Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 152

Thread: Proof for God's non-existance?

  1. #1 Proof for God's non-existance? 
    Jon
    Jon is offline
    Forum Sophomore Jon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Minnesota, U.S.
    Posts
    162
    I am writing this as an off-shoot from the topic about Atheists. I would like anyone to post their proof of God's non-existance in this thread.

    Enjoy,
    Rv. Jon


    :-)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    I hope this is large enough evidence.:










    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    i don't believe, therefore he isn't
    that's good enough proof for me
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    if there is a god, let him strike me down with lighting, to prove he exists.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Seriously, How about this as evidence: just about every thing we have discovered through science.

    Nothing is proven though.
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    if there is a god, may he shower me with his eternal love.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by jon
    I would like anyone to post their proof of God's non-existance in this thread.

    Enjoy,
    Rv. Jon
    I know you asked first, but if you provide proof of the lesser spotted spidersnailbirdfish from the planet Splogs non-existence, or even the flying teapot on the other side of the sun.
    I'll provide evidence of the non existence of your particular god, LOL.

    It is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence.


    Proving Existence or Non-Existence.
    The existence of a thing can be conclusively proved by producing one single instance of the thing.
    To put that another way: -
    When the existence of a thing is denied, this can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the thing said not to exist
    The non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain.
    From this we can say that there are only two possible statements we can make about the existence of a thing:
    The thing exists.
    It is unknown if the thing exists or not.
    It is not possible to prove that a thing "does not exist" without further qualifying criteria.
    If a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of its non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence. From this we can derive that conclusive proof can only come from the person that claims that a thing exists.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    nobody loves me not even god.
    i wonder if he's mad at me for something i did.
    like trying to prove his non-existence.
    i guess i'll go pray to his noodliness for advice.
    oh, and i can prove i have six fingers on each hand.
    i have 5 fingers, and one holy-spirit finger.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Jon
    Jon is offline
    Forum Sophomore Jon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Minnesota, U.S.
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    It is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence.
    Is that because there can be no such proof?
    :-)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    proof of non-existence is only possible in very special cases where the object has well-defined characteristics and is well-defined in space and time
    the concept of god does not satisfy any of these conditions, hence proof of his non-existence is impossible
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Jon
    Jon is offline
    Forum Sophomore Jon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Minnesota, U.S.
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    proof of non-existence is only possible in very special cases where the object has well-defined characteristics and is well-defined in space and time
    the concept of god does not satisfy any of these conditions, hence proof of his non-existence is impossible
    So, there is no proof of His non-existence?
    :-)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    or of his existence - that's why in the end it all boils down to belief and inner conviction

    you are convinced that god exists and i am convinced that he doesn't, and no amount of reasoning can bridge that gap
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Guest
    When it comes to the non-existence of something, especially an entity like a God, I believe people mis-categorize it. They treat it like some mythical animal (unicorns). Yet, if I may, I'd like to interject this thinking with what I believe is a more rational front.

    Firstly, God must be defined. In order to prove something does not exist, one has to define what that something is. I could say "flagnarfs" don't exist, but what are they?

    Secondly, one must decide whether or not the defined God does in fact match the description of a God. What are the set limits?

    Third, after the previous two are completed, you begin the process of cross-checking the definition and idea with in-place philosophical "guidelines". From logical fallacies to paradoxes. If God so much as steps onto a paradox that leads to fallacy, you automatically have evidence of non-existence.

    All of this can be done with just philosophical discussion, without any need for empirical evidence. It is, in essence, a "thinking mans" game. So far every definition I have heard of God leads to some major fallacy or another, and therefore cannot exist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Let's see...

    - God created us out of nothing (something out of nothing)

    - God can think and act

    - God is beyond existence, comprehension and time

    - God requires faith, not evidence

    - God is omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent and omnibenevolent

    - God works in "mysterious ways"

    In conclusion God IS a logical fallacy...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    it is a well-known fact that attempts to apply logic to the concept of god leads to a quagmire of inconsistencies
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Guest
    Precisely why it's the greatest evidence God does not exist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    It is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence.
    Is that because there can be no such proof?
    try reading it this time.

    The non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain.
    From this we can say that there are only two possible statements we can make about the existence of a thing:
    The thing exists.
    It is unknown if the thing exists or not.
    It is not possible to prove that a thing "does not exist" without further qualifying criteria.
    If a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of its non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence. From this we can derive that conclusive proof can only come from the person that claims that a thing exists.
    It is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18 Re: Proof for God's non-existance? 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon
    I am writing this as an off-shoot from the topic about Atheists. I would like anyone to post their proof of God's non-existance in this thread.

    Enjoy,
    Rv. Jon
    Wait a minute now, do you mean proof of any "generic" god's non-existence? Or proof of the Christian god's non-existence specifically? It's probably impossible to prove that there isn't some sort of generic being who exists outside reality (but then again, we also shouldn't believe in such a being unless we have evidence that it exists).

    If you just want proof that the Christian god doesn't exist, you might consider things like:

    -The Christian god's lack of internal consistence. Ie, that he loves everyone but sends even good-hearted people to eternal torment simply because they don't believe in him, or that he knows everything and is perfect yet is stated in the bible to have changed his mind about things.

    -The Bible's lack of credibility. Ie, the fact that the much of the New Testament was clearly stolen from other, earlier religions, the lack of historical evidence for things that should have had historical evidence, the outright contradiction of many things in the NT by historical evidence, etc. And of course, many of the claims made by the Old Testament are absurd on their face.

    -The fact that studies show that prayer to the Christian god do not generate statistically significant increases in hospital patient recovery.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by jon
    I would like anyone to post their proof of God's non-existance in this thread.

    Enjoy,
    Rv. Jon
    I know you asked first, but if you provide proof of the lesser spotted spidersnailbirdfish from the planet Splogs non-existence, or even the flying teapot on the other side of the sun.
    I'll provide evidence of the non existence of your particular god, LOL.

    It is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence.
    according to sense perception all you can say is
    "I have not seen the lesser spotted spidersnailbirdfish from the planet Splogs non-existence, or even the flying teapot on the other side of the sun. "

    in other words, to suggest these things are non-existent simply because you have not seen them is a fault of logic.

    Of course it may sound absurd to suggest that the lesser spotted spidersnailbirdfish from the planet Splogs non-existence, or even the flying teapot on the other side of the sun exist, but such is the incredibly meager position of empiricism in regards to truth

    Proving Existence or Non-Existence.
    The existence of a thing can be conclusively proved by producing one single instance of the thing.
    To put that another way: -
    When the existence of a thing is denied, this can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the thing said not to exist
    The non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain.
    From this we can say that there are only two possible statements we can make about the existence of a thing:
    The thing exists.
    It is unknown if the thing exists or not.
    It is not possible to prove that a thing "does not exist" without further qualifying criteria.
    If a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of its non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence. From this we can derive that conclusive proof can only come from the person that claims that a thing exists.
    in short, that must mean claiming the existence of the fact that god doesn't exist is futile.[/quote]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Let's see...

    - God created us out of nothing (something out of nothing)
    or alternatively we are eternal just like god is eternal

    - God can think and act
    atheists can also on occasion

    - God is beyond existence, comprehension and time
    or alternatively the existence of god is not material, the comprehension of him comes through purifying one's consciousness as opposed to gulping down facts and figures any way one pleases and time is a contingent potency of his

    - God requires faith, not evidence
    so does empirical science, particularly in resolving the complications that arise from its two foundations
    1 - the cause is objective
    2 - the cause can be revealed through the senses

    (erm - are the senses objective or subjective???)

    - God is omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent and omnibenevolent
    and the material world is the destination of the living entity who is under the false notion that happiness can be obtained separate from god, and thus utilizes their free will to pursue such illusory dreams

    - God works in "mysterious ways"
    if he was predictable, its not clear where the distinction would lie between us and him

    In conclusion God IS a logical fallacy...[
    sorry - your conclusion is false[/quote]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Let's see...

    - God created us out of nothing (something out of nothing)
    or alternatively we are eternal just like god is eternal

    - God can think and act
    atheists can also on occasion

    - God is beyond existence, comprehension and time
    or alternatively the existence of god is not material, the comprehension of him comes through purifying one's consciousness as opposed to gulping down facts and figures any way one pleases and time is a contingent potency of his

    - God requires faith, not evidence
    so does empirical science, particularly in resolving the complications that arise from its two foundations
    1 - the cause is objective
    2 - the cause can be revealed through the senses

    (erm - are the senses objective or subjective???)

    - God is omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent and omnibenevolent
    and the material world is the destination of the living entity who is under the false notion that happiness can be obtained separate from god, and thus utilizes their free will to pursue such illusory dreams

    - God works in "mysterious ways"
    if he was predictable, its not clear where the distinction would lie between us and him

    In conclusion God IS a logical fallacy...[
    sorry - your conclusion is false
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    in other words, to suggest these things are non-existent simply because you have not seen them is a fault of logic.
    It would be faulty to assume that a lack of observation constituted total, iron-clad proof of nonexistence, yes. But if you believe it to be substantially likely that you would have observed something if it existed, and it hasn't been observed, then your lack of observation certainly counts as evidence that it doesn't exist. So, while it would be a logical fallacy to say "Since I haven't seen X, it is impossible for X to exist" it is not a fallacy to say "Since I haven't seen X, it is most probable that X does not exist."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Let's see...

    - God created us out of nothing (something out of nothing)
    or alternatively we are eternal just like god is eternal

    - God can think and act
    atheists can also on occasion

    - God is beyond existence, comprehension and time
    or alternatively the existence of god is not material, the comprehension of him comes through purifying one's consciousness as opposed to gulping down facts and figures any way one pleases and time is a contingent potency of his

    - God requires faith, not evidence
    so does empirical science, particularly in resolving the complications that arise from its two foundations
    1 - the cause is objective
    2 - the cause can be revealed through the senses

    (erm - are the senses objective or subjective???)

    - God is omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent and omnibenevolent
    and the material world is the destination of the living entity who is under the false notion that happiness can be obtained separate from god, and thus utilizes their free will to pursue such illusory dreams

    - God works in "mysterious ways"
    if he was predictable, its not clear where the distinction would lie between us and him

    In conclusion God IS a logical fallacy...[
    sorry - your conclusion is false
    Ok, I'm going to respond...

    Nr.1

    We are eternal? I was talking about the beginning when God literally created us from nothingness. The supposed answer to the beginning of everything.

    Nr.2

    The point here being that God has a will of his own.

    Nr.3

    Exacly my point?

    Nr.4

    Not sure how to respond to that, but I doubt it is relevant.

    Nr.5

    ...

    Nr.6

    The point here being that the evil God has done (according to for example scripture) is "mysterious." Though it's not...

    Nr.7

    Just because you say so...? I actually think you made the fallacy stronger.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Don't believe in God?

    "Use Moses' cure for constipation: take two tablets and go up the mountain"

    Larry McCabe

    "If only God would give us some clear sign. Like making a large deposit im my name at a swiss bank."

    Woody Allen

    "Don't become atheist. There aren't enough holidays".

    Mort Sahl

    "The highest praise of God consists in the denial of Him by the atheist, who finds creation so perfect it can dispense with a creator".

    Marcel Proust
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    "The highest praise of God consists in the denial of Him by the atheist, who finds creation so perfect it can dispense with a creator".

    Marcel Proust
    goes to show that Proust didn't know the first thing about biology : it's the imperfections of an organism that are the giveaway for a natural means of evolution rather than divine creation

    in other words, if nature is god's handywork, it shows god to be a bungler instead of a perfect being
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Scifor Refugee
    It would be faulty to assume that a lack of observation constituted total, iron-clad proof of nonexistence, yes. But if you believe it to be substantially likely that you would have observed something if it existed, and it hasn't been observed, then your lack of observation certainly counts as evidence that it doesn't exist. So, while it would be a logical fallacy to say "Since I haven't seen X, it is impossible for X to exist" it is not a fallacy to say "Since I haven't seen X, it is most probable that X does not exist."
    so if you have seen 10 000 black ravens, and I say I have seen a white raven, how can you determine the probability of seeing a white raven?
    (given that a white raven is not something like a four sided triangle – eg – an albino could crop up out of the gene pool, a can of white paint could fall on a black one, or there may be a rare species of white raven that you just aren’t familiar with, etc)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Obviously

    - God created us out of nothing (something out of nothing)

    or alternatively we are eternal just like god is eternal

    Quote:
    - God can think and act

    atheists can also on occasion

    Quote:
    - God is beyond existence, comprehension and time

    or alternatively the existence of god is not material, the comprehension of him comes through purifying one's consciousness as opposed to gulping down facts and figures any way one pleases and time is a contingent potency of his

    Quote:
    - God requires faith, not evidence

    so does empirical science, particularly in resolving the complications that arise from its two foundations
    1 - the cause is objective
    2 - the cause can be revealed through the senses

    (erm - are the senses objective or subjective???)

    Quote:
    - God is omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent and omnibenevolent

    and the material world is the destination of the living entity who is under the false notion that happiness can be obtained separate from god, and thus utilizes their free will to pursue such illusory dreams

    Quote:
    - God works in "mysterious ways"

    if he was predictable, its not clear where the distinction would lie between us and him

    Quote:
    In conclusion God IS a logical fallacy...[

    sorry - your conclusion is false

    Ok, I'm going to respond...
    how magnanimous of you
    Nr.1

    We are eternal? I was talking about the beginning when God literally created us from nothingness. The supposed answer to the beginning of everything.
    I was talking about more precise scriptural reference

    BG 2.20 For the soul there is neither birth nor death at any time. He has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain.

    Nr.2

    The point here being that God has a will of his own.
    and what?
    atheists don't?
    Nr.3

    Exacly my point?
    so in other words you believe the words "material (or empiricism)" and "reality" are synonymous?
    Nr.4

    Not sure how to respond to that, but I doubt it is relevant.
    If you answer "yes" to you’re third point, I suggest you think about it ....

    Nr.5

    ...
    Nothing to say?
    Glad we are in agreement then.
    Nr.6

    The point here being that the evil God has done (according to for example scripture) is "mysterious." Though it's not...
    what evil has god done?
    And if its no longer mysterious its not clear why you would think it’s a problem in the first place ...
    Nr.7

    Just because you say so...? I actually think you made the fallacy stronger.
    Why?
    Just because you say so?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    so if you have seen 10 000 black ravens, and I say I have seen a white raven, how can you determine the probability of seeing a white raven?
    Don't be obtuse. sciforrefugee is using the first person singular to note the world of observational science. If you
    (sensuo stricto) have observed a single white raven, and there is every indication this is a valid observation, then white ravens are known to exist. Full stop. Period. Absolutely. We are not debating how many gods there are, merely wheher there are any at all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Obviously

    - God created us out of nothing (something out of nothing)

    or alternatively we are eternal just like god is eternal

    Quote:
    - God can think and act

    atheists can also on occasion

    Quote:
    - God is beyond existence, comprehension and time

    or alternatively the existence of god is not material, the comprehension of him comes through purifying one's consciousness as opposed to gulping down facts and figures any way one pleases and time is a contingent potency of his

    Quote:
    - God requires faith, not evidence

    so does empirical science, particularly in resolving the complications that arise from its two foundations
    1 - the cause is objective
    2 - the cause can be revealed through the senses

    (erm - are the senses objective or subjective???)

