Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
October 9, 2009 at 8:08 pm (This post was last modified: October 9, 2009 at 8:09 pm by Secularone.)
(October 9, 2009 at 7:06 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: [Copy and pasted for fun ]
(October 9, 2009 at 6:18 pm)Secularone Wrote: It is also a very good argument against the concept of god. Think about it. Is god chaos? If not, then god is a slave to order just as everything else that exists.
It's a fallacious statement assuming slavery when that cannot be assumed given chaos or order. If God's nature was chaos then from him would come chaos. Yet given our universe seems ordered we can assume an ordered creation. How to you equate chaos with good? I'd suggest order is good and therefore proves that God is also good.
It is not fallacious to assume that if a god must conform to the same rules we do that he would be a slave to them.
I do not equate chaos or order with good or evil. Don't know any reason why I should. I don't know any reason why I should think your god is good either.
I see plenty of biblical evidence to prove he is evil. Therefore, your "good-god" has been falsified.
If God must follow order how does that make him follow the same order that we do and how are we or he slaves to them in a negative or positive way?
SO Wrote:I see plenty of biblical evidence to prove he is evil
Then you do not understand what the Bible is saying. God as creator and source of everything is also potentially everything. God served his purpose in creating everything and is therefore 'good' as in 'fits the purpose'. God is perfection from which everything came.
You superimpose human ego onto God for who human morals don't apply, because he isn't human. We think humans dying is bad, but the welfare of ants is a lesser concern, and we can only consider it in human terms.
October 9, 2009 at 8:53 pm (This post was last modified: October 9, 2009 at 8:57 pm by Secularone.)
(October 9, 2009 at 8:35 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: If God must follow order how does that make him follow the same order that we do and how are we or he slaves to them in a negative or positive way?
SO Wrote:I see plenty of biblical evidence to prove he is evil
Then you do not understand what the Bible is saying. God as creator and source of everything is also potentially everything. God served his purpose in creating everything and is therefore 'good' as in 'fits the purpose'. God is perfection from which everything came.
You superimpose human ego onto God for who human morals don't apply, because he isn't human. We think humans dying is bad, but the welfare of ants is a lesser concern, and we can only consider it in human terms.
Sorry, fr0d0, it doesn't matter if it's the same order or not. Order is order.
I understand perfectly what the Bible is saying. It's saying what it's saying and nothing more. When it suits you, you like to add to what it's saying. And when it suits you, you ignore what it's saying.
Man created God in his own screwed up image. It is no wonder your God isn't what he's cracked up to be.
Being designated "good" is not something we achieve by proclamation. It's a designation we must earn and thus deserve. The same goes for your god. He isn't good just because the Bible says so. He must live up to that standard or it's just a big fat false claim.
The Bible may proclaim He is "good," but the biblical evidence leaves Him worthy of being called "evil."
And as far as considering God on human terms is concerned... On what other terms do humans consider God? None!!!
(October 9, 2009 at 9:06 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Again you fail to answer the question, so I will assume you have no answer to the logic.
What logic? I haven't seen any logic. All I've seen is flim-flam.
Which brings me back to the issue of "order."
All things that exist are ordered and all things that are ordered are a slave to that order. That would include your god.
Unless you'd care to argue that He is chaos. In which case, He could not exist or function or create anything. For all creations are the product of an algorithm. And algorithms are ordered.
And of course, I'm expecting you to give me some kind of flim-flam answer that is designed to remove your god from critical scrutiny or accountability. What's new?
Quote:Many scientific fields are concerned with randomness:
Algorithmic probability
Chaos theory
Cryptography
Game theory
Information theory
Pattern recognition
Probability theory
Quantum mechanics
Statistics
Statistical mechanics
Quote:The mathematical theory of probability arose from attempts to formulate mathematical descriptions of chance events, originally in the context of gambling, but later in connection with situations of interest in physics. Statistics is used to infer the underlying probability distribution of a collection of empirical observations. For the purposes of simulation, it is necessary to have a large supply of random numbers or means to generate them on demand.
Algorithmic information theory studies, among other topics, what constitutes a random sequence. The central idea is that a string of bits is random if and only if it is shorter than any computer program that can produce that string (Kolmogorov randomness)—this means that random strings are those that cannot be compressed. Pioneers of this field include Andrey Kolmogorov and his student Per Martin-Löf, Ray Solomonoff, and Gregory Chaitin.
In mathematics, there must be an infinite expansion of information for randomness to exist. This can best be seen by using the binary number system. If one has a random sequence of numbers each of which consists of only three bits, then each number can have only eight possible values:
000, 001, 010, 011, 100, 101, 110, 111
Therefore, as the random sequence progresses, it must recycle through the values it previously used. In order to increase the information space, another bit may be added to each possible number, giving 16 possible values from which to pick a random number. It could be said that the random four-bit number sequence is more random than the three-bit one. This suggests that in order to have true randomness, there must be an infinite expansion of the information space.
Randomness is said to occur in numbers such as log (2) and Pi. The decimal digits of Pi constitute an infinite sequence and "never repeat in a cyclical fashion"[5]. "Numbers like pi are also thought to be "normal," which means that their digits are random in a certain statistical sense."
Pi certainly seems to behave this way. In the first six billion decimal places of pi, each of the digits from 0 through 9 shows up about six hundred million times. Yet such results, conceivably accidental, do not prove normality even in base 10, much less normality in other number bases.[6]
It is impossible, with computer software, to generate truly random sequences that do not repeat. This is because, in order to ensure that there is no regular repetition of any sequence, the computer would have to store all the sequences that the program has already produced. These requirements would soon mean that there would be no more storage available, and more numbers could not be produced.
I would suggest you read the wiki semi-article of 'Randomness versus unpredictability' in the source citation. An interesting question for determinists: if I send the command of [pick number=1-100] to a computer... is not the choice of the computer completely random? The circumstances have not changed at all if I do so again... and therefore the output can be different every time with the same input. Therefore: randomness.
I would suggest you read the wiki semi-article of 'Randomness versus unpredictability' in the source citation. An interesting question for determinists: if I send the command of [pick number=1-100] to a computer... is not the choice of the computer completely random? The circumstances have not changed at all if I do so again... and therefore the output can be different every time with the same input. Therefore: randomness.
ooo I did. Good article. Thanks saerules for posting it!
(October 9, 2009 at 9:06 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Again you fail to answer the question, so I will assume you have no answer to the logic.
What logic? I haven't seen any logic. All I've seen is flim-flam.
That seems to be your excuse to dismiss without thought. Flim flam perhaps.
(October 10, 2009 at 12:19 pm)Secularone Wrote: All things that exist are ordered and all things that are ordered are a slave to that order. That would include your god.
Yep. I have no problem with part one. Part 2 assumes God could only have created this order. If God has created another order of chaos then it wouldn't apply, and is irrelevant. Not that I have issue with your use of the baiting term 'slavery'. In this sense it is meaningless.
(October 10, 2009 at 12:19 pm)Secularone Wrote: Unless you'd care to argue that He is chaos. In which case, He could not exist or function or create anything. For all creations are the product of an algorithm. And algorithms are ordered.
You're assuming the physics of this reality, which is of course fallacious.
(October 10, 2009 at 12:19 pm)Secularone Wrote: And of course, I'm expecting you to give me some kind of flim-flam answer that is designed to remove your god from critical scrutiny or accountability. What's new?
Nothing if you always prejudge an answer. There would be no new discoveries ifscience had taken this attitude.
]
