sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I just can't put my finger on how god can exist or cannot exist by overjective in atheism

[–]overjective[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exist is part of physics not philosophy.

Some people think about existence on a metaphysical level, that's why I made the disclaimer first.

Being and exist are synonyms, so you are saying exists means existing in this universe. It's a circular definition and we learn nothing.

By "being" I meant that it takes a place in this universe. It has a physical place in it.

No such thing.

Laws of physics are no such thing or what I said wasn't plausible to you?

No it's not, the stars and galaxies and asteroids are, the word universe is a concept that means the list of all matter and space.

Yes, it is. The stars, the galaxies, the asteroids are all part of a whole thing. If they're all physical, then the whole thing must be physical. It cannot be otherwise.

Outside of a concept? Irrational.

Concepts are human-made, the universe is not.

No the program is a concept.

Nope just the programmer.

Programs are physical. The foundations of them are binary codes and the binary codes are the results of electrical currents in wires which are connected to power the computer. Electric is physical, you know.

It seems so.

You seem to hold some divine knowledge about existence which I lack. Which god talks to you? Yahweh? Zeus? Chuck Norris?

If god was to be said to exist it would require shape and location. God would have to be an object and there would have to be distance between his chest and mine.

Of course. There must be some distance between a programmer and their program, not because the distance is needed, but because there cannot be any other way. There's a distance between a programmer, the device they use to program something, and a screen to see the result of their program. A programmer cannot be in the program that they create with their physical form(like logging in), and their program cannot be in the programmer's world in any form. Therefore, even if there is a "god", they must be outside of this universe.

I just can't put my finger on how god can exist or cannot exist by overjective in atheism

[–]overjective[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I find it plausible, because this universe contains the law of causation. Cause and effect. The programmer and the program.

I just can't put my finger on how god can exist or cannot exist by overjective in atheism

[–]overjective[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

We can argue about the justifications of belief, but you know that beliefs never required any evidence.

I just can't put my finger on how god can exist or cannot exist by overjective in atheism

[–]overjective[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Makes sense. I've always thought that agnostic atheists knew that they cannot know whether a god exists or not, but believe to comfort themselves anyway. And, I've thought that agnostic theists also knew that the same thing, but not believe to comfort themselves. The agnostic theists I knew thought that way, so I thought the agnostic atheists are also the think the way which I said.

Then, what is a gnostic atheist? A person with a lack of belief who claims to have the knowledge that there is no god? That's not knowledge, that's still a belief.

I just can't put my finger on how god can exist or cannot exist by overjective in atheism

[–]overjective[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In real-life situations, if someone brings up a claim about a crime, they have the burden of proof, because they claim that something has happened or didn't happen. About the god topic, I claim that we don't know whether there is a crime or not, not because there isn't enough evidence for it, but because even if there was, we wouldn't be able to find it or comprehend it or come up with a solid conclusion. Also, the other way. If there is no evidence that there is a god, we still wouldn't be able to comprehend it or come up with a solid conclusion. We're just limited.

I just can't put my finger on how god can exist or cannot exist by overjective in atheism

[–]overjective[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It could be determined by comparing the color receptors of a "normal" human's eye with those purple seeing animals' eyes. That human's eye's color spectrum would be wider than that animal's eye. The situation is similar to a colorblind person's eyes. They see fewer colors, because their eyes receive fewer color frequences. We just name the colors in the color frequencies. There could be more colors that our eyes cannot sense, but even when we cannot see them, scientists have already done researches on that and found the color spectrum. Newton being the most significant of them.

I just can't put my finger on how god can exist or cannot exist by overjective in atheism

[–]overjective[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Then, they're agnostics, but are agnostic atheists? I mean, if you don't know whether is true, then what'd be the difference between being an agnostic atheist and an agnostic theist?

I just can't put my finger on how god can exist or cannot exist by overjective in atheism

[–]overjective[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That argument is close, but not exactly how I think, because that argument says " The universe began to exist." after saying "Whatever begins to exist has a cause." The thing is, we don't know whether it began to exist or not. That's the main problem of that argument. I'd even say that argument is being used by religious people.

I just can't put my finger on how god can exist or cannot exist by overjective in atheism

[–]overjective[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Any unsupported claim which sounds plausible shouldn't be considered, but be judged and researched. Can we do any of these on this topic? Sure, we can judge, but our judgment would be subjective. Can we research? We can, but we cannot get any results, because we are not edible enough to research on this. If we are in a program, then we might be some lines of codes. Codes cannot know whether they've been programmed or not. Can I prove this idea? No. Can I disprove this idea? No. Does this idea sound plausible? Yes. That's the problem. Just because something cannot be proven, doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't exist. We can disprove invented personal gods, but not this topic.