    Quote:
    - God is omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent and omnibenevolent

    and the material world is the destination of the living entity who is under the false notion that happiness can be obtained separate from god, and thus utilizes their free will to pursue such illusory dreams

    Quote:
    - God works in "mysterious ways"

    if he was predictable, its not clear where the distinction would lie between us and him

    Quote:
    In conclusion God IS a logical fallacy...[

    sorry - your conclusion is false

    Ok, I'm going to respond...
    how magnanimous of you
    Nr.1

    We are eternal? I was talking about the beginning when God literally created us from nothingness. The supposed answer to the beginning of everything.
    I was talking about more precise scriptural reference

    BG 2.20 For the soul there is neither birth nor death at any time. He has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain.

    Nr.2

    The point here being that God has a will of his own.
    and what?
    atheists don't?
    Nr.3

    Exacly my point?
    so in other words you believe the words "material (or empiricism)" and "reality" are synonymous?
    Nr.4

    Not sure how to respond to that, but I doubt it is relevant.
    If you answer "yes" to you’re third point, I suggest you think about it ....

    Nr.5

    ...
    Nothing to say?
    Glad we are in agreement then.
    Nr.6

    The point here being that the evil God has done (according to for example scripture) is "mysterious." Though it's not...
    what evil has god done?
    And if its no longer mysterious its not clear why you would think it’s a problem in the first place ...
    Nr.7

    Just because you say so...? I actually think you made the fallacy stronger.
    Why?
    Just because you say so?
    Geez... Why are you so arrogant when you don't understand the fallacy?

    Nr.1

    Prove there are "souls." And also, the souls were created, were they not?

    Nr.2

    Sight... Consciousness is a complex thing. It mostly points towards God being a creation, so what made God? (Oh, he made himself=Logical fallacy) Complexity isn't just there and that's that...

    Nr.3

    Reality is reality. Material is not the same and a photon is non-material if I'm not mistaking.

    Nr.4

    The cause is unknown(?), but I think it's explained that time started 10 sec after the big bang or something. I can't remember, but it couldn't be STARTED with complexity...

    Nr.5

    You made no point, therefore I didn't answer.

    Nr.6

    Read the bible?

    Nr.7

    No, because you proved my points.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    so if you have seen 10 000 black ravens, and I say I have seen a white raven, how can you determine the probability of seeing a white raven?
    (given that a white raven is not something like a four sided triangle – eg – an albino could crop up out of the gene pool, a can of white paint could fall on a black one, or there may be a rare species of white raven that you just aren’t familiar with, etc)
    First, you'll note that I said "if you believe it to be substantially likely that you would have observed something if it existed". It's perfectly possible that a white raven might exist somewhere one the other side of the world without me knowing about it, so I don't consider the fact that I have never seen one to be evidence that they don't exist.

    Second (as Ophiolite already covered) if you observe that a white raven exists, then they exist. Of course, if I'm deciding whether or not to believe that white ravens exist I have to consider the possibility that you were mistaken when you observed a white raven. After all, if I have seen 10000 black ravens but no white ravens then it seems white ravens, if they exist at all, are very very rare. So I would probably want some sort of evidence that you had actually observed a white raven. Maybe a photograph. If you don't have any evidence other than your assertion that you saw one, there's a substantial chance that you were mistaken and didn't really see one.

    If I think that you might have motivation to lie or some sort of deep, psychological need to believe that white ravens exist, I'll also have to consider the possibility that you are deliberately lying, or perhaps allowing your desperate desire to believe in white ravens cloud your judgment. If people throughout history have a long track record of deliberately lying about white ravens and I suspect that you have very strong motivations for wanting other people to believe that white ravens exist, I might not even accept a photograph as convincing evidence that white ravens exist - after all, you might have faked the photo. Perhaps I would insist on seeing the raven's corpse.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Both the question and the replies in this topic seem oblivious to the idea that Christian concept of God does not antipate that we should know him tangibly as we would know, say, our neighbor.

    Belief is the prerequist to any other consideration before God. Good heartedness, good deeds, kindness, altruism, benevolence, charity and any other quality we might deem as being "good" are of no avail if the prerequisit of belief has not been met.

    That might not have been the way I would have done it or the way someone else would have done it. But if the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the Creator and God of the universe and the Bible is His direct contact with mankind, that seems to be the way things are.

    Trying to get "in" with God is sort of like trying to get into the U.S. You gotta have a passport. No matter how good of an American you are, decorated soldier, former president, superstar athlete, Academy Award winning actor, richest man in America, Democrat, Republic, you gotta have a passport to get in.

    It might be hard nosed of the customs and immigration people to hold me up at the border, but that's the rules whether I like it or not. No passport, no entry.

    Kinda the same with God. No belief, no consideration.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Both the question and the replies in this topic seem oblivious to the idea that Christian concept of God does not antipate that we should know him tangibly as we would know, say, our neighbor.
    Apparently you missed mine, daytonturner. Mine takes into account almost every idea of god and every idea in general.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Ophiolite

    Don't be obtuse.
    who?
    me?
    sciforrefugee is using the first person singular to note the world of observational science. If you
    (sensuo stricto) have observed a single white raven, and there is every indication this is a valid observation,
    what would be an indication that the observation was not valid?
    then white ravens are known to exist. Full stop. Period. Absolutely. We are not debating how many gods there are, merely wheher there are any at all.
    and given that under-riding all bona-fide theistic claims, there is a claim of direct perception, its not clear why you are being so obtuse
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Scifor Refugee
    First, you'll note that I said "if you believe it to be substantially likely that you would have observed something if it existed". It's perfectly possible that a white raven might exist somewhere one the other side of the world without me knowing about it, so I don't consider the fact that I have never seen one to be evidence that they don't exist.
    you left out the rest of your statement

    But if you believe it to be substantially likely that you would have observed something if it existed, and it hasn't been observed, then your lack of observation certainly counts as evidence that it doesn't exist.


    who hasn't done the observing here?
    You?
    Me?
    Someone else?

    Second (as Ophiolite already covered) if you observe that a white raven exists, then they exist. Of course, if I'm deciding whether or not to believe that white ravens exist I have to consider the possibility that you were mistaken when you observed a white raven. After all, if I have seen 10000 black ravens but no white ravens then it seems white ravens, if they exist at all, are very very rare. So I would probably want some sort of evidence that you had actually observed a white raven. Maybe a photograph. If you don't have any evidence other than your assertion that you saw one, there's a substantial chance that you were mistaken and didn't really see one.
    do you realize this is no argument for why something doesn't exist?
    If all you have seen is 10 000 black ravens all you can say truthfully is "I have seen 10 000 black ravens"
    You have no scope for saying "you saying you saw a white raven is false" without being tentative (and tentative arguments are completely useless, as will be illustrated)
    If I think that you might have motivation to lie or some sort of deep, psychological need to believe that white ravens exist, I'll also have to consider the possibility that you are deliberately lying, or perhaps allowing your desperate desire to believe in white ravens cloud your judgment.
    so in other words if I can indicate that you have a deep psychological need to maintain an unblemished record of having seen 10 000 consecutive black ravens, we can also dismiss your position?

    If people throughout history have a long track record of deliberately lying about white ravens and I suspect that you have very strong motivations for wanting other people to believe that white ravens exist, I might not even accept a photograph as convincing evidence that white ravens exist - after all, you might have faked the photo. Perhaps I would insist on seeing the raven's corpse.
    so if people through out history have a long track record of deliberately lying to maintain their own institutional views, and have very strong motivations for maintaining the belief of other people that black ravens are the only type of ravens that exist, we can also reject your position. Sometimes such persons, in the name of enhancing their status, make requirements for evidence, and even when evidence is presented, they manipulate it or use a variety of spurious arguments so their position remains unaffected

    (NB - the symptom of a tentative argument is that the foundation is very weak, and the opponent can easily call upon the same foundation to make an equally credible counter argument - do you want to try with some more tentative arguments or should we move on to something different?)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Obviously


    Geez... Why are you so arrogant when you don't understand the fallacy?
    Maybe because I like to slip in personal attacks in the guise of sounding intellectual

    Nr.1

    Prove there are "souls."
    what would you accept as evidence?

    And also, the souls were created, were they not?
    no
    if you read the scriptural quote presented it should be obvious why
    Nr.2

    Sight... Consciousness is a complex thing. It mostly points towards God being a creation, so what made God? (Oh, he made himself=Logical fallacy) Complexity isn't just there and that's that...
    its not clear how a god that has a cause could have the time factor as a contingent potency.
    and given that the universe appears to go from creation to annihilation, its not clear what you are holding as a causeless foundation
    Nr.3

    Reality is reality.
    The next question would be how do you define it - especially without calling on faith

    Material is not the same and a photon is non-material if I'm not mistaking.
    so what exactly are you accepting as reality, since you seem to be edging away from empiricism?
    your mind?

    Nr.4

    The cause is unknown(?), but I think it's explained that time started 10 sec after the big bang or something. I can't remember, but it couldn't be STARTED with complexity...
    I wasn't aware that cosmology still held the bing bang as a plausible explanation of the universe - guess its still taking time to filter through the education system
    Anyway its not clear why you would bring up the big bang since it is/was an empirical conclusion, and you allude in your previous point that matter is not reality, so its not clear why you are trying to belabor points you don't feel are real
    Nr.5

    You made no point, therefore I didn't answer.
    what's the matter?
    scared of asking for a clarification?
    Nr.6

    Read the bible?
    nah
    I prefer to read Bhagavad-gita
    It makes more sense

    So tell me what "evil" has god done?
    Nr.7

    No, because you proved my points.
    quite the confident chappy aren't we?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Obviously


    Geez... Why are you so arrogant when you don't understand the fallacy?
    Maybe because I like to slip in personal attacks in the guise of sounding intellectual

    Nr.1

    Prove there are "souls."
    what would you accept as evidence?

    And also, the souls were created, were they not?
    no
    if you read the scriptural quote presented it should be obvious why
    Nr.2

    Sight... Consciousness is a complex thing. It mostly points towards God being a creation, so what made God? (Oh, he made himself=Logical fallacy) Complexity isn't just there and that's that...
    its not clear how a god that has a cause could have the time factor as a contingent potency.
    and given that the universe appears to go from creation to annihilation, its not clear what you are holding as a causeless foundation
    Nr.3

    Reality is reality.
    The next question would be how do you define it - especially without calling on faith

    Material is not the same and a photon is non-material if I'm not mistaking.
    so what exactly are you accepting as reality, since you seem to be edging away from empiricism?
    your mind?

    Nr.4

    The cause is unknown(?), but I think it's explained that time started 10 sec after the big bang or something. I can't remember, but it couldn't be STARTED with complexity...
    I wasn't aware that cosmology still held the bing bang as a plausible explanation of the universe - guess its still taking time to filter through the education system
    Anyway its not clear why you would bring up the big bang since it is/was an empirical conclusion, and you allude in your previous point that matter is not reality, so its not clear why you are trying to belabor points you don't feel are real
    Nr.5

    You made no point, therefore I didn't answer.
    what's the matter?
    scared of asking for a clarification?
    Nr.6

    Read the bible?
    nah
    I prefer to read Bhagavad-gita
    It makes more sense

    So tell me what "evil" has god done?
    Nr.7

    No, because you proved my points.
    quite the confident chappy aren't we?
    Nr.1

    what would you accept as evidence?
    Evidence that I would accept is: Evidence that either makes sense or evidence that are either testable or visable.

    no
    if you read the scriptural quote presented it should be obvious why
    Yay! We are all Gods in our own way! What? :?

    Nr.2

    ... Complex = Need origin/Need reasonable explanation that is not a logical fallacy.

    Nr.3

    Good question. Reality depends on what you can see, experience, feel, smell, taste. Reality doesn't contain supernatural things, because everything has an explanation, one way or the other (yes I did say that). Logic, reason and math helps us understand reality which might be beyond our perceptino, but still we understand. That's about how I see it I guess :wink:

    so what exactly are you accepting as reality, since you seem to be edging away from empiricism?
    your mind?
    The explainable and logical/reasonable.

    Nr.4

    Well, I did say that superior complexity couldn't start the universe. Complexity = Need origin/reasonable explanation.

    Nr.5

    I am happy ^^ And if there is a God, there is no free will...

    Nr.6

    God allows pure cynical evil in this world? Global Warming (with God there is no free will). Only guidence we have is a bible which is both evil and good? So he's just up there laughing at us all or something. Because obviously, God doesn't care at all. And in the bible there's a lot of examples of God ordering evil on humans.

    quite the confident chappy aren't we?
    I just responded in equivalence...?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Way back, earlier in this thread, Obviously said, among other things:

    - God created us out of nothing (something out of nothing)
    I am trying to figure out where Obviously came up with the unobvious. This is not a concept that is presented in the Bible. Maybe this is a Muslim concept or Hindu or Bhuddist or something.

    The Christian concept would be found in Heb. 11:2 "[T]he worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

    This does not indicate that God made things from nothing, only that they were made from things which were not visible from the perspective from which we now see them. (We know that there are substantive things in the universe which we cannot see, such as dark matter and things which exist in the infrared and ultraviolet color spectrums. We can sense their presence but proving their existence is often difficult beyond the circumstantial evidence of their presense.

    I don't think the something out of nothing concept is anything other than a red herring argument.

    The rest of the observations were somewhat reasonable and leading to this conclusion:

    In conclusion God IS a logical fallacy...
    This is an accurate conclusion. And this is why people who look for logical, tangible evidence of God do not find it. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob just does not quite fit neatly into our logical schemes of things or in our finite time/matter/space continuum observations.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Well, in that case I'm terrible sorry. I must've misunderstood... "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth." GEN 1:1

    Well, still... Excuse my misunderstanding then.

    But with what you are saying, we don't really need God to explain anything, right? You say he created the world from something that we cannot see, for example dark matter. But dark matter can explain the universe without God then? So God still remains a logical fallacy, but even more now, right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    No reason to be piqued. All I am saying is that the Bible does not say that God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob created the heavens and the earth out of nothing. I do not know if some other religion makes that claim. But if your starting point is that God made everything from nothing, you are not talking about the God represented in the Bible.

    And, again, I agree with you that God does fit into any logical scheme of finite thinking or human logic. This is not, however, within itself, a fallacy.

    A fallacy implies deceptiveness or misleading information and this fallacy is totally dependent upon whether God exists or not. Our logic tells us that either he does exist or he doesn't, because something cannot both be and not be at the same time. (This should be obviously logical to the logical Obviously.)

    If God does not exist, then all statements treating him as existing are fallacious. If God does exist, then all statements purporting to deny his existence are fallacious.

    But since we do not "know" if God exists, it is somewhat premature to label statements, whether pro or con, as fallacious. Nor can we make statements one way or the other, suggest they are fallacious, and thereby prove the opposite.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    No reason to be piqued. All I am saying is that the Bible does not say that God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob created the heavens and the earth out of nothing. I do not know if some other religion makes that claim. But if your starting point is that God made everything from nothing, you are not talking about the God represented in the Bible.

    And, again, I agree with you that God does fit into any logical scheme of finite thinking or human logic. This is not, however, within itself, a fallacy.

    A fallacy implies deceptiveness or misleading information and this fallacy is totally dependent upon whether God exists or not. Our logic tells us that either he does exist or he doesn't, because something cannot both be and not be at the same time. (This should be obviously logical to the logical Obviously.)

    If God does not exist, then all statements treating him as existing are fallacious. If God does exist, then all statements purporting to deny his existence are fallacious.

