RE: 'God' is likely atheistic (I, an atheist, shall likely become a 'God', no trolling)
November 2, 2016 at 4:18 am
(This post was last modified: November 2, 2016 at 12:39 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
(November 2, 2016 at 3:26 am)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote:(November 2, 2016 at 3:22 am)Alex K Wrote: Welcome PGJ! Are you feeling allright?
[...]
[ii] I haven't had a meaningful face to face conversation in all my 25 years. (Atheism is quite low in Jamaica)
[iii] Due to [ii] I may be dying inside.
My emphasis.
lol
I can't tell if you're trolling, joking or serious. I'm hoping it's the second one.
So.... Jordan. I personally don't think anything non-omnipotent and non-omniscient that didn't create the universe is worthy of being called "God". I consider a "God" to be a supernatural deity and such things do not exist.
Perhaps one day there will be godlike artificial intelligences... but they will not be "Gods" as far as I'm concerned.
It's similar, perhaps, to how I don't consider mere normal human willpower "free will". If it was I think the whole free will debate wouldn't exist in the first place. The compatabilists essentially came along after realizing we don't have free will and labelled the will we do have as "free will". Like "Oh fuck if the future is determined then there is no free will... nevermind let's call the normal human freedom our will has "free will" anyways even when "free will" refered to freedom from determinism."
Like... labelling things that aren't god "god" doesn't make those things god any more than labelling our wills "free will" makes our wills free will
And labelling quantum "empty" space teeming with activity as "nothing" doesn't mean the universe came from nothing...
And calling what we now call atoms "atoms" doesn't make them indivisible which is what "atom" originally meant
Anyways,
to the forums! I shall give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're a genuine member however trollish you seem. Don't break the rules, enjoy AF and stick around [emoji106]
