17-Question test to see if your beliefs are logically defensible

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Philosophy sucks.

 

[ironhead]

Philosophy sucks.

How did the universe (or series of universes) and the virtually infinite amount of matter contained within come from a complete void? This is the only logical antecedent to a universe without an external causality (creator, if you wish) which has properties external to our universe (time, for example).

 

[Lowaicue]

How did the universe (or series of universes) and the virtually infinite amount of matter contained within come from a complete void? This is the only logical antecedent to a universe without an external causality (creator, if you wish) which has properties external to our universe (time, for example).

The answer is mathematics.
The explanation of which is somewhere on this forum but you'll have to find it yourself.
However, if you wish to remain in your cosy shell of blind ignorance search not. Just accept. For some, that is answer enough.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

How did the universe (or series of universes) and the virtually infinite amount of matter contained within come from a complete void? This is the only logical antecedent to a universe without an external causality (creator, if you wish) which has properties external to our universe (time, for example).

I unno.

I could say one of the scientific hypothesis's that are currently floating around but aren't very well proven at all, like "it was a random quantum fluctuation". But I usually don't try to present it as undeniable fact, unlike Christians. However, if you get to claim that god just popped out of nowhere (or "always existed") and poofed us into existence for no reason at all, I get to throw out untested scientific hypothesis. At least mine doesn't lead to infinite regression like yours, and it's a thousand times simpler and more elegant than something convoluted, ridiculous, and obviously mind-created like a god.

I don't know how I can say this enough. A lack of a scientific theory about the creation of the universe in no way, shape, or form indicates a creator. And since the creator has to be at least as complicated as the universe, who the fuck created the creator, if everything complicated suddenly needs a creator? Oh! I get it! He's always been here! He's "outside of human understanding", as if this logical out makes your silly nonsense any more likely at all.

Well, if you get to say that God is outside of human understanding, then I get to say that the big bang is outside of human understanding. Suck it.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

And what is the god? I'm sure it's not the ridiculously humanoid Christian god. It doesn't do anything with humans. It doesn't effect us in any way. It's just a being of infinite intelligence and infinite power that decided to create matter and time some day for no reason at all. It's infinite intelligence is necessarily more complicated than the universe itself, so it necessarily creates an infinite regression of creators of creators, or it is required to assemble itself out of nothing or "exist always" (which would mean it's existence relies on the conundrum it was created to solve). When we discover the way with which it created the universe, it may as well not exist. It is basically something you've created to cover a gap in knowledge which you (wrongly) insist cannot be covered.

Like agnosticism, I think deism is just a PC way to appease the Christians. Except it's popular with libertarians cus it was popular with the founders, and the libertarians apparently believe it was the founders intentions to worship and follow their concepts and treat them like little fuhrers for all eternity.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

lol PLEASE DIXIE TAKE THIS TEST

I refuse to take biased "tests" which begin by making false presumptions, and continue to make other false presumptions on top of those. It is pointless and silly, and serves no purpose or value to anyone. If you managed to complete the test, it proves you are retarded and unable to comprehend the difference between being 'closed-minded' and 'open-minded'. I assume you completed the test, which confirms your retardation... Sorry you are afflicted.

Does God exist? First we must define what "exist" means! In a purely physical sense, does God exist? Of course not, and I don't know of anyone who believes He does. So your test begins with this fallacious question. It continues to pose questions which seem to defy any understanding of God or spirituality. My guess is, it was concocted by some smart-ass punk Atheist who simply wanted to make a point... they failed.

The perspective of the entire test is based on a purely human understanding of the world and universe, and fails to recognize some very simple concepts. When I read "would God want..." and "wouldn't God allow..." These are human aspects, human concepts. WE want, WE allow! God doesn't need to "want" or have to "allow" things. You simply can't apply human logic to God, and that is precisely how this test fails. God does not need anything from you, and doesn't want anything from you. God doesn't "care" because "caring" is a human emotion. Do some humans tell other humans that God cares, that God wants, that God needs? Sure, but it doesn't mean if there is a God, these things are true, it just means that some humans misinterpret the concept as badly as you do.

