Why do/don't you believe in a higher power? (Any HP)

[Salandriagado]

No, actually. A triangle is always a triangle, and 2 + 2 is always 4. No exceptions, ever. The first is a tautology, the latter a trivial consequence of the definitions of "2", "4", "+", and "=".

On a globe I can draw a "triangle" using 90 degree turns. Is it a triangle since it has three sides or is it not a triangle since the angles add up to more than 180 degrees?

It's a triangle. By definition, a triangle is a closed figure composed of three line segments. That the angles of a triangle add up to 180 is a theorem that happens to hold in Euclidean space.

As for 2+2 not always equaling 4, well that would depend on if you are working in something less than base 5.

Nope, still holds there. It's just also the case that 4 = 0 or 4 = 1 (depending on the base).

[Salandriagado]

No, actually. A triangle is always a triangle, and 2 + 2 is always 4. No exceptions, ever. The first is a tautology, the latter a trivial consequence of the definitions of "2", "4", "+", and "=".

A triangle with sides of length zero is functionally indistinguishable from a circle of radius zero,

And isn't a triangle.

and two of nothing plus two of nothing can be any number of nothing we wish it to be.

This is gibberish. "2" is "2 of something". It's 2.

Without parameters set by a person or persons in the first place, any mathematical statements become meaningless.

We have pre-established parameters for those symbols.

[Australian rePublic]

Then we don't have free will.

You do. You can chose not to follow it, as many do, but you still know the natural law by instinct.

If God didn't tell people how to act, fewer people would act compassionately

[Salandriagado]

That's not a triangle, that's a point.

They are functionally identical in that circumstance. That's MY point.

The same could be said for a triangle with sides that are infinitely long, with the exception of not being identical to a point.

Nope, there are perfectly reasonable infinitely long, closed triangles in some spaces. They're still triangles, and don't look like anything else.

[Salandriagado]

Not really, unless the sides were parallel lines, in which case they would not form a triangle, they would intersect. You're just applying the word "triangle" to things that objectively aren't triangles.

Not at all. I'm pointing out that without established parameters, there is no functional difference between any one shape and the other.

Yes, there is. Not to mention that all of this is utterly irrelevant: the claim was "a triangle is a triangle". That is true for any definition of "triangle".

Whether it's a point or a point with three sides is largely a matter of description,

No, it isn't. It's a fact. Points don't have sides, and the properties of a set are not dependent on the way in which you specify that set, providing its elements coincide.

which is what mathematics was for in the first place.

No, it absolutely is not.

[The Grims]

You do. You can chose not to follow it, as many do, but you still know the natural law by instinct.

If God didn't tell people how to act, fewer people would act compassionately

True. Then again, many philosophical systems, like utilitarianism, are more compassionate than christianity. Especially towards animals.

[Salandriagado]

Not at all. I'm pointing out that without established parameters, there is no functional difference between any one shape and the other. Whether it's a point or a point with three sides is largely a matter of description, which is what mathematics was for in the first place.

The material world provides those parameters. Even an infinitely small triangle's angles would add up to 180 degrees.

This is gibberish.

[Kyoki Chudoku]

You do. You can chose not to follow it, as many do, but you still know the natural law by instinct.

If God didn't tell people how to act, fewer people would act compassionately

This sort of argument kind of really irks me. How can we make that sort of judgment? I mean, we don’t know that God exists, let alone whether he tells people how to act. And we can’t just blame everything negative- e.g, committing murder- on the people themselves, and say all the nice parts are the work of all-powerful deity. So even if they did exist, they’d be responsible for all actions humanity undertakes, good and bad. Even if you bring up free will, if they’re an all-powerful deity, they would be omniscient and therefore know exactly what everyone would do, including all the bad things, and still let it pass.

Now, I’m guessing that stuff has probably already been brought up at this point in the thread, but I’m tired and saw this and was compelled to respond. So yeah.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Not at all. I'm pointing out that without established parameters, there is no functional difference between any one shape and the other.

Yes, there is. Not to mention that all of this is utterly irrelevant: the claim was "a triangle is a triangle". That is true for any definition of "triangle".

Whether it's a point or a point with three sides is largely a matter of description,

No, it isn't. It's a fact. Points don't have sides, and the properties of a set are not dependent on the way in which you specify that set, providing its elements coincide.

which is what mathematics was for in the first place.

No, it absolutely is not.

I get the feeling we’re arguing about different things. All the definitions are man-made, are they not?

