I skimmed the thread up to this point and haven't seen anyone address the other part of my post though. I still don't see how one can reconcile an omniscient god with punishment for bad behavior. Free will doesn't even have to be part of the equation.

I doubt anyone will find this to be a good answer. But I liken this to a parent and child. Parent knows that given certain conditions (whatever they may be) that his/her child will be act up and most times will know how that child will act up. However, even knowing this when the child does act up, the parent will give due punishment. So though the parent knows, has told the child not to act up, also knows that the environment the child is in will cause that child to act up, the parent will still punish the child (we'll ignore severity for at this moment). So this is how I see God as omniscient and people having free will and the interaction of the two. Again, you'll probably not like the explanation or outright reject, but this is how I see that part of the relationship/interaction.

Why is it you people find it so hard to read? My vacuum cleaner seeks power just as you seek food. It literally looks for power. It wanders around my house looking for it until its food so that it can alleviate its negative feelings of "need food".

I would argue that your vacuum cleaner does not search the house seeking food. Most likely your vacuum cleaner waits until it is given food. The red light does not indicate that it is still hungry or is starving. It indicates that it is about to stop eating or has stopped eating. Because the qualitivative difference between the vacuum and the human is that the vacuum does not electricity to continue its existence. It can go years if not decades without electricity. And still function fine and still know what to do and how to do it. The human needs food to continue its existence. Though like the vacuum it cannot function properly or at all without a food source, unlike the vacuum prolonged absence of that food source will cause its death. Its functions will permanently cease. The human can never pick up where it left off 3 decades ago, because the human is no longer, but an object with no function. So hunger for the vacuum if even if programmed to act erratically does not have the same ramifications or even function as hunger does for a human.

Thanks.

[quote name='rozz666' timestamp='1311530933' post='4839672']
[quote name='Roots' timestamp='1311530255' post='4839668']
This question reminds me of the transcendental dice fallacy model from the Atheist Experience.

Yeah, I just rephrased it :-)
Tracie always brings good examples.
[/quote]

First, she is assuming that something we do not currently have the capability to observe possesses the same traits as something that does not exist.
[/quote]

Yes. Until we can observe it, we assume it does not exist.

A better model would be to have the existant dice and non-existant dice as she does and a jar which you cannot see inside and only some people can interact with.

It's another way of saying: I have a proof but you won't believe it :-) Personal experience does not count as evidence.

The argument is a good argument for why someone who cannot interact with the transcendental dice should not believe there are dice in the jar, but for the people who can and feel weight in the jar or hear things in the jar when they shake it have no reason not to believe there are dice in that jar.

If a felt the weight or hear voice from a jar, I would verify by asking other people if they can do it too or tried recording the voice, or weight it on a scale. If it failed, I would assume I'm hallucinating.

The way she presents it is kind of begging the question as she is using an empty jar to prove that the jar is empty when she should be using a jar whose contents are unknown.

How do you know both jars are empty?

If God had a publisher.
"Okay, okay... I like where you're going with the whole peace and love thing G-man... but... we're a little concerned about the ending. It's all peace and love until the end... and then it's kinda depressing."

G: "It's the truth."
"Right, right, and we see your truth... but... we were... you know... thinking maybe kittens."

G: "Kittens?"
"Yeah, you know... just something to lighten the mood..."

G: "You did read it."
"Right... Skimmed it.. it's kinda dark towards the end."

G: "The whole 'Thy will be done part in the prayer.'"
"Ooh... that was just one line... must have missed it."

G: "Sodom and Gamorrah... not depressing at all."
"But it really had a great plot... they were trying to save their family... it made up for it in character interest."

G: "Right... the book of Job... did you even look at that."
"Thought it was a help wanted section... So... we've got some notes... and we were just hoping you could give them the once over."

G: "Mhmm..."
"Aren't you even going to read them?"
G: "I already know what they say. It comes with the whole omniscient thing."
"And..."
*smite*
Sarcasm aside, God flooded the world, smote two cities, kicked us out of Eden, and begot a Son who was betrayed over silver and nailed to a cross. And all because he had a plan that was better than all of that not happening (though, I kinda get the feeling that if we had just listened to the whole 'Don't eat the fruit' thing, this whole stupid mess wouldn't have happened. Yeah, it's our fault.).
Can we please, try not to screw this up any worse than it already has been, Thank You.
Of course, if it hadn't, I wouldn't be typing this and you wouldn't be reading it. Just something to think on.

