oh, I see now that ? exists." However, even with a demonstration of power and might, does it mean that ? can be trusted or that ? even care? ? 's intentions may be to insight fear or make someone jealous that they can't do what He does. Or maybe He is a push-over hoping that His Creation would like Him...who knows? What if not doing anything is a way of showing that He does care? -
alissowack wrote: »alissowack wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »Apparently, ? needs people to know him. If no one knew of him, would he exist? He's omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent: need, want.. what's the difference?
Oh...? would still exist. It's kind of like this. You don't need me to tell you who you are. You will be you regardless of who knows you or doesn't know you. Your existence is not depended on whether I find out who you are. Your life expectancy doesn't increase by how many people know you. But, if you want me to know you, you would communicate that to me.
If ? would exist without you knowing he existed and will not do anything to directly prove he exists a sensible person that is not trying to make a point to state something they can't prove would most likely conclude that he really does not care where you stand about him.
Who is to say that ? hasn't done anything? There is just this sense that if ? exists, that this deity needs to put on a spectacular show of cosmic proportions to get people to be like..."Oh, I see now that ? exists." However, even with a demonstration of power and might, does it mean that ? can be trusted or that ? even care? ? 's intentions may be to insight fear or make someone jealous that they can't do what He does. Or maybe He is a push-over hoping that His Creation would like Him...who knows? What if not doing anything is a way of showing that He does care?
1. Name some things ? has done
2. Giving the universe concrete evidence of his existence would take the same amount of effort as blinking, riding a bike, logging on to allhiphop.com or anything he supposedly did in Bible times, like splitting the red sea for example or lighting a bush on fire and speaking from/through it (all because of his triple O status) Why isn't he doing any of these things now? Most likely, he never did.
3. He showed more than once, that he cared, in Bible times by helping his creations, even showing prejudice (which is odd for a triple O being in the first place--I mean, even some humans who AREN'T triple O are above such undesirable traits), helping and saving some and killing and cursing others (all under the category of being his creation, and knowing the outcome before he even created anything at all). Obviously, if we go by the Bible, we can tell that ? has no problem with intervening at any time he pleases, to show that he "cares" about something.
4. Bible ? doesn't HOPE that you like him. He DEMANDS that you like him. Or else. He'll throw you in a lake of fire for all eternity if you don't like him. If it was that important, he could have just created us, programmed to like him. He could have created heaven, created hell and seperated everybody from the beginning since he already knew the outcome from "let there be light". He could have saved everybody from the get-go and also programmed into our "souls" whatever the moral of the story is supposed to be, so that we don't have to learn it. We'd already know it. Keep in mind, he's triple O. He could have easily done any of this, just as easily as he allegedly created the universe as is.
5. Who's to say a magical giraffe hasn't poisoned your water supply? Does he need to put on a spectacular show of cosmic proportions to get you to be like.. "oh, I ain't drinkin this ? " -
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »alissowack wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »Apparently, ? needs people to know him. If no one knew of him, would he exist? He's omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent: need, want.. what's the difference?
Oh...? would still exist. It's kind of like this. You don't need me to tell you who you are. You will be you regardless of who knows you or doesn't know you. Your existence is not depended on whether I find out who you are. Your life expectancy doesn't increase by how many people know you. But, if you want me to know you, you would communicate that to me.
Where and how would he exist if no one knew of him (could feel, see, hear, touch, smell the effects of his existance or was influenced by his actions)?
As a human being, you may not know me personally but my existence is still observable. Obviously, I'm typing to you and you can read what I'm typing as I'm typing thoughts that arise within myself. My existence is observable. But you don't really KNOW me. I don't need you to tell me who I am but just because you don't personally know me doesn't mean I'm not observable in some way. If I wasn't observable to you, I am to someone else. If I'm not observable at all to anyone or anything, there's a high probablity that I just don't exist.
You said yourself that ? is not observable, so going by what you said, we have no clue at all as to whether he exists or not. You're just making an assumption that he exists, based on what? Because you're not observing any of his actions. And you said yourself also that we can't rest on assumptions about ? so what are you really doing?
