“Cracked” on who doesn’t rule the world »« Ahead of the curve in England, I see

Your email smile for the day

Okay, now, before you all dogpile this poor chap, be mindful of the fact he’s from Brazil, so his wonky grammar and syntax are a result of ESL and not, you know, cretinous idiocy. (Though we have on occasion heard from American creationists who’ve sounded almost like this.) So, just enjoy the delightfully delirious content on this scorching (at least here in Austin) summer day. I particularly like the part about God being an “intelligence officer.” From Heaven With Love, it’s Agent Double-0-Jeezus!

God exists yes! Believe in the existence of God is not an act of faith, but a rational act,. and is a rational act soon have everything to do with reality.

And as if proving the existence of God then?

It’s simple! For the argumentative logic of reason!

The existing universe is very orderly functional complexity.
Every order requires an intelligence officer, intelligence officer and this we call God.
The more complex is the order of something or a functional system. greater the need for a intelligence active in this system or something functional. What out absolutely the possibility of evolution by means of processes which is self blind itself.

Also worth remembering that God is unique in its existence. atheists want to deny this truth may sound mean. That is not true because there may be several intelligence officers behind this order. and if there is. If then you have several gods! and AI?

It is simple to answer!

The universe as a whole is unreachable by our reason and knowledge, precisely because we do only part of this universe, and we are only part, only know part of it and not all. But the one who created it, he knows so complete as a whole, and since this all relates to the infinite, can only be attributed to the creator of this whole, characteristic of omnipotence. And you can not have two distinct omnipotence in the same existence, because either would be, and you can not have two different truths in the same existence. Once it is concluded that there is only one God who is equal CREATOR omnipotent.

Comments

  1. says

    " And you can not have two distinct omnipotence in the same existence…"Denies the trinity? Yes? I honestly don't know."What out absolutely the possibility of evolution by means of processes which is self blind itself."The hell, you say!?!

  2. says

    "For the argumentative logic of reason!"If anyone else visits The Spoony Experiment, this reminds me FAR too much of his SWAT 4 Russian trainging video.

  3. says

    "Every order requires an intelligence officer, intelligence officer and this we call God."Yes but who gives the orders to the intelligence officer?See, there is this rule I guess. The rule says that all order must come from a thinking thing.Of course, the rule does not apply to the thinking thing itself. Special pleading is special pleading, be it in Pigeon English or the Kings English.

  4. says

    All well and good, but it doesn't tell us if that omnipotent deity is Allah, Yaweh or the Christian God, or even if that deity gives a damn about humanity…

  5. says

    Perhaps i am interpreting this differently from everyone else but hey, is this saying that 'Mother Nature' is God? I sort of see things that way only i think God is different for everyone and this would be showing perhaps a scientists opinion of God?

  6. says

    …this would be showing perhaps a scientists opinion of God?"One not likely as there isn't any identifiable science.two, there is no such thing until a scientist can present data of a god he should have no official opinion on it. A theist scientist's opinion on god is not "a scientist's opinion" it is the opinion of someone who is a scientist.

  7. says

    The big no-no here is stating that the universe is a "very orderly, functional complexity". There is much chaos to the stars, and all the order can be attributed to simple rules of physics.

  8. says

    I remember when I was king of Swat 4…Sorry, I couldn't keep my concentration on that. It's too late tonight to be thinking that hard. I'll take another look tomorrow.For now, back to my memories of ruling the Swat 4 world…

  9. says

    "two, there is no such thing until a scientist can present data of a god he should have no official opinion on it." I may have expressed myself wrong but you cannot really say this as most of science is based on theory and on the idea that "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."

  10. says

    > I may have expressed myself wrong but you cannot really say this as most of science is based on theory and on the idea that "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."<I'm not sure this is true. Absence of evidence doesn't _prove_ the non-existence of the thing, but I think it does affect the _probability_ that the thing doesn't exist. You're not dealing with just a 50/50 proposition as the theists would like to assert. I.e. the absence of evidence for the existence of god still allows you to assert it's equally likely that it exists or doesn't exist.I'm not a scientist or statistician, but my understanding is that a consistent lack of evidence allows you to say the probability of the thing existing is _less_ than the probability that it doesn't. And this consistency of the (lack of) evidence for god is very high (in fact it's perfect) over a very long time, so we can probably say the probability that it exists is extremely low.That's my understanding. But again because I'm not a scientist my understanding may be faulty…LS

  11. says

    We think we know that we can principally know only a fraction of what there is to know, which leads us to the conclusion that we can be certain that we know what all of it is about, what the cause is, that this cause is a person, and that this person told us about himself in scattered fragments of tales written down centuries after their origin and plastered together by conflation of convenient tribal myths to make sure that we all share this great spiritual truth about making shit up.Makes sense, no?word ver: perspria

