Atheistforums.com

Extraordinary Claims => Religion General Discussion => Topic started by: Fidel_Castronaut on February 14, 2013, 05:43:21 PM

Title: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Fidel_Castronaut on February 14, 2013, 05:43:21 PM
So, yes, I've made another thread to carry on from the archived one. What happens to this is up to the gods, but its here anyway, just in case. I've copied the OP from the original thread, so let the chat commence:

"We often get many theists claiming to have evidence for the god or gods they hold dear. This thread is created with the aim of allowing them to supply such evidence so that we may debate with them knowing the facts and conclusions they have drawn, and so that we may respond in kind.

So here we are. If you claim to have evidence that supports your god(s), please post it here:"
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on February 14, 2013, 06:18:43 PM
Even if the archive wasn't there, nothing would have been lost. So we can start exactly where we ended.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: widdershins on February 14, 2013, 06:40:24 PM
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Even if the archive wasn't there, nothing would have been lost. So we can start exactly where we ended.
:lol:
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: PopeyesPappy on February 14, 2013, 06:43:54 PM
(//http://iamyourgod.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/god-and-evidence.jpg)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: aitm on February 14, 2013, 06:44:51 PM
1+1=2
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: PopeyesPappy on February 14, 2013, 06:47:59 PM
Might as well get this one out of the way early.

(//http://www2.hiren.info/desktopwallpapers/flowers/grand-teton-and-wild-flowers_wyoming.jpg)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: leo on February 14, 2013, 08:59:36 PM
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Might as well get this one out of the way early.

(//http://www2.hiren.info/desktopwallpapers/flowers/grand-teton-and-wild-flowers_wyoming.jpg)
I'm glad this thread returned . One of my favorites  in the original site .
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: ApostateLois on February 14, 2013, 10:27:42 PM
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"(//http://iamyourgod.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/god-and-evidence.jpg)

That font makes Jesus weep.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: the_antithesis on February 15, 2013, 12:30:27 AM
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Might as well get this one out of the way early.

(//http://www2.hiren.info/desktopwallpapers/flowers/grand-teton-and-wild-flowers_wyoming.jpg)

(//http://www.wormsandgermsblog.com/uploads/image/Cat%20Sneeze.jpg)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Fidel_Castronaut on February 15, 2013, 02:23:25 AM
Quote from: "widdershins"
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Even if the archive wasn't there, nothing would have been lost. So we can start exactly where we ended.
:lol:

Heheh.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Biodome on February 15, 2013, 04:02:57 AM
But...But... The flowers... And the mountains... And the clouds... They are beautiful... Musta been God that did it, right?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mathias on February 15, 2013, 05:38:35 AM
Seriously, this is a humor section, right? :D
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Plu on February 15, 2013, 05:42:47 AM
More or less. Some people take it seriously, and that makes it even funnier.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mathias on February 15, 2013, 06:02:07 AM
Quote from: "Plu"More or less. Some people take it seriously, and that makes it even funnier.



Where are they????
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Plu on February 15, 2013, 06:03:19 AM
Usually theists who come here trying to convert us, who do their best to post the most nonsensical evidence and trying to defend it. It's hilarious.

Check out the Archives, it has a thread like this with hundreds (if not thousands) of posts.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Bibliofagus on February 15, 2013, 06:06:58 AM
Quote from: "Plu"Usually theists who come here trying to convert us, who do their best to post the most nonsensical evidence and trying to defend it. It's hilarious.

Check out the Archives, it has a thread like this with hundreds (if not thousands) of posts.

Best stuff was chucked out of that thread too.
Like that guy who said the the fact you can mix colours was proof for the trinity  :D
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mathias on February 15, 2013, 06:30:56 AM
Quote from: "Bibliofagus"Best stuff was chucked out of that thread too.
Like that guy who said the the fact you can mix colours was proof for the trinity  :D


I wanted to see this!!
Almost peed my pants laughing!!
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Bibliofagus on February 15, 2013, 07:08:07 AM
Quote from: "Mathias"
Quote from: "Bibliofagus"Best stuff was chucked out of that thread too.
Like that guy who said the the fact you can mix colours was proof for the trinity  :D


I wanted to see this!!
Almost peed my pants laughing!!

archive/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=30562 (http://www.atheistforums.com/archive/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=30562)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Fidel_Castronaut on February 15, 2013, 07:31:07 AM
Quote from: "Mathias"
Quote from: "Bibliofagus"Best stuff was chucked out of that thread too.
Like that guy who said the the fact you can mix colours was proof for the trinity  :D

I wanted to see this!!
Almost peed my pants laughing!!

The unintended side effect of starting this thread. ;)  :o
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: ApostateLois on February 15, 2013, 09:55:50 AM
Quote from: "free"Trinity makes sense in this way
red color+green? color+blue color =WHITE color
Father + Son + Holy Spirit = One God
Therefor one God is white

(//http://www.allthesky.com/icons/rgbcircles.gif)

What are the yellow, pink, and turquoise colors?

(//http://i975.photobucket.com/albums/ae233/ElveeKaye/Smilies%20and%20emoticons/crazee.gif)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: widdershins on February 15, 2013, 10:05:37 AM
Quote from: "ApostateLois"
Quote from: "free"Trinity makes sense in this way
red color+green? color+blue color =WHITE color
Father + Son + Holy Spirit = One God
Therefor one God is white

(//http://www.allthesky.com/icons/rgbcircles.gif)

What are the yellow, pink, and turquoise colors?

(//http://i975.photobucket.com/albums/ae233/ElveeKaye/Smilies%20and%20emoticons/crazee.gif)
It's easy.  Three parts of one God, but all the same thing.  When shown together they make seven colors, which is the amount of time it took to create everything and take a day off.  And when they are all invisible you can see zero gods, which is the amount of sense this makes.  It's all intertwined.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: WitchSabrina on February 15, 2013, 10:41:53 AM
Quote from: "Bibliofagus"
Quote from: "Plu"Usually theists who come here trying to convert us, who do their best to post the most nonsensical evidence and trying to defend it. It's hilarious.