    But since we do not "know" if God exists, it is somewhat premature to label statements, whether pro or con, as fallacious. Nor can we make statements one way or the other, suggest they are fallacious, and thereby prove the opposite.
    Hehe, well, you must admit. God is immensly complex, because he did create the universe, right? And this immense complexity, given he is conscious as well, implies mostly that God is a lifeform of some sort. Which again points towards a fallacy (a fallacy being a logic that is flawed in argument). All that is complex around us has its explanation, and it would be logical to think that everything has a origin, and the most plausible explanation is simplicity. God, with his conscioussnes, is an explanation which is flawed because of its problematic existence and the nature of its complexity which explains complexity. Assuming complexity created complexity is backward thinking. That is a logical fallacy.

    (This should be obviously logical to the logical Obviously.)
    In some extent, there is a really small chance that God might be there, but then we would have to explain God, even if he's eternal. With our curiousity, which probably lingers into the afterlife, we would want to know what else the real world has to hide from us. The fact that you cannot prove nor disprove the existence of something non-existant makes the assumption of God even a little bit more implausible. We atheists don't say "prove that there are unicorns or a invisable flying spaghettimonster" for nothing. We do it to prove the point that it's the same deal. Only that the logic of God is "beyond." This statement of God being unexplainable etc only proves that the logic is deceptive. That is why I conclude God to be a logical fallacy, I'm sure you can understand, right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Obviously
    Nr.1

    Quote:
    what would you accept as evidence?


    Evidence that I would accept is: Evidence that either makes sense or evidence that are either testable or visable.
    Visible evidence - this works on the understanding that the words matter and reality are synonymous - earlier you edged away from that in a vague sort of way - now would be a good time to clarify your position

    Testable Evidence - there is no question of calling on evidence that is testable unless one is qualified in the said field - for instance physicists test the claims of physics and not house boat manufacturers - Are you of the opinion that you have sufficient qualification to test the evidence of theism? If you think you are, please tell us what qualifications you possess - or perhaps a better point to start from is to give reference to what are the qualifications required

    evidence that makes sense - this is a call to logic - in other words it works with concepts and syllogisms - at no point does one require evidence to work with logic, so this appears unhelpful to your plea for evidence
    Quote:
    no
    if you read the scriptural quote presented it should be obvious why


    Yay! We are all Gods in our own way! What? Confused
    we are all eternal
    I don't know where you got the notion that we are all omnipotent from, especially in light of such clarifications

    katha Up. 2.2.13 The Supreme Lord is eternal and the living beings are eternal. The Supreme Lord is cognizant and the living beings are cognizant. The difference is that the Supreme Lord is supplying all the necessities of life for the many other living entities.

    Nr.2

    ... Complex = Need origin/Need reasonable explanation that is not a logical fallacy.
    Simple things don't need an origin?
    BTW - you still haven't addressed what qualities you would determine the cause of the material manifestation to possess

    Nr.3

    Good question. Reality depends on what you can see, experience, feel, smell, taste.
    OK so clearly you belong to the school of empircism
    Reality doesn't contain supernatural things, because everything has an explanation, one way or the other (yes I did say that). Logic, reason and math helps us understand reality which might be beyond our perceptino, but still we understand. That's about how I see it I guess Wink
    the metaphysical foundation of empiricism is this
    1) - the cause is objective
    2) - the senses can reveal the cause

    My question to you is, are the senses objective or subjective?
    Quote:
    so what exactly are you accepting as reality, since you seem to be edging away from empiricism?
    your mind?


    The explainable and logical/reasonable.
    then why talk of the senses?
    OK let's clear this up

    empiricism is the belief that reality can be determined by direct sense perception (seeing is believing)

    rationalism is the belief that reality can be determined by extrapolating on the information from the senses (for instance if i am walking towards a building, it appears to be getting bigger and bigger, but by rationalism I can understand that is due to perspective as opposed to my direct perception)

    So how do you define reality?
    Nr.4

    Well, I did say that superior complexity couldn't start the universe. Complexity = Need origin/reasonable explanation.
    you are being purposely vague but not suggesting what could ...
    Nr.5

    I am happy ^^ And if there is a God, there is no free will...
    if you say that simply because you or others get frustrated in your attempts to enjoy this world, then it simply indicates that you have a wrong understanding on the purpose of this world - much like going to jail under the impression that your meals will be served on a silver platter
    Nr.6

    God allows pure cynical evil in this world?
    try being evil and see how the world responds

    Global Warming (with God there is no free will).
    industry and false economy are in line with theistic conclusions?
    Only guidence we have is a bible which is both evil and good?
    if you are perplexed by christianity have you investigated others?
    So he's just up there laughing at us all or something. Because obviously, God doesn't care at all. And in the bible there's a lot of examples of God ordering evil on humans.
    once again
    what is this evil you are suggesting?
    If god is the ultimate proprietor of this universe
    If we are ultimately eternal
    If the death of our corporeal body simply means getting repositioned somewhere in the universe
    what evil has god done?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Obviously
    Nr.1

    Quote:
    what would you accept as evidence?


    Evidence that I would accept is: Evidence that either makes sense or evidence that are either testable or visable.
    Visible evidence - this works on the understanding that the words matter and reality are synonymous - earlier you edged away from that in a vague sort of way - now would be a good time to clarify your position

    Testable Evidence - there is no question of calling on evidence that is testable unless one is qualified in the said field - for instance physicists test the claims of physics and not house boat manufacturers - Are you of the opinion that you have sufficient qualification to test the evidence of theism? If you think you are, please tell us what qualifications you possess - or perhaps a better point to start from is to give reference to what are the qualifications required

    evidence that makes sense - this is a call to logic - in other words it works with concepts and syllogisms - at no point does one require evidence to work with logic, so this appears unhelpful to your plea for evidence
    Quote:
    no
    if you read the scriptural quote presented it should be obvious why


    Yay! We are all Gods in our own way! What? Confused
    we are all eternal
    I don't know where you got the notion that we are all omnipotent from, especially in light of such clarifications

    katha Up. 2.2.13 The Supreme Lord is eternal and the living beings are eternal. The Supreme Lord is cognizant and the living beings are cognizant. The difference is that the Supreme Lord is supplying all the necessities of life for the many other living entities.

    Nr.2

    ... Complex = Need origin/Need reasonable explanation that is not a logical fallacy.
    Simple things don't need an origin?
    BTW - you still haven't addressed what qualities you would determine the cause of the material manifestation to possess

    Nr.3

    Good question. Reality depends on what you can see, experience, feel, smell, taste.
    OK so clearly you belong to the school of empircism
    Reality doesn't contain supernatural things, because everything has an explanation, one way or the other (yes I did say that). Logic, reason and math helps us understand reality which might be beyond our perceptino, but still we understand. That's about how I see it I guess Wink
    the metaphysical foundation of empiricism is this
    1) - the cause is objective
    2) - the senses can reveal the cause

    My question to you is, are the senses objective or subjective?
    Quote:
    so what exactly are you accepting as reality, since you seem to be edging away from empiricism?
    your mind?


    The explainable and logical/reasonable.
    then why talk of the senses?
    OK let's clear this up

    empiricism is the belief that reality can be determined by direct sense perception (seeing is believing)

    rationalism is the belief that reality can be determined by extrapolating on the information from the senses (for instance if i am walking towards a building, it appears to be getting bigger and bigger, but by rationalism I can understand that is due to perspective as opposed to my direct perception)

    So how do you define reality?
    Nr.4

    Well, I did say that superior complexity couldn't start the universe. Complexity = Need origin/reasonable explanation.
    you are being purposely vague but not suggesting what could ...
    Nr.5

    I am happy ^^ And if there is a God, there is no free will...
    if you say that simply because you or others get frustrated in your attempts to enjoy this world, then it simply indicates that you have a wrong understanding on the purpose of this world - much like going to jail under the impression that your meals will be served on a silver platter
    Nr.6

    God allows pure cynical evil in this world?
    try being evil and see how the world responds

    Global Warming (with God there is no free will).
    industry and false economy are in line with theistic conclusions?
    Only guidence we have is a bible which is both evil and good?
    if you are perplexed by christianity have you investigated others?
    So he's just up there laughing at us all or something. Because obviously, God doesn't care at all. And in the bible there's a lot of examples of God ordering evil on humans.
    once again
    what is this evil you are suggesting?
    If god is the ultimate proprietor of this universe
    If we are ultimately eternal
    If the death of our corporeal body simply means getting repositioned somewhere in the universe
    what evil has god done?
    Nr.1,2,3,4

    Hehe. So I MUST choose my view upon reality? I can't have a little here and a litte there? LoL, why did I edge away from matter and reality? My position is uncertain, if you haven't noticed. I will post up my view upon reality when I'm done with it. I've actually have been working upon a sort of hypothesis about our perception of reality. If you like, I will post it up soon, I'll just have to work out a few things first. And about simplicity... I can say that the origin of everything is eternal, but simple. That alone would make more sense then implying that a complex God is the origin of it all. Hehe... empiricism...

    I either must be this or that, right? No one ever stays in a sort of a grey zone, right? Dark matter is something our senses isn't able to detect, right? So why do you assume I think that our senses percieve everything? We have technology to help our senses now, and therefore our perception of reality becomes much stronger/better. I don't need to be qualified in any certain field. I trust the results of those who work in those certain fields, because they know it a lot better than me. I admit that I don't know what caused the big bang, whereas theists claim they claim God is the cause, which doesn't help us at all. Patience is not something most theists have. They simply say for each new discovery "God did it" or something like that. Maybe not all theists, but some do.

    Logic helps us to understand our evidence and such. Like theories! They are logical conclusions based upon the facts and evidence provided. I looks as if you don't understand any of this :?

    Nr... the rest?

    God is allknowing thus making it impossible for free will to exist. If we do something bad it is because God lets it happen, simple.

    I usally go to attack christianity, simply because it's the biggest religion out there. If you read the old testament, you'll see the cruelty of God. Why isn't God acting in such a manner today? There's probably a biblical explanation, I wouldn't know, but I do know that God died for our sins (Jesus). I might ask, what the hell was the point of showing of like that? Making a big scence.

    And what was that story again...? A man must sacrifice his child because God says so, then a angel comes to stop him in the last second. Try imagining the childs traumatic experience as God is using him for an experiment.

    industry and false economy are in line with theistic conclusions?
    If you think so then go ahead. Greed is the reason for global warming, but since God doesn't stop it, he's permitting it, probably enjoying it.

    we are all eternal
    I don't know where you got the notion that we are all omnipotent from, especially in light of such clarifications

    katha Up. 2.2.13 The Supreme Lord is eternal and the living beings are eternal. The Supreme Lord is cognizant and the living beings are cognizant. The difference is that the Supreme Lord is supplying all the necessities of life for the many other living entities.
    A wierd assumption, but still, it proves my misunderstanding that God created something from nothing wrong. But still, it's an assumption...

    Why should anyone CLAIM to KNOW what started it all? Isn't accepting that you don't actually know for certain more reasonable?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Jon
    Jon is offline
    Forum Sophomore Jon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Minnesota, U.S.
    Posts
    162
    Let me post this, from a post I made in another forum:

    ABE: link to other forum/thread: EvC

    No-God isn't necessarily the same as an 'absence' of God. No-God is a non-existent entity, which exists inasmuch as we are able to discuss no-Him (think of imaginary numbers, sort of). Anything can be talked of in this way; we can have no-house, no-unicorn, etc.

    So, let's start with 'no-house', which exists as a concept, and concept only. As a result, 'no-house' and 'no-house the concept' are essentially the same: 'no-house'. Because 'no-house' does not exist as a tangible thing in the real world (remember, it's a concept), it cannot be proven true or false in terms of the real world. In fact, it doesn't matter how much evidence you find or do not find in regards to 'house', none of it will be able to tell you about 'no-house'. 'No-house' becomes the 'house' non-existant. Can we find the non-existant purple trim on 'no-house'? Certainly that would be evidence; but alas, even if it were evidence, we can't find it, 'cause it doesn't exist. There is not a SHRED of evidence that will point us to the truthfulness of 'no-house'. And all the evidence that we do not find for 'house' will only tell us that what we have no evidence for 'house' and it can tell us nothing about 'no-house', or the truthfullness of 'no-house'.

    [...] We can apply this to the idea of God, and no-God in the same way. Evidence for a no-God, must be, by its very definition, evidence of the 'no-' variety, such as 'no-(6-day-creation-evidence)'.¹ No-God is the 'exact opposite', not simply an 'absence of', and as a result requires the 'exact opposite' evidence. What is the opposite of evidence-existant? Evidence-non-existant. And so by the very nature of 'no-God' we can possess no evidence to the affirmatory, because our evidence has to be non-existing in order to affirm the no-God as truth. If our evidence does exist, it will then be evidence-existant, so, for example 'yes-(6-day-creation-evidence)'; in other words, it will be evidence that is the exact opposite of 'no-...' and be 'yes-...', which in so being only serves to affirm the yes-God statement. This has the implication that all we can ever prove is 'yes-God', and can never have evidence of 'no-God'.

    It is true; in the world as it is today there has yet to be evidence for the existence of God in the sense that He is a testable entity, and so as it stands, we are safe in saying that there is no evidence of God (or, as I've said before, 'negative-[yes]evidence of yes-God'). But, we are not okay to say that there is evidence supporting the notion of no-God, (or, 'positive-[no]evidence of no-God') because our statement already tells us that we can have no evidence; seems foolish to go looking for it then, or to pretend that it exists.

    Now, one more illustration, that might add understanding:

    Yes-God and no-God exist on polar opposites of the same line (the 'God' line, we can call it):

    Code:
    yes-God             no-God 
      |__________________|
    We can also add an 'evidence' line to overlap:

    Code:
    yes-God             no-God 
      |__________________| 
      |                  |
    yes-Ev.             no-Ev.
    In the middle of the God line, exist things which are neither 'yes-God' or 'no-God', for example, 'house'.² In the middle of the evidence line exist things which are not evidence in regards to our particular cause, so, evidence in regards to house is found somewhere there. Now, you see, the closer and closer we move toward evidence of no-God, the closer we move toward no-evidence. In the end, the moment we get to no-God, our ability to prove the concept is doused because we now have no-evidence.
    ...
    __________
    ¹ Six day creation is not necessarily an attribute necessary in our defining of yes-God. We can, in fact, pick anything we want, to say it would be evidence of 'yes-God', and still realise that the opposite of that evidence cannot be evidence of 'no-God'.
    ² House, of course, exists on the line too, in its own place. We could've put yes-house and no-house on opposite ends outside of the God line and used the house-line. Any things can be plotted independently on our continuum line, but on one side it is yes-X and on the other no-X, extending in infinite directions, both ways. In other words, each side of the line contains the essence of either yes-ness or the essence of no-ness.
    In reply to another message I have said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon
    On the other extreme, silly Gods like the God of the flat-earthers, who created this planet flat, can effectively be disproved, but I don't think that's the type of God you meant.
    This God cannot be disproven either. An absense of a flat Earth is not the same as no-(flatEarth). If we consider (flatEarth) to be positive-[yes]-evidence of yes-God, then in relation to (flatEarth) and God, if we consider the opposite proposal of no-God, then in regards to (flatEarth) the comparable evidence for no-God would be negative-[no]-evidence. An absence of (flatEarth), or negative-[yes]-evidence is not the same thing. Ask yourself; what is the opposite of 5 (+5)? Is it any absence of 5? 0? 136? Nah; it is -5. And, so what is the opposite of the evidence (flatEarth)? Is it any absense of (flatEarth)? (roundEarth)? (pyramidalEarth)? Nah; it is -(flatEarth). But what is this? Can it exist? Well, can -5 exist outside of the concept? No; negatives do not exist in nature. It is the same with other forms of evidence, -(flatEarth), as it is for numbers; that it cannot exist in nature. So, by its nature, the evidence required for no-God cannot exist; it doesn't matter how you define your God, because whatever evidence you request for his existence, its opposite must be given for his non-existence, and that opposite evidence cannot exist, and the claim 'There is no-God' is unverifiable.
    Perhaps we can address these points for our discussion?

