God's will.....who needs it?

[bozo]

So you will worship a fiend because a fiend is the only option, if you want to worship? Have you even considered the obvious which is that god probably doesn't exist?
As for die or be thankful, what do you mean exactly?

---

How is God a fiend?

Die or be thankful means: it's either this or nothingness, If you don't like this life; choose nothingness.

In the beginning there was nothing, the fact that we even have the opportunity to live is worth celebrating.

After every disastrous acident, there are those who " thank god " for either themselves or their loved-ones being spared. The implication must be that god chose who not to spare. In the case that started this thread, the plane crash in the Indian Ocean, god chose to spare 1 out of 152. I call that fiendish!

I like life, most of the time. I believe nothingness is what there is before and after life, so I don't need to choose, that has happened already.

I agree, life is woth celebrating, we only get one....so live it fre of superstition!

---

Well said, Arcanus. Back when I was a theist, my interpretation of God from my studies of the Bible wasn't all feely-touchy-nice, and certainly was above what mere humans considered 'good' and 'right', which I have long held as relative terms. Yes, God aced 151 people and allowed one to live. Does that make the survivor special? Well...

1. If moral terms are relative, then your interpretation of God's character is relative. Ergo, God is not morally reprehensible; rather, he merely offends your feelings. If moral terms are relative, then they are biographical, in which case your position says something about you and nothing about God.

2. It makes the survivor 'special' if being selected to survive death is better than being selected to die.

I would quote you and talk about specifics, but it would be like searching out specific noodles in a plate of spaghetti and I've already had lunch.

With your permission, I'd like to add that to my sig.

Have you even considered the obvious, which is that God probably doesn't exist?

This is the fallacy known as Complex Question, which is in the question-begging family. "You commit this fallacy when you frame a question so that some controversial presupposition is made by the wording of the question" (link).

Arcanus, you can call my question whatever you like. I maintain that, on probability, gods do not exist.
Worth considering.

[Ryft]

Nothing comes from nothing—nihil ex nihilo. The Bible and logic suggest God had something to work with in the beginning, but that is just being pedantic.

No, being pedantic is correcting your Latin: ex nihilo, nihil fit.

Then what about the Casimir-effect which shows that the spontaneaous creation of matter out of nothing is all over the place and can be measured?

No, it does not show the spontaneaous creation of matter out of nothing. "According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is 'by no means a simple empty space'; and again, 'it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void.' According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence" (Vacuum state). "It is therefore believed that the vacuum energy is 'real' in the same sense that more familiar conceptual objects such as electrons, magnetic fields, etc., are real" (Vacuum energy). Ergo, not ex nihilo.

Arcanus, you can call my question whatever you like. I maintain that, on probability, gods do not exist. Worth considering.

That is not a fallacy. However, the question as you had posed it certainly was ("Have you even considered the obvious, which is that God probably doesn't exist?").

[Purple Rabbit]

Then what about the Casimir-effect which shows that the spontaneaous creation of matter out of nothing is all over the place and can be measured?

No, it does not show the spontaneaous creation of matter out of nothing. "According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is 'by no means a simple empty space'; and again, 'it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void.' According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence" (Vacuum state). "It is therefore believed that the vacuum energy is 'real' in the same sense that more familiar conceptual objects such as electrons, magnetic fields, etc., are real" (Vacuum energy). Ergo, not ex nihilo.

You mix things up. What you describe as "fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence" IS the phenomenon itself. Please be careful what you quote from who, this is specialized area and there is a lot of quantum flapdoodle around. These particles and waves (in QM there is duality, particle and wave are two sides of a coin, the enumeration really makes no sense) are created at random due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. This is 20th century quantum mechanics. The vacuum can not have exactly zero energy. The only way to get around 'ex nihilo' is to observe that space itself is not the same as nothing. So there, I've given it away for free, because I'm in such a good mood today. But things do get created from empty space.

[Anto Kennedy]

Then what about the Casimir-effect which shows that the spontaneaous creation of matter out of nothing is all over the place and can be measured?