[quote name='A Brain in a Vat' timestamp='1311625764' post='4840177']Why is it you people find it so hard to read? My vacuum cleaner seeks power just as you seek food. It literally looks for power. It wanders around my house looking for it until its food so that it can alleviate its negative feelings of "need food".

I would argue that your vacuum cleaner does not search the house seeking food. Most likely your vacuum cleaner waits until it is given food. The red light does not indicate that it is still hungry or is starving. It indicates that it is about to stop eating or has stopped eating. Because the qualitivative difference between the vacuum and the human is that the vacuum does not electricity to continue its existence. It can go years if not decades without electricity. And still function fine and still know what to do and how to do it. The human needs food to continue its existence. Though like the vacuum it cannot function properly or at all without a food source, unlike the vacuum prolonged absence of that food source will cause its death. Its functions will permanently cease. The human can never pick up where it left off 3 decades ago, because the human is no longer, but an object with no function. So hunger for the vacuum if even if programmed to act erratically does not have the same ramifications or even function as hunger does for a human.

Thanks.
[/quote]

A person dies simply because damage is being done to them constantly by their own bodies (metabolic by-products) and their environment (competing organisms, chemicals, and even sunlight). If that damage could be prevented, they could live forever, like a robot.

Some species go into hibernation, and apparently have to wake up periodically so that their immune systems can check to see if they got infected while in low-power mode. If you went into long-term shutdown, you'd eventually be eaten by bacterial and fungal infections, or from larger scavengers/predators if you didn't have shelter.

Careful cryogenics might be able to put someone in permanent stasis, but we aren't sure how to prevent THAT from causing damage as well.



A robot doesn't have as many things that can destroy it, but it still has some: Its plastic and rubber can be weakened by heat and sunlight, its metallic parts can be rusted, its fluids may evaporate, solidify. It may become saturated with dust. Its battery acid may eventually erode through its casing and destroy whatever it makes contact with. Eventually, the environment WILL destroy it. It just takes longer because there aren't as many things actively destroying it.

Presumably the robotic vacuum in this discussion doesn't have self-repair mechanisms. If it did, those would require energy or material resources of some kind. If the robot was programmed with behavior to seek those resources, it would have most of the qualities of simple living organisms.

The final major difference is that all living beings have a way to manufacture more of themselves. Give a robot the programming and ability to make more of itself, add that to the abilities we've already (hypothetically) given it, and I see no reason not to call it a living thing.

[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1311605979' post='4840012']
First, she is assuming that something we do not currently have the capability to observe possesses the same traits as something that does not exist.

Yes. Until we can observe it, we assume it does not exist.[/quote]
So for you it does not exist. For me I can observe it's impact every day. Why should I have any reason to believe it does not exist when I can feel it any moment?

It's another way of saying: I have a proof but you won't believe it :-) Personal experience does not count as evidence.
If a felt the weight or hear voice from a jar, I would verify by asking other people if they can do it too or tried recording the voice, or weight it on a scale. If it failed, I would assume I'm hallucinating.
[/quote]

There's a reason it's called faith not fact. Why should one need evidence to justify their own beliefs to others? Is it not enough to just be able to believe whatever you want without being looked at like a delusional shit eating monkey?

What would happen if you could reproduce your own results with 1 billion other people? Would you assume that 1/7th of the world population generally isolated from each other are having the same halucination?

The way she presents it is kind of begging the question as she is using an empty jar to prove that the jar is empty when she should be using a jar whose contents are unknown.

How do you know both jars are empty?
[/quote]
I watched her explain it on youtube and she uses two empty jars. The fact that she assumes that the jar has the same traits as the empty jar is also an indicator that she assumes it is empty before she has started.

There's a reason it's called faith not fact. Why should one need evidence to justify their own beliefs to others? Is it not enough to just be able to believe whatever you want without being looked at like a delusional shit eating monkey?

Because that's the difference between faith and being in a cult. Granted you can't approach faith in the same way you approach facts. But there should be a reason why you believe the way you do. Simple example, "I believe (or have faith that) he'll do the right thing." Now why is that? Is it because, he's always been a nice person? He's shown a great sense of justice? He's never caused much trouble in his life? He's always helping people? When push comes to shove, he's always walked away from a bad deal? There's a reason why you have "faith" that this person will do the right thing. Otherwise, you're either gambling or being delusional.

There's a reason it's called faith not fact. Why should one need evidence to justify their own beliefs to others? Is it not enough to just be able to believe whatever you want without being looked at like a delusional shit eating monkey?