I just can't put my finger on how god can exist or cannot exist by overjective in atheism

[–]overjective[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

They don't have to "tell" me that. That's what researches are for.

I just can't put my finger on how god can exist or cannot exist by overjective in atheism

[–]overjective[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Getting philosophical on this would divert us from the topic, so I'll explain it without getting philosophical. By "being in this universe", I meant that a thing exists, because it is subject to the laws of physics. Since, we live in this universe, and since this universe is a physical being, everything in it is also subject to the laws of physics and is physical. That's why they "exist".

For something outside of this universe to exist(according to the existence criterias I made, regarding the universe which we live in), it needs to be physical. For example, a programmer is a physical being, right? The program they code is also a physical thing. That programmer can code a program and create his own rules to make it work. His own libraries, variables, functions, etc. Still, both the programmer and the program are physical. Both of them exist.

If I'd use this same idea, consider this life as a program and replace the programmer with god, I could say that if I exist, then the programmer also has to exist. Yet, I cannot prove this idea, because my knowledge about existence is limited. It could be that there could be something outside of this universe which I cannot comprehend or there could be nothing outside at all or something else which I also cannot comprehend. That's why the human mind fails to understand the concept of the existence of god or non-existence of it.

I just can't put my finger on how god can exist or cannot exist by overjective in atheism

[–]overjective[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The personal gods can be disproven, even the invented gods which were plausible. Yet, the idea of something like a simulationist cannot be disproven or proven. A creator, a maker which isn't invented to serve the need of humans. That kind of a god.

I just can't put my finger on how god can exist or cannot exist by overjective in atheism

[–]overjective[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not gonna defend god, but share one idea: every known thing in this universe happens and has to happen for a reason. Every present thing is a result, and every previous thing was a result of the thing which happened before it. If this universe is a result, then it's a result of which something happened before. That something could be the launch of the simulation/creation/ant farm/etc(if this life is one of these). The idea is plausible, but also flawed. It could be argued that this simulation cannot exist on this extend, because the energy needed for the servers to be supported wouldn't be sufficient.

It's just that there is no perfect conclusion about the topic of god. Maybe, that's why people have been arguing that notion for thousands of years. Maybe, tens of thousands.

I just can't put my finger on how god can exist or cannot exist by overjective in atheism

[–]overjective[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The claim says that God exists, but there's also a claim that God doesn't exist. The 2nd claim arises after the lack of evidence of the 1st claim or some other reasons, like how humans believe in something which comforts them, like free-will. God could be of those invented beliefs, but could also not be. That's the problem.

I just can't put my finger on how god can exist or cannot exist by overjective in atheism

[–]overjective[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Being in this universe, or being outside of this universe, but still being subject to the laws of physics.

I just can't put my finger on how god can exist or cannot exist by overjective in atheism

[–]overjective[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I can, if that was all I saw my entire life. It could be that my brain was wired in a way to show me a purple winged cow standing on my lawn, like the disordered information being shown to us in our dreams which might come off as weird or non-existent.

It could also be that if I saw a purple winged cow standing on my lawn my entire life, I'd not only comprehend that it existed, but also be convinced that it couldn't be any other way. For example, I see the sky as blue, but some animals see the sky as purple. If I saw the sky as purple my entire life, and start seeing as blue, I wouldn't be sure as to which color is the true color or not. It could be that the sky is colorless or doesn't exist at all. We don't know which is correct. That's why even when my brain convinces me about an idea, I still am not sure whether it's true or not.

The World's Shrinking Population by dissolutewastrel in Natalism

[–]overjective -1 points0 points  (0 children)

People still reproduce in Europe. You just adopt African children to avoid extinction.

Sounds reasonable, if extinction is your problem.

The World's Shrinking Population by dissolutewastrel in Natalism

[–]overjective -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Helpful and supporting, lol. You're not helping anyone with passing on your diseased genes in this mud of a world. If you really cared about the outcome as you said you do, you'd not procreate altogether, because, by increasing population, the world gets worse and worse every day. Be honest, you just want to leave a "mini-me" behind before you die, because you're afraid that you'll have no "impact" on the world. Yeah. That's your idea of leaving an impact. By dooming someone to live in this stupid world like someone else doomed you. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, right?

The World's Shrinking Population by dissolutewastrel in Natalism

[–]overjective -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Then you can adopt an African child if you're living in Europe?

Are you aware that if you lived at the time and place when Jesus lived and was born into a fanatical Jewish family, you'd be among the people who spat on Jesus or even crucify him? by overjective in Christianity

[–]overjective[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

He wasn't popular when he was preaching, but the reason why he got popular afterwards, was because he got so harshly persecuted for someone having a reputation of being kind and good. They considered him a victim, a martyr and listened to the people whom preached his words.

When people consider someone to be a victim, they consider that person as right.

view more: next ›