And right, if I wanted you to know me, I would tell you everything you need to know right here right now so you could get a better understanding. Maybe I would call you or even possibly come to visit you and your family so that you can know who I am. That's possible for me, even in human form and recognizing the limits I have AS a human. ? , on the other hand, can do whatever he wants at any time, however he wants to do it (according to the Bible) but he isn't observable in the slightest way. And the odd part is, ? WANTS you to know him. (also, according to the Bible)
Either ? is hiding from us. Or he doesn't exist.
I've made it known where I get my belief from...it's theJaded Righteousness wrote: »alissowack wrote: »alissowack wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »Apparently, ? needs people to know him. If no one knew of him, would he exist? He's omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent: need, want.. what's the difference?
Oh...? would still exist. It's kind of like this. You don't need me to tell you who you are. You will be you regardless of who knows you or doesn't know you. Your existence is not depended on whether I find out who you are. Your life expectancy doesn't increase by how many people know you. But, if you want me to know you, you would communicate that to me.
If ? would exist without you knowing he existed and will not do anything to directly prove he exists a sensible person that is not trying to make a point to state something they can't prove would most likely conclude that he really does not care where you stand about him.
Who is to say that ? hasn't done anything? There is just this sense that if ? exists, that this deity needs to put on a spectacular show of cosmic proportions to get people to be like..."Oh, I see now that ? exists." However, even with a demonstration of power and might, does it mean that ? can be trusted or that ? even care? ? 's intentions may be to insight fear or make someone jealous that they can't do what He does. Or maybe He is a push-over hoping that His Creation would like Him...who knows? What if not doing anything is a way of showing that He does care?
1. Name some things ? has done
2. Giving the universe concrete evidence of his existence would take the same amount of effort as blinking, riding a bike, logging on to allhiphop.com or anything he supposedly did in Bible times, like splitting the red sea for example or lighting a bush on fire and speaking from/through it (all because of his triple O status) Why isn't he doing any of these things now? Most likely, he never did.
3. He showed more than once, that he cared, in Bible times by helping his creations, even showing prejudice (which is odd for a triple O being in the first place--I mean, even some humans who AREN'T triple O are above such undesirable traits), helping and saving some and killing and cursing others (all under the category of being his creation, and knowing the outcome before he even created anything at all). Obviously, if we go by the Bible, we can tell that ? has no problem with intervening at any time he pleases, to show that he "cares" about something.
4. Bible ? doesn't HOPE that you like him. He DEMANDS that you like him. Or else. He'll throw you in a lake of fire for all eternity if you don't like him. If it was that important, he could have just created us, programmed to like him. He could have created heaven, created hell and seperated everybody from the beginning since he already knew the outcome from "let there be light". He could have saved everybody from the get-go and also programmed into our "souls" whatever the moral of the story is supposed to be, so that we don't have to learn it. We'd already know it. Keep in mind, he's triple O. He could have easily done any of this, just as easily as he allegedly created the universe as is.
5. Who's to say a magical giraffe hasn't poisoned your water supply? Does he need to put on a spectacular show of cosmic proportions to get you to be like.. "oh, I ain't drinkin this ? "
Woah...I think you read too much into that question. When I asked the question "Who is to say that ? hasn't done anything?", it wasn't mean as a challenge or a battle cry for the Bible. It was just a generalization out of trying to respect the "other" religions out there. You went in like a beast!!!! But with that, you kind of prove my point (and just in case it wasn't mine...yours) that you may know the book (or in this case the words), but you don't know me. Your perspective on that question was totally different from mine which ought to bring up something. We always talk about the Bible have many translations and how it is written differently from the many other versions out there. But is it really a matter of many translations or many perspectives? You read the same question I wrote but you got something totally different from it. -
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »alissowack wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »Apparently, ? needs people to know him. If no one knew of him, would he exist? He's omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent: need, want.. what's the difference?
Oh...? would still exist. It's kind of like this. You don't need me to tell you who you are. You will be you regardless of who knows you or doesn't know you. Your existence is not depended on whether I find out who you are. Your life expectancy doesn't increase by how many people know you. But, if you want me to know you, you would communicate that to me.
Where and how would he exist if no one knew of him (could feel, see, hear, touch, smell the effects of his existance or was influenced by his actions)?
