Wouldn't that make a god, bipolar?
Offline The god that's talked about in the bible certainly is manic, and prone to severe mood swings.
He comes off as a petulant tyrannical infantile.
What's with all his out of control rage issues?
He'd get arrested in this world.
And he would be a piss poor designer of anything practical.
Is that why he's supposedly jealous of other gods?
Because he just couldn't measure up in comparison?
So he'd create a band of fanboys and groupies that elect him #1?
Ya, that's some champ.
Whadda hero!
If he wanted his creations to follow a pattern, why would he design in a mechanism that could arbitrarily override his original pattern?
Just so he could get pissy over something?
That's retarded.
Ya, talk about working in 'mysterious' ways.
Is that an apologists euphemism for being drunk, or retarded?
What a drama queen.
Who would want to put up with that ch1t, let alone sign up for that?
And why is it that he wouldn't be able to control his emotions, and just 'get over it', when we do what we like?
What would have been his issue?
We didn't ask to be born, and we certainly didn't ask for free will. So why get pissy over something he would have been responsible for making us have?
As Hitchens says, "Of course I have free will. I had no choice!"
And if he gave us a gift (life), why would he want something in return?
Isn't "It's better to give than receive" supposed to be a virtue ?
Why justification for being petty, and wanting something in return, would he have?
That's not doing something out of the goodness of your heart.
It doesn't sound like he would actually have much heart at all.
The dude sounds like he'd have a lot of anger, some real dysfunction going on, and severe control issues.
And where would he get off on hurting people that aren't strong enough to put up a fight?
He'd be beating up on women and children?
Real tough guy.
Sound like he'd be a complete fcuking douchebag.
It sounds like this dude would be completely out of control, of his emotions, and actions.
Things that we humans are supposed to learn to control.
Sound like he would have been able to learn to be more 'human', and that he should take guidance from us.
And apologize to all of us for being so despicable, and all the insane ch1t he'd have done to us.
I don't think he'd be man enough.
He really would need to piss off, and leave the minions alone, if he were real. And I'm glad he's not, and just a fairy tale.
They could use some better role models.
Why aren't those minions looking at how we (humans) are infinitely better 'beings' than a freak like that would be?
WTF?
Glad he's not real.
That would be a nightmare...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
- Login to post comments
Pussy.
Happy now?
Will you engage in a sophisticated debate with me, in a thread specifically between you, me, and any other theists, either in person, or by proxy?
Yes, or no, Pussy?
Yes or no?
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
In the absence of all evidence, the default position logically is disbelief.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
You just said that a sound argument does not prove anything, but then you go on to declare that I'm committing fallacies.
Do you know what a 'fallacy' is?
It's when you put forth an argument that is not deductively valid
So you've just criticized me for putting forth a deductively invalid argument, even though you just declared that sound arguments do not prove anything.
You are batting 1000 tonight!
You have not put forth any sound or valid arguments for the existence of god. You have attempted to implement circular arguments by dodging the issue. You are also painting a strawman position of by stating that I wish to ignore logic. I said that philosophical exercises about the existence of god fall flat in the face of raw scientific data.
Either you have a valid evidence for god or you do not.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Will you answer the question that I asked initially?
Please stop feeding the troll.
If he continues to ignore my numerous challenges for a debate, then the mods should just delete account, for trolling.
Yes, or no to my challenge for you to debate me.
Yes, or no?
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
No. You said, and I quote, "A sound argument is not evidence. It is just a philosophical exercise."
I think I'll respond one more time and that's about it.
Zeno's paradoxes
Infinite processes remained theoretically troublesome in mathematics until the late 19th century. The epsilon-delta version of Weierstrass and Cauchy developed a rigorous formulation of the logic and calculus involved. These works resolved the mathematics involving infinite processes.[25]
While mathematics can be used to calculate where and when the moving Achilles will overtake the Tortoise of Zeno's paradox, philosophers such as Brown and Moorcroft[4][5] claim that mathematics does not address the central point in Zeno's argument, and that solving the mathematical issues does not solve every issue the paradoxes raise.
