flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > what kind of god do you believe in?

Goto page 1, 2  Next

What kind of god do you believe in?
I believe in the god(s) of Hinduism.
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
I believe in the revealed god of Judaism (Yahweh).
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
I believe in the revealed god of Christianity (Yahweh++).
25%
 25%  [ 2 ]
I believe in the revealed god of Islam (Allah).
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
I believe in a god like Spinoza's.
12%
 12%  [ 1 ]
I believe in a god like Einstein's.
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
I believe in a god of the gaps.
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
I don't believe in any god.
62%
 62%  [ 5 ]
Total Votes : 8

Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
tthsqe



Joined: 20 May 2009
Posts: 724
tthsqe
just curious....
Post 11 Nov 2013, 06:15
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
matefkr



Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 1291
Location: Ukraine, Beregovo
matefkr
i believe in the universe. that is i believe universe by my and by others hands will bring heaven, or will approach for heaven at least.
Post 11 Nov 2013, 09:32
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
AsmGuru62



Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Posts: 1409
Location: Toronto, Canada
AsmGuru62
Science is my God.
Post 11 Nov 2013, 14:10
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Reply with quote
hopcode



Joined: 04 Mar 2008
Posts: 563
Location: Germany
hopcode
i believe in God because he gave me the life. i believe in Christ because
he teachs me to love life. i believe in friends because they help me to
understand the meaning of life. i must believe in myself because in other case
none on this world would learn from errors of my life.
poetical... and off-topic ehh!
Very Happy

_________________
⠓⠕⠏⠉⠕⠙⠑
Post 11 Nov 2013, 17:26
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17279
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
hopcode wrote:
i believe in God because he gave me the life. i believe in Christ because
he teachs me to love life. i believe in friends because they help me to
understand the meaning of life. i must believe in myself because in other case
none on this world would learn from errors of my life.
That sounds like a canned response someone taught you. Question
Post 11 Nov 2013, 21:50
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
AsmGuru62



Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Posts: 1409
Location: Toronto, Canada
AsmGuru62
The whole idea of God is a sect with a set of rules, so all responses will be canned.
Smile
Post 11 Nov 2013, 21:56
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17279
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
AsmGuru62 wrote:
The whole idea of God is a sect with a set of rules, so all responses will be canned.
I think that describes a religion, not a god.
Post 11 Nov 2013, 22:18
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
matefkr



Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 1291
Location: Ukraine, Beregovo
matefkr
the only mighty one is the whole universe the luck component of it, and only as a whole one it willl be the greatest but may the ideals of heaven shall prevail in control after a while.
Post 11 Nov 2013, 23:46
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8902
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
i suppose god is an idea,
some sort of superior beings/consciousness/etc that have having infinity infinity to create/destroy/etc infinity.

there are logic conflicts if we try to define number 0, null, nothing is equally greater as infinity, all numbers add up and etc,

but when you are down with sickness, bankrupt, etc life challenges, or one step to death,

the idea of god came in, because the idea of hope, to be not in the condition you are into right now.

is the idea of hope equal to subscribing the idea of something begging with insane god powerful exists, idk, you got to find it yourself.


from what we could see at this moment, all moments change due to changes, from 10 years ago till today, from 10 million years ago,

we know more forsure, future will be sculptured by today changes,

today are what sculptured by 100 years before,

if we keep on tracing backwards, would we find beginning? idk
i am not so sure that everything got a beginning, bing bang and etc,

because further 10 thousands year ahead, we will have no issue to integrate computer or VR into our body, like matrix, you dead and wake up and find yourself in 14000 years. or maybe millions years ahead, we will get it for sure if we survive now, and VR inside VR and inside VR,

and maybe that is how things work?




Quote:

if you code a simulation game,
what would you code first,

the egg with code how it grows, make love, have eggs, and eggs turn to new small chicken?

or
fully function chicken, code it make loves, then have eggs, then eggs turn to new chicken?

i think, i will code egg first,


Quote:

the egg doesn't even need to be "live" when you code it,

please open up your notepad.exe or anything that equivalent,
code something there, create a few objects, nothing die =)

if you code it, you would know how to make it live without incubated, nothing weird & strange,

of course, this whole thing will not make sense if you reject the idea that whole thing are designed, coded, matrix,


Quote:

just one thought came in,

what is the color that first light up in a traffic light? red, green or yellow,

this chicken and egg thing is just like traffic light,

it doesnt important which come first.
Post 12 Nov 2013, 03:59
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
hopcode



Joined: 04 Mar 2008
Posts: 563
Location: Germany
hopcode
...Morning...
Very Happy
sleepsleep wrote:
i am not so sure that everything got a beginning, bing bang and etc,

interesting question. it may drive to further discussion. for the case, OP asked because simply curios.
but the point may stay reformulated as follows

what do you believe in ?

that "in" implies already a direction, isnt it ?

a direction is something like impliciting before/after here/there why/because. for the case, also, as in most cases,
believing is not a matter of coherence. if AsmGuru said he believes in Science (when stating "Science is my God"),
it doesnt mean he is able to show why and how about his "believing". for this reason all, but all types (applications) of beliefs, religion,science, superstition,
have practically no coherence, i.e effects dont follow to causes/reasons

Cheers,

_________________
⠓⠕⠏⠉⠕⠙⠑
Post 12 Nov 2013, 04:29
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
JohnFound



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 3500
Location: Bulgaria
JohnFound
revolution wrote:
AsmGuru62 wrote:
The whole idea of God is a sect with a set of rules, so all responses will be canned.
I think that describes a religion, not a god.

