• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Syed's Mega-Thread

do you think that we would spend trillions of dollars ever year on research to find how does human body work when there is reason to?

This whole "we get sick so we can learn" schtick of yours, Syed ... you really haven't thought it through, have you?

You keep saying we wouldn't learn about our bodies if there were no sickness and disease. That's nonsense. Humans are curious by nature, and even without sickness and disease, we'd be busy studying ourselves all day long, along with the myriad other things we study, many of which have no connection to alleviating suffering. We study because we're curious, not because we suffer.

As to whether we'd spend so much on studying sickness and disease if there were no sickness or disease ... you really don't see the flaw in that? Let me put it simply ... if there were no sickness or disease, we wouldn't study sickness and disease because there would be no sickness and disease to study.

What you're saying is akin to claiming that we need criminals because without criminals there would be no study of crime. But again, you would be failing to realise that of there were no criminals, there would be no need to study crime, because there would be no crime to study.

What it all boils down to is that you're simply making excuses for your "god" when, in fact, the simple answer is that there is no god there to make excuses for. And if there was one, and he was as all-knowing and all-powerful as you theists claim, he sure as shit wouldn't be weak enough to need believers armed only with poor reasoning skills to make excuses for him.
 
Suffering wasn't required to look up at and begin analyzing the stars - only curiosity was needed.

Suffering wasn't required to create music, invent musical instruments and dance - only the pleasantry of sound and rhythm.

Suffering wasn't required to invent language or writing - only the desire to communicate more effectively.

Suffering wasn't required to discover simple mathematics - only the desire to quantify things.

Suffering wasn't required to conceptualize algebra - only the desire to simplify complex equations.

Suffering wasn't required to conceptualize geometry - only the need to apply mathematics to the physical world.

Suffering wasn't required to discover trigonometry - only curiosity of how to use mathematics to predict natural and artificial arcs.

Suffering wasn't required to discover architecture - only the desire for awe-inspiring edifices.

Suffering wasn't required to discover pottery, art, jewelry or fiction - only the desire for self-actualization.

Suffering wasn't required to discover the scientific method - only the realization that ready-made answers involving superstitions, wood nymphs or gods were invariably useless.

This list could go on for a long, long time. Syed points to one area of human learning that wouldn't happen if it wasn't necessitated by its very existence (how to ease suffering) and argues that we'd never learn anything if it weren't for suffering. What a myopic and absurd worldview this is.
 
Suffering wasn't required to look up at and begin analyzing the stars - only curiosity was needed.

Suffering wasn't required to create music, invent musical instruments and dance - only the pleasantry of sound and rhythm.

Suffering wasn't required to invent language or writing - only the desire to communicate more effectively.

Suffering wasn't required to discover simple mathematics - only the desire to quantify things.

Suffering wasn't required to conceptualize algebra - only the desire to simplify complex equations.

Suffering wasn't required to conceptualize geometry - only the need to apply mathematics to the physical world.

Suffering wasn't required to discover trigonometry - only curiosity of how to use mathematics to predict natural and artificial arcs.

Suffering wasn't required to discover architecture - only the desire for awe-inspiring edifices.

Suffering wasn't required to discover pottery, art, jewelry or fiction - only the desire for self-actualization.

Suffering wasn't required to discover the scientific method - only the realization that ready-made answers involving superstitions, wood nymphs or gods were invariably useless.

This list could go on for a long, long time. Syed points to one area of human learning that wouldn't happen if it wasn't necessitated by its very existence (how to ease suffering) and argues that we'd never learn anything if it weren't for suffering. What a myopic and absurd worldview this is.

if god provided human with food, cloth, home and with no sickness then people will not work for other people

yes there will be music, dance, song, rap thats about it
 
Suffering wasn't required to look up at and begin analyzing the stars - only curiosity was needed.

Suffering wasn't required to create music, invent musical instruments and dance - only the pleasantry of sound and rhythm.

Suffering wasn't required to invent language or writing - only the desire to communicate more effectively.