Zeno's arguments are often misrepresented in the popular literature. That is, Zeno is often said to have argued that the sum of an infinite number of terms must itself be infinite–that both the distance and the time to be travelled are infinite. However, Zeno's problem was not with finding the sum of an infinite sequence, but rather with finishing an infinite number of tasks: how can one ever get from A to B, if an infinite number of events can be identified that need to precede the arrival at B, and one cannot reach even the beginning of a "last event"?[4][5][6][26]
Today there is still a debate on the question of whether or not Zeno's paradoxes have been resolved. In The History of Mathematics, Burton writes, "Although Zeno's argument confounded his contemporaries, a satisfactory explanation incorporates a now-familiar idea, the notion of a 'convergent infinite series.'"[27] Bertrand Russell offered a "solution" to the paradoxes based on modern physics[citation needed], but Brown concludes "Given the history of 'final resolutions', from Aristotle onwards, it's probably foolhardy to think we've reached the end. It may be that Zeno's arguments on motion, because of their simplicity and universality, will always serve as a kind of 'Rorschach image' onto which people can project their most fundamental phenomenological concerns (if they have any)."[4]
In 1977,[28] physicists E. C. G. Sudarshan and B. Misra studying quantum mechanics discovered that the dynamical evolution (motion) of a quantum system can be hindered (or even inhibited) through observation of the system.[29] This effect is usually called the "quantum Zeno effect" as it is strongly reminiscent of Zeno's arrow paradox.
This effect was first theorized in 1958.[30]
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
Do not feed the troll.
I already said yes.
Now will you answer my question?
If you weren't going to stop responding, I'd ask you what your source is.
Perfect.
I'll set it up in the debate forum.
If you're going to ask the same question that you asked before, when I answered that you are going to have to take your chances, then my answer was already given.
There are no rules.
I'll take my chances, and you'll take your chances.
Those are the only conditions that I will debate under, if you want to debate me.
Is your answer still 'Yes'?
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
No rules? Sorry, not interested.
Do yourself a favor and seek help.
Put forth what you call a "sound" argument .
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Surely, if the time for each task also falls in proportion to the length travelled, it is no more of a problem that the summation of the distances.
It is addressed by the simple solution of the sum of an infinite geometric series, I don't see why once that is shown, and I had that in high school, there should be any issue with Zeno's stuff. There are no fixed tasks involved in any of the steps in the various scenarios, a far I am aware.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I vote that Red and Mr_Metaphysics get married and share a beautiful life together.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Your friend is a few french fries short of a happy meal.
Mr_Metaphysics,
I have a degree (with Honors) in Electrical Engineering.
I have working in computer programming for half my life, so I know the constraints of logic intimately. Computer programs do not forgive or overlook errors in logic.
Logic cannot prove that anything about the real world is true. It can only prove whether one set of propositions is or is not consistent with another, or self-consistent within itself.
It is an essential tool of empirical science, which is the only way to transcend to any useful degree the limitations of our senses. Use of instruments means that our senses only have to be sufficiently accurate to read dials ond other displays. Independent investigation allows us to establish higher degrees of confidence in our data and the associated analysis, to the extent that such independent observations and experiments agree.
Without reference to information, observations, from the real world, ie, empirical data, logic is just a series of IF a THEN b statements.
You are using a mass of technology developed with this kind of world-view to participate in this forum.
So don't spout of this nonsense of empiricism being 'self-refuting' - it is the opposite, it is self-reinforcing, as data accumulates, allowing us to discern what remains consistently in good agreement, and what seems to be mistaken.
It does not lead to 100% certain knowledge, but there are many techniques for establishing the justifiable level of confidence we can assume in any given theory or observation.
Your last response to me was a bunch of errors and misconceptions, so it is obviously fruitless to attempt to show you the deep error of your metaphysical world-view.