As a human being, you may not know me personally but my existence is still observable. Obviously, I'm typing to you and you can read what I'm typing as I'm typing thoughts that arise within myself. My existence is observable. But you don't really KNOW me. I don't need you to tell me who I am but just because you don't personally know me doesn't mean I'm not observable in some way. If I wasn't observable to you, I am to someone else. If I'm not observable at all to anyone or anything, there's a high probablity that I just don't exist.
You said yourself that ? is not observable, so going by what you said, we have no clue at all as to whether he exists or not. You're just making an assumption that he exists, based on what? Because you're not observing any of his actions. And you said yourself also that we can't rest on assumptions about ? so what are you really doing?
And right, if I wanted you to know me, I would tell you everything you need to know right here right now so you could get a better understanding. Maybe I would call you or even possibly come to visit you and your family so that you can know who I am. That's possible for me, even in human form and recognizing the limits I have AS a human. ? , on the other hand, can do whatever he wants at any time, however he wants to do it (according to the Bible) but he isn't observable in the slightest way. And the odd part is, ? WANTS you to know him. (also, according to the Bible)
Either ? is hiding from us. Or he doesn't exist.
Oh how I miss the old way where I can edit and re-edit stuff. Something went terribly wrong in my last post. I was certain that I made clear where my "source" was and, unless I overlooked a post, I didn't say that ? can't be observed. I was saying that observing ? doesn't solidify things. And just so I don't seem one-sided, knowing the Bible backwards and forwards doesn't solidify things either. -
alissowack wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »alissowack wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »Apparently, ? needs people to know him. If no one knew of him, would he exist? He's omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent: need, want.. what's the difference?
Oh...? would still exist. It's kind of like this. You don't need me to tell you who you are. You will be you regardless of who knows you or doesn't know you. Your existence is not depended on whether I find out who you are. Your life expectancy doesn't increase by how many people know you. But, if you want me to know you, you would communicate that to me.
Where and how would he exist if no one knew of him (could feel, see, hear, touch, smell the effects of his existance or was influenced by his actions)?
As a human being, you may not know me personally but my existence is still observable. Obviously, I'm typing to you and you can read what I'm typing as I'm typing thoughts that arise within myself. My existence is observable. But you don't really KNOW me. I don't need you to tell me who I am but just because you don't personally know me doesn't mean I'm not observable in some way. If I wasn't observable to you, I am to someone else. If I'm not observable at all to anyone or anything, there's a high probablity that I just don't exist.
You said yourself that ? is not observable, so going by what you said, we have no clue at all as to whether he exists or not. You're just making an assumption that he exists, based on what? Because you're not observing any of his actions. And you said yourself also that we can't rest on assumptions about ? so what are you really doing?
And right, if I wanted you to know me, I would tell you everything you need to know right here right now so you could get a better understanding. Maybe I would call you or even possibly come to visit you and your family so that you can know who I am. That's possible for me, even in human form and recognizing the limits I have AS a human. ? , on the other hand, can do whatever he wants at any time, however he wants to do it (according to the Bible) but he isn't observable in the slightest way. And the odd part is, ? WANTS you to know him. (also, according to the Bible)
Either ? is hiding from us. Or he doesn't exist.
I've made it known where I get my belief from...it's theJaded Righteousness wrote: »alissowack wrote: »alissowack wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »Apparently, ? needs people to know him. If no one knew of him, would he exist? He's omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent: need, want.. what's the difference?
Oh...? would still exist. It's kind of like this. You don't need me to tell you who you are. You will be you regardless of who knows you or doesn't know you. Your existence is not depended on whether I find out who you are. Your life expectancy doesn't increase by how many people know you. But, if you want me to know you, you would communicate that to me.
If ? would exist without you knowing he existed and will not do anything to directly prove he exists a sensible person that is not trying to make a point to state something they can't prove would most likely conclude that he really does not care where you stand about him.
Who is to say that ? hasn't done anything? There is just this sense that if ? exists, that this deity needs to put on a spectacular show of cosmic proportions to get people to be like..."Oh, I see now that ? exists." However, even with a demonstration of power and might, does it mean that ? can be trusted or that ? even care? ? 's intentions may be to insight fear or make someone jealous that they can't do what He does. Or maybe He is a push-over hoping that His Creation would like Him...who knows? What if not doing anything is a way of showing that He does care?
