General Chat / The logical and emotional problem of evil.

I'm just gonna ask one question:

IceKnight366, do you actually play RCT?

Because I hate to break it to you, but this is a site dedicated to it, with some light discussion of various other subjects on the side.

It seems to me that you've come along, asked a few questions in Ask The Experts and then devoted all your attention on trying to convince people that your religion is the way forward, which isn't what this site is about.

I'm just gonna ask one question:

IceKnight366, do you actually play RCT?

Because I hate to break it to you, but this is a site dedicated to it, with some light discussion of various other subjects on the side.

It seems to me that you've come along, asked a few questions in Ask The Experts and then devoted all your attention on trying to convince people that your religion is the way forward, which isn't what this site is about.

Of course I do hah. My first post in the "ask the experts" forum was one year ago! Though I am not nearly as knowledgeable or as active in RCT2 as your experts on this site, I've hardly just "come along". I just started posting in the basic chat thread for the last month.

If you take a look at how this tread started, I was actually just providing a defense of what I believe in. It was others who wanted to see some positive evidence for the existence of God. So on that basis, it seems to me that you should not be singling me out, but whats done is done. I was unaware that the basic chat was only for "light" discussion, and important topics of a heavier nature should not be discussed. As I stated in my first post, I am new to the basic chat thread.

ctrl+f ad hominem

5, although seems more due to excessive use fo quotes.

I know, it almost seems unreal. The real interesting thing is to count how many times have I committed this fallacy?

I'm not being paid to do this, I'm fairly certain neither are you. Nowhere did we agree upon any rules for it; it was never a formal debate to begin with.

The point was your statement is self refuting.

And considering that you believe something exists until proven otherwise, I'd very strongly suggest you rethink your usage of the word 'irrational'.

Perhaps you aren't following the discussion Verti. I've already thoroughly discussed this with MA. The question is, why should I doubt my experience? God is real to me, what reason is there for the Theist to doubt their experience of God everyday? Unless you can give some overriding defeater for me to doubt my positive experience, it follows that God exists for the individual. Unless and until you can do that, it seems to me that this discussion has been dealt with

Actually, I've been following this thread waiting for you to participate in the discussion. All you have done so far, is evade the issue, and only apply certain self-invented standards whenever they're in your favour; it doesn't work that way.

You claim that if I could not disprove God, but you say he's there, that proves his existence. You claim that there could've been no initial matter that just was there to trigger the Big Bang, but there could've been a God all along. In fact, you go as far as to label it 'evidence' when it is not verifiable in any form. This is the core of your entire argument so far, and it's flawed. You haven't bothered to refute a single point so far, all you have is this 'evidence' that only convinces me you've spent very little time actually trying to understand the scientific method.


Get off the preaching chair, start discussing, and stop claiming others don't, then I might take you seriously.

I think this last sentence just exemplifies how defense and unwilling you are. First, that if "you" can not disprove God, than He exists, was never my argument. You are good with Google, you can look up absence of evidence and the causal principle. You will see that I didn't just "invent" them for this discussion. If you would like to point out 1 issue I've evaded instead of just blatantly claiming such, I'd be more than grateful to reply.

This part on the Big Bang shows how poorly you understand the material we are talking about (this is not intended to be an insult). Regardless, I have not started talking about the scientific evidence for the beginning of the universe, so I have not committed to any position yet (though you are already arguing against one). Once again, if you would like to respectfully and politely bring up some point that hasn't been dealt with so far instead of blatantly asserting such, feel free.

As MA stated, this isn't an accademic paper so I don't have to worry about plagiarism .

Actually, I called you a dick for plagiarizing this guy's ideas.

Actually Ice, what Louis was trying to get across is that since this is a site dedicated to RCT, the majority of members here build stuff, post screens, discuss the game, get into bitchfests etc. and occasionally start a topic here when something's on their mind. We also set up our fantasy football leagues, poker clubs and other NE member activities here. It seems that your only purpose for visiting this site is to continue this particular thread...which, by the way, only sustains life for the same reason America's Funniest Home Videos and audition week of American Idol sustain life. People love to see other people make complete asses out of themselves. It's human nature. At least FantastiCo and Enns were occasionally funny.

