Recent posts by wargamer1000 on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Originally posted by TheBSG:

Please define the term perfect and why the universe predicates on this concept of perfection. Don’t worry about dictionary definitions, what do you mean?

I appreciate dropping dictionary definitions, that’s why it seemed subjective to most.

Perfection is your raw existence. On the grounds that after existing imperfection is the only thing that follows (hence non-existence after existence) because of its quality of being caused. The universe revolves around this concept of perfection because God assumes as the perfect being (not the creator) in the universe hence he is solely responsible for the cause of imperfection, as everything must necessarily be less perfect than him. Which is true because nothing in the universe is perfect, hence God exists.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

What your argument requires is some evidence that there is a somehow ‘more complete’ state of matter that all matter in the universe starts out as, then degenerates from there. An objective test of degeneration.

So an objective case is an empirical case? No thanks, never was a fan of empiricism.
However in physics theirs a hypothetical thing called entropy. Entropy functions similarly towards the degeneration of things, all things. Though its hypothetical, is it objective? Of course it is. Objectivity isn’t bound by mere empirical evidence, pure reason is objective too.

Now, since matter is such a tiny percentage of the universe – around 5% – you might have a case if you can show for example how matter is derived from dark matter which is somehow a more refind state as there’s about 5x as much of it in the universe as there is matter. But again, the onus is on you to provide sound reasoning or evidence on why this is so.

Let me ask for an evidence for dark matter first. Is it empirically proven?

The problem is, we already have evidence showing that matter is likely being created and destroyed throughout the universe’s lifespan – think of it as an extension of the particle/wave duality if it helps you grasp what is going on. As such we have evidence….

An extension of particle/wave duality? How so.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

your logic chain first breaks where you make the unfounded assumption, that something must be perfect just because it exists. There is absolutely no foundation for that statement, yet it is the pillar upon which your whole argument rests.

The foundation was imperfection. You see nothing in the universe is perfect (this is the only subjective defining of perfection), therefore everything in the universe must have gradually degenerated by degree of perfection hence imperfect, how? There mere causation from God being more perfect than anything. A thing comes into existence because it was perfect in other words being absent in reality is the perfection, but not to be confused with non-existence which is the effect of too much imperfection.

Well, the question is ‘are you sure nothing in the universe is perfect?’ If the universe were perfect to an individual then God begins to not be perfect at most because something is equally perfect to him.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

The problem you have here is that your ‘logic’ chain makes no logical sense. It reads like one of those old profit jokes:
It’s not a logical argument but a series of illogical leaps based on unconnected statements chained together with a hope and a prayer that they’ll somehow logically fit if nobody looks at them too deeply.

I’ll repeat my explanation for what I posted;

In the culmination of perfection, wherein nothing more perfect can be conceived, is in itself. Something perfect is all that there is existing. Therefore a thing in existence is the most perfect in itself. Imperfection follows, imperfection necessitates perfection hence non-existence necessitates existence. Thus existence is independent of others. God presents Himself wherein no other thing can be more perfect thus before him nothing can be imperfect. Once a thing exists, it is inherently perfect, but imperfection happens because of its quality of being caused (a causation) since God is the limit of perfection and everything below him must necessarily be less perfect than him. It is therefore impossible for an effect of reality/existence (imperfection) to be equal to its cause for existence (perfection). Since everything that exists after is no longer perfect hence imperfect, as nothing is perfect in reality except God. God must necessarily exist.

EDIT: @BSG: pardon me if I seemed arrogant.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Seriously, how do you address this nicely?

Well, I don’t genuinely understand whats going on.

It’s stupid because he won’t acknowledge that I could say beauty is the ultimate form, and that the most beautiful thing is a setting sun and therefore God is the sun and it’s the exact same thing.

Let’s try the argument again, shall we?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

I am happy for you for creating this wonderful CONCEPT of what a FAITH can provide someone in the realm of giving them something they can use to explain the utterly unknowable FOR THEM SELF. While this concept is rational for you, it certainly doesn’t have the merit to be accepted by others. Even if you and some others APPEAR to be in agreement, there is a very strongly likelihood that you aren’t.

Blind men and an elephant demonstrates that perception isn’t a totality of truth. I was in fact already assuming this, as to what I’ve said to WindStalker. Yes, but not mere faith to explain the unknowable (that’s improbable) though it is certainly for The Self but discourse with other individuals help.

calling “god” a logic construct does only shifts the scope of conflict to logic and its use. Any approaches to same asserted as rational are demonstrably faulty from the foundation up, namely in the bare assertion of the “god’s” “necessary existence.” Necessity does not follow from mere possibility; one cannot derive concreteness from only abstracts.

