One big step on the road to artificial life:

Originally posted by black beetle
"God" is an invention of the Human. So, kindly please let me know your thoughts;

ONLY if he does not exist. Otherwise, he is not our invention.

Originally posted by whodey
ONLY if he does not exist. Otherwise, he is not our invention.

"god" and "religion" are both a human invention

Originally posted by black beetle
"god" and "religion" are both a human invention

But if God exists then he would not be our invention. Why is this so hard to grasp?

Originally posted by whodey
But if God exists then he would not be our invention. Why is this so hard to grasp?

The "god" is a "plan" of yours whodey my pal, it 's simply a plan starting with, say, 1.d4. My plan (the miserable atheist blabk beetle plays with the Black) is to face it with a KID, and I reply with 1. ...Nf6;

According to my plan, each religion and each "god" are the result of the evolution of the fixed expression of the devastation of the Human before Death together with the fixed expression of the admiration of the Human before Life, mixed with low awareness of the Science, of the Knowlegde and of the real understanding of the Human nature.
The fact that some religious principals are spirited is a further proof of the dynamics and the level of the spiritualism of the individual.
Created by smart and, in some cases, wise individuals -but anyway by humans-, each religion in order to expand has different but anyway human inspired doctrines aiming to conquer the attention of the society of their time.
And, somehow, all of them man made hypothesies -the religions-, they became through the social process and due time as twisted and turned as their interpretators and their delegates.

Why is it so hard to grasp?
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
The "god" is a "plan" of yours whodey my pal, it 's simply a plan starting with, say, 1.d4. My plan (the miserable atheist blabk beetle plays with the Black) is to face it with a KID, and I reply with 1. ...Nf6;

According to my plan, each religion and each "god" are the result of the evolution of the fixed expression of the devastation of the Human b ...[text shortened]... d turned as their interpretators and their delegates.

Why is it so hard to grasp?
😵

only a woosie would play 1.d4, real spiritual giants start with the divinely inspired 1.e4, oh beetle im getting hammered every where!

but i propose a solution beetle my friend, we the theists will play you, the atheists in a chess match, if we win, you must attribute our success to divine intervention, give up any claims of rationalization and embrace theocracy, if we lose, we will indeed acknowledge that pure reason is the ultimate truth! what say you?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
only a woosie would play 1.d4, real spiritual giants start with the divinely inspired 1.e4, oh beetle im getting hammered every where!

but i propose a solution beetle my friend, we the theists will play you, the atheists in a chess match, if we win, you must attribute our success to divine intervention, give up any claims of rationalization and em ...[text shortened]... y, if we lose, we will indeed acknowledge that pure reason is the ultimate truth! what say you?

No deal ye leggedy beastie🙂

I am not this well versed at chess and somehow I cannot cope wi em clubs😵

What you mean my trusty feer "you are getting hammered everywhere"? You loose games??

BTW I just draw a game with the Black, a noble Scheveningen, against that killer paulbach etc etc; and I have a slight initiative against another, where he defends his black King with a typical Stonewall!

Originally posted by black beetle
No deal ye leggedy beastie🙂

I am not this well versed at chess and somehow I cannot cope wi em clubs😵

What you mean my trusty feer "you are getting hammered everywhere"? You loose games??

BTW I just draw a game with the Black, a noble Scheveningen, against that killer paulbach etc etc; and I have a slight initiative against another, where he defends his black King with a typical Stonewall!

lol, it is well known in chess circles my illustrious friend, that you not only are able to punish blunders, but mere inaccuracy melts before you like an ice lolly in the Athenian summer! not only am i getting hammered, i am losing very badly, i missed a mate in one, in one i tell you beetle, on h7, with queen and bishop, and not only did i miss but my opponent never and i got mated, oh miserable man that i am, who can take such lies and hypocrisy? for the chess board does not tolerate such!

Paul offered me a re match, however it would be like a cat playing with a half dead mouse, i may acquiesce just for the learning experience. also your fellow Athenian Ulysses sent his greetings, he is a father now and tells me you are a rather wily fox on the chessboard, never the less the proposition stands, God and theocracy vs reason and rationalization!

ol Paul had a bad day on the blitz boards, hes feeling bad so his confidence may be depleted, i will check out this stonewall formation, for although they are strong do they not also leave little weaknesses here and there?

kind regards beetle my friend, and if you cannot pray for me, at least you can reason for me!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
lol, it is well known in chess circles my illustrious friend, that you not only are able to punish blunders, but mere inaccuracy melts before you like an ice lolly in the Athenian summer! not only am i getting hammered, i am losing very badly, i missed a mate in one, in one i tell you beetle, on h7, with queen and bishop, and not only did i miss but ...[text shortened]... ssboard, never the less the proposition stands, God and theocracy vs reason and rationalization!