There is no god outside of religion.

_________________
Tox ID: 48C0321ADDB2FE5F644BB5E3D58B0D58C35E5BCBC81D7CD333633FEDF1047914A534256478D9
Post 12 Nov 2013, 05:54
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website ICQ Number Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17279
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
JohnFound wrote:
There is no god outside of religion.
Where is the proof of that?
Post 12 Nov 2013, 06:59
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
JohnFound



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 3500
Location: Bulgaria
JohnFound
revolution wrote:
JohnFound wrote:
There is no god outside of religion.
Where is the proof of that?


revolution, only the claims about existence of god need proofs. The claims about not existence of god, does not need proofs at all. Else, you can claim existence of everything and need proof from others that it not exists. Read about Ressel's teapot

_________________
Tox ID: 48C0321ADDB2FE5F644BB5E3D58B0D58C35E5BCBC81D7CD333633FEDF1047914A534256478D9
Post 12 Nov 2013, 07:09
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website ICQ Number Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17279
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
You can't claim non-existence of anything (gods included) because you cannot explore every place at all times to prove non-existence.

You can prove existence of something by merely providing evidence. Claims require proof, this is normal. And without proof claims can be dismissed. Your claim has no supporting evidence therefore the claim can be dismissed until evidence is forthcoming.

This is appears to be a common misconception about the non-existence of anything: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Post 12 Nov 2013, 07:19
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
JohnFound



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 3500
Location: Bulgaria
JohnFound
Revolution, the claim "something not exists" is true by default, until someone can proof it false. If you suppose the reverse - "something does not exists" is false by default, the whole universe becomes incognizable. The only option to have some science at all is to assume the first claim.
So, I can claim not existence without any need to proof it. The claim itself is not a proof of not existence. It simply does not need to be proved, because it is true by default.
The claim "god not exists" is a single case of the above claim and as such it does not need proof at all.
Post 12 Nov 2013, 07:38
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website ICQ Number Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17279
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
You have a false dichotomy there. There is also a third position: status of existence is unknown, neither proved true or untrue.
Post 12 Nov 2013, 07:42
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
JohnFound



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 3500
Location: Bulgaria
JohnFound
It is not false dichotomy.
What "unknown" state changes, besides the clearly psychological effects? No one can proof not-existence, so huge number of objects will stay in the "unknown" state. In the same time, in everything, but the name, they will behave as not existent. So, introducing the third state "unknown" does not changes nothing.
Post 12 Nov 2013, 07:55
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website ICQ Number Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17279
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
There is a logical distinction between unknown and not true. You seem to be trying to equate the two as one state.

We are, of course, free to ignore nonsense claims. But that does not automatically make them untrue, it merely pushes them to irrelevant or uninteresting and worthy of being ignored.
Post 12 Nov 2013, 08:05
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
JohnFound



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 3500
Location: Bulgaria
JohnFound
revolution wrote:
There is a logical distinction between unknown and not true. You seem to be trying to equate the two as one state.


Of course there is difference. And I am not trying to equate them. I only state, that in the particular question about existence/not existence it is unjustified complication to use trichotomy instead of dichotomy. Introducing the third value gives us nothing, so why we have use it? Only because of the political correctness towards the religious people?

_________________
Tox ID: 48C0321ADDB2FE5F644BB5E3D58B0D58C35E5BCBC81D7CD333633FEDF1047914A534256478D9
Post 12 Nov 2013, 08:16
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website ICQ Number Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17279
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
JohnFound wrote:
I only state, that in the particular question about existence/not existence it is unjustified complication to use trichotomy instead of dichotomy. Introducing the third value gives us nothing, so why we have use it? Only because of the political correctness towards the religious people?
It has nothing to do with political correctness towards anyone. It is to do with not deceiving ourselves by believing something that is not a known fact.

The following two statements are unproven:

There is a god.
There is no god.

The following statement is true:

It is unknown to me if there is a god or not.

The following can also be added:

I consider it extremely unlikely that there is a god so my future actions will be based upon the assumption that there is no god.

Notice that at no time do I claim the non-existence of god (since it it logically unprovable except by proof of the opposite). That does not stop me from acting as though there is no god. It also acknowledges the fact that it is still unknown whether a god exists or not.

BTW: We can replace the word "god" in the above with "dragons", "aliens", "zombies", etc. and it still applies.
Post 12 Nov 2013, 08:23
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page 1, 2  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.