Furthermore, the test is full of illogical reasoning. It tends to want to say, if there is not clear evidence of something, we can conclude something is non-existent, and that isn't logical or scientific. It also presumes that 'evidence' is only in physical form, when dealing with a non-physical entity, and that is absurd and without basis in logic. The lack of physical evidence for a spiritual entity does not prove the entity is invalid.

What we continue to see is absolute human ignorance on display. If God is Real... If God Exists.... are questions from a human aspect, and reflect a natural human inclination and attribute of questioning the spiritual faith he is born with. To put it in the words of the great philosopher, Bob Dylan, "you say that you've lost your faith, but that's not where it's at... you had no faith to lose, and you know it."

 

[/MSG/]

I refuse to take biased "tests" which begin by making false presumptions, and continue to make other false presumptions on top of those. It is pointless and silly, and serves no purpose or value to anyone. If you managed to complete the test, it proves you are retarded and unable to comprehend the difference between being 'closed-minded' and 'open-minded'. I assume you completed the test, which confirms your retardation... Sorry you are afflicted.

Does God exist? First we must define what "exist" means! In a purely physical sense, does God exist? Of course not, and I don't know of anyone who believes He does. So your test begins with this fallacious question. It continues to pose questions which seem to defy any understanding of God or spirituality. My guess is, it was concocted by some smart-ass punk Atheist who simply wanted to make a point... they failed.

The perspective of the entire test is based on a purely human understanding of the world and universe, and fails to recognize some very simple concepts. When I read "would God want..." and "wouldn't God allow..." These are human aspects, human concepts. WE want, WE allow! God doesn't need to "want" or have to "allow" things. You simply can't apply human logic to God, and that is precisely how this test fails. God does not need anything from you, and doesn't want anything from you. God doesn't "care" because "caring" is a human emotion. Do some humans tell other humans that God cares, that God wants, that God needs? Sure, but it doesn't mean if there is a God, these things are true, it just means that some humans misinterpret the concept as badly as you do.

Furthermore, the test is full of illogical reasoning. It tends to want to say, if there is not clear evidence of something, we can conclude something is non-existent, and that isn't logical or scientific. It also presumes that 'evidence' is only in physical form, when dealing with a non-physical entity, and that is absurd and without basis in logic. The lack of physical evidence for a spiritual entity does not prove the entity is invalid.

What we continue to see is absolute human ignorance on display. If God is Real... If God Exists.... are questions from a human aspect, and reflect a natural human inclination and attribute of questioning the spiritual faith he is born with. To put it in the words of the great philosopher, Bob Dylan, "you say that you've lost your faith, but that's not where it's at... you had no faith to lose, and you know it."

Translation: After 94 attempts to get a medal, I still couldn't figure the damn thing out. That's God punishing me for my lack of faith.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Translation: After 94 attempts to get a medal, I still couldn't figure the damn thing out. That's God punishing me for my lack of faith.

I think you must have mistakenly put that in the Retard-o-speak translator.

I just finished explaining, a "god" would not require your faith, doesn't care if you have faith, and is not concerned with your lack of faith. These are human emotional-based attributes, which probably just would not apply in any way, to an omnipotent power. You PRESUME they do, because many religious teachings tend to presume these things, and you think that means "belief in God" also requires belief that a "god" would want, need, desire, anything from mortal human beings. It is called a logical fallacy, and I pointed that out to Grind, and anyone else who cares to READ what I posted, and not filter it through the "translator" like you did.

Open your mind a little.

 

[/MSG/]

I think you must have mistakenly put that in the Retard-o-speak translator.