Check out the Archives, it has a thread like this with hundreds (if not thousands) of posts.

Best stuff was chucked out of that thread too.
Like that guy who said the the fact you can mix colours was proof for the trinity  :D

Wasn't that "Stupid" Dave? Same guy who explained that Noah's ark was the human mind?? :shock:
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mathias on February 15, 2013, 10:54:19 AM
The trinity:

A part of mint, one of Curacao (liquor) and vermouth. Much better than god!
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: St Giordano Bruno on February 15, 2013, 09:50:47 PM
Quote from: "ApostateLois"
Quote from: "free"Trinity makes sense in this way
red color+green? color+blue color =WHITE color
Father + Son + Holy Spirit = One God
Therefor one God is white

(//http://www.allthesky.com/icons/rgbcircles.gif)

What are the yellow, pink, and turquoise colors?

(//http://i975.photobucket.com/albums/ae233/ElveeKaye/Smilies%20and%20emoticons/crazee.gif)

That is RGB but in CMYK God could turn an icky brown or a dark dishwater gray or perhaps even black.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: buttfinger on February 15, 2013, 10:03:57 PM
Quote from: "St Giordano Bruno"That is RGB but in CMYK God could turn an icky brown or a dark dishwater gray or perhaps even black.
For god to be black in this instance, he would have to be a quadrinity.
Title:
Post by: NonXNonExX on February 18, 2013, 05:38:01 AM
The yellow, pink and turquoise obviously represent the gay agenda, WHICH MUST BE STOPPED before they ruin the traditional definition of marriage, which we tea dippers are dedicated to preserving and protecting.  8-)  [sarcasm off]
Title:
Post by: Fidel_Castronaut on June 05, 2013, 04:55:49 AM
It's a shame well Wednesday's stuff has gone.

There was a good debate there. I hope she comes back to re-argue her case.
Title:
Post by: Plu on June 05, 2013, 04:59:17 AM
Whatever happened to that other fellow and all his nonsense about how illiterate most Romans were? Anything interesting came out of that? :P
Title:
Post by: Fidel_Castronaut on June 05, 2013, 05:00:34 AM
What do you think? ;-)
Title:
Post by: Plu on June 05, 2013, 05:07:02 AM
Ok, I'll rephrase it :P

"Anything mindbogglingly stupid and totally hilarious come out of that?"
Title:
Post by: Fidel_Castronaut on June 05, 2013, 05:09:52 AM
Quote from: "Plu"Ok, I'll rephrase it :P

"Anything mindbogglingly stupid and totally hilarious come out of that?"

Same question.

lol.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Krisyork2008 on June 05, 2013, 07:13:59 AM
God damn it. (no pun intended)

I was getting really worked up in that discussion about proving god through Romans being illiterate. I'm quite upset that fellow is gone now.

Prick wouldn't answer my question!
Title:
Post by: SGOS on June 05, 2013, 07:24:56 AM
Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"So here we are. If you claim to have evidence that supports your god(s), please post it here:"
...where it can be conveniently ignored when we don't wish to waste our time.
Title:
Post by: Fidel_Castronaut on June 05, 2013, 12:05:50 PM
Quote from: "Krisyork2008"God damn it. (no pun intended)

I was getting really worked up in that discussion about proving god through Romans being illiterate. I'm quite upset that fellow is gone now.

Prick wouldn't answer my question!

Don't worry Kris, there'll be plenty more!
Title:
Post by: Solitary on June 05, 2013, 12:45:08 PM
WHERE ARE THEY?  :twisted:  Devils advocate: When we experience the world of reality we create it with our minds, and when we are unconscious this world vanishes, however, the real world still exists because it is in the mind of God.  :wink:  Bill
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: widdershins on June 05, 2013, 12:55:19 PM
Oh, dear Lord, we lost like 5 pages of "evidence"!  Now I'll never be convinced!
Title:
Post by: sasuke on June 05, 2013, 02:12:24 PM
Quote from: "widdershins"Oh, dear Lord, we lost like 5 pages of "evidence"!  Now I'll never be convinced!
It's the work of the devil I tell ya
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Krisyork2008 on June 05, 2013, 04:39:00 PM
If there wasn't a god, then who the fuck came up with cheesecake?
I think we can all agree that cheesecake is delicious.

Fact.

Cheesecake is so good, it could be called, "the Essence of Good."

Since we humans are clearly full of sin and incapable of creating anything that is perfect, and cheesecake is perfect, (see above,) then humans didn't create cheesecake.

Then who did?

Fucking god, that's who.
Title:
Post by: widdershins on June 05, 2013, 05:18:41 PM
Quote from: "sasuke"
Quote from: "widdershins"Oh, dear Lord, we lost like 5 pages of "evidence"!  Now I'll never be convinced!
It's the work of the devil I tell ya
So, you're saying that the fact that we lost all that "evidence" is, itself evidence for the existence of God.  Hell, by the standards I've seen used in this thread that's not bad at all.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Jutter on July 30, 2013, 06:57:44 PM
I'd consider conversion, if theism vanished, because by then nobody would want me to convert anymore anyway. Takes the pressure off.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: WitchSabrina on July 30, 2013, 07:10:30 PM
wait WAIT.............. there was evidence and now it's vanished?
Aww that sucks.  I'm just broken up one side and down the other.  Whatever will I do now?

 :rollin:


wait

y'all are just fooling me with this 'evidence' bullshit - aren't ya? Totally pulling me leg?  Ya bastards.
 :rollin:
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Solitary on July 30, 2013, 11:23:08 PM
God is really black: (//http://i.imgur.com/Mc1JTyV.jpg) Solitary
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Fidel_Castronaut on July 31, 2013, 05:27:17 AM
True enough. :)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Jason78 on July 31, 2013, 05:53:25 AM
Quote from: "Krisyork2008"I think we can all agree that cheesecake is delicious.