I used to read a lot of philosophy while studying for my degree, and for some years later, but then I grew up and got over it.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
He's arrogant and rude, not crazy. Your world-view is so removed from reality you think immaterial brains exist in some sort of ether and you devote a significant part of your free time in an attempt to prove that 'truth' with word games. You are also rude and arrogant.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
It does seem to be a kind of an oxymoron for people that talk to an invisible creature from another realm that controls all of the universe and is the sole reason that any of us even have a shred of morality and simultaneously is everywhere and nowhere to call anyone crazy.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Hi Bob I have enjoyed your posts. I've been on the board a week or so.
I think in my post I was mostly trying to show with the Wikipedia quote that the Zeno paradoxes, some 40 or so I think continue to "haunt" philosophy today. The article points out that there are many solutions to the effect they has on human thinking. But it also pointed out that the buggers continue to create discussion and debate (also a few recent books). The idea of tasks mentioned by the article runs like this example which I use mostly to fcuk with peoples heads
1) An object to reach the floor(a) must fall half the distance (A) before it falls the full distance to the floor (b)( the task ).
2 )At that point reached (A) the object has a distance to fall (b) so 1)
3)At any completion of the task (A) there is a distance so 1)
4)There will always be a distance after each "task" so there will always be another task before the floor is reached.
I think that is where that third section I quoted above was going as best as I can understand it.
Here's another article on the web at:
http://plus.maths.org/content/mathematical-mysteries-zenos-paradoxes
A bit of a quote reads:
As with Zeno's original version of Achilles, these arguments are based on the infinite divisibility of time, and the paradox that results can be seen to illustrating that time is not infinitely divisible in this way.
Interestingly, as mentioned above, the Achilles paradox was only one of 40 arguments Zeno is thought to have produced, and in another of his arguments called the Arrow, Zeno also shows that the assumption that the universe consists of finite, indivisible elements is apparently incorrect. So, here is where the real paradox of Zeno lies. In his arguments, he manages to show that the universe can neither be continuous (infinitely divisible) nor discrete (discontinuous, that is made up of finite,indivisible parts).
This seeming contradiction in the nature of reality is echoed by concepts from an area developed over 2000 years after Zeno lived, the Theory of Relativity. For example, light is now thought of as having a dual nature, behaving sometimes as a particle or photon (discrete), and at other times like a wave (continuous). In fact even Zeno's belief in monism - in a static, unchanging reality - which was the basis for his producing the arguments in the first place, seems oddly similar to cosmologists ideas about 'worldlines' (the 'history' of a particle in spacetime) where 'the entire history of each worldline already exists as a completed entity in the plenum of space time' (read more).
So Zeno's paradoxes still challenge our understanding of space and time, and these ancient arguments have surprising resonance with some of the most modern concepts in science.
I got a recent book or to but really haven't given them much attention. There seems to be a continuing debate since both standard and non-standard analysis solves the paradoxes. They both cannot be true of time and space: "either space has infinitesimal parts are it doesn't.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/
So I guess I'm not debating Zeno just explaining why I said he still "haunts' philosophy (and apparently the philosophical aspects of physics) today.
I have a swag guess that there may be some relation to Zeno thing with the way our minds work and the inability to determine both location and momentum at the same time in addition to the wave/particle duality mentioned above. At any rate I guess my posting was wasted by whom I posted it. And now I am frustrated in wanting to read more about the stuff. That would really be your fault
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
And yet when you point this out they blow you off like you're some kind of idiot.
Brian37 says it best.
Personally I think that when you're indoctrinated from a young age it never occurs to you how stupid the stuff you believe is. When I was still a theist I remember literally laughing at how silly all those other religions and the ridiculous things they believed. The irony never occurred to me while I was a theist.
I'm not sure how the thought process goes for an adult convert....how you get yourself into that head space without seeing how silly it all is.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
I can live with that.
He's a William Lane Craig wannabee.
Even a 14 yr old can easily pick apart their fallacies, false premises, non sequiturs, and completely demolish them intellectually, and hand them their ass on a plate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UU08OmOgkxo&feature=related
That's why boys like him, will always be the innovators, and leaders in the modern world.
Those who can, do, those who can't, teach.
Philosophy?
You've got a degree in philosophy?