Indeed. Necessity does not follow from possibility. If there is a possibility, does a thing necessarily have to exist? (If there’s sheer possibility chances are though ) but practically no.

As of abstracts, if you take of God as a logic construct one would automatically scope to logic and its use, thus begins a derivation for concreteness – then it isn’t an abstraction. The bare assertion of God’s existence was a bare proposition.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

“God” is just like “perfection:” a construct of language; meaningless until and unless a significant majority (ideally all) agents in the discussion agree upon a single set of ideas/concepts/properties.

Perhaps. Then suppose numerical numbers are similarly meaningless until a significant majority of individuals agree upon it. Realize however, numbers are a logical construct, it is therefore irrelevant whether you perceive of it as useful to you or not. And presume that it is not, then it is not worth your time, correct? You perceive you can live life easily without math for example, then surely it is useless to follow it, however stunningly – its functionality is regardless of its irrelevance (to you).

Now, God takes similarity to mathematics, God is actually (contrary to irrational believers and atheists alike) a logic construct. And no, not mere language but God does fall nicely to the history of our antiquity. Here I’ll argue that ‘perceptions’ fail ultimately for man. Seeing that God for you falls into simple perceptions and by those human perceptions you judge God’s necessity. But surely, you’re aware perceptions themselves are not the best thing, so to speak.

I’ll refer to the my analogy of mathematics; that God is a logic construct thus he can be approached rationally but not excluding faith. (Faith and Reason are constituents for the knowable truth.)

Judging by your sources, you must be touting the Abrahamic god. Personally, I find the character repellent.

Unlike you, no God(s) is repellent to me. There all so colorful! Hopefully this doesn’t cloud your judgment but this is irrelevant, I think. :p

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Originally posted by 404WindStalker:

Perfection is a white rabbit, and Wonderland ain’t the happy place you’re advertising.

Not sure if I even understand what you’re saying.

Infinite knowledge capacity is ultimately going to be either impossible due to the infinite storage space required to hold it, or is going to be infinite knowledge of a very, very limited set of discrete items.
Even if you have something capable of infinite cognition and utilize its full cognitive capacity, that in no way means you are capable of understanding everything.

Well yes, certainly. But fundamentally, does it answer ‘why are you atheist’? Given that an individual can never distinguish everything even at the full limit of evolution, that there will always be the not knowable and the knowable spheres ( in epistemology sense) wherein an individual can only simply expand indefinitely the knowable but not, paradoxically, minimize the unknowable at all. Is it most rational to conceive to abandon the idea of formulating something to make sense of the unknowable?
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Originally posted by TheLoneLucas:


Wait, what? how is existence perfect, and what is perfection? All I’m basically seeing is a bunch of ’’PERFECTION’’ thrown around, not any legitimate arguments other than rabble babble.

This particular argument revolves around existence and perfection extensively (obviously) to prove God.
Notice how I displayed it which argues God exists but not God being the creator of the universe.
So that to accommodate ‘spontaneous matter creation’ and what not.

But what is perfection?

Existence. Existence must be perfection, deductively as only non-existence follows after existence likewise to imperfection following after perfection. Perfection is the quality of cause ( the causation) of existence.

Nothing about the universe suggests anything about perfection, sentience, existence, any of that.

The universe exist, correct? Hence, nothing of it must be perfect anymore. Causality dictates imperfection immediately holds the universe after conception. Therefore it is a valid statement that nothing in the universe might ever be perfect hence the universe itself can’t suggest it is perfect at all, eventually it will become non-existent.

Sentience, I believe, is a another thing.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Pascal’s Wager? Seriously?

I thought it would be a good first. :p

The main problem here is that infinite existence isn’t a net gain. It’s a loss.

Its a good thing we don’t infinitely exist.

I honestly have no clue what you’re saying

Set aside the wager,
I’ll start anew to prove that God must exist;

(1) Existence is reality.
(2) Existence must be perfection, since no other perfection is possible after existing.
(3) God is defined as perfection in existence and the limit of it.
(4) Existence is a singular and simple form of reality.
(5) Singular existence is graded on the intensity of its perfection.
(6) The grade of intensity of perfection has a limit, and its limit bears the greatest existence.
(7) Hence God exists.

In the culmination of perfection, wherein nothing more perfect can be conceived, is in itself.
Something perfect is all that there is existing. Therefore a thing in existence is the most perfect in itself. Imperfection follows, imperfection necessitates perfection hence non-existence necessitates existence. Thus existence is independent of others. God presents Himself wherein no other thing can be more perfect thus before him nothing can be imperfect. Once a thing exists, it is inherently perfect, but imperfection happens because of its quality of being caused (a causation) since God is the limit of perfection and everything below him must necessarily be less perfect than him.