Fact.

Strawberry Cheesecake is one of the best things I've ever put in my mouth.

Chocolate Cheesecake should taste awesome  (it's both chocolate and cheesecake) but ends up tasting like crud to me.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: ApostateLois on August 01, 2013, 12:52:14 AM
If God didn't exist, then how could he have made cheesecake so delicious?

You lose, atheists!
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: BabaBooey on August 01, 2013, 04:12:47 AM
What about the ice giants? Odin said he was going to destroy all the ice giants, and there are no ice giants.

WHAT NOW?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Sal1981 on August 01, 2013, 04:34:16 AM
(//http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20130730.png)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Jesus on August 01, 2013, 05:03:14 AM
How couldn't God exist? I mean, if he didn't exist we wouldn't know about him, right? Right?


Therefore God exists
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: WitchSabrina on August 01, 2013, 08:23:37 AM
Quote from: "Jesus"How couldn't God exist? I mean, if he didn't exist we wouldn't know about him, right? Right?


Therefore God exists

So........  you. are.  retarded?   Good to know.
 :wink:
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Colanth on August 01, 2013, 12:23:05 PM
Corollary to St. Anselm's proof:

A god that doesn't exist and could create the universe is greater than one that does exist and could create the universe (any old god that exists can create a universe), therefore God doesn't exist (but he created the universe).
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Solitary on August 01, 2013, 02:20:38 PM
Quote from: "Jesus"How couldn't God exist? I mean, if he didn't exist we wouldn't know about him, right? Right?


Therefore God exists



Jesus H. Christ, don't you belong in heaven?  [-X  Get back where you belong!  :popcorn:  Solitary
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Solitary on August 01, 2013, 03:32:45 PM
Proof God exists, this is not fake: (//http://i.imgur.com/PnUtajO.jpg)  :shock:  Solitary
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Broede on August 01, 2013, 06:34:45 PM
Quote from: "Solitary"Proof God exists, this is not fake: [ Image (//http://i.imgur.com/PnUtajO.jpg) ]  :shock:  Solitary

And God is opening the Matrix of Leadership?  Cue the terrible 80s music...

"You've got the touch.  You've got the power!"
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: FinalSomnia on August 01, 2013, 06:40:00 PM
Quote from: "Solitary"Proof God exists, this is not fake: [ Image (//http://i.imgur.com/PnUtajO.jpg) ]  :shock:  Solitary
So god is the Goatse.cx guy? Suddenly I understand it all...
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: kilodelta on September 08, 2013, 10:30:12 PM
(//http://img5.joyreactor.com/pics/post/funny-pictures-auto-716075.jpeg)


(//http://31.media.tumblr.com/2d2ffb2fdf6ae8f5f0ec53d09c725526/tumblr_mogu8vXgoM1r9hjyso1_500.jpg)

(//http://www.atheistmemebase.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/021-Even-more-evidence-for-God-650x366.jpg)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: kilodelta on January 23, 2014, 04:12:34 PM
Found Him!

[spoil:siyg206m](//http://static3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121127071927/memoryalpha/en/images/4/4c/Sha_Ka_Ree_God.jpg) But, Spock blew Him up with a Klingon Bird of Prey[/spoil:siyg206m]
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Insult to Rocks on January 24, 2014, 12:09:46 AM
Honestly guys, if you want to look at some mind bogglingly stupid theist "proof", just head over to "Fundies Say". They have over 90,000 quotes full of the stuff.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Krisyork2008 on January 24, 2014, 08:29:18 AM
I like The whole argument about people all over The world believing in god... Therefor god exists. Its like, what about all The people who believe in unicorns, bigfoot, dragons, gnomes, faeries, psychics, and magic.

So all those things exist?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mister Agenda on January 24, 2014, 09:05:24 AM
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"
Quote from: "Jesus"How couldn't God exist? I mean, if he didn't exist we wouldn't know about him, right? Right?


Therefore God exists

So........  you. are.  retarded?   Good to know.
 :wink:

I missed you so much.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: MrsSassyPants on January 25, 2014, 01:05:32 PM
God damnit he is my fucking Co-pilot yall!  I am driving right now with NO hands!  Therefore, he must be real
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Krisyork2008 on January 25, 2014, 05:30:39 PM
I burnt my pizza just now... And guess what? It tasted better that way.

Therefor god exists.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: stromboli on January 25, 2014, 05:32:55 PM
Under cooked pizza is a sacrilege to the FSM. This is known. You were merely overzealous.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Biodome on January 26, 2014, 12:47:48 PM
(//http://i.imgur.com/RKKbhoo.jpg)

1. The dinosaurs roamed the Earth 5000 years ago.
2. The Bible says that dinosaurs roamed the Earth 5000 years ago.
3. The Bible is true.
4. The Bible says that God exists.
5. Therefore, God exists.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hydra009 on January 26, 2014, 01:11:58 PM
Must've been some awfully surprised native Americans.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Krisyork2008 on January 28, 2014, 07:21:01 AM
Try some awfully dead native americans. Wait... Im native american!
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: leo on January 28, 2014, 11:33:32 AM
I like the original thread better. Man that thread was epic.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Krisyork2008 on January 28, 2014, 12:00:57 PM
I do believe that was the first thread I posted in... It was such a great thread. Where have all The theists gone?

And I miss Sabrina.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Fidel_Castronaut on February 03, 2014, 02:35:20 PM
It was all lost when also destroyed the old site.