Couldn't get a degree in anything that's objectively quantifiable, and material, huh?
Like mathematician John Forbes Nash, who's 'philosophies' were the basis of the 'Nash Equilibirum' and other mathematical models used in both economics, computers, and evolutionary biology.
Pffffft..
Every drunk considers himself a philosopher and logical.
Those terms are absolutely vacuous, in the reality.
All 100% fact.
Learn it.
Study it.
Accept it.
It can save your life, and the ones of those around you.
What Mr_Metaphysics, and those of his ilk, are so incredibly dim to not be able to foreshadow and model, is that even the most intuitive, seemingly incredibly logically consistent string of assumptions, based even on stringent analysis, and planning, can be catastrophically incorrect.
If one never saw empirical evidence of it happening before, it would be incredibly logically to assume that something so ductile and fluid, and with so little surface tension and hardness.... as water, could never carve through hundreds of feet of solid rock, even if it all tons or pressure, and had eternity to do so.
And they'd be dead wrong.
Reality would prove otherwise.
It's the same mistake man has repeated through millenia, with logical assumptions that 'man could never' fly like a bird, or breathe under water, or bring back people from the dead, or walk on the moon, or see into the heavens, appear in two places at the same time, et al...
Human logic and reality, are not mutually inclusive, nor are they often compatible.
Read up on the Titanic for some actual historical proof of that.
It's people like Mr_Metaphysics that get electrocuted to death by accident, by their stupid belief in the infallibility of human logic.
It always amuses me when a condescending, arrogant, obnoxious idiot like you starts bragging about his big dick logic, and turns out to only be able to demonstrate an itty bitty wannabee weenie logic in place of a actual robust big dick logic.
You think your degree in philosophy means dick in the real world of cold hard facts and brutal reality?
You're an utter fool.
I don't have any degrees, Mr. Look at my Big Dick, but I am the founder, president, and sole shareholder of one aerospace based company that specializes in rapid prototyping, 3D modeling and FEA structural anaysis, structural, and materials engineering, and another company that is an aerospace based R&D firm, which also extends into nanotechnology, that gets government grants to develop technologies.
People with multiple degrees in real sciences, and with IQ's over 180, rely on me, to consult with them.
I design and systems and technologies where human lives are at stake.
Sometimes hundreds, if not thousands.
You couldn't even qualify to compete with me, even if I was sleepy, undernourished, and drunk, all at the same time.
Which is why your such a pussy to debate me.
Your instinct is to eliminate anything that might demonstrate how incredibly infantile and low level your over-hyped sophistry actually is.
All show, and no go.
Typical poseur.
If I found out that a guy like you was the one that I pay to scrub the toilets, change the pucks in the urinals of my offices, you'd be in the unemployment line faster than you could say 'Jeebus Christ'.
I'd hire a mental retard in your place, and feel good about the fact that I aided society by giving him a good paying job, improving his self esteem, and quality of life, while at the same time, relishing the fact that I did it by stripping you of your former ability to do the same.
At least he's benign, in comparison to you and your ilk of morons who think you're the epitome of rational thinking, and want the leaders of free nations to not only drink the koolaid, but endorse it to others who are just as gullible as you.
In the real world, the only dimwits like you have against people like me, is to eliminate us, and only leave yourselves as the only options for others to follow.
You freaks have been stripped of the power to do that legally, and ritualistically anymore.
Those days are over.
Long gone.
Buh-Bye.
We're in the drivers seat now.
Your tools of manipulation (including your ad nauseum abusive use of your over sensitive indignations) and double standards are being lost.
Science ain't a religion.
It's reality.
We're not in the business of selling BS circular reasoning.
We got over that generations ago.
And it's open to scrutiny, and harsh objection, harsh criticism, and debate.
We're not regressive bronze age stoopids who thump on dusty books of flat earth fantasyworld folklore, and convince ourselves that it's reality based on it's own illogical claims of viability, workability, and infallibility.
Why hasn't your branch of the human species evolved to the same level as scientific based humans?
No wonder why you all deny the Theory of Evolution.