I just finished explaining, a "god" would not require your faith, doesn't care if you have faith, and is not concerned with your lack of faith. These are human emotional-based attributes, which probably just would not apply in any way, to an omnipotent power. You PRESUME they do, because many religious teachings tend to presume these things, and you think that means "belief in God" also requires belief that a "god" would want, need, desire, anything from mortal human beings. It is called a logical fallacy, and I pointed that out to Grind, and anyone else who cares to READ what I posted, and not filter it through the "translator" like you did.

Open your mind a little.

Translation: Durrrrrr

Stop taking yourself so seriously.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

lol dixie failed the logic test.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Translation: Durrrrrr

Stop taking yourself so seriously.

TRANSLATION: I'm a pinhead retard who doesn't know how to refute anything Dixie just said, so I will pretend to be giving him some 'good advice' and people will think I really showed him, while never realizing I am clueless, over my head, and without a point to argue.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

lol dixie failed the logic test.

No, dixie didn't finish the so-called logic test that was based on logical fallacy.

btw... when I stopped answering, I was still in 'good health' ...for whatever that's worth. it just became ridiculous, because the presumptions and fallacies were layered on top of each other, you have to first presume this and that, then because that is presumed, you can presume this other thing, and if that is presumed, then answer this question!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

lol dixie failed the logic test.

True, but he's very good at epistemology.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

No, dixie didn't finish the so-called logic test that was based on logical fallacy.

btw... when I stopped answering, I was still in 'good health' ...for whatever that's worth. it just became ridiculous, because the presumptions and fallacies were layered on top of each other, you have to first presume this and that, then because that is presumed, you can presume this other thing, and if that is presumed, then answer this question!

What is the logical fallacy? That one can be logical but still wrong?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I refuse to take biased "tests" which begin by making false presumptions, and continue to make other false presumptions on top of those. It is pointless and silly, and serves no purpose or value to anyone. If you managed to complete the test, it proves you are retarded and unable to comprehend the difference between being 'closed-minded' and 'open-minded'. I assume you completed the test, which confirms your retardation... Sorry you are afflicted.

Does God exist? First we must define what "exist" means! In a purely physical sense, does God exist? Of course not, and I don't know of anyone who believes He does. So your test begins with this fallacious question. It continues to pose questions which seem to defy any understanding of God or spirituality. My guess is, it was concocted by some smart-ass punk Atheist who simply wanted to make a point... they failed.

The perspective of the entire test is based on a purely human understanding of the world and universe, and fails to recognize some very simple concepts. When I read "would God want..." and "wouldn't God allow..." These are human aspects, human concepts. WE want, WE allow! God doesn't need to "want" or have to "allow" things. You simply can't apply human logic to God, and that is precisely how this test fails. God does not need anything from you, and doesn't want anything from you. God doesn't "care" because "caring" is a human emotion. Do some humans tell other humans that God cares, that God wants, that God needs? Sure, but it doesn't mean if there is a God, these things are true, it just means that some humans misinterpret the concept as badly as you do.

Furthermore, the test is full of illogical reasoning. It tends to want to say, if there is not clear evidence of something, we can conclude something is non-existent, and that isn't logical or scientific. It also presumes that 'evidence' is only in physical form, when dealing with a non-physical entity, and that is absurd and without basis in logic. The lack of physical evidence for a spiritual entity does not prove the entity is invalid.

What we continue to see is absolute human ignorance on display. If God is Real... If God Exists.... are questions from a human aspect, and reflect a natural human inclination and attribute of questioning the spiritual faith he is born with. To put it in the words of the great philosopher, Bob Dylan, "you say that you've lost your faith, but that's not where it's at... you had no faith to lose, and you know it."

God is a product of the human imagination, and logic is a concept of nature. We very well can apply this logic too him, because at best he's unknowable and we have no idea what uber-powers he holds.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

What we continue to see is absolute human ignorance on display. If God is Real... If God Exists.... are questions from a human aspect, and reflect a natural human inclination and attribute of questioning the spiritual faith he is born with. To put it in the words of the great philosopher, Bob Dylan, "you say that you've lost your faith, but that's not where it's at... you had no faith to lose, and you know it."