Never to be seen again, unfortunately.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: MrsSassyPants on February 03, 2014, 04:03:06 PM
I have evidence, god healed my ingrown toenail fuckers.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: MrsSassyPants on February 03, 2014, 04:04:31 PM
How else would all these scientists develop medicines if god didn't exist.   Duh.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: sunnyK on February 09, 2014, 04:32:55 AM
I saw evidence for god on television one time, there is this sea sponge that walks and talks and is actually quite comical. He wanders around with a starfish that has partial human anatomy and also speaks English. They are adequate at survival and have attained proper shelter. There lives are documented in approximately 15 minute segments. I am assuming god created this situation under the sea much like he did on land.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 09, 2014, 10:49:29 AM
Quote from: "sunnyK"I saw evidence for god on television one time, there is this sea sponge that walks and talks and is actually quite comical. He wanders around with a starfish that has partial human anatomy and also speaks English. They are adequate at survival and have attained proper shelter. There lives are documented in approximately 15 minute segments. I am assuming god created this situation under the sea much like he did on land.
But does he live in a pineapple under the sea?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: sunnyK on February 09, 2014, 10:11:55 PM
Yes. and... absorbent and yellow and porous is he.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: aitm on February 09, 2014, 10:20:59 PM
Quote from: "Krisyork2008"I do believe that was the first thread I posted in... It was such a great thread. .
Indeed, and LEO is the culprit. You are all hereby ordered by the [s:evxl7hi8]council[/s:evxl7hi8] HIGH COUNCIL to always kick Leo wherever he is. Really..kick him..especially in the last person thread.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Passion of Christ on February 23, 2014, 06:43:20 AM
What about some nice evidence you can rustle up to prove that atheism is true?  I don't mean evidence for no having a religion/belief as most of those dudes tend to believe in God.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Plu on February 23, 2014, 07:25:04 AM
Atheism doesn't have any claims, so there is nothing to prove. It's merely the rejection of other claims based on lack of evidence.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Passion of Christ on February 23, 2014, 07:43:02 AM
Quote from: "Plu"Atheism doesn't have any claims, so there is nothing to prove. It's merely the rejection of other claims based on lack of evidence.

You claim the universe wasn't created by or needs to be sustained by a God or equivalent non-physical or purposeful directive power or there is no good reason to believe is any such thing and that all religions are entirely made up without any truth behind them at all. Some bold claims there. People who believe in God or an equivalent higher power can then ask the evidence equally the same from you if you're making a claim yourself. You can't really count the "Nones" as atheists because they tend to believe in God or they're not going commit themselves to a side.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Plu on February 23, 2014, 07:44:33 AM
No we don't. We just say that you don't have enough evidence to support the idea that your god is real. We don't presume to have any answers. (At least; not from atheism)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Passion of Christ on February 23, 2014, 08:13:08 AM
Quote from: "Plu"No we don't. We just say that you don't have enough evidence to support the idea that your god is real.

It doesn't matter about the specific God/revelation at this point only if "the claims of atheism" would in fact be true. The claims would be that matter/energy is eternal and self organizing within itself and consciousness is a byproduct of this process and nothing sought to create this effect in the universe it merely happened by various unrelated accumulative processes. Theism and spiritual claims would run counter to these "claims of atheism" that you have there. Nones don't have an opinion or if they do they will believe in God but lack any revelation to go with it. Once you oppose the claims religion has traditionally made then you're into counter claim territory and so you will need counter evidence.


QuoteWe don't presume to have any answers. (At least; not from atheism)

You presume that all the answers will be scientifically discoverable as part of the natural world which is all there is to exist as that's all you believe does exist unless proven otherwise via scientific observation of the natural world. Everything you discover about the natural world will just become part of science and the natural world anyway so you can't "prove God" this way as he would remain beyond the scope of what science can observe not being a part of the natural/physical world.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Plu on February 23, 2014, 08:14:15 AM
None of these things are claims of atheism.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Passion of Christ on February 23, 2014, 08:16:57 AM
Quote from: "Plu"None of these things are claims of atheism.

Materialism then but atheism is based on materialism which is what you have when you remove the existence of everything argue against.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Plu on February 23, 2014, 08:17:54 AM
Atheism isn't based on anything. And if you want to discuss materialism, be my guest, but you'll first have to ask if anyone here considers themselves one.

EDIT: Also, atheism doesn't claim certain things don't exist. Atheism merely claims there isn't enough evidence to support certain things.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: leo on February 23, 2014, 10:27:19 AM
Quote from: "Passion of Christ"
Quote from: "Plu"Atheism doesn't have any claims, so there is nothing to prove. It's merely the rejection of other claims based on lack of evidence.

You claim the universe wasn't created by or needs to be sustained by a God or equivalent non-physical or purposeful directive power or there is no good reason to believe is any such thing and that all religions are entirely made up without any truth behind them at all. Some bold claims there. People who believe in God or an equivalent higher power can then ask the evidence equally the same from you if you're making a claim yourself. You can't really count the "Nones" as atheists because they tend to believe in God or they're not going commit themselves to a side.
The universe was created by the Chuck Norris roundhouse kick. There isn't  nothing more to discuss. Chuck Norris masturbate with pics and vids of himself. Where he cums life emerges.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: leo on February 23, 2014, 10:38:41 AM
You should convert to chucksterism. My religion and myths are far more realistic than christianity. NOW GIVE ME MONEY !
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Passion of Christ on February 23, 2014, 11:03:47 AM
Quote from: "leo"The universe was created by the Chuck Norris roundhouse kick. There isn't  nothing more to discuss. Chuck Norris masturbate with pics and vids of himself. Where he cums life emerges.

Even this would make more sense than atheism though.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: PopeyesPappy on February 23, 2014, 11:09:43 AM
Yes this! Because rib women, talking snakes, greatly embelishished stories of ancient conquests and jewish zombies are so much more likely
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 23, 2014, 11:15:45 AM
Quote from: "Passion of Christ"What about some nice evidence you can rustle up to prove that atheism is true?  I don't mean evidence for no having a religion/belief as most of those dudes tend to believe in God.
You're a fucking idiot. Let's list off what's wrong with this post:

#1 - Implying That Atheism Makes Claims
Atheism is the complete lack of claims. You don't get into the claims department until you start adding on atheistic philosophies such as Buddhism or Humanism.