Go stand in the corner, and no jerking off on your bible, you freak.
Nyuk nyuk...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
Well, I guess maybe he's crazy.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Meh....like a fox, maybe...
I have Logic Ninjas
for breakfast...
The conclusion of any sound deductive argument is true, essentially by definition. I do not think redneF would disagree; rather, he didn't completely follow what Mr_Metaphysics was asking i.e. a failure to communicate. So, if that's what you're worried about, Mr_Metaphysics, don't worry about it. Stop posturing and just post an argument. It you actually posted a sound argument for the existence of God, at least a couple dozen of the posters on this site would be open minded enough to become theists (heck, maybe even redneF, but I'm really not sure about that one.
); based on the conversations with the people I've had here, I seriously believe that. But, we've already seen them all, so we're not holding our breaths.
Strictly speaking, I wouldn't say that a sound argument is "evidence." Evidence is information that you gather from the external world to support the premises of your argument. If you have premises that are demonstrably true, then you've already done virtually all of the work; any conclusions that you might derive from those premises could be said to be "implicit" in those premises.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Lmao! I only recalling "really" disagreeing with you in one thread, and you're obviously really smart, but I just can't agree with the way you post. I mean, you make so many silly and unnecessary personal attacks, and you exaggerate so much. It's not conducive to a productive discussion at all.
And the "worst" part about it is, sometimes I actually enjoy it and feel like it has value. Haha. I would absolutely hate it if you posted like this when you're talking to someone that was honestly seeking answers, but when you just go balls out against a closed-minded religious fundamentalist, I just can't help but laugh a little. Your words cut through their arrogant rhetoric like a knife through butter while my words often suggest a lot more respect for their beliefs than I actually possess.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
This is completely compatible with reality.
It would be foolish to reject reality.
The conclusions made by humans at that point, could arguable only qualify as a 'narrative'.
I have every confidence, that if I failed at being consistent with my argument, that any number of atheists would not hesitate in pointing it out, to my detriment in a formal debate.
It doesn't bother me when I'm wrong. I'm more concerned with not being corrected, than I care to continue on in ignorance.
As far as the possibility that a god/first cause could actually exist?
I'll go on record as saying that it is entirely possible.
That is my both my default position on anything in a reality of infinite possibilities.
So, it's hardly noteworthy at all, and why the theory is as equal as the flying spaghetti monster, but less probable than us simply being (created) engineered by a more advanced species, from another planet in the universe, from a composite of synthetic DNA and put here to replicate and evolve, for a scientific experiment.
Kind of like a cosmic island of Dr. Moreau.
Shit, could I start a religion like scientology with that?
The belief in biblical gods boils down to the tipping point, or critical mass of an individual person's minimum level needed to adopt an idea, and assume it's an actual reality.
Assumptions are fine, till you try and convince others of what's actual reality.
Or try and use it as a basis to command others to obey, and submit to such a low level personal reality that is not demonstrable, and up for rigorous examination, and cross examination, and testing by believers, and skeptics, alike.
That's sheer lunacy.
Fool's Gold, ain't called Fool's Gold, fer nuttin', yanno?
Like Neil Young said to producer David Foster after his criticisms of Young singly badly out of tune, during the recording of "We Are The World" (IIRC) :
"Ummm.....That's my style, man..."
The answer to your question, is no, I wouldn't be so blunt and brutal to someone who is earnestly struggling to reconcile reality.
That would be like abusing an innocent child, and I've already clarified that I think religious indoctrination should be classified as cognitive child abuse by an adult custodian, whether or not they're the biological parent, or if the child is simply entrusted in their care.
But William Lane Craig type master BS'ers?
Seek and Destroy is the name of the game, with those fcuks, who prey on minds that are incapable of reconciling that kind of mindfcuking cognitive battery and would fall into submission to them.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
I don't see that Zeno's arguments address the actual nature of space and time at all, they are all purely conceptual and abstract. The 'sub-division' is purely in the abstract imagination. The conclusions reflect only the current concepts he and others had about the nature of space and time.