    Regards,
    Rv. Jon
    :-)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon
    Let me post this, from a post I made in another forum:

    ABE: link to other forum/thread: EvC

    No-God isn't necessarily the same as an 'absence' of God. No-God is a non-existent entity, which exists inasmuch as we are able to discuss no-Him (think of imaginary numbers, sort of). Anything can be talked of in this way; we can have no-house, no-unicorn, etc.

    So, let's start with 'no-house', which exists as a concept, and concept only. As a result, 'no-house' and 'no-house the concept' are essentially the same: 'no-house'. Because 'no-house' does not exist as a tangible thing in the real world (remember, it's a concept), it cannot be proven true or false in terms of the real world. In fact, it doesn't matter how much evidence you find or do not find in regards to 'house', none of it will be able to tell you about 'no-house'. 'No-house' becomes the 'house' non-existant. Can we find the non-existant purple trim on 'no-house'? Certainly that would be evidence; but alas, even if it were evidence, we can't find it, 'cause it doesn't exist. There is not a SHRED of evidence that will point us to the truthfulness of 'no-house'. And all the evidence that we do not find for 'house' will only tell us that what we have no evidence for 'house' and it can tell us nothing about 'no-house', or the truthfullness of 'no-house'.

    [...] We can apply this to the idea of God, and no-God in the same way. Evidence for a no-God, must be, by its very definition, evidence of the 'no-' variety, such as 'no-(6-day-creation-evidence)'.¹ No-God is the 'exact opposite', not simply an 'absence of', and as a result requires the 'exact opposite' evidence. What is the opposite of evidence-existant? Evidence-non-existant. And so by the very nature of 'no-God' we can possess no evidence to the affirmatory, because our evidence has to be non-existing in order to affirm the no-God as truth. If our evidence does exist, it will then be evidence-existant, so, for example 'yes-(6-day-creation-evidence)'; in other words, it will be evidence that is the exact opposite of 'no-...' and be 'yes-...', which in so being only serves to affirm the yes-God statement. This has the implication that all we can ever prove is 'yes-God', and can never have evidence of 'no-God'.

    It is true; in the world as it is today there has yet to be evidence for the existence of God in the sense that He is a testable entity, and so as it stands, we are safe in saying that there is no evidence of God (or, as I've said before, 'negative-[yes]evidence of yes-God'). But, we are not okay to say that there is evidence supporting the notion of no-God, (or, 'positive-[no]evidence of no-God') because our statement already tells us that we can have no evidence; seems foolish to go looking for it then, or to pretend that it exists.

    Now, one more illustration, that might add understanding:

    Yes-God and no-God exist on polar opposites of the same line (the 'God' line, we can call it):

    Code:
    yes-God             no-God 
      |__________________|
    We can also add an 'evidence' line to overlap:

    Code:
    yes-God             no-God 
      |__________________| 
      |                  |
    yes-Ev.             no-Ev.
    In the middle of the God line, exist things which are neither 'yes-God' or 'no-God', for example, 'house'.² In the middle of the evidence line exist things which are not evidence in regards to our particular cause, so, evidence in regards to house is found somewhere there. Now, you see, the closer and closer we move toward evidence of no-God, the closer we move toward no-evidence. In the end, the moment we get to no-God, our ability to prove the concept is doused because we now have no-evidence.
    ...
    __________
    ¹ Six day creation is not necessarily an attribute necessary in our defining of yes-God. We can, in fact, pick anything we want, to say it would be evidence of 'yes-God', and still realise that the opposite of that evidence cannot be evidence of 'no-God'.
    ² House, of course, exists on the line too, in its own place. We could've put yes-house and no-house on opposite ends outside of the God line and used the house-line. Any things can be plotted independently on our continuum line, but on one side it is yes-X and on the other no-X, extending in infinite directions, both ways. In other words, each side of the line contains the essence of either yes-ness or the essence of no-ness.
    In reply to another message I have said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon
    On the other extreme, silly Gods like the God of the flat-earthers, who created this planet flat, can effectively be disproved, but I don't think that's the type of God you meant.
    This God cannot be disproven either. An absense of a flat Earth is not the same as no-(flatEarth). If we consider (flatEarth) to be positive-[yes]-evidence of yes-God, then in relation to (flatEarth) and God, if we consider the opposite proposal of no-God, then in regards to (flatEarth) the comparable evidence for no-God would be negative-[no]-evidence. An absence of (flatEarth), or negative-[yes]-evidence is not the same thing. Ask yourself; what is the opposite of 5 (+5)? Is it any absence of 5? 0? 136? Nah; it is -5. And, so what is the opposite of the evidence (flatEarth)? Is it any absense of (flatEarth)? (roundEarth)? (pyramidalEarth)? Nah; it is -(flatEarth). But what is this? Can it exist? Well, can -5 exist outside of the concept? No; negatives do not exist in nature. It is the same with other forms of evidence, -(flatEarth), as it is for numbers; that it cannot exist in nature. So, by its nature, the evidence required for no-God cannot exist; it doesn't matter how you define your God, because whatever evidence you request for his existence, its opposite must be given for his non-existence, and that opposite evidence cannot exist, and the claim 'There is no-God' is unverifiable.
    Perhaps we can address these points for our discussion?

    Regards,
    Rv. Jon
    A God which requires non-evidence is a God non-existent. God doesn't have any evidence to prove his existence thus proving a logical fallacy.

    ?

    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    So tell me what "evil" has god done?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Wpia...elated&search=

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkXOw...elated&search=

    Proving the bible is repulsive?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Obviously
    Nr.1,2,3,4

    Hehe. So I MUST choose my view upon reality? I can't have a little here and a litte there? LoL, why did I edge away from matter and reality? My position is uncertain, if you haven't noticed. I will post up my view upon reality when I'm done with it. I've actually have been working upon a sort of hypothesis about our perception of reality. If you like, I will post it up soon, I'll just have to work out a few things first. And about simplicity... I can say that the origin of everything is eternal, but simple. That alone would make more sense then implying that a complex God is the origin of it all. Hehe... empiricism...
    since we have to take a rain cheque on your confident stance on reality, I guess further discussion on what you believe not to be real is kind of spurious ....
    (actually it doesn't matter which one you care to draw more on - both have limitations)
    I either must be this or that, right? No one ever stays in a sort of a grey zone, right? Dark matter is something our senses isn't able to detect, right? So why do you assume I think that our senses percieve everything? We have technology to help our senses now, and therefore our perception of reality becomes much stronger/better.
    stronger and better perhaps, but still nonetheless limited at the points of macro and microcosm

    I don't need to be qualified in any certain field. I trust the results of those who work in those certain fields, because they know it a lot better than me.
    then its not clear why you don't trust advanced practitioners of theism - unless its merely a matter of your belief system
    I admit that I don't know what caused the big bang, whereas theists claim they claim God is the cause, which doesn't help us at all.
    given that the big bang is in the process of being re-analyzed according to new data that has come to hand, it doesn't appear to have helped anyone either (except perhaps for a few fat cats in the field of science)

    Patience is not something most theists have.
    If a person cannot jump over their knees, is that because they aren't trying hard enough?
    They simply say for each new discovery "God did it" or something like that. Maybe not all theists, but some do.
    and "Nature did it" is somehow more illuminating?
    Logic helps us to understand our evidence and such. Like theories! They are logical conclusions based upon the facts and evidence provided. I looks as if you don't understand any of this Confused
    no
    logic works with concepts - if you want to call those concepts "facts", it doesn't help your logic any

    for instance

    "I am hungry and my feet are warm therefore it is saturday" is a true statement but it is not at all logical statement
    Nr... the rest?

    God is allknowing thus making it impossible for free will to exist. If we do something bad it is because God lets it happen, simple.
    so why is your knowing somehow separate from God's knowing?
    (or do you want to argue that you don't even know what you are doing?)

    I usally go to attack christianity, simply because it's the biggest religion out there.
    quite a provincial statement there
    Do you mean out there in the world or out there on your street?

    If you read the old testament, you'll see the cruelty of God. Why isn't God acting in such a manner today? There's probably a biblical explanation, I wouldn't know, but I do know that God died for our sins (Jesus). I might ask, what the hell was the point of showing of like that? Making a big scence. Rolling Eyes

    And what was that story again...? A man must sacrifice his child because God says so, then a angel comes to stop him in the last second. Try imagining the childs traumatic experience as God is using him for an experiment.
    and if god is the ultimate proprietor of everything and if we are ultimately eternal and if death of the body is merely a means of relocation within the universe, why do you have this problem?
    Quote:
    industry and false economy are in line with theistic conclusions?


    If you think so then go ahead. Greed is the reason for global warming, but since God doesn't stop it, he's permitting it, probably enjoying it.
    you don't think global warming will stop industry?
    (of course we are so resourceful that we will no doubt find another avenue of greed to apply ourselves too - maybe one of these lifetimes it will sink in)


    A wierd assumption, but still, it proves my misunderstanding that God created something from nothing wrong. But still, it's an assumption...

    Why should anyone CLAIM to KNOW what started it all?
    If you want to make claims like "God is a fantasy", you tell me ....

    Isn't accepting that you don't actually know for certain more reasonable?
    no
    it just begs the question "How do you know that it can't be known?"



    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    So tell me what "evil" has god done?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Wpia...elated&search=
    only watched about 2 minutes - is the rest of it full of cherry picked arguments like his first one?
    again only watched the first two minutes -- is the rest of it merely indicating how social norms have drifted from biblical ones?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Sophomore Pikkhaud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    140
    As true christians we should follow the lord even if it is against social norms. For I say God's norms is to be followed not mans.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Guest
    ...this...is an orgy...of stupidity.

    P.S: also bad writing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Obviously

    I don't need to be qualified in any certain field. I trust the results of those who work in those certain fields, because they know it a lot better than me.
    then its not clear why you don't trust advanced practitioners of theism - unless its merely a matter of your belief system

    Alternative Medicine, homeopathy, medival spiritualism, austrology which is supposed to work better than todays science... Is it wrong of me to feel worried for people who actually believe in alternative medicine?

    They simply say for each new discovery "God did it" or something like that. Maybe not all theists, but some do.
    and "Nature did it" is somehow more illuminating?

    Especially when it's proven.

    Logic helps us to understand our evidence and such. Like theories! They are logical conclusions based upon the facts and evidence provided. I looks as if you don't understand any of this Confused
    no
    logic works with concepts (also) - if you want to call those concepts "facts", (lol, misunderstanding. I never said logic was equivalent to facts) it doesn't help your logic any

    for instance

    "I am hungry and my feet are warm therefore it is saturday" is a true statement but it is not at all logical statement

    So why bring that up?

    Nr... the rest?

    God is allknowing thus making it impossible for free will to exist. If we do something bad it is because God lets it happen, simple.
    so why is your knowing somehow separate from God's knowing?
    (or do you want to argue that you don't even know what you are doing?)

    Why can God simultaneously know what everyone is thinking at the same time? "No sir, that is not a crazy thought"

    I usally go to attack christianity, simply because it's the biggest religion out there.
    quite a provincial statement there
    Do you mean out there in the world or out there on your street?

    Isn't christianity the biggest religion in the world?

    If you read the old testament, you'll see the cruelty of God. Why isn't God acting in such a manner today? There's probably a biblical explanation, I wouldn't know, but I do know that God died for our sins (Jesus). I might ask, what the hell was the point of showing of like that? Making a big scence. Rolling Eyes

    And what was that story again...? A man must sacrifice his child because God says so, then a angel comes to stop him in the last second. Try imagining the childs traumatic experience as God is using him for an experiment.
    and if god is the ultimate proprietor of everything and if we are ultimately eternal and if death of the body is merely a means of relocation within the universe, why do you have this problem?

    When was eternal souls and all this accepted as actual facts?

    Quote:
    industry and false economy are in line with theistic conclusions?


    If you think so then go ahead. Greed is the reason for global warming, but since God doesn't stop it, he's permitting it, probably enjoying it.
    you don't think global warming will stop industry?
    (of course we are so resourceful that we will no doubt find another avenue of greed to apply ourselves too - maybe one of these lifetimes it will sink in)

    Sure, for those who get the message.


    A wierd assumption, but still, it proves my misunderstanding that God created something from nothing wrong. But still, it's an assumption...

    Why should anyone CLAIM to KNOW what started it all?
    If you want to make claims like "God is a fantasy", you tell me ....

    God is not real, he's fantasy (oh noes. I just blasphemed the name of the lord. I can not be forgiven and will burn in Hell forever. Ups!)

    Isn't accepting that you don't actually know for certain more reasonable?
    no
    it just begs the question "How do you know that it can't be known?"

    LoL, let me rephrase it for you. Isn't accepting that you don't actually know for certain (at the moment, but maybe in the future, if you're patient, we'll know) more reasonable?

    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    So tell me what "evil" has god done?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Wpia...elated&search=
    only watched about 2 minutes - is the rest of it full of cherry picked arguments like his first one?

    That's funny. Because these are passages christians avoid. And here was I thinking christians were the ones cherry picking what's right and what's wrong in the bible and claim afterwards they get their morals from the bible... Well, some theists claim so, but not all.

    again only watched the first two minutes -- is the rest of it merely indicating how social norms have drifted from biblical ones?

    Yes, I believe so. But the bible is still the word of God, right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    ...this...is an orgy...of stupidity.

    P.S: also bad writing.
    I agree. And I also admit I am a part of it, and mostly to blame for it...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon
    Let me post this, from a post I made in another forum:

    ABE: link to other forum/thread: EvC

    No-God isn't necessarily the same as an 'absence' of God. No-God is a non-existent entity, which exists inasmuch as we are able to discuss no-Him (think of imaginary numbers, sort of). Anything can be talked of in this way; we can have no-house, no-unicorn, etc.

    So, let's start with 'no-house', which exists as a concept, and concept only. As a result, 'no-house' and 'no-house the concept' are essentially the same: 'no-house'. Because 'no-house' does not exist as a tangible thing in the real world (remember, it's a concept), it cannot be proven true or false in terms of the real world. In fact, it doesn't matter how much evidence you find or do not find in regards to 'house', none of it will be able to tell you about 'no-house'. 'No-house' becomes the 'house' non-existant. Can we find the non-existant purple trim on 'no-house'? Certainly that would be evidence; but alas, even if it were evidence, we can't find it, 'cause it doesn't exist. There is not a SHRED of evidence that will point us to the truthfulness of 'no-house'. And all the evidence that we do not find for 'house' will only tell us that what we have no evidence for 'house' and it can tell us nothing about 'no-house', or the truthfullness of 'no-house'.