#2 - Argumentum ad Populum
The Appeal to Popularity takes a majority or norm and assumes that because it is popular, it is the standard against which all else should be compared (or even correct). This could not be farther from the truth. Most children believe in Santa Claus, and some children don't; members of that minority are "atheists" with regard to Santa Claus. Despite most kids believing in Santa Claus, no one ever "proves" that Santa doesn't exist; the kid simply learns, over time, that the claims regarding Santa's existence are ridiculous, and eventually she will stop believing in him.

Using your logic, though, belief in Santa Claus should just be assumed to be the default position, and we should take each and every child who believes in him up to the North Pole to prove that he doesn't exist; and then somehow counter the claim that Santa can just make his workshop invisible to mortals, at which point you'd just have to throw your hands up in the air and stop trying to reason with them.

That last part, by the way, is pretty much how we've come to think of theists.


So, with all of that said, how about rustling up some nice evidence proving that your religion is true? I certainly won't fault you for trying, even though I know you'll never find any (//http://atheistforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=3580&p=988640#p988640).
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Passion of Christ on February 23, 2014, 12:03:50 PM
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Yes this! Because rib women, talking snakes

You will have to some of that stuff allegorically of course but this isn't necessarily a modern day invention in response to the enlightened reason of science as atheists like to think it is.


Quotegreatly embelishished stories of ancient conquests

I don't think it demonstrates that the God they believed in doesn't exist, that doesn't necessarily follow.



Quoteand jewish zombies are so much more likely

There's a difference between being raised in glory in the fullness of eternal life and coming back as festering animated corpse. The idea is you don't die and "become nothing" as in the doctrine of atheism life continues after the grave.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Plu on February 23, 2014, 12:55:01 PM
QuoteYou will have to some of that stuff allegorically of course but this isn't necessarily a modern day invention in response to the enlightened reason of science as atheists like to think it is.

Yeah, like that whole "there is a god" thing. That's probably also supposed to be allegorical.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Passion of Christ on February 23, 2014, 01:20:22 PM
Quote from: "Plu"Yeah, like that whole "there is a god" thing. That's probably also supposed to be allegorical.

Allegorical for the purposeful creator of the universe which you don't think exists for some reason. It could be due to this.


"Beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth. And beware lest you raise your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and bow down to them and serve them, things that the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven."Deuteronomy 4:16-19

These are the things God made rather than basis for everything that exists. He made all in a roundabout way through natural processes but it still counts and this is what science studies and can obtain hard evidence for just what you see there.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Plu on February 23, 2014, 01:29:18 PM
Unfortunately though, without the ability to make actual predictions, your explanation of the cause of the universe is worthless at best. Show me a difference in predictions between my hypothesis that the whole "god" concept can be taken as allegorical, and your hypothesis that the "god" concept is real, and you show the world proof of god.

But you can't. Because there is no measurable difference between this universe with god, and this universe without.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: leo on February 23, 2014, 03:21:13 PM
Quote from: "Plu"Unfortunately though, without the ability to make actual predictions, your explanation of the cause of the universe is worthless at best. Show me a difference in predictions between my hypothesis that the whole "god" concept can be taken as allegorical, and your hypothesis that the "god" concept is real, and you show the world proof of god.

But you can't. Because there is no measurable difference between this universe with god, and this universe without.
There isn't a difference between chucksterism and christianity. Both are made up.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: leo on February 23, 2014, 03:28:47 PM
I like APA toothfairysm too.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: irish on February 24, 2014, 01:01:52 AM
Quote from: "Harbinger"So, yes, I've made another thread to carry on from the archived one. What happens to this is up to the gods, but its here anyway, just in case. I've copied the OP from the original thread, so let the chat commence:

"We often get many theists claiming to have evidence for the god or gods they hold dear. This thread is created with the aim of allowing them to supply such evidence so that we may debate with them knowing the facts and conclusions they have drawn, and so that we may respond in kind.

So here we are. If you claim to have evidence that supports your god(s), please post it here:"

You post your evidence there is no God first.
Irish.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hydra009 on February 24, 2014, 01:43:39 AM
Quote from: "irish"You post your evidence there is no God first.
The other troll beat ya to that one.  0/10 originality.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Plu on February 24, 2014, 02:28:53 AM
Quote from: "irish"You post your evidence there is no God first.

I take it you still believe dragons are real? I haven't seen any evidence against them yet.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: PickelledEggs on February 24, 2014, 08:03:07 AM
Quote from: "irish"You post your evidence there is no God first.
Irish.
I pooped somewhere in your home right on your floor. But I cleaned it up so there was no trace of any fecal matter whatsoever and left no trace of me even being there.

Can you prove that I did or did not do this?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: AT7iLA on March 02, 2014, 07:17:07 AM
before we prove God's existence let's prove the existence of a dot that exploded.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Plu on March 02, 2014, 07:40:11 AM
Yeah, at least that's a topic we're A) making actual progress on and B) seems to be generating useful results that improve people's quality of life. I wish more people would put some effort into that one :)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Passion of Christ on March 10, 2014, 09:29:13 AM
Here's some evidence for you.

http://www.online-bible.org.uk/index.htm (http://www.online-bible.org.uk/index.htm)

Unless you mean strictly scientific evidence but you'll find everything is precisely mathematically arranged and part of an orderly sequence of formation over time from galaxies to DNA.

(//http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.607989385739177450&pid=15.1)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 10, 2014, 10:49:51 AM
Quote from: "Passion of Christ"Here's some evidence for you.

http://www.online-bible.org.uk/index.htm (http://www.online-bible.org.uk/index.htm)

Unless you mean strictly scientific evidence but you'll find everything is precisely mathematically arranged and part of an orderly sequence of formation over time from galaxies to DNA.