Suffering wasn't required to discover simple mathematics - only the desire to quantify things.

Suffering wasn't required to conceptualize algebra - only the desire to simplify complex equations.

Suffering wasn't required to conceptualize geometry - only the need to apply mathematics to the physical world.

Suffering wasn't required to discover trigonometry - only curiosity of how to use mathematics to predict natural and artificial arcs.

Suffering wasn't required to discover architecture - only the desire for awe-inspiring edifices.

Suffering wasn't required to discover pottery, art, jewelry or fiction - only the desire for self-actualization.

Suffering wasn't required to discover the scientific method - only the realization that ready-made answers involving superstitions, wood nymphs or gods were invariably useless.

This list could go on for a long, long time. Syed points to one area of human learning that wouldn't happen if it wasn't necessitated by its very existence (how to ease suffering) and argues that we'd never learn anything if it weren't for suffering. What a myopic and absurd worldview this is.

if god provided human with food, cloth, home and with no sickness then people will [not] work for other people

I presume that your meaning is as per my correction, as what you actually posted makes no sense at all.

Assuming that people had food, clothes, health and homes provided by god (or magic, or whatever) then indeed they might well not work for other people. Why would that be a bad thing?
 
do you think that we would spend trillions of dollars ever year on research to find how does human body work when there is reason to?

This whole "we get sick so we can learn" schtick of yours, Syed ... you really haven't thought it through, have you?

You keep saying we wouldn't learn about our bodies if there were no sickness and disease. That's nonsense. Humans are curious by nature, and even without sickness and disease, we'd be busy studying ourselves all day long, along with the myriad other things we study, many of which have no connection to alleviating suffering. We study because we're curious, not because we suffer.

As to whether we'd spend so much on studying sickness and disease if there were no sickness or disease ... you really don't see the flaw in that? Let me put it simply ... if there were no sickness or disease, we wouldn't study sickness and disease because there would be no sickness and disease to study.

What you're saying is akin to claiming that we need criminals because without criminals there would be no study of crime. But again, you would be failing to realise that of there were no criminals, there would be no need to study crime, because there would be no crime to study.

What it all boils down to is that you're simply making excuses for your "god" when, in fact, the simple answer is that there is no god there to make excuses for. And if there was one, and he was as all-knowing and all-powerful as you theists claim, he sure as shit wouldn't be weak enough to need believers armed only with poor reasoning skills to make excuses for him.

do you think if there was no disease did we had invented MRI and all other medical sophisticated technology? do brain and heart surgery ?
 
if god provided human with food, cloth, home and with no sickness then people will [not] work for other people

I presume that your meaning is as per my correction, as what you actually posted makes no sense at all.

Assuming that people had food, clothes, health and homes provided by god (or magic, or whatever) then indeed they might well not work for other people. Why would that be a bad thing?

thank for correction

well, if we dont work we would be living like animals
 
This whole "we get sick so we can learn" schtick of yours, Syed ... you really haven't thought it through, have you?

You keep saying we wouldn't learn about our bodies if there were no sickness and disease. That's nonsense. Humans are curious by nature, and even without sickness and disease, we'd be busy studying ourselves all day long, along with the myriad other things we study, many of which have no connection to alleviating suffering. We study because we're curious, not because we suffer.

As to whether we'd spend so much on studying sickness and disease if there were no sickness or disease ... you really don't see the flaw in that? Let me put it simply ... if there were no sickness or disease, we wouldn't study sickness and disease because there would be no sickness and disease to study.

What you're saying is akin to claiming that we need criminals because without criminals there would be no study of crime. But again, you would be failing to realise that of there were no criminals, there would be no need to study crime, because there would be no crime to study.

What it all boils down to is that you're simply making excuses for your "god" when, in fact, the simple answer is that there is no god there to make excuses for. And if there was one, and he was as all-knowing and all-powerful as you theists claim, he sure as shit wouldn't be weak enough to need believers armed only with poor reasoning skills to make excuses for him.

do you think if there was no disease did we had invented MRI and all other medical sophisticated technology? do brain and heart surgery ?