Because people take action on their faith. There are people who state that 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina were punishment from God due to America's tolerance of homosexuals. That's fucking disgraceful and hateful to make that sort of claim and then have nothing to back it up except "faith". People use faith to justify all sorts of horrible things on a daily basis. Of course people also credit their faith with doing good things as well, but in my eyes the bad far outweighs the good when it comes to the result of people having faith. How many people are murdered every day around the world because of faith in a spiritual teaching or holy text that says that certain types of people or forms of behavior should not be tolerated by society?

I used to not care what other people believed, so long as they kept their faith to themselves. But I came to realize that a lot of people try to enforce their beliefs or religious teachings on others. That's why people try to deny rights of LGBT individuals. That's why people vote a certain way. That's why they try to insert their creation myths in science classrooms, where it absolutely does not belong.That's why people bomb abortion clinics or fly airplanes into buildings. And that's the reason why I care about what other people believe.

If you don't want to be criticized about your faith, then don't talk about it. There is absolutely no reason why faith, religion, etc. should be immune to the same critique and criticism that we subject everything else to in our every day lives. Anyone who thinks so truly is delusional. If you wish to continue discussing it though, don't complain when other people criticize you for asserting a truth about the universe that can in no way be scientifically demonstrated.

What would happen if you could reproduce your own results with 1 billion other people? Would you assume that 1/7th of the world population generally isolated from each other are having the same halucination?

A large number of people making the same claim is not "reproducing" a result. Several hundred years ago, millions of people agreed that lighting bolts were thrown down by a God named Zeus from the top of Mt. Olympus. If you want to reproduce a result, you need verifiable and falsifiable evidence that anyone could reproduce if they were inclined to do so. Not an arbitrary number of people saying they believe in the same thing (hint: you don't all believe in the same thing, which is why there are over 30,000 different denominations of Christianity today [source]).

Do I think that all of these people are all hallucinating? Some are I'm sure, but not all of them. Generally people are indoctrinated into belief systems and are told that when X event happens, its because god Y did it. So they just simply repeat what they have always been told, and come to believe it because they have never seriously questioned it, never developed the appropriate skills in critical thinking to question it, or simply lack the proper education to understand why certain events happens. Not to mention that they experience punishment, harassment, or isolation from their family and/or their community if they become skeptical of these claims.

Because that's the difference between faith and being in a cult. Granted you can't approach faith in the same way you approach facts. But there should be a reason why you believe the way you do. Simple example, "I believe (or have faith that) he'll do the right thing." Now why is that? Is it because, he's always been a nice person? He's shown a great sense of justice? He's never caused much trouble in his life? He's always helping people? When push comes to shove, he's always walked away from a bad deal? There's a reason why you have "faith" that this person will do the right thing. Otherwise, you're either gambling or being delusional.

I think my point was misunderstood.

I have reasons for believing the way I do; very real reasons that have been experienced with others. The problem is that if we throw out all personal accounts, which form the basis for most people's belief in a higher power, you are obviously going to be found wanting. It's similar to me saying, "Do you love your wife? Prove it to me without using personal accounts." There is no scientific explanation but to say that you don't love your wife; does that make a difference to you and how much you love your wife?

Because people take action on their faith. There are people who state that 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina were punishment from God due to America's tolerance of homosexuals. That's fucking disgraceful and hateful to make that sort of claim and then have nothing to back it up except "faith". People use faith to justify all sorts of horrible things on a daily basis. Of course people also credit their faith with doing good things as well, but in my eyes the bad far outweighs the good when it comes to the result of people having faith. How many people are murdered every day around the world because of faith in a spiritual teaching or holy text that says that certain types of people or forms of behavior should not be tolerated by society?

People do disgraceful and hateful things in the name of EVERYTHING. You can't single out religion because people can be hateful and cruel; specifically a religion that is quite firm on it's negative standpoint toward hatefulness regardless of who it is you are hating. Doing things in the name of a religion is not the same as the religion condoning those actions.

A large number of people making the same claim is not "reproducing" a result. Several hundred years ago, millions of people agreed that lighting bolts were thrown down by a God named Zeus from the top of Mt. Olympus.[/quote]
Your example is not among isolated groups, but point taken.

If you want to reproduce a result, you need verifiable and falsifiable evidence that anyone could reproduce if they were inclined to do so[/quote]
And how do you get verifiable and falsifiable evidence that anyone can reproduce if they are inclined to do so if the people you are trying to convince are not inclined to do so? It's really simple to get your own evidence; all you have to do is pray with an open mind and an open heart.