[ Image (//http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.607989385739177450&pid=15.1) ]
I reject your Bible site and substitute my own.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/)

Of all clean birds ye shall eat. But these are they of which ye shall not eat: ... the bat.--Dt.14:11, 18

God is his wisdom made the fly, and then forgot to tell us why. -- Ogden Nash

Genesis

"In the beginning"
When was the universe created?
The Gap Theory 1:1-2
The Genesis 1 creation account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. In Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. The order of events known from science is just the opposite. 1:1-2:3
God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them? 1:3-5
God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament. This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters. 1:6-8
Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (1:14-19). 1:11
God lets "the earth bring forth" the plants, rather than creating them directly. Maybe Genesis is not so anti-evolution after all. 1:11
In an apparent endorsement of astrology, God places the sun, moon, and stars in the firmament so that they can be used "for signs". This, of course, is exactly what astrologers do: read "the signs" in the Zodiac in an effort to predict what will happen on Earth. 1:14
God makes two lights: "the greater light [the sun] to rule the day, and the lesser light [the moon] to rule the night." But the moon is not a light, but only reflects light from the sun. And why, if God made the moon to "rule the night", does it spend half of its time moving through the daytime sky? 1:16
"He made the stars also." God spends a day making light (before making the stars) and separating light from darkness; then, at the end of a hard day's work, and almost as an afterthought, he makes the trillions of stars. 1:16
"And God set them [the stars] in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth." 1:17
In verse 11, God "let the earth bring forth" the plants. Now he has the earth "bring forth" the animals as well. So maybe the creationists have it all wrong. Maybe God created livings things through the process of evolution. 1:24
God gave humans dominion over every other living thing on earth. 1:26
God commands us to "be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over ... every living thing that moveth upon the earth." 1:28
"I have given you every herb ... and every tree ... for meat."
Since many plants have evolved poisons to protect against animals that would like to eat them, God's advice is more than a little reckless. Would you tell your children to go out in the garden and eat whatever plants they encounter? Of course not. But then, you are much nicer and smarter than God. 1:29
All animals were originally herbivores. Tapeworms, vampire bats, mosquitoes, and barracudas -- all were strict vegetarians, as they were created by God. 1:30
"God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." He purposefully designed a system that ensures the suffering and death of all his creatures, parasite and host, predator and prey. 1:31
In Genesis 1 the entire creation takes 6 days, but the universe is 13.7 billion years old, with new stars constantly being formed. 1:31
Humans were not created instantaneously from dust and breath, but evolved over millions of years from simpler life forms. 2:7
After making the animals, God has Adam name them all. The naming of several million species must have kept Adam busy for a while. 2:18-22
God fashions a woman out of one of Adam's ribs.
Because of this story, it was commonly believed (and sometimes it is still said today) that males have one less rib than females. When Vesalius showed in 1543 that the number of ribs was the same in males and females, it created a storm of controversy. 2:19
God curses the serpent. From now on the serpent will crawl on his belly and eat dust. One wonders how he got around before -- by hopping on his tail, perhaps? But snakes don't eat dust, do they? 3:14
Because Adam listened to Eve, God cursed the ground and causes thorns and thistles to grow. Before this, according to the (false) Genesis story, plants had no natural defenses. The rose had no thorn, cacti were spineless, holly leaves were smooth, and the nettle had no sting. Foxgloves, oleander, and milkweeds were all perfectly safe to eat. 3:17-18
Seth lived 912 years. 5:8
Enos lived 905 years. 5:11
Cainan lived 910 years. 5:14
Mahalaleel lived 895 years. 5:17
Jared lived 962 years. 5:20
Enoch doesn't die he just ascends into heaven. 5:21-24
Enoch lived 365 years before he was taken (alive?) by God. 5:23
When Lamech was born, nine generations were alive at once. Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, and Lamech were all alive at the time of Lamech's birth. Adam lived to see his great-great-great-great-great-great-grandson. 5:25
Methuselah lived 969 years. (World record holder.) 5:27
Lamech lived 777 years. 5:31
"There were giants in the earth in those days." 6:4
God tells Noah to make one small window (18 inches square) in the 450 foot ark for ventilation. 6:14-16
Whether by twos or by sevens, Noah takes male and female representatives from each species of "every thing that creepeth upon the earth." 7:8
God opens the "windows of heaven." He does this every time it rains. 7:11
All of the animals boarded the ark "in the selfsame day." 7:13-14
The flood covered the highest mountain tops (Mount Everest?) with fifteen cubits to spare. 7:20
"The windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained." This happens whenever it stops raining. 8:2
Noah sends a dove out to see if there was any dry land. But the dove returns without finding any. Then, just seven days later, the dove goes out again and returns with an olive leaf. But how could an olive tree survive the flood? And if any seeds happened to survive, they certainly wouldn't germinate and grow leaves within a seven day period. 8:8-11
When the animals left the ark, what would they have eaten? There would have been no plants after the ground had been submerged for nearly a year. What would the carnivores have eaten? Whatever prey they ate would have gone extinct. And how did the New World primates or the Australian marsupials find their way back after the flood subsided? 8:19
"And the Lord smelled a sweet savor."
Noah kills the "clean beasts" and burns their dead bodies for God. According to 7:8 this would have caused the extinction of all "clean" animals since only two of each were taken onto the ark. 8:20-21
"Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth." Although this would have been good advice for the mythical Noah, it is deadly advice for humankind as a whole. Overpopulation is one of our greatest problems, yet there is nothing in the bible to address it. 9:1
According to this verse, all animals fear humans. Although it is true that many do, it is also true that some do not. Sharks and grizzly bears, for example, are generally much less afraid of us than we are of them. 9:2
"Into your hand are they (the animals) delivered." God gave the animals to humans, and they can do whatever they please with them. This verse has been used by bible believers to justify all kinds of cruelty to animals and environmental destruction. 9:2
"I do set my bow in the cloud."
God is rightly filled with remorse for having killed his creatures. He makes a deal with the animals, promising never to drown them all again. He even puts the rainbow in the sky so that whenever he sees it, it will remind him of his promise so that he won't be tempted to do it again. (Every time God sees the rainbow he says to himself: "Oh, yeah.... That's right. I promised not to drown the animals again. I guess I'll have to find something else to do.").
But rainbows are caused by the nature of light, the refractive index of water, and the shape of raindrops. There were rainbows billions of years before humans existed. 9:13
"Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided."
Some creationists believe that this verse refers to continental drift, which, they say, began to occur during the days of Pelag (which means "division"), about 100 or so years after the flood. But many other creationists disagree. 10:25
"The whole earth was of one language." But this could not be true, since by this time (around 2400 BCE) there were already many languages, each unintelligible to the others. 11:1, 6
"Now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do."
God worries that the people will succeed in building a tower high enough to reach him (them?) in heaven, and that by so doing they will become omnipotent. 11:4-6
According to the Tower of Babel story, the many human languages were created instantaneously by God. But actually the various languages evolved gradually over long periods of time. 11:9
The ridiculously long lives of the patriarchs. 11:10-32
Shem lived 600 years. 11:12-13
Salah lived 433 years. 11:14-15
Eber lived 464 years. 11:16-17
Peleg lived 239 years. 11:18-19
Reu lived 239 years. 11:20-21
Serug lived 229 years. 11:22-23
Nahor lived 148 years. 11:24-25
And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years. 11:32
"Abram ... pursued them unto Dan."
This is an obvious anachronism, since the city of Dan was not named "Dan" until the time of the Judges (see Judges 18:29). In fact, Dan (for whom the city was named) was not even born yet (see Genesis 30:6). 14:14
"And they returned to the land of the Philistines." But the Philistines didn't arrive in the region of Canaan until around 1200 BCE -- 800 years after Abraham's supposed migration from Ur. 21:32, 26:1
Laban learns "by experience" that God has blessed him for Jacob's sake. "By experience" means "by divination", at least that is how most other versions translate this verse. 30:27
Jacob displays his (and God's) knowledge of biology by having goats copulate while looking at streaked rods. The result is streaked baby goats. 30:37-39
God (or an angel) praises Jacob for his fancy genetic work in 30:37-39. 31:11-12
Joseph and his magic divining cup. 44:5-15
Exodus