Of course not - It would be POINTLESS.

If people didn't need to eat and drink, we wouldn't have developed farming.

If people didn't have feet, we wouldn't have invented shoes.

So what? Why would we care that we didn't have stuff we didn't need? Why would it matter?

- - - Updated - - -

I presume that your meaning is as per my correction, as what you actually posted makes no sense at all.

Assuming that people had food, clothes, health and homes provided by god (or magic, or whatever) then indeed they might well not work for other people. Why would that be a bad thing?

thank for correction

well, if we dont work we would be living like animals

We ARE animals.

Why would it be a bad thing?
 
here is question

there are 100s of millions students around the world goes to university for higher education, among them how many of them get master degree PURELY for education purpose NOT for to make living?

may be 100?

suffering is a GREAT motivation for human to learn and solved the suffering


Quran about creation of adam

''Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: "I will create a vicegerent on earth." They said: "Wilt Thou place therein one who will make mischief therein and shed blood?- whilst we do celebrate Thy praises and glorify Thy holy (name)?" He said: "I know what ye know not."
 
This whole "we get sick so we can learn" schtick of yours, Syed ... you really haven't thought it through, have you?

You keep saying we wouldn't learn about our bodies if there were no sickness and disease. That's nonsense. Humans are curious by nature, and even without sickness and disease, we'd be busy studying ourselves all day long, along with the myriad other things we study, many of which have no connection to alleviating suffering. We study because we're curious, not because we suffer.

As to whether we'd spend so much on studying sickness and disease if there were no sickness or disease ... you really don't see the flaw in that? Let me put it simply ... if there were no sickness or disease, we wouldn't study sickness and disease because there would be no sickness and disease to study.

What you're saying is akin to claiming that we need criminals because without criminals there would be no study of crime. But again, you would be failing to realise that of there were no criminals, there would be no need to study crime, because there would be no crime to study.

What it all boils down to is that you're simply making excuses for your "god" when, in fact, the simple answer is that there is no god there to make excuses for. And if there was one, and he was as all-knowing and all-powerful as you theists claim, he sure as shit wouldn't be weak enough to need believers armed only with poor reasoning skills to make excuses for him.

do you think if there was no disease did we had invented MRI and all other medical sophisticated technology? do brain and heart surgery ?

Are you deliberately missing the point?

If there was no disease, what need would there be for any medical technology? It's not fucking rocket science, Syed.
 
do you think if there was no disease did we had invented MRI and all other medical sophisticated technology? do brain and heart surgery ?

Of course not - It would be POINTLESS.

If people didn't need to eat and drink, we wouldn't have developed farming.

If people didn't have feet, we wouldn't have invented shoes.

So what? Why would we care that we didn't have stuff we didn't need? Why would it matter?

- - - Updated - - -

I presume that your meaning is as per my correction, as what you actually posted makes no sense at all.

Assuming that people had food, clothes, health and homes provided by god (or magic, or whatever) then indeed they might well not work for other people. Why would that be a bad thing?

thank for correction

well, if we dont work we would be living like animals

We ARE animals.

Why would it be a bad thing?

its not bad thing, we would be just another DUMB animal
 
do you think if there was no disease did we had invented MRI and all other medical sophisticated technology? do brain and heart surgery ?

Are you deliberately missing the point?

If there was no disease, what need would there be for any medical technology? It's not fucking rocket science, Syed.

that was my point,

why do we need medical universities or any other universities ? when god supply ever thing

- - - Updated - - -

He said: "I know what ye know not."

Yes, the catholics have a version of that. Theirs goes, "It's a Sacred Mystery beyond our capacity to understand". Unspoken but implied is, "Now shut up and believe without thinking".

no catholic dont have that prove me wrong
 
Of course not - It would be POINTLESS.

If people didn't need to eat and drink, we wouldn't have developed farming.

If people didn't have feet, we wouldn't have invented shoes.

So what? Why would we care that we didn't have stuff we didn't need? Why would it matter?