    [...] We can apply this to the idea of God, and no-God in the same way. Evidence for a no-God, must be, by its very definition, evidence of the 'no-' variety, such as 'no-(6-day-creation-evidence)'.¹ No-God is the 'exact opposite', not simply an 'absence of', and as a result requires the 'exact opposite' evidence. What is the opposite of evidence-existant? Evidence-non-existant. And so by the very nature of 'no-God' we can possess no evidence to the affirmatory, because our evidence has to be non-existing in order to affirm the no-God as truth. If our evidence does exist, it will then be evidence-existant, so, for example 'yes-(6-day-creation-evidence)'; in other words, it will be evidence that is the exact opposite of 'no-...' and be 'yes-...', which in so being only serves to affirm the yes-God statement. This has the implication that all we can ever prove is 'yes-God', and can never have evidence of 'no-God'.

    It is true; in the world as it is today there has yet to be evidence for the existence of God in the sense that He is a testable entity, and so as it stands, we are safe in saying that there is no evidence of God (or, as I've said before, 'negative-[yes]evidence of yes-God'). But, we are not okay to say that there is evidence supporting the notion of no-God, (or, 'positive-[no]evidence of no-God') because our statement already tells us that we can have no evidence; seems foolish to go looking for it then, or to pretend that it exists.

    Now, one more illustration, that might add understanding:

    Yes-God and no-God exist on polar opposites of the same line (the 'God' line, we can call it):

    Code:
    yes-God             no-God 
      |__________________|
    We can also add an 'evidence' line to overlap:

    Code:
    yes-God             no-God 
      |__________________| 
      |                  |
    yes-Ev.             no-Ev.
    In the middle of the God line, exist things which are neither 'yes-God' or 'no-God', for example, 'house'.² In the middle of the evidence line exist things which are not evidence in regards to our particular cause, so, evidence in regards to house is found somewhere there. Now, you see, the closer and closer we move toward evidence of no-God, the closer we move toward no-evidence. In the end, the moment we get to no-God, our ability to prove the concept is doused because we now have no-evidence.
    ...
    __________
    ¹ Six day creation is not necessarily an attribute necessary in our defining of yes-God. We can, in fact, pick anything we want, to say it would be evidence of 'yes-God', and still realise that the opposite of that evidence cannot be evidence of 'no-God'.
    ² House, of course, exists on the line too, in its own place. We could've put yes-house and no-house on opposite ends outside of the God line and used the house-line. Any things can be plotted independently on our continuum line, but on one side it is yes-X and on the other no-X, extending in infinite directions, both ways. In other words, each side of the line contains the essence of either yes-ness or the essence of no-ness.
    In reply to another message I have said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon
    On the other extreme, silly Gods like the God of the flat-earthers, who created this planet flat, can effectively be disproved, but I don't think that's the type of God you meant.
    This God cannot be disproven either. An absense of a flat Earth is not the same as no-(flatEarth). If we consider (flatEarth) to be positive-[yes]-evidence of yes-God, then in relation to (flatEarth) and God, if we consider the opposite proposal of no-God, then in regards to (flatEarth) the comparable evidence for no-God would be negative-[no]-evidence. An absence of (flatEarth), or negative-[yes]-evidence is not the same thing. Ask yourself; what is the opposite of 5 (+5)? Is it any absence of 5? 0? 136? Nah; it is -5. And, so what is the opposite of the evidence (flatEarth)? Is it any absense of (flatEarth)? (roundEarth)? (pyramidalEarth)? Nah; it is -(flatEarth). But what is this? Can it exist? Well, can -5 exist outside of the concept? No; negatives do not exist in nature. It is the same with other forms of evidence, -(flatEarth), as it is for numbers; that it cannot exist in nature. So, by its nature, the evidence required for no-God cannot exist; it doesn't matter how you define your God, because whatever evidence you request for his existence, its opposite must be given for his non-existence, and that opposite evidence cannot exist, and the claim 'There is no-God' is unverifiable.
    Perhaps we can address these points for our discussion?

    Regards,
    Rv. Jon
    A God which requires non-evidence is a God non-existent. God doesn't have any evidence to prove his existence thus proving a logical fallacy.

    ?

    Maybe we should get back to this post?

    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    No reason to be piqued. All I am saying is that the Bible does not say that God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob created the heavens and the earth out of nothing. I do not know if some other religion makes that claim. But if your starting point is that God made everything from nothing, you are not talking about the God represented in the Bible.

    And, again, I agree with you that God does fit into any logical scheme of finite thinking or human logic. This is not, however, within itself, a fallacy.

    A fallacy implies deceptiveness or misleading information and this fallacy is totally dependent upon whether God exists or not. Our logic tells us that either he does exist or he doesn't, because something cannot both be and not be at the same time. (This should be obviously logical to the logical Obviously.)

    If God does not exist, then all statements treating him as existing are fallacious. If God does exist, then all statements purporting to deny his existence are fallacious.

    But since we do not "know" if God exists, it is somewhat premature to label statements, whether pro or con, as fallacious. Nor can we make statements one way or the other, suggest they are fallacious, and thereby prove the opposite.
    Hehe, well, you must admit. God is immensly complex, because he did create the universe, right? And this immense complexity, given he is conscious as well, implies mostly that God is a lifeform of some sort. Which again points towards a fallacy (a fallacy being a logic that is flawed in argument). All that is complex around us has its explanation, and it would be logical to think that everything has a origin, and the most plausible explanation is simplicity. God, with his conscioussnes, is an explanation which is flawed because of its problematic existence and the nature of its complexity which explains complexity. Assuming complexity created complexity is backward thinking. That is a logical fallacy.

    (This should be obviously logical to the logical Obviously.)
    In some extent, there is a really small chance that God might be there, but then we would have to explain God, even if he's eternal. With our curiousity, which probably lingers into the afterlife, we would want to know what else the real world has to hide from us. The fact that you cannot prove nor disprove the existence of something non-existant makes the assumption of God even a little bit more implausible. We atheists don't say "prove that there are unicorns or a invisable flying spaghettimonster" for nothing. We do it to prove the point that it's the same deal. Only that the logic of God is "beyond." This statement of God being unexplainable etc only proves that the logic is deceptive. That is why I conclude God to be a logical fallacy, I'm sure you can understand, right?
    And this?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    I don't need to be qualified in any certain field. I trust the results of those who work in those certain fields, because they know it a lot better than me.

    then its not clear why you don't trust advanced practitioners of theism - unless its merely a matter of your belief system


    Alternative Medicine, homeopathy, medival spiritualism, austrology which is supposed to work better than todays science... Is it wrong of me to feel worried for people who actually believe in alternative medicine?
    if your views are arrived at without addressing the nature of authorities in the said fields, yes it is wrong

    (in other words if you don't know the first thing about alternative medicine nor the incidents of it having results that allopathic practitioners could not achieve, yes you are arguing from the platform of biased ignorance)


    They simply say for each new discovery "God did it" or something like that. Maybe not all theists, but some do.

    and "Nature did it" is somehow more illuminating?

    Especially when it's proven.
    so when it is said that life arose from matter, that is proven?


    Logic helps us to understand our evidence and such. Like theories! They are logical conclusions based upon the facts and evidence provided. I looks as if you don't understand any of this Confused

    no
    logic works with concepts (also) - if you want to call those concepts "facts", (lol, misunderstanding. I never said logic was equivalent to facts) it doesn't help your logic any
    yes you did
    You said logic helps us understand evidence (indicated bold)
    logic does not help us understand evidence

    "
    for instance

    "I am hungry and my feet are warm therefore it is saturday" is a true statement but it is not at all logical statement


    So why bring that up?
    these are all evidential statements (I actually am hungry, my feet actually are warm and today actually is saturday)

    if you can call on logic to help you understand this evidence, please be my guest ....
    Quote:

    Nr... the rest?

    God is allknowing thus making it impossible for free will to exist. If we do something bad it is because God lets it happen, simple.

    so why is your knowing somehow separate from God's knowing?
    (or do you want to argue that you don't even know what you are doing?)


    Why can God simultaneously know what everyone is thinking at the same time? "No sir, that is not a crazy thought"
    even in mundane affairs its easy to understand how channels of communication can be monitored if the network is monopolized
    Quote:
    I usally go to attack christianity, simply because it's the biggest religion out there.

    quite a provincial statement there
    Do you mean out there in the world or out there on your street?


    Isn't christianity the biggest religion in the world?
    no
    it rates about 3rd
    (welcome to the world)
    Quote:
    If you read the old testament, you'll see the cruelty of God. Why isn't God acting in such a manner today? There's probably a biblical explanation, I wouldn't know, but I do know that God died for our sins (Jesus). I might ask, what the hell was the point of showing of like that? Making a big scence. Rolling Eyes

    And what was that story again...? A man must sacrifice his child because God says so, then a angel comes to stop him in the last second. Try imagining the childs traumatic experience as God is using him for an experiment.
    and if god is the ultimate proprietor of everything and if we are ultimately eternal and if death of the body is merely a means of relocation within the universe, why do you have this problem?
    When was eternal souls and all this accepted as actual facts?
    I thought we were discussing concepts
    (Otherwise I could just turn around and ask you when was god not existing accepted as an actual fact - which would get us nowhere)


    Quote:


    A wierd assumption, but still, it proves my misunderstanding that God created something from nothing wrong. But still, it's an assumption...

    Why should anyone CLAIM to KNOW what started it all?

    If you want to make claims like "God is a fantasy", you tell me ....

    God is not real, he's fantasy (oh noes. I just blasphemed the name of the lord. I can not be forgiven and will burn in Hell forever. Ups!)
    that still doesn't explain why you are exempt from tarring yourself with the same paintbrush with your "Why should anyone CLAIM to KNOW what started it all?"
    Quote:
    Isn't accepting that you don't actually know for certain more reasonable?

    no
    it just begs the question "How do you know that it can't be known?"


    LoL, let me rephrase it for you. Isn't accepting that you don't actually know for certain (at the moment, but maybe in the future, if you're patient, we'll know) more reasonable?
    and despite your rephrasing, the same problem still arises - how do you know that no one has arrived at that point of knowing (or do you reject such claims of knowledge because you know better?)
    Obviously wrote:
    punarmusiko wrote:
    So tell me what "evil" has god done?


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Wpia...elated&search=

    only watched about 2 minutes - is the rest of it full of cherry picked arguments like his first one?


    That's funny. Because these are passages christians avoid. And here was I thinking christians were the ones cherry picking what's right and what's wrong in the bible and claim afterwards they get their morals from the bible... Well, some theists claim so, but not all.
    Frankly I am not such a big fan of the bible, but even I could see how baseless his arguments were - there was a statement about a person couldn't pronounce a word and a statement about how tens of thousands of people were killed - It didn't say that they were killed because they couldn't pronounce the word, but that is the direction he took with his cherry picking
    Quote:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkXOw...elated&search=

    Proving the bible is repulsive?

    again only watched the first two minutes -- is the rest of it merely indicating how social norms have drifted from biblical ones?


    Yes, I believe so. But the bible is still the word of God, right?
    yes but there are also issues of time place and circumstance – in other words God is absolute in his position but in conditioned life we can be anywhere left of 3rd base, thus we practically see that scripture is composed of a variety of instructions for a variety of people in various degrees of ignorance – kind of like how medical texts are composed of a variety of instructions for a variety of people in various degrees of sickness
    - what instruction is relevant for who is determined through the agency of the expert – in the case of medicine it is the doctor and in the case of theism it is the saintly person
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    I don't need to be qualified in any certain field. I trust the results of those who work in those certain fields, because they know it a lot better than me.

    then its not clear why you don't trust advanced practitioners of theism - unless its merely a matter of your belief system


    Alternative Medicine, homeopathy, medival spiritualism, austrology which is supposed to work better than todays science... Is it wrong of me to feel worried for people who actually believe in alternative medicine?
    if your views are arrived at without addressing the nature of authorities in the said fields, yes it is wrong

    (in other words if you don't know the first thing about alternative medicine nor the incidents of it having results that allopathic practitioners could not achieve, yes you are arguing from the platform of biased ignorance)

    LoL

    Richard Dawkins, Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford,[4] defines alternative medicine as a "...set of practices which cannot be tested, refuse to be tested, or consistently fail tests. If a healing technique is demonstrated to have curative properties in properly controlled double-blind trials, it ceases to be alternative. It simply...becomes medicine."[5] He also states that "There is no alternative medicine. There is only medicine that works and medicine that doesn't work."[6]

    Yes, I got this from Wiki. Could I recommend watching Richard Dawkins "Enemies of Reason" ?



    They simply say for each new discovery "God did it" or something like that. Maybe not all theists, but some do.

    and "Nature did it" is somehow more illuminating?

    Especially when it's proven.
    so when it is said that life arose from matter, that is proven?

    If energy creates matter, and matter creates planets and such. Why should I not deduce that it is proven? Isn't it proven through abiogenesis and such?


    Logic helps us to understand our evidence and such. Like theories! They are logical conclusions based upon the facts and evidence provided. I looks as if you don't understand any of this Confused

    no
    logic works with concepts (also) - if you want to call those concepts "facts", (lol, misunderstanding. I never said logic was equivalent to facts) it doesn't help your logic any
    yes you did
    You said logic helps us understand evidence (indicated bold)
    logic does not help us understand evidence

    Really? So Darwins' theory wasn't based on logical understanding of the evidence?

    "
    for instance

    "I am hungry and my feet are warm therefore it is saturday" is a true statement but it is not at all logical statement


    So why bring that up?
    these are all evidential statements (I actually am hungry, my feet actually are warm and today actually is saturday)

    if you can call on logic to help you understand this evidence, please be my guest ....

    "I understand this is a coincidence" isn't a logical interpretation of the evidence?

    Quote:

    Nr... the rest?

    God is allknowing thus making it impossible for free will to exist. If we do something bad it is because God lets it happen, simple.

    so why is your knowing somehow separate from God's knowing?
    (or do you want to argue that you don't even know what you are doing?)


    Why can God simultaneously know what everyone is thinking at the same time? "No sir, that is not a crazy thought"
    even in mundane affairs its easy to understand how channels of communication can be monitored if the network is monopolized

    God can monitor every atom at every second. Isn't that complex and improbable, then I don't know what is.

    Quote:
    I usally go to attack christianity, simply because it's the biggest religion out there.

    quite a provincial statement there
    Do you mean out there in the world or out there on your street?


    Isn't christianity the biggest religion in the world?
    no
    it rates about 3rd
    (welcome to the world)

    So Wikipedia is wrong...

    With one estimate implying 2.1 billion adherents, or approximately 33% of the world's population in 2007,[3] Christianity is the world's largest religion. It is the predominant religion in Europe, the Americas, Southern Africa, the Philippines and Oceania.[4] It is also growing rapidly in Asia, particularly in China and South Korea, Africa and Middle East.[5]
    Quote:
    If you read the old testament, you'll see the cruelty of God. Why isn't God acting in such a manner today? There's probably a biblical explanation, I wouldn't know, but I do know that God died for our sins (Jesus). I might ask, what the hell was the point of showing of like that? Making a big scence. Rolling Eyes

    And what was that story again...? A man must sacrifice his child because God says so, then a angel comes to stop him in the last second. Try imagining the childs traumatic experience as God is using him for an experiment.
    and if god is the ultimate proprietor of everything and if we are ultimately eternal and if death of the body is merely a means of relocation within the universe, why do you have this problem?
    When was eternal souls and all this accepted as actual facts?
    I thought we were discussing concepts
    (Otherwise I could just turn around and ask you when was god not existing accepted as an actual fact - which would get us nowhere)

    True. If so, then no problem :wink:


    Quote:


    A wierd assumption, but still, it proves my misunderstanding that God created something from nothing wrong. But still, it's an assumption...