The birth story of Moses is suspiciously similar to that of the birth of Sargon, an Akkadian monarch from the 3rd millennium BCE. (BBC: The tale of the basket) 2:3
The Israelite population went from 70 (or 75) to several million in a few hundred years. 1:5,7, 12:37, 38:26
Why are some people born with disabilities? Because God deliberately makes them that way. 4:11
God killed Egyptians and their livestock by smashing them with huge hailstones mixed with fire. 9:24
God led the Israelites through the land of the Philistines, hundreds of years before the Philistines were established in Canaan. 13:17
If you do what God says, he won't send his diseases on you (like he did to the Egyptians). But otherwise.... 15:26
"The manna referred to in the Bible, in Exodus 16:14, seems to have been the dried excrement of Trabutina mannipara, a scale insect that feeds on tamarisk trees." Benjamin B. Normark, The Sex Lives of Scales, Natural History, Sept. 2004. 16:14-15
It took the Israelites 40 years to travel from Egypt to Canaan, yet such a journey, even at that time, would have taken no more than a few weeks. 16:35
A magical trumpet played loud while God came down in smoke, fire, and earthquakes onto Mt. Sinai. 19:16-18
"In six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them."
Believers often say that the "days" of creation should be taken allegorically, but this verse is quite clear. God created the universe in six 24 hour days. 20:11
Leviticus

The Bible says that hares and coneys are unclean because they "chew the cud" but do not part the hoof. But hares and coneys are not ruminants and they do not "chew the cud." 11:5-6
Bats are birds to the biblical God. 11:13, 19
Four-legged fowls are abominations. 11:20
Be sure to watch out for those "other flying creeping things which have four feet." (I wish God wouldn't get so technical!) I guess he must mean four-legged insects. You'd think that since God made the insects, and so many of them (at least several million species), that he would know how many legs they have! 11:23
God's law for lepers: Get two birds. Kill one. Dip the live bird in the blood of the dead one. Sprinkle the blood on the leper seven times, and then let the blood-soaked bird fly off. Next find a lamb and kill it. Wipe some of its blood on the patient's right ear, thumb, and big toe. Sprinkle seven times with oil and wipe some of the oil on his right ear, thumb and big toe. Repeat. Finally kill a couple doves and offer one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. 14:2-52
Numbers

The Israelite population went from seventy (Exodus 1:5) to several million (over 600,000 adult males) in 400 years. 1:45-46, 26:51
When the tabernacle was set up, it was covered by a cloud during the day and by fire all night. 9:15
God led the Israelites from one camp to the other with a cloud. When the cloud stopped and rested someplace, the Israelites pitched their tents. When the cloud started moving again, the Israelites followed it. 9:16-23
God sends quails to feed his people until they were "two cubits [about a meter] high upon the face of the earth." Taking the "face of the earth" to be a circle with a radius of say 30 kilometers (an approximate day's journey), this would amount to 3 trillion (3x1012) liters of quails. At 2 quails per liter, this would provide a couple million quails for each of several million people.
Although this story is obviously exaggerated, it may have grown from a grain of truth. Common Quail (Cotumix cotumix) migrate twice a year between Africa and Eurasia, and occasional storm-induced "fallout" could make quail appear to rain from the sky. 11:31