- - - Updated - - -

I presume that your meaning is as per my correction, as what you actually posted makes no sense at all.

Assuming that people had food, clothes, health and homes provided by god (or magic, or whatever) then indeed they might well not work for other people. Why would that be a bad thing?

thank for correction

well, if we dont work we would be living like animals

We ARE animals.

Why would it be a bad thing?

its not bad thing, we would be just another DUMB animal

You already ARE.

This lack of humility in declaring humans to be oh-so-special is sickening.
 
What has work got to do with it? The problem of evil goes far deeper than a necessity to work in a world where we must act in order to survive.

work make us built civilization

just imagine that god provided you with food, cloth, home, no sickness

would you work 8 hours a day 5 days a week working for other people ?

god created human to be SELF learning creature

That avoids the issue of the necessity of evil and suffering.

Again, as you yourself have agreed and said, humans are able to learn without the presence of pain and suffering, that humans are not robots in the absence of evil, pain and suffering, therefore it's not justified to keep repeating that it is necessary. You have already agreed that it is not necessary.
 
Are you deliberately missing the point?

If there was no disease, what need would there be for any medical technology? It's not fucking rocket science, Syed.

that was my point,

why do we need medical universities or any other universities ? when god supply ever thing
If that was your point, you could have made it in a less ham-fisted way. But it wasn't, was it? Your point was "suffering is necessary for learning", which you have in no way shown to be true.

He said: "I know what ye know not."

Yes, the catholics have a version of that. Theirs goes, "It's a Sacred Mystery beyond our capacity to understand". Unspoken but implied is, "Now shut up and believe without thinking".

no catholic dont have that prove me wrong

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_mysteries
In the Catholic church the Latin term is mysterium fidei, "mystery of faith", defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1997) to mean a mystery hidden in God, which can never be known unless revealed by God.
 
Originally Posted by Gila Guerilla
I could have asked if "God" counts grains of sand or does "he" know the number beforehand? You might think these are silly questions, but their answers can have major implications for the idea of "God" which you have, and which you are trying to convince some of us that "he" exists.
What I earlier wrote is :-

{Whether "God" cares about where every grain of sand is or not, does not come into it. I know lots of things that I don't really care about, but I still know them.}


i really dont know that god count how many sand grain are there, i believe he does not count because counting sand grain is pointless
and god is not irrational being

As I understand it, the moon being split in two is recorded in the Qur'an, as a miracle.

quran does NOT say that prophet split the moon..........muslims say that prophet split the moon

muslims say lot of nonsense with their mouth ......other are prophet is infallible and he can save them from hell....they say nonsense with their mouth

Posted by Gila Guerilla

If "God" can move a mountain, or split the moon, (via some mortal agent) or cause a horse to fly,
quran does NOT say that prophet ride on flying horse.......muslims say that prophet ride on flying horse
muslims say lot of nonsense with their mouth

brother
i am happy to answer all your questions just make short and one at a time
 
As I understand it, the moon being split in two is recorded in the Qur'an, as a miracle.

quran does NOT say that prophet split the moon..........muslims say that prophet split the moon
54: The Moon

54:1 The hour drew nigh and the moon was rent in twain.
54:2 And if they behold a portent they turn away and say: Prolonged illusion.

muslims say lot of nonsense with their mouth ......other are prophet is infallible and he can save them from hell....they say nonsense with their mouth

muslims say lot of nonsense with their mouth

Yes. Yes you they do.
 
Syed lost this argument before he ever started making it. Technology developed specifically for the purpose of alleviating suffering represents only a tiny fraction of the intellectual achievement of humankind. Indeed for most of the history of our species the only technology that existed for suffering involved superstitions, talismans, witch doctors, blood letting and charlatans making oblations to some god or other for money and control. It wasn't until alcohol and opiates were discovered (not invented) that real relief from suffering began to be available.

While all this was going on real intellectual effort was bringing forth the wheel, the pulley, the inclined plane, the lever, the wedge and the screw. None of these "simple machines" are directly related to relieving suffering; instead they are tools used for convenience.