    Why should anyone CLAIM to KNOW what started it all?

    If you want to make claims like "God is a fantasy", you tell me ....

    God is not real, he's fantasy (oh noes. I just blasphemed the name of the lord. I can not be forgiven and will burn in Hell forever. Ups!)
    that still doesn't explain why you are exempt from tarring yourself with the same paintbrush with your "Why should anyone CLAIM to KNOW what started it all?"

    I just think we should try and discover/find out before assuming

    Quote:
    Isn't accepting that you don't actually know for certain more reasonable?

    no
    it just begs the question "How do you know that it can't be known?"


    LoL, let me rephrase it for you. Isn't accepting that you don't actually know for certain (at the moment, but maybe in the future, if you're patient, we'll know) more reasonable?
    and despite your rephrasing, the same problem still arises - how do you know that no one has arrived at that point of knowing (or do you reject such claims of knowledge because you know better?)

    I know because such "knowing" is defined crazy or just plain silly. IF there was someone who arrived at that point of knowing, he would have everything sorted out. He would have a Theory of Everything and all this. Only then would it sound probable. Without it it is just assumptions that doesn't solve anything.

    Obviously wrote:
    punarmusiko wrote:
    So tell me what "evil" has god done?


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Wpia...elated&search=

    only watched about 2 minutes - is the rest of it full of cherry picked arguments like his first one?


    That's funny. Because these are passages christians avoid. And here was I thinking christians were the ones cherry picking what's right and what's wrong in the bible and claim afterwards they get their morals from the bible... Well, some theists claim so, but not all.
    Frankly I am not such a big fan of the bible, but even I could see how baseless his arguments were - there was a statement about a person couldn't pronounce a word and a statement about how tens of thousands of people were killed - It didn't say that they were killed because they couldn't pronounce the word, but that is the direction he took with his cherry picking

    Oh, it was that video ^^ I meant to write this on the other video

    Quote:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkXOw...elated&search=

    Proving the bible is repulsive?

    again only watched the first two minutes -- is the rest of it merely indicating how social norms have drifted from biblical ones?


    Yes, I believe so. But the bible is still the word of God, right?
    yes but there are also issues of time place and circumstance – in other words God is absolute in his position but in conditioned life we can be anywhere left of 3rd base, thus we practically see that scripture is composed of a variety of instructions for a variety of people in various degrees of ignorance – kind of like how medical texts are composed of a variety of instructions for a variety of people in various degrees of sickness
    - what instruction is relevant for who is determined through the agency of the expert – in the case of medicine it is the doctor and in the case of theism it is the saintly person

    So text that encourages people to kill other people who don't believe in Jesus for.example is ok?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    How about me and you, punarmusiko, get a private thread? :wink:

    ... Or we could make a new topic where we discuss furthermore?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Obviously

    Alternative Medicine, homeopathy, medival spiritualism, austrology which is supposed to work better than todays science... Is it wrong of me to feel worried for people who actually believe in alternative medicine?

    if your views are arrived at without addressing the nature of authorities in the said fields, yes it is wrong

    (in other words if you don't know the first thing about alternative medicine nor the incidents of it having results that allopathic practitioners could not achieve, yes you are arguing from the platform of biased ignorance)

    LoL

    Richard Dawkins, Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford,[4] defines alternative medicine as a "...set of practices which cannot be tested, refuse to be tested, or consistently fail tests. If a healing technique is demonstrated to have curative properties in properly controlled double-blind trials, it ceases to be alternative. It simply...becomes medicine."[5] He also states that "There is no alternative medicine. There is only medicine that works and medicine that doesn't work."[6]
    do a google

    Yes, I got this from Wiki. Could I recommend watching Richard Dawkins "Enemies of Reason" ?
    needless to say, the neutrality of the wiki page has been disputed



    Quote:

    They simply say for each new discovery "God did it" or something like that. Maybe not all theists, but some do.

    and "Nature did it" is somehow more illuminating?

    Especially when it's proven.

    so when it is said that life arose from matter, that is proven?

    If energy creates matter, and matter creates planets and such. Why should I not deduce that it is proven? Isn't it proven through abiogenesis and such?
    abiogenesis is proven?
    wtf -lol

    Quote:

    Logic helps us to understand our evidence and such. Like theories! They are logical conclusions based upon the facts and evidence provided. I looks as if you don't understand any of this Confused

    no
    logic works with concepts (also) - if you want to call those concepts "facts", (lol, misunderstanding. I never said logic was equivalent to facts) it doesn't help your logic any

    yes you did
    You said logic helps us understand evidence (indicated bold)
    logic does not help us understand evidence

    Really? So Darwins' theory wasn't based on logical understanding of the evidence?
    no - that's why it remains a theory
    "
    Quote:

    for instance

    "I am hungry and my feet are warm therefore it is saturday" is a true statement but it is not at all logical statement

    So why bring that up?

    these are all evidential statements (I actually am hungry, my feet actually are warm and today actually is saturday)

    if you can call on logic to help you understand this evidence, please be my guest ....

    "I understand this is a coincidence" isn't a logical interpretation of the evidence?
    logic is applied to concepts - whether you want to call the concepts evidence or not doesn't change anything
    (for instance a re-examination of the evidence may reveal it is not a coincidence - in other words the conceptual basis of "evidence" may change despite the evidence not undergoing any changes)
    Quote:

    Quote:

    Nr... the rest?

    God is allknowing thus making it impossible for free will to exist. If we do something bad it is because God lets it happen, simple.

    so why is your knowing somehow separate from God's knowing?
    (or do you want to argue that you don't even know what you are doing?)

    Why can God simultaneously know what everyone is thinking at the same time? "No sir, that is not a crazy thought"

    even in mundane affairs its easy to understand how channels of communication can be monitored if the network is monopolized

    God can monitor every atom at every second. Isn't that complex and improbable, then I don't know what is.
    complex and improbable for you, but then using yourself as a yardstick for determining the potency of god is the height of absurdity
    Quote:

    Quote:
    I usally go to attack christianity, simply because it's the biggest religion out there.

    quite a provincial statement there
    Do you mean out there in the world or out there on your street?

    Isn't christianity the biggest religion in the world?

    no
    it rates about 3rd
    (welcome to the world)

    So Wikipedia is wrong...
    lol



    A wierd assumption, but still, it proves my misunderstanding that God created something from nothing wrong. But still, it's an assumption...

    Why should anyone CLAIM to KNOW what started it all?

    If you want to make claims like "God is a fantasy", you tell me ....

    God is not real, he's fantasy (oh noes. I just blasphemed the name of the lord. I can not be forgiven and will burn in Hell forever. Ups!)

    that still doesn't explain why you are exempt from tarring yourself with the same paintbrush with your "Why should anyone CLAIM to KNOW what started it all?"

    I just think we should try and discover/find out before assuming
    too late - you already assume god is a fantasy
    Quote:

    Quote:
    Isn't accepting that you don't actually know for certain more reasonable?

    no
    it just begs the question "How do you know that it can't be known?"

    LoL, let me rephrase it for you. Isn't accepting that you don't actually know for certain (at the moment, but maybe in the future, if you're patient, we'll know) more reasonable?


    and despite your rephrasing, the same problem still arises - how do you know that no one has arrived at that point of knowing (or do you reject such claims of knowledge because you know better?)

    I know because such "knowing" is defined crazy or just plain silly. IF there was someone who arrived at that point of knowing, he would have everything sorted out. He would have a Theory of Everything and all this. Only then would it sound probable. Without it it is just assumptions that doesn't solve anything.
    so once again (sigh) how do you know that everything isn't sorted out


    Quote:

    Quote:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkXOw...elated&search=

    Proving the bible is repulsive?

    again only watched the first two minutes -- is the rest of it merely indicating how social norms have drifted from biblical ones?

    Yes, I believe so. But the bible is still the word of God, right?


    yes but there are also issues of time place and circumstance – in other words God is absolute in his position but in conditioned life we can be anywhere left of 3rd base, thus we practically see that scripture is composed of a variety of instructions for a variety of people in various degrees of ignorance – kind of like how medical texts are composed of a variety of instructions for a variety of people in various degrees of sickness
    - what instruction is relevant for who is determined through the agency of the expert – in the case of medicine it is the doctor and in the case of theism it is the saintly person

    So text that encourages people to kill other people who don't believe in Jesus for.example is ok?
    once again, to work out that you would have to approach the agency of the expert, who in this case happens to be jesus - figure it out ....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Obviously

    Alternative Medicine, homeopathy, medival spiritualism, austrology which is supposed to work better than todays science... Is it wrong of me to feel worried for people who actually believe in alternative medicine?

    if your views are arrived at without addressing the nature of authorities in the said fields, yes it is wrong

    (in other words if you don't know the first thing about alternative medicine nor the incidents of it having results that allopathic practitioners could not achieve, yes you are arguing from the platform of biased ignorance)

    LoL

    Richard Dawkins, Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford,[4] defines alternative medicine as a "...set of practices which cannot be tested, refuse to be tested, or consistently fail tests. If a healing technique is demonstrated to have curative properties in properly controlled double-blind trials, it ceases to be alternative. It simply...becomes medicine."[5] He also states that "There is no alternative medicine. There is only medicine that works and medicine that doesn't work."[6]
    do a google

    Yes, I got this from Wiki. Could I recommend watching Richard Dawkins "Enemies of Reason" ?
    needless to say, the neutrality of the wiki page has been disputed



    Quote:

    They simply say for each new discovery "God did it" or something like that. Maybe not all theists, but some do.

    and "Nature did it" is somehow more illuminating?

    Especially when it's proven.

    so when it is said that life arose from matter, that is proven?

    If energy creates matter, and matter creates planets and such. Why should I not deduce that it is proven? Isn't it proven through abiogenesis and such?
    abiogenesis is proven?
    wtf -lol

    Quote:

    Logic helps us to understand our evidence and such. Like theories! They are logical conclusions based upon the facts and evidence provided. I looks as if you don't understand any of this Confused

    no
    logic works with concepts (also) - if you want to call those concepts "facts", (lol, misunderstanding. I never said logic was equivalent to facts) it doesn't help your logic any

    yes you did
    You said logic helps us understand evidence (indicated bold)
    logic does not help us understand evidence

    Really? So Darwins' theory wasn't based on logical understanding of the evidence?
    no - that's why it remains a theory
    "
    Quote:

    for instance

    "I am hungry and my feet are warm therefore it is saturday" is a true statement but it is not at all logical statement

    So why bring that up?

    these are all evidential statements (I actually am hungry, my feet actually are warm and today actually is saturday)

    if you can call on logic to help you understand this evidence, please be my guest ....

    "I understand this is a coincidence" isn't a logical interpretation of the evidence?
    logic is applied to concepts - whether you want to call the concepts evidence or not doesn't change anything
    (for instance a re-examination of the evidence may reveal it is not a coincidence - in other words the conceptual basis of "evidence" may change despite the evidence not undergoing any changes)
    Quote:

    Quote:

    Nr... the rest?

    God is allknowing thus making it impossible for free will to exist. If we do something bad it is because God lets it happen, simple.

    so why is your knowing somehow separate from God's knowing?
    (or do you want to argue that you don't even know what you are doing?)

    Why can God simultaneously know what everyone is thinking at the same time? "No sir, that is not a crazy thought"

    even in mundane affairs its easy to understand how channels of communication can be monitored if the network is monopolized

    God can monitor every atom at every second. Isn't that complex and improbable, then I don't know what is.
    complex and improbable for you, but then using yourself as a yardstick for determining the potency of god is the height of absurdity
    Quote:

    Quote:
    I usally go to attack christianity, simply because it's the biggest religion out there.

    quite a provincial statement there
    Do you mean out there in the world or out there on your street?

    Isn't christianity the biggest religion in the world?

    no
    it rates about 3rd
    (welcome to the world)

    So Wikipedia is wrong...
    lol



    A wierd assumption, but still, it proves my misunderstanding that God created something from nothing wrong. But still, it's an assumption...

    Why should anyone CLAIM to KNOW what started it all?

    If you want to make claims like "God is a fantasy", you tell me ....

    God is not real, he's fantasy (oh noes. I just blasphemed the name of the lord. I can not be forgiven and will burn in Hell forever. Ups!)

    that still doesn't explain why you are exempt from tarring yourself with the same paintbrush with your "Why should anyone CLAIM to KNOW what started it all?"

    I just think we should try and discover/find out before assuming
    too late - you already assume god is a fantasy
    Quote:

    Quote:
    Isn't accepting that you don't actually know for certain more reasonable?

    no
    it just begs the question "How do you know that it can't be known?"

    LoL, let me rephrase it for you. Isn't accepting that you don't actually know for certain (at the moment, but maybe in the future, if you're patient, we'll know) more reasonable?


    and despite your rephrasing, the same problem still arises - how do you know that no one has arrived at that point of knowing (or do you reject such claims of knowledge because you know better?)

    I know because such "knowing" is defined crazy or just plain silly. IF there was someone who arrived at that point of knowing, he would have everything sorted out. He would have a Theory of Everything and all this. Only then would it sound probable. Without it it is just assumptions that doesn't solve anything.
    so once again (sigh) how do you know that everything isn't sorted out


    Quote:

    Quote:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkXOw...elated&search=

    Proving the bible is repulsive?

    again only watched the first two minutes -- is the rest of it merely indicating how social norms have drifted from biblical ones?

    Yes, I believe so. But the bible is still the word of God, right?


    yes but there are also issues of time place and circumstance – in other words God is absolute in his position but in conditioned life we can be anywhere left of 3rd base, thus we practically see that scripture is composed of a variety of instructions for a variety of people in various degrees of ignorance – kind of like how medical texts are composed of a variety of instructions for a variety of people in various degrees of sickness
    - what instruction is relevant for who is determined through the agency of the expert – in the case of medicine it is the doctor and in the case of theism it is the saintly person

    So text that encourages people to kill other people who don't believe in Jesus for.example is ok?
    once again, to work out that you would have to approach the agency of the expert, who in this case happens to be jesus - figure it out ....
    This is so pointless...

    Ok, I give up! You win the discussion. This is getting pretty boring now so you win. I see no point in responding to this
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Guest
    There is a God! :P
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    There is a God! :P
    Yes, and he has shown me that some things are just not worth responding to...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    There is a God! :P
    AND IT IS ME, BOW DOWN BEFORE ME AND PROCLAIM THYSELF STUPID AND IGNORANT WHILST I WATCH YOU MURDER EACH OTHER FOR ENTERTAINMENT
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Guest
    I don't believe in you, God. Does that mean you'll now suffer a horrible and complete destruction due to nobody believing in ye? ;P
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    I don't believe in you, God. Does that mean you'll now suffer a horrible and complete destruction due to nobody believing in ye? ;P
    NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, GOD DAMN YOU (HMMMMMM THE IRONY OF ITTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT) *Fades into nothingness* :wink:
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Roflmao
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Guest
    I killed God
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    How about this:

    God is conscious. Consciousness is shown through living organisms. So God must be a living thing (if you don't assume rocks and sticks has some form of consciousness).

    God is omnipotent (if not then he wouldn't be God).