Hello special pleading!

 

[/MSG/]

TRANSLATION: I'm a pinhead retard who doesn't know how to refute anything Dixie just said, so I will pretend to be giving him some 'good advice' and people will think I really showed him, while never realizing I am clueless, over my head, and without a point to argue.

Dixie, I didn't refute your "argument" because all you have is supposition and opinion, same as anyone else who argues for or against a deity. So instead of being nice and charitable, I chose to make fun of you, for no one else's amusement but my own. You, naturally, assume some greater work at hand, and fly off the handle. I tell you to stop taking yourself so seriously, and you come back with more of the same.

Tsk tsk tsk.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I think you must have mistakenly put that in the Retard-o-speak translator.

I just finished explaining, a "god" would not require your faith, doesn't care if you have faith, and is not concerned with your lack of faith.

According to whom? A god who exists soley based on faith is just as reasonable a construct as one who doesn't.

These are human emotional-based attributes, which probably just would not apply in any way, to an omnipotent power.

Then say false, retardo!

You PRESUME they do, because many religious teachings tend to presume these things, and you think that means "belief in God" also requires belief that a "god" would want, need, desire, anything from mortal human beings.

It may as well be, because there's absolutely no evidence for him. A God like that is just as likely as any other god.

It is called a logical fallacy,

No it's not.

and I pointed that out to Grind, and anyone else who cares to READ what I posted, and not filter it through the "translator" like you did.

Open your mind a little.

No.

 

[ironhead]

The answer is mathematics.
The explanation of which is somewhere on this forum but you'll have to find it yourself.
However, if you wish to remain in your cosy shell of blind ignorance search not. Just accept. For some, that is answer enough.

Cozy blind shell of ignorance? Wow, that's a mighty ad hominem argument you've crafted there. I'm not blindly committed to any one explanation of the universe, nor of the possibility or lack thereof of the concept of a deity or initial and external causality to our universe.

If the answer to everything (all matter and energy in the universe) coming from a void is in mathematics, I am open to an answer, but I've never come across one. Then again, I've never studied mathematics in great depth. Enlighten me, I am open to answers. Do you have one?

 

[ironhead]

I unno.

I could say one of the scientific hypothesis's that are currently floating around but aren't very well proven at all, like "it was a random quantum fluctuation". But I usually don't try to present it as undeniable fact, unlike Christians. However, if you get to claim that god just popped out of nowhere (or "always existed") and poofed us into existence for no reason at all, I get to throw out untested scientific hypothesis. At least mine doesn't lead to infinite regression like yours, and it's a thousand times simpler and more elegant than something convoluted, ridiculous, and obviously mind-created like a god.

I don't know how I can say this enough. A lack of a scientific theory about the creation of the universe in no way, shape, or form indicates a creator. And since the creator has to be at least as complicated as the universe, who the fuck created the creator, if everything complicated suddenly needs a creator? Oh! I get it! He's always been here! He's "outside of human understanding", as if this logical out makes your silly nonsense any more likely at all.

Well, if you get to say that God is outside of human understanding, then I get to say that the big bang is outside of human understanding. Suck it.

WM, you really need to relax. You should probably stop making assumptions about my beliefs. I consider myself a Deist, but not because I consider there to be proof of a god/external causality to the universe. I am a Deist simply because an external causality would explain all matter and energy coming from a complete void. This supposition offers no possible explanation of the qualities of this causality/deity. It could be infinitely complex, simple, or anything in between.

I accept Big Bang theory, and from what I understand there is considerable evidence for this theory. I would welcome scientific/mathematical answers to the question I posed about everything coming from nothing. I also embrace the idea that we may never know, or that we may have an answer far in the future which completely contradicts my Deistic supposition.

Characterizing my beliefs as being "PC for Christians" is outlandishly laughable. There is nothing PC about Deism or agnosticism. Your conception of these questions and your underlying schema suggests considerable rigidity - ie there is only one acceptable answer: yours.