Nature of God

[dusken]

Originally posted by Anonymouse I still see no point with what you're saying. No one denies mathematics, and the logic of it. Of course applying it to anything else is arbitrary, such as measurements in meters or feet, or miles, etc., etc.

The point in what I am saying is addressing that statements such as "we have faith that we revolve around the sun" are ignorant and vacuous. If mathematics is above faith then so is applied mathematics. An opinion stating otherwise is misguided.

[loseyourname]

It's amazing to me that you assert belief in a heliocentric solar system is faith-based in order to defend faith-based belief in an omnipotent deity that created our universe. Belief in a heliocentric solar system is backed up by far more than Kepler's equations. We have also placed probes in deep space that have photographed the phenomenon as occuring. Do there exist multiple photographic documents showing that an omnipotent deity created the universe? Does there exist incontrovertible mathematical proof that only the god hypothesis is capable of explaining the sum of our observation of the universe? Comparing the two is ridiculous, and if this is all you have, you may as well have nothing.

[Anonymouse]

You keep insisting the same thing when you do not know absolutely we revolve around earth, but have faith. Where do the numbers come from and how are they applied? Do you know that man has been on the moon? Do you know that the earth is round? Sure you've seen pictures and based on those you are placing faith in those pictures, in the government, and in those who took the pictures, that they are genuine. I'm only pointing out the absurdity of claiming you know something without using the human tendency of belief.

[dusken]

Originally posted by Anonymouse You keep insisting the same thing when you do not know absolutely we revolve around earth, but have faith. Where do the numbers come from and how are they applied? Do you know that man has been on the moon? Do you know that the earth is round? Sure you've seen pictures and based on those you are placing faith in those pictures, in the government, and in those who took the pictures, that they are genuine. I'm only pointing out the absurdity of claiming you know something without using the human tendency of belief.

In this sense you can question what you see with your very own eyes. There is an element of faith involved in accepting what you see as really happening. This arguement is meaningless because you are not achieving anything. It is all relative; relative to what we feel is reality. Like I said, 1+1 may not be 2, but in the way we perceive reality, it is.

[Anonymouse]

You just confirmed what I've been saying all along.

[dusken]

Originally posted by Anonymouse You just confirmed what I've been saying all along.

Not necessarily. I do not give it the credit you do. You have now accepted that there is no point in ever discussing anything because reality may be a dream. This is useless but if you feel that way then why do you bother posting? This is like that meaningless Selflessness thread where Arvestaked tried to convince everyone that selflessness did not exist. There is no point in arguing something like that because relatively speaking, it does.

[loseyourname]

So this is your new argument?

Human perception cannot be trusted to produce absolute knowledge, therefore the universe was created by an omnipotent deity.

Are you kidding me?

[Arvestaked]

Originally posted by dusken This is like that meaningless Selflessness thread where Arvestaked tried to convince everyone that selflessness did not exist. There is no point in arguing something like that because relatively speaking, it does.

Hey, crap sack, I never took sides in that arguement.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Arvestaked Hey, crap sack, I never took sides in that arguement.

True that. It was spiral and flames that postulated the non-existence of human altruism.

[dusken]

My appologies. I will redirect my finger pointing to the concept itself because it does, in fact, relate to what is being discussed here.