^Cheers K0NG I'm glad someone caught on.

It was quite an amusement to read through all the answers. I've lived one year in the USA during my high school year (in the bible belt) and damn I can tell you how crazy those people are there.

Just two cents. I don't understand, how you can waste that much time of your live with stuff you don't know it exist. You pray and talk to a stranger you believe he exists but you don't. You follow his rules and everything, but is it really necessary? We are guided through what we believe is right or wrong, everyone has his own decision calling something good or bad, it's basically our free will and we can decide what to do.

One thing I often think of when someone says there is a lot of evil in the world is. Why are you not seeing that many people popping off like the norwegian guy killing total stranger. I mean there are SO many people on earth, many of them able to harm A LOT of people, but it doesn't happen. we are all living together with different made-up beliefs and all in all in works out.

But what I'm thinking is is that it is really important to have religions as well. Call me stupid, but their rules and stuff made it possible to guide people through life and make a society and all the organizations, that keep the world together. So if everyone would think like me, that all the people out there working their asses of is basically bullshit, just respect other persons, everyone's the same and just enjoy life and do the things that don't contradict with your conscience, it wouldn't work out any longer.

Why are we doing this to our lifes? We think we have to work in order keep everything going, but is it true? It's not, it's just made up to give life purpose, to achieve something for other person's, to contribute to the world or if you are a believer, to god.

Finally I want to tell you, that since I don't know a proven fact about anything, I tend to not believe in anything right now, because god is associated to me with the god the fucking down-written bible tells me to believe in which i don't because it's definetely not that way since it's written by humans.

BUT I do believe there must be a greater person who has influenced a lot, because to me it is a wonder, that that many people on earth are living together in a self-created environment, mostly peacefully. Sometimes I must think of that greater person playing a game that's us, the world and universe, and clicking on each of us person like on RCT2 and see their status and everything. Who knows? You don't, I don't. But the fact, again, we are living in a society that works is a reason to me, that there must be a greater person, since everyone has a free will and overnight everyone could just don't fulfill the rules of society anymore... if everyone would do what they ever wante to do, imagine what would happen. this a wonder to me that everyone is like in a cage, a prison, mentally and thus physically! and it works. you're in, i'm in.

Actually Ice, what Louis was trying to get across is that since this is a site dedicated to RCT, the majority of members here build stuff, post screens, discuss the game, get into bitchfests etc. and occasionally start a topic here when something's on their mind. We also set up our fantasy football leagues, poker clubs and other NE member activities here. It seems that your only purpose for visiting this site is to continue this particular thread...which, by the way, only sustains life for the same reason America's Funniest Home Videos and audition week of American Idol sustain life. People love to see other people make complete asses out of themselves. It's human nature. At least FantastiCo and Enns were occasionally funny.

Yay!

EDIT: Also, well put, sir.

^ You're weak.

WAKE UP! (If you love The LORD, Enns.)

You can start with the true Gospel.

Then research: a·pol·o·get·ics  [uh-pol-uh-jet-iks]
noun ( used with a singular verb )
the branch of theology concerned with the defense or proof of Christianity.

It was only a matter of time.

Just remember FantastiCo, one little annoyance and Posix will ban you, for good.

FantastiCo, just stay out of any religious discussion or perhaps even any discussion at all, and don't ever mention something religion-related (unless it's RCT).

Im not so sure about this to be honest, Science point's in the direction of the big bang and then a serious of million's of random event's to lead us to present day, But scientist have 'tested' this with a super computer and out of 50 times they tested it only once did it actually occur, so either planet earth and our solar system and the entire universe & the 'multi-verse' and who know's what beyond that was either created by GOD or by a serious of random event's

The only controversial evidence that GOD exist's is the bible but the only people who know what actually happen'd were the people who where alive at that time, Book's & story's evolve over time something that was sayed 15 year's ago might have changed if the person said it today that's the promblem with the bible & book's in general. It's like a big game of chinese whisper's every generation it changes.

But with science the evidence looks pretty solid because stuff like the planet earth & space might not have changed very much never mind 2000 year's but in 2000 billion year's ... And with darwin's theory of evolution regarding animal's and indeed ourself's the homosepian's i really do believe this is a more common sense view at this paradox.