Oh yes, our friend Ulisses has now a fine and healthy baby girl and now he will drive loco with his two women, his wife and his baby, them women will drive him mad😵

Everybody blunders and I blunder big time, therefore I play solely up to 7-8 games at the same time; without my books and my sweet time and my 120% awareness I am just a patzer at the CC heaven; I have to try really hard when I play against strong players, and when I rush in I get myself killed;

Maybe you have a huge gameload; I can handle fairly well up to five games, If I have more I am under pressure. Maybe you are as patzer as I am, therefore maybe the solution to your problem could be to play less games and to spend more time for your planning and for your tactics🙂

About that Theists Vs Atheists game, are ye deaffie, I participate not! For, when ye theists get checkmated big time ye will start bubblin that ye are theists because this is the sole reasonable reason ye leggedy beastie 😵

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
lol, it is well known in chess circles my illustrious friend, that you not only are able to punish blunders, but mere inaccuracy melts before you like an ice lolly in the Athenian summer! not only am i getting hammered, i am losing very badly, i missed a mate in one, in one i tell you beetle, on h7, with queen and bishop, and not only did i miss but ...[text shortened]...

kind regards beetle my friend, and if you cannot pray for me, at least you can reason for me!

Oh I hate blitz, it kills the process of my thought;

That Stonewall formation is solid yet not of my taste, for everything at the Black camp gets too much passive for my character; I prefer dynamic formations with flexible pawns and space for my pieces, even at the cost of playing an exchange or a slight material down. In general, blockade formations they seem to me very firm but then you can hardly tune your position. Such formations are not my first choice, I adopt them only when I have the feeling that the sole thing I can do is merely to defend my position and get a draw😵

Originally posted by whodey
From an atheist point of view:

1. "We do not know what created/caused X"

But:

2. "a God could not have created/caused X"

Or put another way:

1. "We know that X was caused/created by something other than God"

Even though:

2. "We cannot replicate the process ourselves"

……From an atheist point of view:

1. "We do not know what created/caused X"

But:

2. "a God could not have created/caused X"

..…

If you imply here that atheists “deduce” (2) from (1) then that is NOT a typical “atheist point of view” as you said above because it is clear to any rational atheist that it is clearly obvious that (2) does NOT directly logically follows from (1) -you misrepresent the atheists point of view (IF the above is what you are implying here).

…Or put another way:

1. "We know that X was caused/created by something other than God"

Even though:

2. "We cannot replicate the process ourselves"
....…

The words “Even though” erroneously implies that we should logically deduce that (2) makes (1) less probable.

To expose the logical error you make here, I could state the fact that:

it is the theist point of view that:

1. "We know that X was caused/created by God"

Even though:

2. "We cannot replicate the process ourselves"

The above words “Even though” in the above, just like with your erroneously implied assertion, erroneously implies that we should logically deduce that (2) makes (1) less probable.
I could ask:
“why shouldn’t we be unable to replicate a process that a god/gods made happen”
just as easily as I could ask:
“why shouldn’t we be unable to replicate a process that NO god made happen”

(1) My belief is the ultimate Truth.
(2) Anything that not lead to (1) is False.
(3) Anything you say that contradicts my belief is therefore False.

Practical example:
(1) God exist. =True
(2) There is no need for a god. =False
(3) ...because the Universe comes from an earlier Universe, so there is no creation. =False.

So if we know the truth already (doesn't even need to be the ultimate Truth) then any discussion is meaningless.

Conclusion: I am Right and you are Wrong.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
(1) My belief is the ultimate Truth.
(2) Anything that not lead to (1) is False.
(3) Anything you say that contradicts my belief is therefore False.

Practical example:
(1) God exist. =True
(2) There is no need for a god. =False
(3) ...because the Universe comes from an earlier Universe, so there is no creation. =False.

So if we know the truth a ...[text shortened]... ltimate Truth) then any discussion is meaningless.

Conclusion: I am Right and you are Wrong.

Not to defend godheads, a lot of theory is converging on the idea of previous universes, which to my mind, even if there is a god, we could compare god to gravity. Gravity is a very weak force, a household magnet can hold its weight and then some against the gravity of the entire planet, why? Because it is spread thin through interacting with other dimensions, the 'glue' that binds dimensions together, so god may be like that, if there is one, that is, but thinned out around our universe to such an extent as to be the same as no god.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Not to defend godheads, a lot of theory is converging on the idea of previous universes, which to my mind, even if there is a god, we could compare god to gravity. Gravity is a very weak force, a household magnet can hold its weight and then some against the gravity of the entire planet, why? Because it is spread thin through interacting with other dimensio ...[text shortened]... e, that is, but thinned out around our universe to such an extent as to be the same as no god.

Well son dude in such a case such a "god" has nothing to do with, ie, whodey's or jaywill's or epi's or ahosyney's idea etc about "god", or with the religious concept of "god". The system you mentioned is not a religious one I reckon;

Originally posted by black beetle
Well son dude in such a case such a "god" has nothing to do with, ie, whodey's or jaywill's or epi's or ahosyney's idea etc about "god", or with the religious concept of "god". The system you mentioned is not a religious one I reckon;

Seems religious enough to me. Many people are seeing their god as non-materialistic god. Other see him as a man with gray hair and beard who you can speak with. I was brought up with the latter view.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Seems religious enough to me. Many people are seeing their god as non-materialistic god. Other see him as a man with gray hair and beard who you can speak with. I was brought up with the latter view.

It is not religious, for this kind of energy is not "conscious" the way a religionist accepts that "god" is;