It is therefore impossible for an effect of reality/existence (imperfection) to be equal to its cause for existence (perfection). Since everything that exists after is no longer perfect hence imperfect, as nothing is perfect in reality except God. God must necessarily exist.

This is called ‘the argument of the righteous’ by Islamic philosophy.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

From the onset it just looks like you’re assuming infinite gain is still possible without implying why you think infinite gain is on the table but infinite loss is not.

On the contrary, the infinite loss was not removed from the table consequently it must be avoided…

It would then be irrational not to assume any given negotiation is possible with the universe.

The wager isn’t a negotiation. However it would be irrational to think any other outcome is possible from the wager wherein other determinants like inconsistent revelations, inauthentic belief and etc are frozen. For example as for the atheist, he can either have limited gain or infinite loss. Do you imply that other outcomes could happen to the atheist’s wager asides from the two?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

There’s no specific reason to think that any of that is true, yet the wager suggests not thinking so is dangerous. How do you know there isn’t a giant world eating beast out there that eats people who believe in bullshit? It’s better to not believe, then.

And in the absence of belief, presuming its danger and dropping the chance of infinite gain because its simply not an impossibility for an individual on the grounds that there is truly a possibility of there having no reason to even slightly believe (for belief is separate from reason) then the individual is missing out on the knowable truth and perhaps attainable truth which he yearns for thus striving away from it is an irrationality. The atheistic gamble.
Basically, I think it is never better to cease believing if one wants the knowable truth or if one does not want to be an irrational being.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Something doesn’t have to exist, in order to provide you with sensory feedback indicating it exists.

You’re absolutely right. Particularities can exist without granting sensory experience.
Then I’ll rephrase it such that some things right now definitely exist.
And frankly, I can’t understand the theory of spontaneous matter creation. :p

This is the problem with your analogy. Nothing picked the person up and took them to an interrogation room.

Pardon me, I merely said that he was arrested. But if he was arrested something must have arrested him or picked him.

However, by your own logic, we must assume that each and every one of these exists, and is interested in us personally. That at any time any of them will judge us, and if we don’t pass their test, then we are in deep, and permanent shit. Thus it is imperative that we are dedicated, devoted followers of every single one of them, yes?

No, you could not possibly be devoted to all of them, of course, as you would end up with contradictions in conception.
But with all these other gods you can never be certain but the best course of action is to be devoted to any single one (or two if it accommodates) rather than to have none. Again, this is what I infer to – not to be a nontheist at all.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

From that perspective, the interrogation room does not exist. In your example, the police would be servants of god – angels. Since the atheist does not believe angels exist, the angels never picked up the person. Since the police station does not exist, the person is not sitting in an interrogation room in one.

Even if Person A didn’t believe he was picked up by policemen and pretended it was a machine that took him, he was still placed into an interrogation room. So it does not practically mean nothing ever took him up and placed him into a room just because he did not believe anything did.

There exists absolutely no evidence whatsoever that your chief of police is out there.

There are reasons to necessitate His existence, and reasons to negate that as well. There is no empirical evidence to person A that the police chief even exists. But as I’ve said, he must assume that there must be and not that he’ll conclude he is in a non-existent room however he is in a room regardless of what he thinks, paradoxically.

But, who created God then?

Everything that you experienced now exist, correct? With all these objects presumed irrefutably existing like the internet since we’re using it. It is also true, that in some point in the past, these things specially the living-things had not existed, correct? Hence regress to a point wherein nothing had existed as all things that exist must necessarily not have existed at an indefinite point in time, which is a plausible case. From that point, can something that didn’t exist necessitate and force itself to exist? No. Therefore at some point nothing had existed, and something that didn’t exist couldn’t bear itself to exist and only something that does exist can ergo God.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Hence I’ll clarify that firstly, one must assume God’s existence because it is best for him and secondly because one definitely must to avoid logical contradiction.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Originally posted by vikaTae:

If you’re an atheist towards that god, you literally don’t believe that god exists. So what does it matter what an entity that simply doesn’t even exist, thinks of you?

It’s like saying Harry Potter thinks little of you. Considering Harry is an entirely fictional character, what relevance is it to your life, what someone is claiming he thinks about you?

The analogy rather should be comparable to this: Suppose person A was placed at an interrogation room, in the room there is a one-way mirror such that the police chief sees person A from outside the room however person A sees only a reflection of himself. The police chief judges person A so, but person A does not necessarily know why he was arrested and placed into interrogation. This is, I think, the relationship between God and Man.