As much as i would like to believe that god exist's the evidence point's in the other direction, From my point of view the belief that GOD exist's is something in our brain's that we hope to believe but also it's your brain that control's everything you do your emotion's your action's & when you die obvcourse your brain shut's down because it no longer need's to work as your are dead & this is why i think when you die you don't go to heaven you simple just shut down ... I hope this is not true but im the type of person who believe's in evidence but hey who know's we will just have to wait a see

The only controversial evidence that GOD exist's is the bible but the only people who know what actually happen'd were the people who where alive at that time, Book's & story's evolve over time something that was sayed 15 year's ago might have changed if the person said it today that's the promblem with the bible & book's in general. It's like a big game of chinese whisper's every generation it changes.

Good point, but there are scrolls and artifacts of the bible that are dated back thousands of years. When translated they match up word for word with what we have today. How could something remain unchanged for so long? And for that matter even exist without opposition?

Good point, but there are scrolls and artifacts of the bible that are dated back thousands of years. When translated they match up word for word with what we have today. How could something remain unchanged for so long? And for that matter even exist without opposition?

Your source?

And I don't get what you mean by word for word. Do you know how many different translations of the bible there are?

Good point, but there are scrolls and artifacts of the bible that are dated back thousands of years. When translated they match up word for word with what we have today. How could something remain unchanged for so long? And for that matter even exist without opposition?

"Exist without opposition"... You mean like an number of differing religions...? Or do you mean the texts that have been found that are in direct opposition to the texts included in the Bible, or that there is record that priests compiled the Bible from different, unrelated texts, and the ones excluded still exist as well?

...Because all of those are true.

Just curious, what happened in between the times of Adam and Eve and the creation of the Earth till Biblical times? How long was that time period according to the bible?

Long enough for them to be....Hangin' out, down the street. Same old thing that they did last week......

Hey everyone! Wow! I'm glad to see this discussion has continued to carry on. Sorry for my absence from this website for the last couple of weeks, I have been very busy.


ScOtLaNdS_FiNeSt I'm glad to see you have joined the discussion. Especially because you seem to be one who is open and sincerely seeking the truth. What I would say to your post might actually surprise you. In fact, aside from our beliefs about God, you and I believe very similar things! For example, as I'll share in this post, I too think that the Big Bang is the most accurate description of the universe. And as far as your thoughts on Darwin's Theory of Evolution, why do you think that Theism and Evolution are incompatible? What is explicit or implicitly contradictory about the claims "God exists" and "Evolution is true"? Indeed, there is none! An individual is more than welcome in believing that both God exists and evolution is true. There is no logical incompatibility with these two beliefs.








If some of you remember in our previous posts, we were discussion the cosmological argument for the existence of God. I gave two premises and a conclusion for this argument. The first was the premise that, "Whatever begins to exist has a cause". Aside from this being quite obvious, I proceeded to give three lines of evidence for its defense. Since no one disagreed with that premise, we can move on to the second premise. The second premise is, "The universe began to exist." In defense of this second premise I will give 1 out of 2 philosophical arguments and 1 of many scientific arguments. Once again, this argument that I am quoting is from Dr. Craig and can be found in numerously places.

2. The universe began to exist

"First Philosophically. The idea of an infinite past just seems absurd. Think about it... If the universe never had a beginning, that means that the series of past events in the history of the universe just goes back, and back, forever, and therefore that the number of events in the past history of the universe is infinite. But mathematicians realize that an Actual Infinite number of things leads to self contradictory answers. For Example, what is infinity minus infinity? Well mathematically you get contradictions.