Syed keeps trying to create a false dilemma that either "God provides us with houses, food, clothing and everything else we need" or "we live with debilitating disease and gratuitous suffering until we figure out ways to alleviate them." The plain fact is that for the vast majority of the time homo sapiens has occupied this planet there was very little to be done about someone with a broken leg or broken rib/punctured lung. The situation would most often resolve itself with the only solution available: Death of the suffering individual.

There is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuge middle ground that Syed studiously ignores in his responses: People could have abundant resources and no disease and still want to build houses, have farms, communities, etc. People would still be able to study the planet, explore the oceans and study the stars. Mathematics, Architecture, Propulsion, Electronics, Rocketry, Astronomy, Physics, etc., would still be viable fields of study for these people going to universities he keeps appealing to.

It is absolutely not necessary for people to die horribly with  Harlequin Ichthyosis in order for people to have things to learn about and grow intellectually.

Syed is about as wrong as this subject as it is possible to be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DBT
What I earlier wrote is :-

{Whether "God" cares about where every grain of sand is or not, does not come into it. I know lots of things that I don't really care about, but I still know them.}


i really dont know that god count how many sand grain are there, i believe he does not count because counting sand grain is pointless
and god is not irrational being

As I understand it, the moon being split in two is recorded in the Qur'an, as a miracle.

quran does NOT say that prophet split the moon..........muslims say that prophet split the moon

muslims say lot of nonsense with their mouth ......other are prophet is infallible and he can save them from hell....they say nonsense with their mouth

Posted by Gila Guerilla

If "God" can move a mountain, or split the moon, (via some mortal agent) or cause a horse to fly,
quran does NOT say that prophet ride on flying horse.......muslims say that prophet ride on flying horse
muslims say lot of nonsense with their mouth

brother
i am happy to answer all your questions just make short and one at a time
Thanks, Syed.

On the grains of sand, you still haven't understood what I've asked. I have asked what "God" knows, (in your belief).
In broad terms, the question is: Does "God" know every corner of the universe ??? Does "God" know where every star or planet is, does "God" know where every tree, rock, mountain, lake etc. are, does "God" Know where every atom and molecule are ???

The question is not about whether "God" counts, as much as IF "God" wanted to know where all the grains of sand are, does "he" know it ???

We don't need to bother with "God" caring about the answer - I agree it is not important as a datum point, but the extent of "God's" knowledge is important. I think you already answered that "God" Knows everything that there is to know, except any act which is of human freewill which has yet been taken, (is to come in the future). I presume that "God" knows all of your decisions and actions after you have made or done them.

I would conclude that if, as you say: "God" Knows everything that there is to know, except any act which is of freewill, and has yet to come then "he" must know where everything in the universe is to be found, (without having to take a look). "He" must also know exactly how many atoms, molecules and grains if sand there are.

Being human, there are times when I can't find my keys. I have to go and hunt for them. But if I were "God" I ought to be able to say: 'Know exactly where your keys are, (and more than that, I know where all of the keys in the universe are, after all, I Know where every atom is, and keys are made of atoms).

I, (Gila Guerilla), have no idea how many pairs of socks I own, but I could go and count them all. But if I was "God" I ought to be able to say exactly how many pairs of socks Gila Guerilla owns, where they all are, what colours/patterns/designs they are, what types of material they are made of, and even how many atoms there are in the materials from which they are made.
Also if I was "God" I'd probably say: 'You know what, all that information about socks, I don't really care about it, but still, I do know it'.

This post really only asks one question, and I keep on about this question, because I need 100% clarity before I can proceed.
So to rephrase once again: Given the exception of human freewill, does "God" have knowledge of everything about every corner of the universe, now, in the past, and into the future, (as long as we have a universe) ???

The answer has consequences, and I cannot say what the consequences are until I know that you and I are in agreement about "God's" knowledge, fore-knowledge and powers.
 
Back
Top Bottom