A philosophical idea of mine questioning atheism. debate.

[sluimers82]

Life is just a game.
All games have a creator (be it an individual or an organisation)..
Therefor..a creator exists?





OOT:
I'm a weak agnostic by the way,
but as I misunderstood agnoticism as exclusively strong
so I chose other religion,
until I can pm the admin or get enough blessing so I can just write this in my signature.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Life is just a game.

Define "game".

 

[sluimers82]

Define "game".

A competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

A competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.

I see neither rules nor spectators.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Life is just a game.
All games have a creator (be it an individual or an organisation)..
Therefor..a creator exists?

Assuming that both of the two premises are correct, the argument is valid. But I see no way of seriously defending or even explaining that 'life is just a game', and I see no wholly compelling reason to believe that 'all games have a creator'.

A competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.

If [all] life is a game, and all games are played according to a set of rules, then that means the rules must be set out before, or beyond, life. This necessitates that something supernatural (i.e. the 'creator') exists, even if the game is not for spectators. Hence the original argument becomes begging the question, because the first premise already assumes the existence of a creator.

peace

 

[MorkandMindy]

Life is just a game.
All games have a creator (be it an individual or an organisation)..
Therefor..a creator exists?

Many games are made up by those playing them - sorry, this doesn't imply the existance of an outside creator, please try again.

 

[livingone]

Life is just a game.
All games have a creator (be it an individual or an organisation)..
Therefor..a creator exists?





OOT:
I'm a weak agnostic by the way,
but as I misunderstood agnoticism as exclusively strong
so I chose other religion,
until I can pm the admin or get enough blessing so I can just write this in my signature.

I would rather describe life as being a dream. There is no death. Death is just a symbolic birth. Just as man leaves the womb of his mother. So does the soul leave the womb of the flesh. I like to think it--the flesh as a cocoon. And our experience upon the earth as our nourishment. What we nourish ourselves here determines the outcome of the cocoon; whether we become moths or butterflys.

 

[Lifesaver]

The problem is that people say "game" in that sentence with only an analogical meaning. They don't mean an actual game, but rather a situation that is not to be taken seriously.
Life is a meaningless duration of time in which there are moments of pleasure and of pain and that is that; only a game, something absolutely irrelevant.

 

[Freodin]

The problem is that people say "game" in that sentence with only an analogical meaning. They don't mean an actual game, but rather a situation that is not to be taken seriously.
Life is a meaningless duration of time in which there are moments of pleasure and of pain and that is that; only a game, something absolutely irrelevant.

And, like any game, of absolute relevance as long as the game is on.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Life is a meaningless duration of time in which there are moments of pleasure and of pain and that is that; only a game, something absolutely irrelevant.

Wow. And people say non-theists must have a bleak outlook...

peace

 

[Lifesaver]

By the way, I don't agree that "life is just a game"; I am just commenting on what people usually mean with it.

 

[Freodin]

By the way, I don't agree that "life is just a game"; I am just commenting on what people usually mean with it.

I don´t agree with it either.... but I also disagree that "people usually mean" that life is meaningless.

 

[Lifesaver]

Okay, it may be that I am wrong. It is one of the sense the sentence is used, though.

 

[loudatheist101]

Life is just a game.
All games have a creator (be it an individual or an organisation)..
Therefor..a creator exists?





OOT:
I'm a weak agnostic by the way,
but as I misunderstood agnoticism as exclusively strong
so I chose other religion,
until I can pm the admin or get enough blessing so I can just write this in my signature.

Who said life is a game?

The way I like to think of it as, look how Hawaii was made. Looks like an intelligent creator would make such beauty. Right? No. We all know that volcanoes and fire eventually made the islands of Hawaii. The creation of Hawaii was not an intelligent creation. Not some invisible man in the sky. Same with the Universe, and everything else.

 

[sluimers82]

I see neither rules nor spectators.

The definition says that spectators do not have to be included, nor do they need to be seen by Non playable characters or even players themselves.

The rules are physics as our options are not unlimited.

Perhaps good examples of games that closely resemble life are The sims, SimCity, World of Warcraft, Dungeons & Dragons and other maxim, MMRPG's and roleplaying games.

And Hawaii may have been build by volcano's, it does not exclude that I couldn't make a computergame that makes these volcano's that eventually makes Hawaii.

So I still stand that life is a game as life:

is competitive
involves skill
involves chance
and endurance
on the part of at least two or more persons
who play according to the rules (bound by physics).

 

[loudatheist101]

The definition says that spectators do not have to be included, nor do they need to be seen by Non playable characters or even players themselves.

The rules are physics as our options are not unlimited.

Perhaps good examples of games that closely resemble life are The sims, SimCity, World of Warcraft, Dungeons & Dragons and other maxim, MMRPG's and roleplaying games.

And Hawaii may have been build by volcano's, it does not exclude that I couldn't make a computergame that makes these volcano's that eventually makes Hawaii.

So I still stand that life is a game as life:

is competitive
involves skill
involves chance
and endurance
on the part of at least two or more persons
who play according to the rules (bound by physics).

But every gospel thinks that the earth was created intelligently by some god. The explosions and ash that eventually build Hawaii, is not an intelligent process. Neither would the Big Bang be. It would be explosions making the universe. Not some invisible man bringing his hand down and simply making everything. We have evidence of the Big Bang on earth. Look how *nature* makes islands. Hawaii is beautiful. Surely, in a time without science, people would think only an intelligent Creator could build such a place. However, reality shows, it was an unintelligent process of explosions, ash, volcanoes, and etc.

 

[quatona]

Life is just a game.

Says who?

All games have a creator (be it an individual or an organisation)..

Says who?

(If "having a creator" is part of the definition of "game", I don´t subscribe to the first statement "life is just a game".

And why "just a game" - as opposed to what?

Therefor..a creator exists?

Hmm.
Life is a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse].
[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]es have hairy skins.
Life has a hairy skin.

 

[sluimers82]

1st says who: me
2nd says who: me

Having a creator is not part of the definition of game, it is an attribute of a game, unless I mistake attribute not being part of the definition of a game.

You're right about questioning the "just a game" part. Just needs to be taken out. Also, life probably better described as "the universe".

As for your proposition..
My definition of life in my proposition is the sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms, esp. metabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptation to environment.

A female dog is only one organism, unpleasancy only one
phenomenon.

Female dogs can be shaven.
Getting an anvil on your head may be something unpleasant, but
certainly not hairy.

Well, I've asked wether how my proposition can be false in Madsci.org.
Let's see what they have to say.
They probably can come up with a better way to debunk my proposition. I'll post their answer as soon as I get it from them.
Keep on trying though, I still find it hard to believe that my own proposition can be true.

P.S. loudatheist, I agree with you there.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

By the way, I don't agree that "life is just a game"; I am just commenting on what people usually mean with it.

I'm glad.

My apologies for the misunderstanding.

peace

 

[Lucretius]

Your argument suffers from blatant fallacy of equivocation. Two words that are spelled in the same way can have different meanings. A good example is the word 'bank'. It can mean the place that stores your money, or the thing by the river. Equating the two to form the premises for your argument leads to a fallacious argument.

My suggestion: get a new argument.