Example: If you had an infinite number of coins, numbered 1,2,3, and so forth to infinity, and I took away all of the odd numbered coins, how many coins would you have left? Well, you would have all of the even number of coins left... or, an infinite amount of coins. So, ∞ - ∞ = ∞

Now suppose instead I took away all of the coins numbered greater than 3; 4,5,6,7, and so forth to infinity. Now, how many coins would you have left? Well, you would have only 3. So ∞ - ∞ = 3

And yet in each case I took away an identical number of coins from an identical number of coins, and came up with contradictory results. In fact, you can subtract infinity from infinity and get ANY answer from Zero to Infinity. This is because infinity is just an idea in your mind, and not something that exists in reality. David Hilbert who was perhaps the greatest mathematician of the 20th century has said that "The infinity is no where to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature, nor provides a legitimate bases for rational thought. The role for the infinite to play is simply that of an idea." BUT since past events are not just ideas in your mind, but are real, the number of past events MUST be finite. Therefore the serious of past events can not go back forever. Rather the universe must have begun to exist.

Second, Scientificly It's even more amazing however, that this purely philosophical conclusion has been confirmed by remarkable discoveries through astronomy and astrophysics. In one of the most startling developments of modern science, we now have amazing evidence that the universe is not eternal, but had an absolute beginning. The Friedman-Lemaître model, or standard Big Bang model, describes a universe which is not eternal in the past, but which came into being a finite time ago. Moreover—and this deserves underscoring—the origin it posits is an absolute origin out of nothing. For not only all matter and energy, but space and time themselves come into being at the initial cosmological singularity, which is a boundary point for spacetime. P. C. W. Davies comments, 'If we extrapolate this prediction to its extreme, we reach a point when all distances in the universe have shrunk to zero. An initial cosmological singularity therefore forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity. For this reason most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe. On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself.'

In 2003, three leading cosmologists, Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary.

What makes their proof so powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description of the universe prior to the Planck time. Because we can’t yet provide a physical description of the very early universe, this brief moment has been fertile ground for speculations. (One scientist has compared it to the regions on ancient maps labeled “Here there be dragons!”—it can be filled with all sorts of fantasies.) But the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is independent of any physical description of that moment. Their theorem implies that even if our universe is just a tiny part of a so-called “multiverse” composed of many universes, [or of an oscillating model], both must have had an absolute beginning."


Lest you feel that this is the only scientific confirmation of the beginning of the universe, I will post some other short lines of evidence. These include:

1) the confirmation from the expansion of the universe by Hubble in 1929.
2) The confirmation from thermodynamic properties of the universe.
3) Einsteins General Theory of Relativity.
4) The microwave background radiation in the universe.

Lines of scientific confirmation which exist, but which I am less acquainted with:

5) Radioactive element abundance predictions.
6) Helium/hydrogen abundance predictions.
7) Star formation and stellar life-cycle theories.



Thus we come to the conclusion of the argument. If premise 1 and premise 2 are true, than the conclusion, "Therefore the universe has a cause" is true. But then the question arises, "What properties must the cause of the universe look like?!" Well first of all this cause must itself be uncaused. Why? Because as we've seen, an infinite regress of causes is impossible. Secondly, this being must transcend space and time, because it created all space and time. As the creator of space and time, it must exist beyond space and time because it brought space and time into existence (space and time can not bring itself into existence). Therefore this cause must be timeless and spaceless. Moreover, it must be immaterial and changeless. Why? Because anything that is timeless is changeless, and anything that is changeless is immaterial, because material things are constantly changing, at least on the atomic level. This cause must also be unimaginably powerful because it brings about all space and time, matter and energy out of nothing. Moverover, it must also be a personal being. Why? Because there are only two kinds of things that fit the description of timeless, spaceless, changeless, and immaterial. They are either 1) abstract objects like numbers or 2) An unembodied mind or consciousness. But since abstract objects don't cause anything, they don't stand in causal relationships, it follows necessarily that therefore the cause of the universe is a personal unembodied mind who freely wills to create the universe. Thus we are left with a uncaused, beginningless, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, unimaginably powerful, and personal cause of the universe. Which is what the Theist has always said about God.




EDIT: @ MA: You didn't have any argument against the first premise MA. What you had were some problems with the second (which I think I addressed). If not, you can bring them up here since they weren't relevant to premise 1. Amazing that out of everything I had to say, all you have to say is I am "trolling".

... Since no one disagreed with that premise, we can move on to the second premise...

The part I'm most hung up on is that you thought this sentence would go over well. Obvious troll is obvious.

Man don't ruin my day... Jesus was a jew...