To have any relevance to the actual nature of space and time, some sort of experiments would have to have been conducted.
I am genuinely astonished that there has been such attention and argument addressed to what to me is an utterly trivial issue addressed by high school level math. It was only an issue in Zeno's time because thinkers were focussed on the fallacy that 'truth' about reality was obtainable by pure 'reason', coupled with imperfectly developed ideas about how to handle infinities mathematically and conceptually. They assumed that their inability to resolve the paradox, which was essentially due to the limited state of math at the time, reflected a problem in reality, rather than a limitation in their thinking.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
My question was not ambiguous. I asked clearly, "Would you agree that if I can present a deductively valid argument whose premises are true and whose conclusion is 'God exists', then I will have presented sufficient evidence for the existence of God?" There should be absolutely no failure to communicate.
No, if someone offers to have a debate with me, then I feel it necessary for me to understand the presuppositions of the other side. I always ask that sort of question when any atheist offers to engage with me in a discussion as redneF did. If they give the sorts of answers provided in this thread (i.e., 'just because something is logically true does not mean that it is true in reality'), then I recognize that this is not worth my time, for it becomes clear that no argument I give will be accepted simply on the grounds that it is a formalized argument. I refuse to debate with any atheists whose paradigm of reality necessitates denial of a certain position... or, at the very least, necessitates that the only proof of God that can be given is one that will not comport with the paradigm of the theist.
No, evidence is something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion; this includes an argument with true premises, a deductively valid form, and a conclusion positing that God exists.
If I can present a deductively valid argument whose premises are true and whose conclusion is 'God exists', then you have to accept that God exists--plain and simple. You have no choice in this matter.
That's only based on your paradigm, and you are simply begging the question when you tacitly claim that truth is based solely on empirical observation (if that's not your claim, then feel free to modify your statement). Humean empiricism is not something you can just endorse unqualifiably.
Please do not act like secularism somehow has a stranglehold on the advancement of technology or the advancement of society. I know computer programmers who are theists. Provided that the majority of the world believes in God or something like God, I would be hard pressed to accept that technology advances only under the auspices of your particular worldview. Frankly, I do not quite see how the development of technology stands or falls upon the endorsement of empiricism or naturalism; how is this relevant at all?
It is self-refuting; if you believe empiricism is true, then the proposition that empiricism is true is either based on empirical observation which begs the question, or it is based on non-empirical truths which necessitates a repudiation of empiricism.
And I took a class in computer programming when I was in high school, but I found it really tedious.
Fcuk, you are certifiably insane.
No if, ands, or buts, about it.
A child could topple that argument.
You could do that for an assertion that you have a monstrous dick, while in reality, only having a small dick, and you're insane enough that you would think it's a sophisticated argument, and one that's actually compelling to the point that not accepting it would equal some type of cognitive dysfunction.
You find this 'method' you believe you possess, is equal to actually pulling out your dick and removing all doubt?
I underestimated your level of cognitive dissonance, and stupidity.
I'm speechless.
Actually, no I'm not.
Fcuk, you're an idiot....
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
Apparently, you really want to see my penis.
To answer your question: If I can present a true-premised deductively valid argument where the conclusion is that I have a large penis, then it necessarily follows that I have a large penis.
According to whom?
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
According to the requirements of logic.
My question was very specifically asking for 'whom', not 'what'.
If you cannot, or will not answer me, admit it.
Or forfeit.
Or run the risk of being banned for being an infantile control freak troll.
With a small penis...
You've created a fallacy, by anthropomorphising an idea, and human construct, as being conscious and possessing the absolute understanding and measure of what constitutes itself, and projecting that it has 'needs'.
IOW, you're an idiot who'll resort to virtually anything, out of desperation, and insecurity, and a desire to control others, and outcomes.
Textbook theism...
Looks like I'd win by a landslide...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
Then let's see you do it.
Here's one offer I make every theist I debate.
If you prove me totally wrong, I'll quit being an atheist.
If I prove you totally wrong, are you going to quit being a theist ?
