Support NeoGAF

[Guled]

Well if he was real that means he did create you therte fore he could uncreate you for one, that said its pretty clear that he isn't quite all knowing, the very fact we have free will implies this.

but could he uncreate everyone at once, I don't think so. I bet we could launch a couple nukes before we takes us down.

 

[LCGeek]

I want to hear your interpretation of it. If evil is naturally a part of ... well, nature :: if evil is natural, why is it "punishable"?

Very few people are actually evil they just sin which is just an instance of of evil. Unless you took various rituals to embrace luciferian concepts you're not lost. You're not punished anymore than the feedback created by your actions. The idea you can do something without consequences is foolish. The spiritual world takes a simple concept of physics that being every actions an equal opposite reaction. Though punishment in the sense you describe is nothing more than fear mongering by the establishment whose has been quick to install their own laws that defy various creation laws when you get in to the subject.

Dever that's basically the same point I'm trying to make. Free will isn't special it's a just a simple choice nothing more. Both eve and adam had their choices and clearly made it for obvious reasons. You don't have to choose to see the bigger meanings of that situation nor should you necessarily. If you want to explore the paradox we are discussing read up gnostic principles.

But really LCGeek I can't help but to think you're trolling. Evil is not "energy". Evil does not exist as an objective entity, it exists as a concept in the mind that usually describes acts harmful to humans. There are also no negative or positive forces... or maybe there are, I just don't have any idea what you mean by them.

I'm not I'm just explaining meta physical concepts from the view as I understand them. Evil embodies more than just human concepts in spirituality it represents the most destructive negative force possible. I hate the term god btw and glad another user spotted how one's reading style could make you see it another way that being dog. Force isn't the best word to use though the concept is there be physical or supernatural it still has same undertones regardless faith.

 

[Dever]

but could he uncreate everyone at once, I don't think so. I bet we could launch a couple nukes before we takes us down.

You can have the nukes. If we're going to war against God, I'm taking the iron chariots. :lol

 

[BladeWorker]

There's a force out there that's greater than I am, that's greater than the laws of science or the norms of social science or the beliefs of humanities. I choose to call that power God, because I want someone or something to thank when something beyond my control goes well. If I have nothing to attribute the positive action to, well then, many of the events of my life are just so random that I don't know if I can cope.

 

[Atrus]

What is God? From there, you can ascertain whether or not any particular 'God' exists.
For most of the definitions thought up thus far, those Gods do not exist.

If the evidence of existence is equal to that of it's non-existence, it does not exist by default. The contention of course comes in the believers firm belief that there is evidence, but this ultimately turns out to be nothing more that flawed and haphazard logic built around alleviating the believers own fears.

It somehow hasn't occurred to anyone that any idea that seems to be so attuned to the wants and desires of the individual, should be held with the greatest of skepticism.

 

[Zero Hero]

lol satan

I'm drinking this beer cause satan made me do it. Wait, no. That was me. Evil is so delicious.

 

[Rich Uncle Skeleton]

Call me stubborn, but .999 does not equal 1. It's at least 1 digit off.

You'll never believe it until you understand what is actually meant by .999...., or any decimal expansion for that matter. What does .9 mean? It's 9/10. Similarly, .99 = 9/10 + 9/100. We define .9999... as the limit, as n tends to infinity, of 9/10 + ... + 9/10^n. This means that .999... is whatever number that sum gets very close to as n gets very large (loosely, of course; go to wikipedia or something for a real definition of limits). But what is the difference between 1 and 9/10 + ... + 9/10^n? If you do some calculations you'll see that it's 1/10^n, which gets arbitrarily small as n gets large. Hence, the limit of this sum = .999... = 1.

 

[dasein]

What is God? From there, you can ascertain whether or not any particular 'God' exists.
For most of the definitions thought up thus far, those Gods do not exist.

If the evidence of existence is equal to that of it's non-existence, it does not exist by default. The contention of course comes in the believers firm belief that there is evidence, but this ultimately turns out to be nothing more that flawed and haphazard logic built around alleviating the believers own fears.

It somehow hasn't occurred to anyone that any idea that seems to be so attuned to the wants and desires of the individual, should be held with the greatest of skepticism.

Well for the most part Western theology has turned god into an abstract object with properties. But the same is not in the East, especially with the mystical theology of the Eastern Orthodox Church. They hold that since God caused existence, He is not among the class of existing things. Pseudo-Dionysius, contrary to Plotinus, attempts to make the case that it is misleading to call God a being, or even a "supreme" being. God surpasses the distinction between being and non-being. Therefore it makes no sense, Pseudo-Dionysius thought, to treat God as a being to be proven to exist. This is very counter intuitive for the West (generally), but the East tends to be cool with allowing God's essence to remain incomprehensible altogether.

Most argument for/against the existence of god assume a Western metaphysical framework, partly due to the theologies/philosophies of Scholasticism. The East tends not to give a damn about such arguments, which, from the very little I've read, they see as artificial devices.

 

[Always-honest]

Well for the most part Western theology has turned god into an abstract object with properties. But the same is not in the East, especially with the mystical theology of the Eastern Orthodox Church. They hold that since God caused existence, He is not among the class of existing things. Pseudo-Dionysius, contrary to Plotinus, attempts to make the case that it is misleading to call God a being, or even a "supreme" being. God surpasses the distinction between being and non-being. Therefore it makes no sense, Pseudo-Dionysius thought, to treat God as a being to be proven to exist. This is very counter intuitive for the West (generally), but the East tends to be cool with allowing God's essence to remain incomprehensible altogether.

Most argument for/against the existence of god assume a Western metaphysical framework, partly due to the theologies/philosophies of Scholasticism. The East tends not to give a damn about such arguments, which, from the very little I've read, they see as artificial devices.

to not give a damn would be healthy to the world.

 

[mug]

I thought the general consensus was that God was an ugly Canadian pop singer that misunderstood the meaning of irony? Val Kilmer saved my child btw let me off easy.