    He's omniscient, maybe because he's omnipresent (he's omnipresent due to the "fact" that he defies time).

    A lifeform cannot defy time. Time is not something, it's just a word of description. We can only live in the present (now).

    Now God cannot be omnipresent, because that would be highly unlikely.

    God is now omnipotent and omniscient.

    Omniscience is a wierd claim and doesn't make to much sense, and God can't be omnipotent, because that is also highly unlikely (after all he is a lifeform).

    So God is supposedly the reason for the universe, the creator if you like. But, it is a logical fallacy to assume that a complex lifeform is the reason for our universe (remember, God isn't eternal anymore, so where did God come from?) Backward thinking is a logical fallacy. You can't assume that complexity is the FIRST thing to ever be. Complexity comes from simplicity, logically and naturally. If you think the other way you will have a infinite loop of more and more complex explanations. This violates Occam's razor thus proving that God isn't a good enough explanation.

    God is now a problematic existence, hence a problematic explanation for the origin of the universe thus proving a logical fallacy.

    Ergo (hold your breath, here it comes)

    God does not exist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    The only thing theists can discuss here is consciousness. But they will have to assume that everything, living and not, is conscious if they want God to still have a chance.

    I believe that to violates Occam's razor in some extent...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Proove He or any of His Kingdom or His works does not exist then.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    Proove He or any of His Kingdom or His works does not exist then.
    Why?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by svwillmer
    Proove He or any of His Kingdom or His works does not exist then.
    Equally you could say "Prove that they DO exist using scientific fact"
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    I knew you'd say that lol I have an answer, we are here are we not.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    No comments on my post?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Sophomore Pikkhaud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    140
    The only thing that has backed that up is infact abiogenesis and evolution. In those two theorys you can find scientific evidence for how we came to life and how be came to evolve.
    In the bible it says:

    26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

    27 So God created man in his own image,
    in the image of God he created him;
    male and female he created them.

    28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

    Now you can't find any other evidence then this to prove that god created us, but if you find a nother source of scientific evidence that this is true then by all means post it. and I do not want any stupid ID theorys for it is very flawed as stated by obviously.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by Pikkhaud
    The only thing that has backed that up is infact abiogenesis and evolution. In those two theorys you can find scientific evidence for how we came to life and how be came to evolve.
    In the bible it says:

    26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

    27 So God created man in his own image,
    in the image of God he created him;
    male and female he created them.

    28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

    Now you can't find any other evidence then this to prove that god created us, but if you find a nother source of scientific evidence that this is true then by all means post it. and I do not want any stupid ID theorys for it is very flawed as stated by obviously.
    sorry pik it's called a generic fallacy the same source cannot be used to verify itself.
    you need an aternative source, else it can only be deemed as hearsay.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    I think geezer misunderstood, pikkhaud. He was not suggesting that the verses he quoted were proof of God's creation, but saying that if those versus are the only proof, it s not adequate.

    I would not disagree with pikkhaud. There is no evidence in those verses. Their purpose is to explain some of the reasoning behind God's purpose in creating humans.

    They say that we are, in some way, similar to God, that there are males and females and that humans are the dominant life form on earth.

    It would seem, since we do not know what God looks like, that the "image" factor may relate to something other than a visually perceived quality. I do not see what's disputable in the other verses -- we do come in male and female and we do seem to be the dominant life form.

    Those who believe that the universe and life forms were created by God do so based on their faith and beleif that God exists. For us (the believers) that is enough evidence.

    So while the rest of humanity keeps (unsuccesfully) hunting for the answers to these enigmask, believers do not struggle with those issues.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    How about this:

    God is conscious. Consciousness is shown through living organisms. So God must be a living thing (if you don't assume rocks and sticks has some form of consciousness).

    God is omnipotent (if not then he wouldn't be God).

    He's omniscient, maybe because he's omnipresent (he's omnipresent due to the "fact" that he defies time).

    A lifeform cannot defy time. Time is not something, it's just a word of description. We can only live in the present (now).

    Now God cannot be omnipresent, because that would be highly unlikely.

    God is now omnipotent and omniscient.

    Omniscience is a wierd claim and doesn't make to much sense, and God can't be omnipotent, because that is also highly unlikely (after all he is a lifeform).

    So God is supposedly the reason for the universe, the creator if you like. But, it is a logical fallacy to assume that a complex lifeform is the reason for our universe (remember, God isn't eternal anymore, so where did God come from?) Backward thinking is a logical fallacy. You can't assume that complexity is the FIRST thing to ever be. Complexity comes from simplicity, logically and naturally. If you think the other way you will have a infinite loop of more and more complex explanations. This violates Occam's razor thus proving that God isn't a good enough explanation.

    God is now a problematic existence, hence a problematic explanation for the origin of the universe thus proving a logical fallacy.

    Ergo (hold your breath, here it comes)

    God does not exist.
    Do believers have a problem with this post? Because I think I managed to disprove God completely here... or not?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Not. Obviously.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Not. Obviously.
    Why isn't this good enough?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Sophomore Pikkhaud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by Pikkhaud
    The only thing that has backed that up is infact abiogenesis and evolution. In those two theorys you can find scientific evidence for how we came to life and how be came to evolve.
    In the bible it says:

    26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

    27 So God created man in his own image,
    in the image of God he created him;
    male and female he created them.

    28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

    Now you can't find any other evidence then this to prove that god created us, but if you find a nother source of scientific evidence that this is true then by all means post it. and I do not want any stupid ID theorys for it is very flawed as stated by obviously.
    sorry pik it's called a generic fallacy the same source cannot be used to verify itself.
    you need an aternative source, else it can only be deemed as hearsay.
    I ment not to prove god by those sentensec, you got me all wrong I just quoted the bible and the verses that say how god suposably created the earth.

    I am and atheist and believer of evolution and abiogenesis. I was just hoping that some might be able to pull oout a new source from their arse.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by Pikkhaud
    I am and atheist and believer of evolution and abiogenesis. I was just hoping that some might be able to pull oout a new source from their arse.
    ok, my bad please accept my apologies.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Obviously --

    Not sufficient because it did not convince me. What you think is obviously correct, is, to the same degree, obviously incorrect to some others.

    Just because you say something is unlikely in your way of thinking does not preclude it from being considered likely by others. Not sure how old you are, but most of us learn at a young age, that not everyone agrees with us.

    It is ironic that you, and others who have similar views, somehow believe that you can eliminate God by out-thinking Him. If God does not exist, then your intellectual games with Him are in vain. If God does exist, then your intellectual games with him are futile.

    The fact that you think about it would indicate that you have some concerns about God's existence. So, what would it mean if God does exist. Have you ever thought of that?
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Obviously --

    Not sufficient because it did not convince me. What you think is obviously correct, is, to the same degree, obviously incorrect to some others.

    Just because you say something is unlikely in your way of thinking does not preclude it from being considered likely by others. Not sure how old you are, but most of us learn at a young age, that not everyone agrees with us.

    It is ironic that you, and others who have similar views, somehow believe that you can eliminate God by out-thinking Him. If God does not exist, then your intellectual games with Him are in vain. If God does exist, then your intellectual games with him are futile.

    The fact that you think about it would indicate that you have some concerns about God's existence. So, what would it mean if God does exist. Have you ever thought of that?
    Of course I have concerns! Superstitious belief can lead to things like arrogance and ignorance (take creationists for example). I am concerned for the well being of people who thinks alternative medicine works better than properly tested and good medicine. Belief, in my point of view, is a start of a so called slippery slope. I am concerned because I see what belief makes one capable of. It is an intellectual challenge to convince people that the world doesn't revolve around them, people have a tendency to believe almost anything these days. These days where fingerprints of science is seen everywhere. I do enjoy talking about philosophy, science, ethics and God. I think my opinion upon God matters, and I think it's important that people who has dogmatic belief or slightly prejudice thoughts (for example "You must pity those who doesn't know God. For they will burn in Hell" "We are more enlightened" etc) knows what I think of their belief. I don't waste my time on God my friend :wink: God is very central in todays belief, and I think it's important to hold on to those who are about to fall down that slippery slope of dogmatic belief.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Obviously

    How about this:

    God is conscious. Consciousness is shown through living organisms.
    first you have to establish that consciousness is contingent on the material body it inhabits - a good way to do this is to take a dead body and make it alive (by chemical adjustment) - goodluck
    So God must be a living thing (if you don't assume rocks and sticks has some form of consciousness).
    you work on the assumption that one can take rocks and sticks (aka chemicals) and make life - once again - goodluck

    God is omnipotent (if not then he wouldn't be God).

    He's omniscient, maybe because he's omnipresent (he's omnipresent due to the "fact" that he defies time).

    A lifeform cannot defy time. Time is not something, it's just a word of description. We can only live in the present (now).[


    Now God cannot be omnipresent, because that would be highly unlikely.
    all you have proved is that someone like you (ie insignificant in the universe) cannot call upon their own power to surmount time, therefore someone like you cannot be god - well I guess that is a good argument for you not being god ......
    God is now omnipotent and omniscient.

    Omniscience is a wierd claim and doesn't make to much sense, and God can't be omnipotent, because that is also highly unlikely (after all he is a lifeform).
    you have already provided a suitable argument why you are not god - no need to continue with more really ....
    So God is supposedly the reason for the universe, the creator if you like. But, it is a logical fallacy to assume that a complex lifeform is the reason for our universe (remember, God isn't eternal anymore, so where did God come from?)
    no more a logical fallacy than accepting a simple lifeform as the reason for our universe (even if you don't want to give god the status of eternality, that merely begs the question of what was the eternal "thing/substance" that created the universe - which in turn just opens more perplexing questions)

    Backward thinking is a logical fallacy. You can't assume that complexity is the FIRST thing to ever be.
    I take it simplicity is your preferred logical fallacy of choice?

    Complexity comes from simplicity, logically and naturally.
    unfortunately, logic is not sufficient to determine truth, mainly because logical statements can still house untruthful premises
    eg
    all pigs can fly
    all pigs are horses
    therefore all horses can fly

    and if you want to argue it is the "natural" conclusion I guess you had better get your backside into a science lab and provide peer reviewed evidence of abiogenesis or retract your statements

    If you think the other way you will have a infinite loop of more and more complex explanations.
    only if we use insignificant persons similar to your self as prototypes for discerning the nature of god
    This violates Occam's razor thus proving that God isn't a good enough explanation.
    didn't your mother ever tell you to be careful that you don't cut yourself when you pick up something sharp?
    God is now a problematic existence, hence a problematic explanation for the origin of the universe thus proving a logical fallacy.
    meanwhile science cannot indicate a single thing in the universe and determine what it ultimately is or where it ultimately came from ....

    Ergo (hold your breath, here it comes)

    God does not exist.
    sorry - time to go back to the drawing board I'm afraid
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    You know punarmusiko, if you want to discuss with me on this I suggest we get our own topic :wink: Because when we start to discuss we end up making such long posts and stuff... Should I make the topic?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83 GOD EXIST 100 % : It's ALLAH, Show the proof!!! 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    115
    Excuse me
    Would you stop for a moment?!
    Haven't you thought-one day- about yourself?
    Who has made it?
    Have you seen a design which hasn't a designer?
    Have you seen a wonderful,delicate work without a worker?
    It's you and the whole universe..
    Who has made them all ?!!l
    You know who ?.. It's "ALLAH",prise be to him
    Just think for a moment
    How are you going to be after death ?!
    Can you believe that this exact system of the universe and all of these great creation will end in nothing...just after death
    Have you thought, for a second, How to save your soul from Allah's punishment ?
    Haven't you thought about what is the right religion?!
    Here you will get the answer


    http://www.anashed.net/flash/lastb_reath.swf
    http://www.todayislam.com/
    http://www.islam-guide.com
    http://www.sultan.org
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84 Re: GOD EXIST 100 % : It's ALLAH, Show the proof!!! 
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by sherif003
    Excuse me
    Would you stop for a moment?!
    Haven't you thought-one day- about yourself?
    Who has made it?
    Have you seen a design which hasn't a designer?
    Have you seen a wonderful,delicate work without a worker?
    It's you and the whole universe..
    Who has made them all ?!!l
    You know who ?.. It's "ALLAH",prise be to him
    Just think for a moment
    How are you going to be after death ?!
    Can you believe that this exact system of the universe and all of these great creation will end in nothing...just after death
    Have you thought, for a second, How to save your soul from Allah's punishment ?
    Haven't you thought about what is the right religion?!
    Here you will get the answer


    http://www.anashed.net/flash/lastb_reath.swf
    http://www.todayislam.com/
    http://www.islam-guide.com
    http://www.sultan.org
    Do you think evolution is true?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    I am concerned for the well being of people who thinks alternative medicine works better than properly tested and good medicine
    Oh heck no - the vast majority of creationists, IDers, YECs, anti-evolutionists will glady accept conventional medicine including those firmly grounded in the theory of evolution (like antibiotics) in one minute, then post the next minute on the internet about how evolution is wrong and how scientists don't know what they're doing.
    I don't see too many people relying on prayer for their healing but I suggest they put their money (or their faith) where their mouth is. After all if but a mustard seed of faith can move a mountain (according to the Bible), then surely the certainty of their faith can cure the sniffles.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Neutrino - well put.

    If God created us, why do some people who love God devoutly, want to change us?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    I am concerned for the well being of people who thinks alternative medicine works better than properly tested and good medicine
    Not necessarily creationists :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    You know punarmusiko, if you want to discuss with me on this I suggest we get our own topic :wink: Because when we start to discuss we end up making such long posts and stuff... Should I make the topic?
    naah

    you are probably too much of a wimp to hang in for a thread discussion

    better i just follow you with a pair of shoes and slap you silly every time you say something goofy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    better i just follow you with a pair of shoes and slap you silly every time you say something goofy
    then it would best to kick yourself in the head with the same shoes, you've not said anything of any sense since you joined here. LG
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    better i just follow you with a pair of shoes and slap you silly every time you say something goofy
    then it would best to kick yourself in the head with the same shoes, you've not said anything of any sense since you joined here. LG
    as your comment suggests, you haven't said anything outside of your own egotistic opinions

    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    better i just follow you with a pair of shoes and slap you silly every time you say something goofy
    then it would best to kick yourself in the head with the same shoes, you've not said anything of any sense since you joined here. LG
    as your comment suggests, you haven't said anything outside of your own egotistic opinions


    punarmusiko, the fact that you don't know what logic is, and that you think you're smarter than you are, makes you an arrogant and ignorant person. That's why our discussions never end. You refuse to acknowledge defeat even when it's clear that you've been defeated. Your response to my last posts made no points, they were all nonsensical and were often based on personal incredulity.

    Logic

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    first you have to establish that consciousness is contingent on the material body it inhabits - a good way to do this is to take a dead body and make it alive (by chemical adjustment) - goodluck
    Personal incredulity.

    "I can't imagine consciousness being a product of biology (even though everything points out it is), therefore it must be something mystical. I mean, you can't disprove that consciousness is something mystical."

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    you work on the assumption that one can take rocks and sticks (aka chemicals) and make life - once again - goodluck
    Personal incredulity. Origin of Life

    "I can't imagine life forming from nonliving material, therefore it can't be true! Something supernatural must be the cause!"

    ... is basically what you're saying.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Obviously
    punarmusiko, the fact that you don't know what logic is, and that you think you're smarter than you are, makes you an arrogant and ignorant person. That's why our discussions never end. You refuse to acknowledge defeat even when it's clear that you've been defeated. Your response to my last posts made no points, they were all nonsensical and were often based on personal incredulity.