Surely, person A has no idea the police chief is looking at him, nor does he understand why he is there for and person A can think of multiple reasons why so but definitely inconclusive reasons. Person A therefore is analogous to man who can not see the nature of things in themselves (much like Kant’s green-spectacles metaphor). What the police chief thinks of person A is irrelevant to person A until the interrogator (or the chief himself) comes in the room.

Ergo, person A must assume an interrogator (or the chief himself) to come as he has certainly been arrested and placed unto a room. Person A who does not know of the nature of the things in themselves must assume that there is otherwise he will come up with an absurd conclusion that he, person A, was placed into the room for no apparent reason and nor will there be any reason.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

it’s predicated on the premise that there is only one choice of Gods, which there is not.

Indeed. The multitude of other Gods basically puts it to question. But yet on on another game of probability, it is still best to assume any one of those Gods in preference rather than to have no God at all.

I’m saying that belief in a God as a gamble for infinite life is a wasted gamble at best

Well, couldn’t I say too towards atheism that in their gamble proves nonetheless futile? Hence more so ‘wasteful’? There might no definite degree how God might judge you but surely among a near indefinite amount of many faiths – the option logically becomes that you should choose God’s existence. And surely, life in its short entirety must not be wasteful if both reason and belief sufficed you.

Pascal’s Wager earnestly, I think, notes on the necessity to benefit from God, as such God must necessarily exist. And if God exists then being atheist and its gamble is an irrationality but strangely not an impossibility.

But then, to follow God just because you would at last benefit is wrong if its solely so.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Originally posted by FrostyGhosts (undefined):


God does not exist.

Alright, but I naturally feel inclined to negate that.
So I’ll assume the counter-proposition that God does Exist.

On rational speculation, God undoubtedly exists. However the empiricists can say nay to that otherwise. The constant negation of each proposition to the other from either side whether God exists or that He does not would allow a skeptic to arrive with an absurd conclusion that neither God nor the nothing in his absence can exist. I obviously find that position boring or rather such a position should be annihilated.

Therefore logically, it is best assume the position of assuming that God exists in a ‘supreme wager’. As follows in further example;

Suppose a theistic person spends his entire life assuming God’s existence and acts accordingly, in the end, turns out there was (a) God – then the theistic person has an infinite gain.
Second, a theistic person spends his life assuming God’s existence an acts accordingly, in the end, turns out there was no God – then the theist has limited loss.
Third, a nontheistic person spends his life assuming the absence of God’s existence and lives so accordingly, in the end, turns out there was no God – then the nontheist has limited gain.
Lastly, a nontheistic person spends his life assuming the absence of God’s existence and lives so accordingly, in the end, turns out there was (a) God – then the nontheist has an infinite loss.

Thus it is best to assume a theistic point such that an infinite gain is possible.
And if you follow, that question raises ‘which religion is true, if i must necessarily wager for God existence?’

This is of course ’Pascal’s Wager’.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Originally posted by TheBSG (undefined):


Not believing in something because it doesn’t benefit you is as dumb as believing in something simply because you believe it does.

Perhaps. But the argument for God goes beyond benefit and mere belief as belief follows after reason. Also, people equate the argument for God as the argument for religion which it isn’t.

Originally posted by FrostyGhosts (undefined):

Let’s have an Pro-Contra argument about God’s existence, shall we?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Originally posted by TheAznSensation (undefined):

The logic behind atheism is much more sound than the logic behind theism/deism/etc.

I’m guessing it’s because theistic reasoning isn’t empirical – ‘and that’s what only truly matters.’ ?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Bible as a historical document

Originally posted by niceman555:

It would make no sense if facts were opinions. What you are saying is that “Bill Gates is the owner of Microsoft” is an opinion. Please explain that.

This kind of thinking: ’It’s an opinion, because the true owner of microsoft are the people who work there….’

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / AX:You are now the dictator of a small European country

Of Small European Country…
I’d sit tight, and open trading partnerships in Asia. Although this would entirely depend
on my geographic location. Well, I’d prefer to be located either near Eurasia or to lay beside the Atlantic ocean.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Technical Support / How To Restore Lost Saved Files for Flash/Browser Games

Very nice, I thank you both.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Technical Support / How To Restore Lost Saved Files for Flash/Browser Games

Lately, I just lost my saved file for a game. And I hate having to do it all over again from the start.

So how does one recover lost saved files for games?
Please explain.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Legendary creatures

Are ‘zombies’ part of this?