They never answer that question with a simple yes or no, which indicates to me that they really are not interested in finding truth.
So, offer stills stands, offer me up a "sound" explanation that I have no choice but to accept and I'll accept it.
If your "sound" argument gets turned on it's head and refuted, are you going to become an atheist ?
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Of course not. Even if my arguments failed to prove that God existed, that does not mean that he does not exist. In order for me to become an atheist, you will need to offer proof that God does not exist.
Then let's hear the sound argument.
As for the above statement, please see Bertrand Russell's analogy about the teapot circiling the universe. I am sure your familiar with it.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Of course I am. What about it?
In the absence of all evidence, the logical default position is disbelief.
It is not necessary for me to prove that god does not exist since I did not make the claim that he existed.
Like Russell's teapot, I do not know for sure if there is one circling around the Earth that can not be seen or detected, but without any sufficient evidence, why give it any credence ?
You stated that in order to become an Atheist that it would have to be proven to you that god does not exist. Since there is an appalling lack of evidence to prove that such a being exists, the burden of proof would be on the claimant making the argument that he does exist.
So, what is the sound argument for the existence of god ?
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Actually, you are wrong. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
You have been exposed to the issue, and you've chosen to be an atheist. You are a cognitive individual, so you cannot claim that you are an atheist like a rock or a tree is an atheist.
Why did you choose atheism over theism? If your answer is that there is no evidence for theism, then I am just going to claim that I am a theist because there is no evidence that God does not exist. Both claims have equal logical validity.
You would weigh the evidence in favor of this idea against the evidence opposing the idea, and then you would determine which is better. Just claiming 'there is no evidence' is not good enough; the other side can make the same claim.
It's easy to prove a negative; for instance, I can prove that the sky is not green, or that the President of the United States is not an alligator, or that there are no married bachelors. Consequently, if you can show that the concept of the Christian God contains inherent contradictions, then you will have proven that he does not exist. (In fact, there are plenty of arguments for the non-existence of God, such as the Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God, the Argument from Evil, and so forth.)
What you are espousing is an atheist line that is popular on the internet, but eaten for breakfast in academia.
Fine, if it is so easy to eat for breakfast, I should be easy to refute. Let me hear the sound argument that you have for the existence of god.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Are you going to make an argument meta, or are you just going to circle endlessly?
My impression is you want someone to agree to a word game that way you can say, "Hah! Checkmate, atheist!"
If I'm wrong, just spit out the argument. Jesus Christ.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
I think I have asked for the argument about six or seven times now and still haven't gotten anything.
If it is so sound that I will have no choice but to accept the existence of god, I think he would be anxious to utterly destroy my position and prove me wrong ?
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
I think that that you are right on here. From looking at what seems to be feeding the Zeno thing presently (since I stirred the pot) there seems to be a focus on the phenomenological conflicts it causes much along the line of quantum physics. We can not visualise such things implied by wave-particle duality, the two slit experiment, Shrodinger's cat, Susskind's holographic principle or what have you though we can represent (and understand) these things readily with mathematics. They all run counter-intuitive to the way we normally think about space-time since evolution has wired us to deal with medium sized objects. I think that is why one of the previous articles I quoted above pushed the Zeno stuff into a decision between standard analysis and non-standard analysis and which one actually corresponds to real space-time (another continuing discussion):
Nonstandard analysis is called “nonstandard” because it was inspired by Thoralf Skolem’s demonstration in 1933 of the existence of models of first-order arithmetic that are not isomorphic to the standard model of arithmetic. What makes them nonstandard is especially that they contain infinitely large (hyper)integers. For nonstandard calculus one needs nonstandard models of real analysis rather than just of arithmetic. An important feature demonstrating the usefulness of nonstandard analysis is that it achieves essentially the same theorems as those in classical calculus. The treatment of Zeno’s paradoxes is interesting from this perspective. See McLaughlin (1994) for how Zeno’s paradoxes may be treated using infinitesimals. McLaughlin believes this approach to the paradoxes is the only successful one, but commentators generally do not agree with that conclusion, and consider it merely to be an alternative solution. See Dainton (2010) pp. 306-9 for some discussion of this...
From the perspective of the Standard Solution, the most significant lesson learned by researchers who have tried to solve Zeno’s paradoxes is that the way out requires revising many of our old theories and their concepts. We have to be willing to rank the virtues of preserving logical consistency and promoting scientific fruitfulness above the virtue of preserving our intuitions. Zeno played a significant role in causing this progressive trend in philosophy, physics and mathematics.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
G = (∃x) Gx = God exists
P-->Q = strict implication
P⊃Q = material implication
⌜X = It is necessary that X
~⌜~X = It is not necessary that not-X = It is possible that X
(1) G-->⌜G
(2) (G-->⌜G)⊃(~⌜~G-->G)
(3) ~⌜~G
(4) ~⌜~G-->G (1,2; MP)
::. G (3,4; MP)
Oh I would like to see an argument too instead of all this un-Christian attitude and behavior.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
Well, it would be foolish to expect anything honest from a BS'er. Especially when he's prepared to talk in absolutes about things that are subjective, and have many alternatives.
Like 'logic', for example.
The are no 'rules' of logic, in any of the many 'disciplines' of logic, that are not 'arguable' to some degree. The most common form of logic, is what the average person on the street would be willing to accept as 'logical'.
In this case, a clever syllogism is usually sufficient to get most average people to adopt the idea as a reality, in their ignorance of whether or not any scientific knowledge of it exists, much less than if there exists any actual possibility or probabilty of the idea being actually compatible with reality.
This is merely human acquiescence, which is practically useless in real world scientific endeavour, to establish actually validity of anything in reality, as it is based on the intuition of the individual, which is completely subjective, and unreliable as a means to predict outcomes, with any level of certainty.
There is no 'mean' level of human intuition, which is why some people, are far more effective in certain problem solving areas than others, and why collaborations among humans , and mistakes are sometimes the only ways that a problem gets solved, and a reality becomes known.
The other main types of logic, that are not compatible with each other, but can nonetheless arrive at both positive, and 'false' positive predictions, which may, or may not be compatible with reality, are mathematical logic, geometric logic, boolean logic, fuzzy logic, et al.
'Logic' is simply a human anticipatory cognitive construct, and method of modeling an outcome, which often fails at making accurate predictions, due to incorrect assumptions being present in the 'stream' of a logical equation, due to ignorance, or lack of knowledge, or understanding.
The expectation that Mr_Big Dick makes, is that he is in the presence of people who are less knowledgeable than he is, and is 'feeling out' the level of critical thinking, of the group, in order to build up courage.
In 'one' final analysis (mine), I can conclude that Mr_Big Dick, is completely compatible with the axiom "If you cannot convince, confuse instead".
If he sincerely thinks he is completely correct, then he is simply foolish, and enormously presumptuous, and counter to most serious scientists and theorists.
IOW, only fools would take him seriously.
And there are plenty enough of them to go around, and give him the false reassurance and confirmation bias he is desperately attempting to muster.
In the meantime, one is left to wonder how 'logical' it would be, to be able to prove the existence of a god, to the undeniable levels that he claims, and not present this to the leaders of his religion, competing religions, and the world.
He indeed would not be a 'good christian', and the complete antithesis of a compassionate human being, by not alleviating the doubt, sorrow and suffering that millions of people feel (including Mother Teresa), in regards to their wavering 'beliefs' of a god.
It would make him not only 'lose credibility', but be considered 'evil' by most human standards.
He would make human history for being so incredibly selfish and inhumane.
He would be considered the antichrist in religious circles.
I know he's not nearly as bright as he imagines himself, and that he's simply full of steaming hot sh1t, and incredibly insecure.
He cannot prove the existence of a god, to those who do default to the intuitively logical safest position and most sound position, which is completely compatible with a mammalian survival instinct, and he's petulant about it.
Sucks to be him.
And mildly entertaining for us.
But nothing to write home about...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
I am very proud to be part of this debate right now. My brain is positively stimulated by the sheer amount of out of the box thinking.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc