Well, when something is nothing at all, it is perfect, and at exact balance; obviously, we don't want this. Good is whatever we feel it to be.

Whenever somebody has told me, "Well, you have no place to do/say so-and-so, because that's just your feeling on what should be done," I like to remind them that's their opinion as well; their own feeling of what is good led them to think that they should tell me that.

Any cultivation of our beliefs of right and wrong is a result of a previous judgement from that same system, so we're always making choices that our own (limited) perception considers best.

Thus, if God is an illogical entity, he could not have the capacity to meddle in human affairs, because to do so would be to make logical choices on his part on what is good and what is bad, since these feelings of what is logical and what is harmful are also feelings resulting from our own evolution as organisms.

I'm not quite sure what you're asking; however, balance is not just a facet of human perception, it does actually exist in things that do not have the capacity to feel emotion or exist completely without it. That doesn't change the fact that there is feedback, because if you're on a system of balance, then everything is connected, extreme or not.

Here's something to ponder on about free will. This isn't a direct quote, but good old David Hume, when challenged that free will depending on causal necessity (i.e. compatibilist free will) wasn't good enough, famously responded:

"What other kind of free will is worth having?"

In other words, what more could we possibly want from free will other than the appropriate causal link between thoughts and actions? Some kind of random event that didn't obey causal laws? But surely a "random" will would be much worse!

nah, i read it right, i was just making conversation, to those who sometimes confuse the terms.

and... i'm so tired, of being tired

Gav, how are we different from (super complex) robots? What have we got that they don't and never will have, how do the laws of the Universe apply differently to us in terms of how our brains work? What, we have choice, 'free will'? But what is that and why can't a machine have it?

It's funny how you can argue to a Christian and force him into a defence along the lines of 'God is infinite and supersedes these things' for practically any arguement (if you're clever enough), i.e. there isn't really any logical way to knock you down. That is why the notion has lasted for so long, but it doesn't make it right.

If you believe in Christianity, I think you're forced to believe any other form of intelligent life is just like us in terms of compassion and love etc., and that they live in the same world as us (the best possible world), and that they have their own Christ/Bible. If/when we do discover intelligent life somewhere else, then we will see if you're right or not

I'll be the first to admit that I will never proove to anyone that God exists, it isn't possible, but in the same way I don't think it's possible to Disprove God based on the same reasoning. God is out of our depth. You must surely admit that we cannot fully comprehend all the facets of the nature of God, how therefore can we argue for or against the existence of (I should say a Christian) God by ways of how he might work or his very nature.

To be perfectly Honest, It is too complex for me, I'm not a philosopher.

My beliefs are not based on theology, or ecclesiology or Angelology that someone stood up and spoke to me. Rather they are based on my own personal experience of God that I couldn't possibly explain, or you could argue, why? because it's experience. That is why I beleive on God, and why I will continue to defend my beliefs.

I don't take it personally or take offence at any ones arguments, I just put my own across too.

And of course, in Christianity there will always be slight doubts, but they are more than combated by Faith.

But Touch? Gollum and Lep. I couldn't begin to debate with you!

No, fools. There is no barrier; rather, there is a point where people always give up. This always happens at the Snarkpit, every, last, time, and it's beginning to get repetitive that we have these amazing threads and stop dead when we get to this place, and we ALWAYS do.

And the next step is asking Gav what experience in his life caused him to have this belief, which he acknowledges is irrational (not saying so in a bad way of course). Like I said, things like these never ever happen in a vacuum. From there, yes, it is quite possible to review his decision and choice of 'to believe or not to believe' so to speak.

Lep, yeah, if you invented a robot that has all the chemical and electrical reactions that a human does, it would be human in a sense; but it cannot consume food as we do, it would not need or have the capability to reproduce as we do, and as it would be programmed, have no desire for philosophical discussions. I concede, if you could build one that accomplishes those, you would have a human, but indeed he would not be any less human than any other.

But wait, I mean, come on, let's say there is a being of incomprehensible intelligence and power in the universe; and there's one of his planets called Earth off in the Milky Way. Can you tell me he honestly cares if you eat pork or work on one particular rotation of the Earth? Does he care if his 'believers' call him God or Allah? Probably not. Do you think he cares if we do something good for the world? If anything, I'd say yes.

Do you think he 'cares' about anything, seeing as he transcends logic and human emotion? And surely he'd understand my reasons for not believing in them and forgive me anway, or will I hurt his feelings? (I'm quite happy to forgive people for doing things to me, even if they're not aware or don't repent, but hey I'm not a perfect infinite being so I guess it doesn't count)

And Cassisus, program the robot to learn, and I'm sure it will enter into philosophical debate (but kick everyone's ass at it!). I think the idea of a 'soul' was invented to try to lamely plug this kind of loophole (historically regarding animals).