1. Name some things ? has done
2. Giving the universe concrete evidence of his existence would take the same amount of effort as blinking, riding a bike, logging on to allhiphop.com or anything he supposedly did in Bible times, like splitting the red sea for example or lighting a bush on fire and speaking from/through it (all because of his triple O status) Why isn't he doing any of these things now? Most likely, he never did.
3. He showed more than once, that he cared, in Bible times by helping his creations, even showing prejudice (which is odd for a triple O being in the first place--I mean, even some humans who AREN'T triple O are above such undesirable traits), helping and saving some and killing and cursing others (all under the category of being his creation, and knowing the outcome before he even created anything at all). Obviously, if we go by the Bible, we can tell that ? has no problem with intervening at any time he pleases, to show that he "cares" about something.
4. Bible ? doesn't HOPE that you like him. He DEMANDS that you like him. Or else. He'll throw you in a lake of fire for all eternity if you don't like him. If it was that important, he could have just created us, programmed to like him. He could have created heaven, created hell and seperated everybody from the beginning since he already knew the outcome from "let there be light". He could have saved everybody from the get-go and also programmed into our "souls" whatever the moral of the story is supposed to be, so that we don't have to learn it. We'd already know it. Keep in mind, he's triple O. He could have easily done any of this, just as easily as he allegedly created the universe as is.
5. Who's to say a magical giraffe hasn't poisoned your water supply? Does he need to put on a spectacular show of cosmic proportions to get you to be like.. "oh, I ain't drinkin this ? "
Woah...I think you read too much into that question. When I asked the question "Who is to say that ? hasn't done anything?", it wasn't mean as a challenge or a battle cry for the Bible. It was just a generalization out of trying to respect the "other" religions out there. You went in like a beast!!!! But with that, you kind of prove my point (and just in case it wasn't mine...yours) that you may know the book (or in this case the words), but you don't know me. Your perspective on that question was totally different from mine which ought to bring up something. We always talk about the Bible have many translations and how it is written differently from the many other versions out there. But is it really a matter of many translations or many perspectives? You read the same question I wrote but you got something totally different from it.
So we know the book.. but we don't know ? . But the books, really, are the only evidence for gods existence that we have, but is not reliable evidence. Any other evidence would have to be direct observation. Which we also don't have.
If the books' eye witness accounts and claims of gods existance don't solidify things, and neither would observing ? (if we could), then what would solidify things? And are you admitting that gods existance is not solid? -
@Alissowack, to edit your post there's a gear looking image on the top right of your post, click that and click edit.
-
@VIBE, thanks. Now I can cover my tracks and act like I didn't post something...unless I was quoted then that would suck.
-
No problem man.
-
@JadedRighteousness ...and I think we have a different perspective on knowledge. It's not that I don't understand the information-aspect of attaining knowledge, but that was not where I was going. It's a lot more...personal; more relational. When some people read the Bible, they are not necessarily trying to "get the facts". They just may be trying to "get close"; or develop a relationship. In the Bible, it is the belief that ? gave people the opportunity to get close through Jesus and that one day that relationship can be restored; that people can know ? like they know family and friends.
Now it's possible for people to read the Bible and come to some bad conclusions about it and history has shown it. I'm not particularly trying to cover ? with roses. But, I'm say that some people who do approach the Bible with a relational perspective come to respect it. Whether they believe in it or not in another thing.
-
alissowack wrote: »They just may be trying to "get close"; or develop a relationship. In the Bible, it is the belief that ? gave people the opportunity to get close through Jesus and that one day that relationship can be restored; that people can know ? like they know family and friends.
Like an imaginary friend? -
alissowack wrote: »Now I can cover my tracks and act like I didn't post something...unless I was quoted then that would suck.
Is this a subliminal directed at me? If so, i haven't done any of that
-
@JadedRighteousness. This is a response to both of your post. For the first one...no, but that is one of the dangers of approaching the Bible that way...that it becomes where people are either walking and talking with ? or...they are ? . And for the second...no. I like to make fun of myself from time to time.
-
alissowack wrote: »people are either walking and talking with ? or...they are ? ..
Delusion on one end, still delusion on the other