No, it does not show the spontaneaous creation of matter out of nothing. "According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is 'by no means a simple empty space'; and again, 'it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void.' According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence" (Vacuum state). "It is therefore believed that the vacuum energy is 'real' in the same sense that more familiar conceptual objects such as electrons, magnetic fields, etc., are real" (Vacuum energy). Ergo, not ex nihilo.

You mix things up. What you describe as "fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence" IS the phenomenon itself. Please be careful what you quote from who, this is specialized area and there is a lot of quantum flapdoodle around. These particles and waves (in QM there is duality, particle and wave are two sides of a coin, the enumeration really makes no sense) are created at random due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. This is 20th century quantum mechanics. The vacuum can not have exactly zero energy. The only way to get around 'ex nihilo' is to observe that space itself is not the same as nothing. So there, I've given it away for free, because I'm in such a good mood today. But hings do get created from empty space.

The inner nothingness, any void in our space-time, is not a true void.

This universe is a "something", surrounded (wat does that even mean outside of space-time?) by a "no thing." What that no thing is, no one knows, the Unnamable One.

But, let's just drop this, it just gets crazier from here.

---

After every disastrous acident, there are those who " thank god " for either themselves or their loved-ones being spared. The implication must be that god chose who not to spare. In the case that started this thread, the plane crash in the Indian Ocean, god chose to spare 1 out of 152. I call that fiendish!

Death is a part of life, and it's only because you believe death is a bad thing that you call God a fiend.

But since we're talking about the God of Resurrection, and the overcoming of death, of rebirth through death, you speak prematurely.

So you say that, 'even if there was a God, I wouldn't worship him (him?), because he is a fiend for letting people die,' while forgetting his raising from the dead-zombie-Jesus-ray, which in most religious traditions, is usually attributed to this God.

And don't forget his orgasmo-love-beam which is offered, freely and without conditions, upon an individuals death.

The Day and Hour Unknown

32"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 33Be on guard! Be alert[f]! You do not know when that time will come. 34It's like a man going away: He leaves his house and puts his servants in charge, each with his assigned task, and tells the one at the door to keep watch.

35"Therefore keep watch because you do not know when the owner of the house will come back—whether in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or at dawn. 36If he comes suddenly, do not let him find you sleeping. 37What I say to you, I say to everyone: 'Watch!' "

(Mark 13)

[Rhizomorph13]

Auto Kennedy,

Oh we know its name... Azagthoth the blind idiot god spewing forth and consuming all things around it. A god you do not want to draw nearer to, because it will absorb you. Nyarlathotep is its messenger.

My mind brushed against it once during a Nitrous Oxide breath and lo, I dipped beneath the surface of the burning sea and bravely swam down to the glowing laughing mad thing in the middle. I've never been the same since, but it did yield the coordinates of the Akashic Record.

But enough of Sumerian Lore draped in the mythos of H.P. Lovecraft.

Rhizo

[Anto Kennedy]

[Ryft]

You mix things up ...

Or, on the other hand, the train of thought I was referencing wasn't clear enough (I'll assume responsibility for the misunderstanding). I was describing the 'what' and following it with the 'where', so to speak, by way of background information. My response was intended to point out that there is no true 'nothing', that even this so-called empty vacuum itself is space curvature teeming with a sea of activity. (Science-fiction author Michael Crichton spurred my interest in subatomic realities like Wheeler foam). Nature abhors a vacuum, Aristotle believed, and it seems he was right. Even when one virtual particle is pulled into a black hole away from its pair, the remaining one, becoming a real particle, leaves a "hole" in this vacuum energy that must be filled again (drawn from the black hole itself; q.v. Hawking radiation).

[Anto Kennedy]

The Word of God, 'There shalt not be Nothing!'

Big Bang and still bangin'.

[Edwardo Piet]

Nothing doesn't exist. There is no such thing as nothing. Because nothing isn't any thing. It isn't some thing. It's the absence of something, the absence of anything. Nothing is to something as darkness is to light, yeah? Just as darkness isn't anything in itself, it is merely absence of light, neither is nothing yeah? It's the absence of anything! It's nothing! Right?

EvF

[Purple Rabbit]

you've got on , right? Then why even mention ? 's not worth mentioning, 's completely useless, hasn't even got thingyness, ex fit. And doesn't even make sense. You see?