[The Free Joy State]

You do. You can chose not to follow it, as many do, but you still know the natural law by instinct.

If God didn't tell people how to act, fewer people would act compassionately

So, those good Christians who step over the homeless man on their way home from the sermon about loving their neighbour would feel free to spit on the homeless man without the Bible?

Or those atheistic doctors working on cures for cancer would just go "nah, don't feel like it, mate" if science could ever prove they were correct?

Wouldn't that say more about the individuals than the existence of God?

And no... not all -- not many/most, delete as appropriate -- Christians would step over the homeless man and not all atheists are seeking cures for cancer but of all the arguments in all the world, this one is one of the worst for God: the idea that man has no self-control without fear of the hereafter.

Because it carries with it conceit -- the in-born, and usually unintentional, idea -- that those who believe are somehow more moral, more compassionate, kinder than those who do not. And, in truth, there are good and compassionate people of all religious stripes and none and arseholes of all religious stripes and none.

You do not need a conception of God to behave compassionately. In fact, I would actually fear any person who fears they may be uncompassionate or cruel without a fear of hell.

[Ifreann]

On a globe I can draw a "triangle" using 90 degree turns. Is it a triangle since it has three sides or is it not a triangle since the angles add up to more than 180 degrees? As for 2+2 not always equaling 4, well that would depend on if you are working in something less than base 5.

It's not a triangle because a triangle is on a two-dimensional plane.

The surface of the earth is a two dimensional plane.

[The New California Republic]

I'd like to know what you are looking at to make that comment. But I'd say I have had the decent head start on you tbh.

Well considering that your entire argument against him/her is "I have a different opinion to you, therefore, you're automatically wrong" he/she has a better argument than you

Where did I say that?

---

How did I insult you?

Here we go again. This is like that time that you implied I was a liar...

Don't. Just don't.

[Korhal IVV]

Hmmm... no.

We are called to be holy. We are not to conform to the world, and so, you will not see Christians in bars and other places of immorality, because we are called to a higher moral standard.

So monks do not brew beer ?

I did say that I was speaking in my country’s context after that.

There is a stigma towards alcohol drinking in the churches here, and since the general rule towards drinking is to refrain if it is going to make a brother stumble, it counts, somehow.

Also, do forgive that I was making arguments in 11 pm which makes me say things that may or may not make sense at first glance. Clarification below and above.

The thing is that a Christian that is not lukewarm would strive for self improvement. We simply do not know who God has elected as part of the elect, and so, a Christian with bad behaviour can be questionable, but we don’t know if that person is chosen or not. That is it.

[The New California Republic]

Hmmm... no.

We are called to be holy. We are not to conform to the world, and so, you will not see Christians in bars and other places of immorality, because we are called to a higher moral standard.

So monks do not brew beer ?

And wine.

[The Free Joy State]

So monks do not brew beer ?

And wine.

In fact, at least one winery was saved during Prohibition by making communion wine.

EDIT: I spoilered your picture, NCR. Hope you don't mind.

[The New California Republic]

And wine.

(Image)

In fact, at least one winery was saved during Prohibition by making communion wine.

EDIT: I spoilered your picture, NCR. Hope you don't mind.

Buckfast in particular is a plague.

And yeah it's cool. I used that image because it shows a bottle of Buckfast in its typical state and environment: empty and discarded on the street.

[Coruscanti Nations]

And wine.

In fact, at least one winery was saved during Prohibition by making communion wine.

EDIT: I spoilered your picture, NCR. Hope you don't mind.

*takes a bottle of pure red wine*

[The Archregimancy]

I'm not sure that's entirely true; or rather it's selectively true depending on the specific pantheon.

Put another way, what are the limitations on Amun-Ra's power?

Well, he eventually got senile... and he dies regularly.

You're slightly confused over your Egyptian deities; that's Ra, not Amun-Ra.

The first is the Egyptian sun god, the second resulted from the fusion of the Egyptian sun god with the Theban patron deity. The iconography was quite distinct; as was the understanding of their roles within the Egyptian pantheon (acknowledging the latter was subject to profound change over the 3000 years of Egyptian civilisation).

[The Grims]

Polytheism at least has the advantage of not claiming omnipotence

I'm not sure that's entirely true; or rather it's selectively true depending on the specific pantheon.

Put another way, what are the limitations on Amun-Ra's power?

It seems he needed to masturbate.

[The New California Republic]

I'm not sure that's entirely true; or rather it's selectively true depending on the specific pantheon.

