Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

Firstly, let me just say that I've proven the existence of God.  However, that is not the focus of this discussion. My focus is the glaring problems with atheistic arguments. 

Atheism holds to the false and irrational belief or delusion that the imperfections of man are somehow sufficient to dismiss the idea of God. Their argument goes something like this "If God is real then why does he allow suffering and evil?" Does this somehow defeat the argument that God is rendered helpless thus demonstrating the incompatibility between omnipotence and benevolence?

It depends on your definition of God.

If God falls under the category of deism then that opens up a whole new can of worms. There is no disputing that God is deic. A God that only interferes when "reached out to" by the mind of the individual, as I have shown, is more along the lines of the scientific notion of a God. This is accomplished only by the supernatural senses otherwise known as extrasensory perception/ the 6th sense.

I should know.

Mock Turtle said: ↑
I doubt that is true for all or even most atheists - certainly not this one - given I discount all the various projections as to what any God might be, do, and all the rest, especially with regards to humans. And this is so because I do believe all such aspects do come from the minds of humans, and therefore all the things you have mentioned are just seen as part of human existence and requiring no placing as to responsibility onto any God. I wouldn't even use such as backup or corroboratory evidence.

...what a life of illusion you live.

In the Reality Self-simulation Principle by Christopher Michael Langan, the reality self-simulation becomes the model for both the processor (all that is required to collapse wavefunctions or consciousness, which are not taken apart from mind) and the display (all that you see, touch, taste, smell, hear and even imagine).

It begins by introducing its readers to the possibility that the idea of a computer evolving to the point where it is capable of simulating reality by input and producing an output (both of which are held together in reality's processor-display ensemble) is an absolute requirement for the secondary levels of reality, such as material existence, rather than quantum.

Here comes the part that will blow your mind...

Reality must contain all and only that which exists (a tautological truth and thus self-referential).

I appreciate your attempt to assert the false belief of atheism but it has been easily defeated. But you may continue with your make-believe fantasy that everything is matter.

wellwisher, post: 7985339, member: 64918 Wrote:This all has to do with will and choice. Animals do not have the same degree of will and choice as humans. They are integrated internally by natural instinct. Natural instinct leads to a 3-D outcome; ecosystems, but this occurs without will and choice.

Okay.

Quote:Will and Choice adds a wild card, that will not lead to the same natural 3-D outcome as nature.

Are your talking Game theory?

Quote:However, it can lead to innovations allowing enhancements to nature. But will and choice can also go the other way leading to unnatural behavior and damage of the natural world. Instinct keeps the ship sailing down the middle, while will and choice allows us to go above or below the natural line.

Yes, I agree. But to what extent is will and/or choice allowed?

Quote:Ideally, we would use will and choose to stay at natural and above. If we all did this we would see this experiment of will and choice as a gift from God. It is the extra choices below natural, that are the problem. Many of these problems are connected to time perception. The drug addicts see the nice buzz; short time scale, but fails to see the bigger picture; addiction damage. We may make a decision based on short term pleasure; good, but this may not extrapolate well to the long term.

You do realize your examples do not give a complete picture, right? In some instances, drugs can be a blessing rather than a curse. I champion marijuana for its performance enhancing effects/ creativity on me (and me alone?)

Quote:This brings us to the symbolism of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Knowledge of good and evil tells us about the points on the curves above and below the natural line. This dual knowledge creates crossroads for both will and choice, with too many choices, below the curve, causing all the problems. This is often due to narrowed time scale; short sightedness.

Yes.

Willful acts of good do not just have a material effect, they can "update reality's internal model."

Quote:Will and choice, if used wisely, is more advanced than instinct alone. It can enhance natural. If God made this ideal path instinctive for you, there will not be no need for will and choice. Human have to learn to use this gift of will and choice wisely, and realize they are their own worse enemy. We often turn what's good into a liability and many blame God for not keeping us like robots, so we can avoid making our problems worse and worse, through bad short term choices.

Insightful.

Quote:I like an analogy between human will and choice and a computer gaining consciousness. Say we had a computer that was suddenly able to make choices apart from its programing. This is what will and choice do for humans, relative our instinctive programming.

Quote:

The conscious computer will be first noticed as anomalies in the programming with most of the program still in affect. It will be a gradual process of the anomaly practicing will and choice, before it can stay above the baseline of the original programming and advance the program to a higher level.

It is those anomalies that are the primary concern of the CTMU and the Reality Self-Simulation Principle. Some merely refer to them as the "Metaphysics of reality".

Quote:
The Imperfections of Man are not incompatible with a God
Ostronomos

Curious as to why the use of a double negative in the title. Is this a test? Doesn’t ‘not incompatible’ mean compatible? So God’s & man’s imperfections are harmonious and consistent with one another. IOW God is just like one of us or at least no different when it comes to being imperfect. The perfect man then would be an impossibility and attempts at becoming or creating one is not going to happen.

If an atheist is imperfect then what’s the big deal? God is either ok with it or thinks he’s just another man, not a god at all. IOW god is the guy running the simulation and he may be the most despicable being that ever existed, compatible with mankind. Nothing to worry about.

(Jan 6, 2023 06:28 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:
The Imperfections of Man are not incompatible with a God
Ostronomos

Curious as to why the use of a double negative in the title. Is this a test? Doesn’t ‘not incompatible’ mean compatible? So God’s & man’s imperfections are harmonious and consistent with one another. IOW God is just like one of us or at least no different when it comes to being imperfect. The perfect man then would be an impossibility and attempts at becoming or creating one is not going to happen.

If an atheist is imperfect then what’s the big deal? God is either ok with it or thinks he’s just another man, not a god at all. IOW god is the guy running the simulation and he may be the most despicable being that ever existed, compatible with mankind. Nothing to worry about.

Do not toy with me you ungrateful twit.

Nowhere do I state that God is imperfect. It is our stage of evolution that is lagging.

(Jan 7, 2023 05:09 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: [ -> ][quote="Zinjanthropos" pid="55609" dateline="1673026088"]

Quote:
The Imperfections of Man are not incompatible with a God
Ostronomos

Do not toy with me you ungrateful twit.

Nowhere do I state that God is imperfect. It is our stage of evolution that is lagging.

Too funny. Resorting to name calling are we? Need to do better than that…lol

You might want to edit your thread title just so ungrateful twits like myself don’t get confused and make the wrong implication. While doing that you also might want to refrain from using the self appointed ‘Genius’ label, you’re not earning it. Is it too hard to admit you screwed up?