I'm an Atheist/Nihilist, ask me anyting

[CauseImbetta]

Why do you deny the existence of a malevolent trickster god when this reality is clearly a manifestation of evil intent?

There is an argument that if a god exists, he must be evil. That is the only explanation.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

- Epicurus

 

[CauseImbetta]

When are you going on your killing spree?

Never. Just because we all know morality is man-made doesn't mean I have the sudden urge to go around killing people. That is ridiculous.

Even before the jews invented the bible people didn't suddenly feel like engaging in total chaos.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Our universes laws of physics applied to the programmer? And even assuming that we know the laws of physics fully?

Of course the laws would apply to the programmer, assuming there is one (if you program a video game, you might put in some cheats that only you know about, but you wouldn't then have magic powers over the game, and anyone else could do what you do if they knew what you know). Beyond that, a God couldn't have created the universe because he'd already have to exist. So that's another impossible definition. And we don't have to know the laws of physics fully to grasp the issues I mentioned. In fact, that lack of full knowledge means that anything a god can do would have to be defined as possible within the laws of physics (which we'd just have to amend our understanding if he found a different way to produce effects that he wouldn't be able to produce given his described limitations). A god would have to exist within the universe and be part of it, subject to the same rules as everything else.

 

[superpunch]

Of course the laws would apply to the programmer, assuming there is one (if you program a video game, you might put in some cheats that only you know about, but you wouldn't then have magic powers over the game, and anyone else could do what you do if they knew what you know). Beyond that, a God couldn't have created the universe because he'd already have to exist. So that's another impossible definition. And we don't have to know the laws of physics fully to grasp the issues I mentioned. In fact, that lack of full knowledge means that anything a god can do would have to be defined as possible within the laws of physics (which we'd just have to amend our understanding if he found a different way to produce effects that he wouldn't be able to produce given his described limitations). A god would have to exist within the universe and be part of it, subject to the same rules as everything else.

"Trust me bros, god has to jump to avoid the fireball"

 

[Jack V Savage]

"Trust me bros, god has to jump to avoid the fireball"

What's your explanation for how programming something gives you magical powers over it?

 

[superpunch]

What's your explanation for how programming something gives you magical powers over it?

You can create and destroy matter and energy in it

You can add/ remove dimensions at will

You can exceed the speed of light at will, teleport at will, time travel at will

And who knows what else

 

[ShinkanPo]

Why you stop with the god thing?

 

[Jack V Savage]

You can create and destroy matter and energy in it

You can add/ remove dimensions at will

You can exceed the speed of light at will, teleport at will, time travel at will

And who knows what else

No, I'm asking why you'd think that someone would be exempt from the laws of physics if they somehow created those laws.

 

[superpunch]

No, I'm asking why you'd think that someone would be exempt from the laws of physics if they somehow created those laws.

For the same reason my body isn't bloating and bending sideways right now

 

[Jack V Savage]

For the same reason my body isn't bloating and bending sideways right now

OK, so no answer.

That is why it is perfectly reasonable to say that god doesn't exist as defined by specific religions.

 

[superpunch]

OK, so no answer.

That is why it is perfectly reasonable to say that god doesn't exist as defined by specific religions.

I'm governed by different laws of physics than the text that I was god over right there. All that text was bloated and bent sideways, and there was nothing any of that text could do about it. It was the law of physics of the textfield.

But not of me.

 

[meauneau]

You can create and destroy matter and energy in it

You can add/ remove dimensions at will

You can exceed the speed of light at will, teleport at will, time travel at will

And who knows what else

You don't actually do those things in a video game. All there is is 1s and 0s and our interpretation of what we observe as information. The computer has 0 information it only has electical activity. The adding or removing dimensions, destroying or creating matter is just how we interpret it to be.

 

[superpunch]

You don't actually do those things in a video game. All there is is 1s and 0s and our interpretation of what we observe as information. The computer has 0 information it only has electical activity. The adding or removing dimensions, destroying or creating matter is just how we interpret it to be.

Exactly. And what if all the laws of physics you’re talking about are just electronic 1s and 0s or some other abstraction?

If you don’t even know the nature of the laws of physics, why they are what they are.. how can you say that any god can’t “violate” them?

 

[meauneau]

Exactly. And what if all the laws of physics you’re talking about are just electronic 1s and 0s or some other abstraction?

If you don’t even know the nature of the laws of physics, why they are what they are.. how can you say that any god can’t “violate” them?

I didn't talk about the laws of physics. Nor did I say that a god cannot violate them.

You tried to make an analogy from the creation of digital virtual worlds by humans to the creation of our physical world by a god or gods. I pointed out that there is no actual creating going on, thus no analogy, when a programmer transfers his ideas into the computer through 1s and 0s. That is all there is, 1s and 0s, arranged in a certain order such that the computer performs certain tasks which results in a patern which we then interpret in a certain way, as a virtual world.

You should drop this line of argument if you want to argue for the existence of gods. This argument is flawed from the very beginning.

We are conscious beings in a physical world and this is all that the evidence tells us there is. Whether we are all a figment of your imagination or my imagination, or mere 1s and 0s in a computer simulation is very creative speculation, but not at all supported by evidence.

 

[superpunch]

I didn't talk about the laws of physics. Nor did I say that a god cannot violate them.

You tried to make an analogy from the creation of digital virtual worlds by humans to the creation of our physical world by a god or gods. I pointed out that there is no actual creating going on, thus no analogy, when a programmer transfers his ideas into the computer through 1s and 0s. That is all there is, 1s and 0s, arranged in a certain order such that the computer performs certain tasks which results in a patern which we then interpret in a certain way, as a virtual world.

You should drop this line of argument if you want to argue for the existence of gods. This argument is flawed from the very beginning.

We are conscious beings in a physical world and this is all that the evidence tells us there is. Whether we are all a figment of your imagination or my imagination, or mere 1s and 0s in a computer simulation is very creative speculation, but not at all supported by evidence.

Who the fuck is arguing pro god?

I’m arguing in favor of agnosticism.

Atheists are just as reliant on faith as theists.

 

[meauneau]

Who the fuck is arguing pro god?

I’m arguing in favor of agnosticism.

Atheists are just as reliant on faith as theists.

Whatever you are arguing for the argument from analogy you put forward is flawed.

Your belief that atheists are just as reliant on faith (for the belief in atheism I suppose) as theists is a matter of faith or is it based on evidence?

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

Well, then you should know being that kind of satanist and a nihilist atheist are compatible. That said, it does seem like he's desperate for attention with these labels.

Seems legit.

That LaVey stuff wasn't serious. He just created a way to make money, a scam if you want.
He even changed his name from the inoffensive Levey(Levi) to a more cool sounding one, and the horns, satan wouldn't be proud.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Seems legit.

That LaVey stuff wasn't serious. He just created a way to make money, a scam if you want.
He even changed his name from the inoffensive Levey(Levi) to a more cool sounding one, and the horns, satan wouldn't be proud.

If someone tells me they're a LaVeyan Satanist I automatically think less of them.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

Of course the laws would apply to the programmer, assuming there is one (if you program a video game, you might put in some cheats that only you know about, but you wouldn't then have magic powers over the game, and anyone else could do what you do if they knew what you know). Beyond that, a God couldn't have created the universe because he'd already have to exist. So that's another impossible definition. And we don't have to know the laws of physics fully to grasp the issues I mentioned. In fact, that lack of full knowledge means that anything a god can do would have to be defined as possible within the laws of physics (which we'd just have to amend our understanding if he found a different way to produce effects that he wouldn't be able to produce given his described limitations). A god would have to exist within the universe and be part of it, subject to the same rules as everything else.

I find it amusing that the same so-called "rationalists" who were parroting Dawkins' "where did god come from?" argument 5 years ago so often fail to see its obvious application to the simulated universe hypothesis.

It's plausible that they've since matured to see the benefit of pushing harder metaphysical questions a step back, into a comforting realm of mystery.

 

[fallable]

I am looking for serious questions and answers.

My questions are more directed at the nihilism aspect of your OP.

Are you nostalgic about anything to do with your respective culture, customs, traditions, history, heritage, identity, or your ancestors story? Or is it all meaningless and insignificant to you? Do you believe in preservation? Cultural preservation, wildlife/ecosystem preservation etc. Do you enjoy a good MMA match, or do you not recognize that one MMA match has value over another? What about the opposite sex? Do some potential love interests engender stronger feelings of passion, emotion, value, and perhaps even purpose, or do you see that as some sort of "construct" or chemical trick?