Put another way, what are the limitations on Amun-Ra's power?

It seems he needed to masturbate.

Limitations he said.

[Estanglia]

I'd like to know what you are looking at to make that comment. But I'd say I have had the decent head start on you tbh.

Well considering that your entire argument against him/her is "I have a different opinion to you, therefore, you're automatically wrong" he/she has a better argument than you

That wasn't NCR's argument. Considering your complaints when others incorrectly interpreted your arguments, doing the same to NCR is quite hypocritical.

Why give humans the option to not do what god wants?

God could have created a world with infinite resources, then no one steals or covets anything. He could have designed human brains in such a way that all sexual desire for anyone else ceases to exist the moment a human finds a mate, then there's no adultery. He could have given us indestructible bodies and there would be no murder. The world was apparently designed to make sin as frequent and inevitable as possible.

Which to me, seems exactly like a system designed by Satan. The very fact that this world drives otherwise good to be bad seems exactly like a system designed by an omnimalevolent creature. The very fact that otherwise good people commit evil in order to survive, seems to me like a system designed by the intentional malice of Satan (The Bible says that Satan is the king and ruler of this world, after all) . And God allows Satan to implement malice on the world for the same reason He allows humans to implement malice on the world- free will

'Free will' sounds like a cop-out now. If God is all-loving, Satan ruling this world shouldn't be possible. 'Free will' isn't an excuse.

I have to say, if the church is the best god has to offer, then we're all doomed.

Hyperbole, of course, but if that's the purpose of god's church, you'd expect his church to be a little more noticeably good and not a corrupt, hypocritical body that it actually is.

If people are dickhead's, that's not God's fault.

And yet when they're good it's God's fault. You can't have it both ways. You can't blame humanity for their evil then attribute their good bits to God.

But if they are good, noble and amazing God should get the credit ?

Nope. People are good, people are bad. God's job is to judge them and guide them

So it's not God who is responsible for people being good?

Awfully presumptuous to be telling God what his job is.

Wouldn't judging and guiding His creation be part of God's job?
Also, no, Job's suffering was Satan

I'm pretty sure God let Satan cause Job's suffering.

Even the babes in womb, even the animals who had no contact with humans? There was no other option for god then to destroy everything...and start with a very unrighteous human and his children? Oh and, funny thing, the flood story is just a copy of older flood legends that are attributed to different gods and with different protagonists. So sad turing to look back at the place you where raised and the friends you had while they are destroyed. ...slavery itself is unfair, so one cannot be fair to a slave. The fact that god did not end slavery is a mark against him.

God had to permit slavery, as everyone's hearts were hardened

And this all-powerful God was incapable of unhardening their hearts.

Oh...the flood, lots wife and the flood again(among other examples), the dictates about slaves, the flood again, and the idea of hell. Yes your god does all those things. Like I said, he sounds like an abusive parent/partner. One can obey without loving. Hand over all your money or I shoot you is free will? And you did not answer protect from what?

He needs to protect us from ourselves

Except he could totally remove the evil so he doesn't have to. And he's doing a shit job at protecting us from ourselves considering all the evil.

[The Grims]

It seems he needed to masturbate.

Limitations he said.

That is a limitation. Otherwise he could have been in a state of perpetual bliss without effort.

[The Archregimancy]

I'm not sure that's entirely true; or rather it's selectively true depending on the specific pantheon.

Put another way, what are the limitations on Amun-Ra's power?

It seems he needed to masturbate.

This is a limitation?

In any case, like Dogmeat I think you may have confused your Egyptian deities. I believe you've confused Atum with Amun; the first is distinct from Amun-Ra, while the latter is one of the gods who was fused into Amun-Ra. The masturbation creation story is generally accredited to Atum, not Amun.

[The Grims]

It seems he needed to masturbate.

This is a limitation?

Yes..Needing to do X to achieve Y is a limitation.

[The Archregimancy]

This is a limitation?

Yes..Needing to do X to achieve Y is a limitation.

That was a joke; see the rest of my reply for a more serious answer.

Though addressing the original point, in fact Atum (rather than Amun) didn't need to masturbate; he chose to do so once - and even there the earliest versions of the story differ, with Atum only sneezing Shu and Tefnet into existence.

Not that Atum's generative semen matters that much since we're actually discussing Amun-Ra, a completely unrelated deity.

Honestly, the knowledge of Egyptian religion has really slipped on these boards; back on the original 2002-2003 forums, we used to post these discussions entirely in Middle Kingdom hieratic script, of course.