    Logic
    I could also write a spiel how i would be embarrassed to have you stick to my shoe and tag a link to logic ... but it wouldn't make for a logical argument
    (*slaps with shoe*)
    punarmusiko wrote:
    first you have to establish that consciousness is contingent on the material body it inhabits - a good way to do this is to take a dead body and make it alive (by chemical adjustment) - goodluck


    Personal incredulity.

    "I can't imagine consciousness being a product of biology (even though everything points out it is), therefore it must be something mystical. I mean, you can't disprove that consciousness is something mystical."
    lol - no need to reiterate my words when they are already there
    just because you can imagine that biology can establish consciousness as contingent on matter it doesn't mean that it is - that is why the authority of science rests on peer reviewing
    (*slaps with shoe*)
    punarmusiko wrote:
    you work on the assumption that one can take rocks and sticks (aka chemicals) and make life - once again - goodluck


    Personal incredulity. Origin of Life
    and the next question is whether the nature of abiogenesis remains a theoretical concept or has it been peer reviewed ...
    (*slaps with shoe*)
    "I can't imagine life forming from nonliving material, therefore it can't be true! Something supernatural must be the cause!"

    ... is basically what you're saying.
    in the absence of peer reviewing it appears you are talking about your imagination actually
    (*slaps with shoe*)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Obviously
    punarmusiko, the fact that you don't know what logic is, and that you think you're smarter than you are, makes you an arrogant and ignorant person. That's why our discussions never end. You refuse to acknowledge defeat even when it's clear that you've been defeated. Your response to my last posts made no points, they were all nonsensical and were often based on personal incredulity.

    Logic
    I could also write a spiel how i would be embarrassed to have you stick to my shoe and tag a link to logic ... but it wouldn't make for a logical argument
    (*slaps with shoe*)
    punarmusiko wrote:
    first you have to establish that consciousness is contingent on the material body it inhabits - a good way to do this is to take a dead body and make it alive (by chemical adjustment) - goodluck


    Personal incredulity.

    "I can't imagine consciousness being a product of biology (even though everything points out it is), therefore it must be something mystical. I mean, you can't disprove that consciousness is something mystical."
    lol - no need to reiterate my words when they are already there
    just because you can imagine that biology can establish consciousness as contingent on matter it doesn't mean that it is - that is why the authority of science rests on peer reviewing
    (*slaps with shoe*)
    punarmusiko wrote:
    you work on the assumption that one can take rocks and sticks (aka chemicals) and make life - once again - goodluck


    Personal incredulity. Origin of Life
    and the next question is whether the nature of abiogenesis remains a theoretical concept or has it been peer reviewed ...
    (*slaps with shoe*)
    "I can't imagine life forming from nonliving material, therefore it can't be true! Something supernatural must be the cause!"

    ... is basically what you're saying.
    in the absence of peer reviewing it appears you are talking about your imagination actually
    (*slaps with shoe*)
    Sigh...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    "I can't imagine life forming from nonliving material, therefore it can't be true! Something supernatural must be the cause!"

    ... is basically what you're saying.
    in the absence of peer reviewing it appears you are talking about your imagination actually
    (*slaps with shoe*)
    punarmusiko, the concept of abiogenesis is wholly accepted by those segments of the science community for whom it is relevant. Thousands of research papers on different aspects of abiogenesis have been peer reviewed and published, including many in journals devoted largely to that topic.
    While the details of abiogenesis are not yet understood, the underlying principles are. Moreover, detailed hypotheses have been constructed that explore several different avenues by which the process may have occurred.
    While this is the religion forum, it is the religion forum on a science forum. Petulant attempts to ridicule the scientific method, either through ignorance or distaste, will not be long tolerated. Please present logical arguments, not, as Obviously pointed out, arguments based upon personal incredulity. Apart from being unacceptable as a form of debate, they merely make you look foolish.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Ophiolite
    punarmusiko, the concept of abiogenesis is wholly accepted by those segments of the science community for whom it is relevant.
    the only way for something to be wholly accepted in empiricism is for a claim to be evidenced
    Thousands of research papers on different aspects of abiogenesis have been peer reviewed and published, including many in journals devoted largely to that topic.
    I think you are mistaken
    there's not even a consensus on how abiogenesis could be possible, let alone peer reviewing of such claims

    While the details of abiogenesis are not yet understood, the underlying principles are.
    the difference between a guess and a fact lies in the details
    Moreover, detailed hypotheses have been constructed that explore several different avenues by which the process may have occurred.
    if after repeated attempts to test a perhaps/maybe it still remains a perhaps/maybe, what does that indicate?

    While this is the religion forum, it is the religion forum on a science forum. Petulant attempts to ridicule the scientific method, either through ignorance or distaste, will not be long tolerated. Please present logical arguments, not, as Obviously pointed out, arguments based upon personal incredulity.
    if you examine the philosophical foundations of empiricism you will see that it has its basis in being able to validate claims
    if there is no evidence for an empirical claim , it remains a theory and is thus subject to ridicule
    Apart from being unacceptable as a form of debate, they merely make you look foolish
    if you want to reinvent empirical standards to suit your values, it makes you dishonest
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    *Sings*

    Personal incredulity...! Personal Incredulity. Personal Incredulity...!

    ...

    (*slaps with shoe*)

    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Guest
    You've inadvertently annoyed me. I'm answering for Ophiolite here, if he doesn't mind.

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Ophiolite
    the only way for something to be wholly accepted in empiricism is for a claim to be evidenced
    I think you mean VERIFIED, perhaps "made valid", or any other proper word. "evidenced" isn't a word.

    To understand abiogenesis you need quite a few weeks (perhaps years) of study in chemistry, biology, and similar sciences. To claim it has no evidence shows complete and entire ignorance of the sciences.

    I think you are mistaken
    there's not even a consensus on how abiogenesis could be possible, let alone peer reviewing of such claims
    And I think you're a moron. But lets keep personal opinion out of this. Mainly the opinion that such a consensus doesn't exist. I can assure you with some simple searching, or perhaps research into scientific literature, will prove Ophiolite's point.

    Your response was equivalent to "NU UH!". There is never complete consensus on anything in the scientific body. To think so is again ignorance of the sciences.

    The more popular hypothesis of abiogenesis can be found very easily. Example here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

    the difference between a guess and a fact lies in the details
    You just proclaimed Quantum Physics a lie. Good job. I generally think it a good idea to cross-reference my rebukes and see if they make sense when applied to other subjects before I use them. You should do the same.


    if after repeated attempts to test a perhaps/maybe it still remains a perhaps/maybe, what does that indicate?
    At this point I would rather insult you than give some rational response. Your responses to Ophiolite become worse and worse.

    How about some examples of theories that took a while to validate?

    Hmm...EVERYTHING. Yeah. I'm not kidding either. Thousands upon thousands of theories started out as a "maybe", and some stayed that way for over a hundred years before technology and methods advanced enough to validate them.

    This tends to happen a lot. In fact Nuclear Fission is another being worked on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Jeremyhfht
    You've inadvertently annoyed me. I'm answering for Ophiolite here, if he doesn't mind.

    punarmusiko wrote:
    Ophiolite
    the only way for something to be wholly accepted in empiricism is for a claim to be evidenced


    I think you mean VERIFIED, perhaps "made valid", or any other proper word. "evidenced" isn't a word.
    whatever makes you happy
    To understand abiogenesis you need quite a few weeks (perhaps years) of study in chemistry, biology, and similar sciences. To claim it has no evidence shows complete and entire ignorance of the sciences.
    evidence culminates in being able to illustrate/verify/make valid/exhibit a claim
    for instance if I claim that X is composed of A, B and C, I should be able to take A,B and C and make X
    the fact that there is no consensus on what the A,B or C is in abiogeneis, what to speak of how these things are arranged to form life, indicates that going to university to learn about it will only be fruitful once the people teaching such a subject have a clear idea about it themselves

    Quote:

    I think you are mistaken
    there's not even a consensus on how abiogenesis could be possible, let alone peer reviewing of such claims


    And I think you're a moron. But lets keep personal opinion out of this. Mainly the opinion that such a consensus doesn't exist. I can assure you with some simple searching, or perhaps research into scientific literature, will prove Ophiolite's point.

    Your response was equivalent to "NU UH!". There is never complete consensus on anything in the scientific body. To think so is again ignorance of the sciences.
    so what is it then tRNA?
    pRNA?
    ppRNA? lol
    so
    The more popular hypothesis of abiogenesis can be found very easily. Example here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
    the info presented on the link offers 4 suggestions - 3 of which were axed from the arena of professional science not earlier than 30 years ago, and the info presented in the fourth is about 10 years behind where its at at the moment (the category has since fragmented up into no less than half a dozen other ideas eg PNA, TNA, tRNA, pRNA)
    Quote:

    the difference between a guess and a fact lies in the details


    You just proclaimed Quantum Physics a lie.
    incorrect

    I just proclaimed it as a guess
    Good job. I generally think it a good idea to cross-reference my rebukes and see if they make sense when applied to other subjects before I use them. You should do the same.
    given that there are at least 9 different schools in disagreement about the nature of quantum physics, I thought it was self evident

    Quote:

    if after repeated attempts to test a perhaps/maybe it still remains a perhaps/maybe, what does that indicate?


    At this point I would rather insult you than give some rational response.
    while it would be refreshing for you to change tactics in your post, i guess its almost at the end so you might as well roll on with your finale
    While it would be refreshing to see you change your tactics near the conclusion of your post, i guess if I have come this far so i can tolerate whatever you dish out for a finale

    Your responses to Ophiolite become worse and worse.

    How about some examples of theories that took a while to validate?
    ever wondered why the process of validating them enables such theories to take on a dimension that they hadn't hitherto experienced?
    Hmm...EVERYTHING. Yeah. I'm not kidding either. Thousands upon thousands of theories started out as a "maybe", and some stayed that way for over a hundred years before technology and methods advanced enough to validate them.

    This tends to happen a lot. In fact Nuclear Fission is another being worked on.
    Heliocentrism also had a bit in the making too
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    evidence culminates in being able to illustrate/verify/make valid/exhibit a claim
    for instance if I claim that X is composed of A, B and C, I should be able to take A,B and C and make X
    the fact that there is no consensus on what the A,B or C is in abiogeneis, what to speak of how these things are arranged to form life, indicates that going to university to learn about it will only be fruitful once the people teaching such a subject have a clear idea about it themselves
    Once again...out the window goes Quantum Physics I guess? You're forgetting that "X" took a few billion years for EARTH to accomplish. Give scientists that are studying this STILL QUITE RECENT field a chance to work it through.


    the info presented on the link offers 4 suggestions - 3 of which were axed from the arena of professional science not earlier than 30 years ago, and the info presented in the fourth is about 10 years behind where its at at the moment (the category has since fragmented up into no less than half a dozen other ideas eg PNA, TNA, tRNA, pRNA)
    Except...not. The information listed in the article contains CURRENT theories. None of which have been axed to my knowledge, or wikipedia would have stated so.

    I have one word for your claims: Source.

    incorrect

    I just proclaimed it as a guess
    So quantum physics is a guess. Do you listen to yourself?


    given that there are at least 9 different schools in disagreement about the nature of quantum physics, I thought it was self evident
    Once again you lack a source, but lets tackle this anyway. nature of quantum physics versus verifiability of quantum physics. The latter was the comparison I made to show how absurd your statements towards abiogenesis were.

    If your argument really is along the lines of "well there is DISAGREEMENT! Therefore it's WRONG!", then I'm just not going to bother replying anymore.

    ever wondered why the process of validating them enables such theories to take on a dimension that they hadn't hitherto experienced?
    I always love it when people attempt to obfuscate the meaning of their argument to the point where it's lost even to themselves...

    Enlighten me.


    Heliocentrism also had a bit in the making too
    Comparison to abiogenesis? APPLE. TO. BUICK. There is no comparison.

    God I'd love it if someone would stop making such ridiculous comparisons! Urgh!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Jeremyhfht

    punarmusiko wrote:
    evidence culminates in being able to illustrate/verify/make valid/exhibit a claim
    for instance if I claim that X is composed of A, B and C, I should be able to take A,B and C and make X
    the fact that there is no consensus on what the A,B or C is in abiogeneis, what to speak of how these things are arranged to form life, indicates that going to university to learn about it will only be fruitful once the people teaching such a subject have a clear idea about it themselves


    Once again...out the window goes Quantum Physics I guess? You're forgetting that "X" took a few billion years for EARTH to accomplish. Give scientists that are studying this STILL QUITE RECENT field a chance to work it through.
    then its not clear why you are demanding I ...

    To understand abiogenesis you need quite a few weeks (perhaps years) of study in chemistry, biology, and similar sciences. To claim it has no evidence shows complete and entire ignorance of the sciences.


    ... if it won't be appearing in the curriculum of scientific education for a few billion years (although how you you can determine it took a few billion years to occur when you don't even know what the essential ingredients were, what the atmosphere was like and what changes actually occurred and what was the first form of life that evolved is certainly a great feat of delusion)

    Quote:

    the info presented on the link offers 4 suggestions - 3 of which were axed from the arena of professional science not earlier than 30 years ago, and the info presented in the fourth is about 10 years behind where its at at the moment (the category has since fragmented up into no less than half a dozen other ideas eg PNA, TNA, tRNA, pRNA)


    Except...not. The information listed in the article contains CURRENT theories. None of which have been axed to my knowledge, or wikipedia would have stated so.
    lol - I wasn't aware that wiki had any intellectual credibility - for all I know that article could have been penned by you
    I have one word for your claims: Source.
    if you want to do some real research, just google the terms I gave
    Quote:

    incorrect

    I just proclaimed it as a guess


    So quantum physics is a guess. Do you listen to yourself?
    yes
    (BTW a guess is not a fact)

    Quote:

    given that there are at least 9 different schools in disagreement about the nature of quantum physics, I thought it was self evident


    Once again you lack a source,
    maybe you should take your own advice and study a bit of science

    a good place to start is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle


    but lets tackle this anyway. nature of quantum physics versus verifiability of quantum physics. The latter was the comparison I made to show how absurd your statements towards abiogenesis were.

    If your argument really is along the lines of "well there is DISAGREEMENT! Therefore it's WRONG!", then I'm just not going to bother replying anymore.
    lol - and your argument that because there is disagreement it is right is a welcome alternative?
    Quote:

    ever wondered why the process of validating them enables such theories to take on a dimension that they hadn't hitherto experienced?


    I always love it when people attempt to obfuscate the meaning of their argument to the point where it's lost even to themselves...

    Enlighten me.



    its quite simple really

    when a theory can be validated, it takes on new dimensions (particularly those of application) than what is possible for a theory that is not validated

    Quote:

    Heliocentrism also had a bit in the making too
    Wink


    Comparison to abiogenesis? APPLE. TO. BUICK. There is no comparison.

    God I'd love it if someone would stop making such ridiculous comparisons! Urgh!
    Once again its quite simple

    you said

    Thousands upon thousands of theories started out as a "maybe", and some stayed that way for over a hundred years before technology and methods advanced enough to validate them.


    just because the idea of abiogenesis is about 175 years old (if you want to credit it to Darwin) and its still "getting worked on" in no way means that it is a correct theory, since heliocentricism had over a thousand years of votes of confidence behind it before it got the axe

    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •