There is no God PERIOD

[Blackleaf]

BTW, I learned in my college debate class that if I can get an opponent cussing or calling me names, then I automatically win.   It's an absolute massacre after that point!

You learned? I highly doubt that. You know another reason people might cuss at you? Because you're an insufferable, dimwitted asshole. Sorry to break it to you, but we're not insulting you because you're winning.

[Godis]

sdelsolray,
Ah, finally someone who thinks they can define "fallacy".  Okay, let's hear it, please!

[Godis]

Blackleaf,
I kinda figured you're insulting me because you're losing.  I get that alot.

[Godis]

sdelsolray,
I'm fully aware that your fallacious argument is deceptive by appearing to be better than it really is, so to counteract any positive benefit that may be derived from it, I think I'll just ignore it.

[sdelsolray]

sdelsolray,
Ah, finally someone who thinks they can define "fallacy".  Okay, let's hear it, please!

I simply and already identified informal logical fallacies that you employed.  They were defined long before you or I were born.  If you want to "hear" them, read my earlier post out loud, preferably in front of a mirror with your eyes focused on your mouth.

[sdelsolray]

sdelsolray,
I'm fully aware that your fallacious argument is deceptive by appearing to be better than it really is, so to counteract any positive benefit that may be derived from it, I think I'll just ignore it.

I have made no argument, just observations.  Perhaps you could take the time to learn the difference.


I strongly suspect you are quite good at ignoring any portion of reality that conflicts with your "personal experience" (your words) world view.  Compartmentalization is a common technique humans use.  Cognitive dissonance only appears after the individual begins to realize the contradictions between and among the mental and emotional compartments they have created.  You're not there yet.  Don't be discouraged, you can work towards resolution.

[Mike Cl]

Mike,
I was only pointing out your continued false reasoning, not mine.  Too bad you can't see the difference.

Oh, I see the difference.  I do reason.  You don't. 

And so far you have offered not a single shred of evidence for your fictional god.  And of course you can't...............none exists.

[Drew_2017]

[ author=widdershins link=topic=11269.msg1165572#msg1165572 date=1486680243]

Again, yes, I fully understand what you are saying.  The problem with that way of thinking is that if it were true, NOTHING could EVER happen.  There would be no events ever because you would have to wait an infinity of time to get to the point where they happened.  But also EVERYTHING would have happened.  With an infinity of time the chances become infinitely small that a given thing won't happen.

I only recall saying if time stretched to eternity backwards, we'd never reach 2017 because we'd have to cross an infinity to arrive at this time, not the things couldn't be done. If the universe existed eternally it would have suffered heat death long ago.

Its questionable about whether an actual infinity of anything exists as illustrated by Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel.

The idea is a hotel that can accommodate an infinity of guests. Suppose its completely booked but one new guest arrives. If everyone in room one on moves one room down a new guest can be accommodated but the # of guests is still the same infinity. If an infinity of new guests arrive they can still be accommodated by just shifting everyone in odd numbered rooms into even number rooms thus freeing all the odd number. Yet the number of guests doesn't change. Even if all the odd numbers guests leave the number doesn't change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel

Scientists and gods are dissimilar.  Simulations and sentient beings are equally dissimilar.  Like your little statement for why an infinity of time is impossible, this is not something you have evidence for.  It's just something you got high and came up with one day.

If I told you a personal agent caused the universe to exist and had complete control of the laws of physics you would agree that is God? If scientist cause virtual universe to exist and have complete control of the laws of physics therein... are they not the gods of those universes?

Reaching a conclusion because the evidence takes you to that conclusion is respectable.  Reaching a conclusion simply because it supports other conclusions you've already reached is not.

I have submitted facts in support of my conclusions...

[Drew_2017]

You are making a play on the ambiguity of English.  That is a fallacy in itself.  Stick to poetry, you suck at physics ;-)  I happen to agree that people are demigods, just not for the reason you list.  But you can't make a scientific argument for it ... because it is transcendent, and science is only for immanence, not transcendence.

See, to do a lot of things, you have to have a "human in the loop" somewhere.  Sometimes you can substitute other critters, a horse for a rickshaw guy.  But all robots are machines.  All computers merely execute the algorithms that are input to them (even if there is subsequent runtime input).  There is no god in the machine ... it was a god who made the machine, and keeps it working.  Bow down and worship your IT staff, puny humans!

AI is always fake ... but the human is better hidden these days ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Turk

I haven't been attempting to make a scientific argument for anything I have discussed. A scientific fact is one level of proof, there is also evidence beyond a reasonable doubt (but some uncertainty can exist) in a criminal case then there is the mere preponderance of evidence as required in a civil suit in a court of law. I'm shooting for a mere preponderance that something is more likely true than not. I don't claim the existence of God is a scientific fact, or is a claim beyond reasonable doubt. I do claim a preponderance (more than not) of evidence supports it. 

And I still claim (eggs and arguments not withstanding) scientists creating virtual universes is a working model of theism. By the way...I am an IT Specialist...

[Drew_2017]

You seem to think, that proving time had a beginning, somehow strengthens your theistic position, when I see it as strengthening the naturalistic one.

You tell me why it supports naturalism and I will tell you why it supports theism...

[Hydra009]

And I still claim (eggs and arguments not withstanding) scientists creating virtual universes is a working model of theism. By the way...I am an IT Specialist...

I feel 30% less career pride now, thanks.

[Blackleaf]

By the way...I am an IT Specialist...

That explains it. lol

Who is God? Ask a novelist, and they'll say he's like a writer, and history is his work of art.

Ask a mechanic, and they'll say he is like an engineer who fine-tuned the universe.

Ask an artist, and they'll say that God is like a painter, and they'll say that the beauty of creation is his work.

So you believe that the universe is merely a simulation? I've seen that idea floating around before. I would not call the creator of this simulation a "god," though. If someone created this world as a simulation, they are likely not very different from us. It may be possible that we could do the same ourselves, once technology has advanced enough.

[Godis]

sdelsolray,
You try to confuse the issues and try to prove how smart you are by throwing words out related to psychology (cognitive dissonance, projection, compartmentalization, etc.).    Yawning excessively.   You sound like a second semester college psychology student.  Did you even make it that far?   Next you'll be trying to make clinical diagnoses that you're no where near being qualified to do.  Not fooled by your ignorance.

[fencerider]

a demi-god with a semi-colon... interesting concept

Godis "when something is so obvious it is starring you in the face, your first reaction is to turn away" I was probably turning away because it was time to go home or to go somewhere else. The idea that something is so obvious it is starring you in the face is more interesting. I didn't see nothin, or maybe I should say "Whatchu talkin about Willis?". Maybe I'm a little dense Godis. What is this obvious thing you are talking about? It sure isn't obvious to me. Sure the evidence of god is just pourin out like flower petals at a wedding. Finding evidence of god is more like the treasure hunters' expedition on Snake Island.

so maybe your god is real, but I'm not wasting time looking for a god that doesnt spend anytime being obvious

[Solomon Zorn]

You tell me why it[a beginning to time] supports naturalism and I will tell you why it supports theism...

Going backwards infinitely, seems to me to be an irrational premise. Something along the lines of "God is outside of space-time." It's just fantasy shit. Like all natural things, the universe has a beginning.

For obvious reasons, the prime mover, may forever remain lost to pre-history. So, do you see this void in our current knowledge as a convenient little cubby-hole, to hide your invisible God in?