  12. says

    "I'm not a scientist or statistician, but my understanding is that a consistent lack of evidence allows you to say the probability of the thing existing is _less_ than the probability that it doesn't." You have me there. And i agree with you on the probability. I am not either of those things either but it was a way i have never really looked at things before.Learn something new every day hey… Keep it up, thanks LS

  13. says

    It should also be noted thata) lack of evidence is not evidence for existence either. Scientifically it's dishonest to try to defend a stance without actual evidence (personally I think it's dishonest in ANY argument)b) while lack of evidence itself is not evidence of lacking, ACCUMULATED lack of evidence can accumulate to evidence of lacking. For example if someone tells you there is a body at the bottom of a well and you drain it, go down, and muck about for months finding nothing but some POed toads and pollywogs, you will probably rationally conclude it was unlikely there was ever any body. Now it's possible it was moved or is buried just out of reach or something, but it's damn unlikely. Likewise, stuff like say Psionic research has been going on for a long time and produced no good results. Based on that ongoing search and our understanding of physiology that contradicts core tenants of psi 'theory' it's safe to presume that psionics exist only in fiction. To make a conparison on proper evidence the Vatican recently concluded 'scientificlly' that the remains in St. Pauls were of it's name sake. They came to this conclusion because the bones are from either first or second century AD. Now…for one I want to see exactly what the range of error is…if there's equal odds they're from 200 ad as 100ad, then that's not very good evidence that it's Paul. Two, If the identity of the grave's occupant is in doubt (making the name on the tomb moot as far as evidence goes) why would a matching age mean to anyone that it's actually Paul? That says it COULD be Paul but it doesn't show that it's not just some dead bastard they threw in there and said it was Paul. That is not good science.

  14. DavidCT says

    "The existing universe is very orderly functional complexity"I have often seen this statement but I do wonder if the universe could be other than orderly. Is it even possible for any system to be completely chaotic?

  15. says

    "Is it even possible for any system to be completely chaotic?"- The word system implies order so i don't think you would be able to find a 'system' without any such order. Though it may be possible to find one with very little. A good example of this perhaps would be Anarchy, but even then, however minute, there is some underlying form of order and organization. You could call it organized chaos…

  16. DavidCT says

    Yes "system" was a bad word choice. Still it is hard to conceive of a completely chaotic universe – a bit like trying to come up with a consistent definition of god.

  17. says

    "I have often seen this statement but I do wonder if the universe could be other than orderly. Is it even possible for any system to be completely chaotic?"We really can't judge how "ordered" our universe is without comparing it to other differing universes. With no frame of reference we can't even make this assertion. Word verification: Bongs

  18. says

    "Is it even possible for any system to be completely chaotic?"- Ignoring the system bit i would say yes, quite possibly. The problem is, in my opinion, human nature does not allow it. We as humans are always trying to find patterns in everything as well as similarities so no-matter how vague or 'chaotic' something is, you can bet that there is someone somewhere who is going to find a 'system' or pattern. You can almost say this is why people believe in god. Something cannot just be (this would be chaos) there always has to be a reason and if there isn't we blame it on a higher power. The human mind does not like to accept chaos. There has to be an explanation…

  19. says

    "Believe in the existence of God is not an act of faith, but a rational act, and is a rational act soon have everything to do with reality … The existing universe is very orderly functional complexity. Every order requires an intelligence officer [sic] … The more complex is the order of something or a functional system. greater the need for a intelligence active in this system or something functional … The universe as a whole is unreachable by our reason and knowledge, precisely because we do only part of this universe, and we are only part, only know part of it and not all."I love how he can argue that believing in God is a rational act in the same breath that he argues that the universe is not amenable to reason. I'm running out of excuses for believers that do this. Did he not notice that this is incompatible when he was writing it down? It's pure idiocy, and the idea of it not sending absolutely everyone into a state of cognitive dissonance is actually fairly depressing to me.By deciding that the universe is not a place that can be understood the author has effectively chosen a comfortable reason to completely stop using his brain to evaluate reality. Why then should any sane person then take his point of view seriously? It's by definition not based on reason, because he claims reason isn't an effective epistemological tool, thus making it based on nothing.

  20. says

    You can almost say this is why people believe in god. Something cannot just be (this would be chaos) there always has to be a reason and if there isn't we blame it on a higher power. The human mind does not like to accept chaos. There has to be an explanation…"I should point out BF Skinner's "superstitious Pigeon" experiment. Food came out at random intervals. The pigeons detecting false patterns eventually concocted elaborate rituals to get the food.

  21. says

    "I have often seen this statement but I do wonder if the universe could be other than orderly. Is it even possible for any system to be completely chaotic?"Wouldn't the complete absence of order by an anomaly? It would be like rolling dice a million times and never getting the same result twice in a row. If it happened, I would doubt it was truly random.PS: My word verification was "hater"…still random!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>