God strikes Miriam with leprosy. (In the Bible, leprosy is caused by the wrath of God or the malice of Satan. 12:10
"They ... cut down ... a branch with one cluster of grapes, and they bare it between two upon a staff."
A single cluster of grapes was so heavy that it took two men to carry it. I guess that's what you'd expect, though, since they were in the land of giants. (See verses 32-33.) 13:23
"And there we saw the giants ... And we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight." This statement may have been figurative, hyperbole, typical biblical exaggeration, or an actual description of the sons of Anak, in which case they must have been about 100 meters tall. These are the same giants (the Nephilium) that resulted when the "sons of God" mated with "the daughters of men in Genesis 6:4 Of course, these superhuman god-men should have been destroyed in the flood. So what are they doing still alive? 13:33
Moses hits a rock with his rod and Presto! -- water comes out. 20:11
God sends "fiery serpents" to bite his chosen people, and many of them die. 21:6
God's cure for snakebite: a brass serpent on a pole. 21:8
God has "the strength of a unicorn." Oh heck, I bet he's even stronger than a unicorn. 23:22, 24:8
"He made them wander in the wilderness forty years."
It took the Israelites 40 years to travel from Egypt to Canaan, yet such a journey, even at that time, would have taken no more than a few weeks. 32:13
Deuteronomy

"The people is greater and taller than we ... we have seen the sons of the Anakims there." More giants in the promised land. 1:28
It took the Israelites 40 years to travel from Egypt to Canaan, yet such a journey, even at that time, would have taken no more than a few weeks. 2:7, 8:2, 29:5
"A land of giants: giants dwelt therein in old time." (They must have been much more common back then.) 2:10-11, 20-21
Og, the king of the giants, was a tall man, even by NBA standards. His bed measured 9 by 4 cubits (13.5 feet long and 6 feet wide). 3:11
God promises to cast out seven nations including the Amorites, Canaanites, and the Jebusites. But he was unable to fulfill his promise. These nations were "greater and mightier" than the Israelites, who according to Exodus 12:37 and Numbers 1:45-46 already had numbered several million. So the region, according to the bible, must have had a population of more than twenty million! 7:1
"Who led thee through that great and terrible wilderness, wherein were fiery serpents? ... Who brought thee forth water out of the rock of flint?" 8:15
"A people great and tall, the children of the Anakims."
More giants! 9:2
"When I was gone up into the mount to receive the tables of stone ... I abode in the mount forty days and forty nights, I neither did eat bread nor drink water." 9:9
This verse mistakenly says that the hare chews its cud. 14:7-8
To the biblical God, a bat is just an another unclean bird. 14:11, 18
"And thy heaven that is over thy head shall be brass, and the earth that is under thee shall be iron." 28:23
"The LORD shall make the rain of thy land powder and dust: from heaven shall it come down upon thee, until thou be destroyed." 28:24
"An eagle ... beareth them on her wings."
Do eagles carry their young on their wings? I know of no evidence (except for the single anecdote provided here) that they do. 32:11
"Their wine is the poison of dragons." I wonder what genus and species the bible is referring to when it mentions dragons. 32:33
Joseph's "horns are like the horns of a unicorn." 33:17



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk. Titty sprinkles.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Passion of Christ on March 10, 2014, 12:23:34 PM
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"I reject your Bible site and substitute my own.

I will take your rejection of a scientific literal view of the Bible and raise you one Space Gnome.

[youtube:21gzywnc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0H5JxHlOZM[/youtube:21gzywnc]

I'm aware that they used to think the Earth was flat, rested on pillars and had a firmament or glassy dome above it with all the various cosmic bodies orbiting the Earth but that's just how they saw the world with their lack of scientific knowledge. It does not mean they had no knowledge of God and his eternal relationship to the created natural order and humanity which is the subject of the Bible. So I would reject the literal interpretation of the Bible you reject though I wouldn't use it as evidence that God doesn't exist it's evidence of the limits of Bronze Age scientific understanding of the world, God isn't a scientific subject therefore there isn't a problem. You just take the universe as we understand it and look at through the lens of it being a created and purpose made natural order with all the elements made in sequence.

(//http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.608029101299140660&pid=15.1)

(//http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.608001420241273853&pid=15.1)


You have the formation of the Earth and the development of complex life over time in a pattern of sequence, basic organisms like plants come first higher forms are "brought forth" when the bio-system is ready to support them.

(//http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.608052358547965603&pid=15.1)


You have the mathematical perfection of the cosmos, the natural systems and living organisms which you can see all around you on a daily basis.

(//http://www.earthtransitions.com/images/stories/spiralsinnature.jpg)

Just replace the Bronze Age depiction of the world with all this and keep God in the picture which gives you the underlying eternal and purposeful context as to why we exist and you're good to go.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Plu on March 10, 2014, 12:45:31 PM
"Just assume I'm right and use that as evidence that I'm right."
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 10, 2014, 12:48:57 PM
Quote from: "Passion of Christ"[You just take the universe as we understand it and look at through the lens of it being a created and purpose made natural order with all the elements made in sequence.
This right here describes the flaw in your logic. You begin with an assumption and look for facts that fit. Your approach is the opposite of science.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk. Titty sprinkles.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Icarus on March 10, 2014, 12:54:51 PM
Quote from: "Passion of Christ"You have the formation of the Earth and the development of complex life over time in a pattern of sequence, basic organisms like plants come first higher forms are "brought forth" when the bio-system is ready to support them.


Ummmm "Basic organisms like plants" No, no,no,no,no,no,no. Ophioglossaceae, a fern, has 1260 chromosomes, you have 46. Genetically speaking plants are way more complex than mammals. You see them as basic because you've formulated a conclusion without really thinking about your reasoning.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: the_antithesis on March 10, 2014, 01:02:31 PM
Quote from: "Passion of Christ"Unless you mean strictly scientific evidence but you'll find everything is precisely mathematically arranged and part of an orderly sequence of formation over time from galaxies to DNA.

You are stupid.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Passion of Christ on March 10, 2014, 01:03:02 PM
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"This right here describes the flaw in your logic. You begin with an assumption and look for facts that fit.

Like how you assume God doesn't exist then pull out passages from the Bible that don't happen to fit with our scientific knowledge of the universe? We can agree that scientifically that's not what happened but you just have to replace their lack of scientific understanding with modern science. God was never used as a scientific explanation though what he did was create the natural world, sustain it's existence and have a relationship with his creatures. That God still works with this universe.


Quoteapproach is the opposite of science.

The Bible isn't a scientific book it's about God who has a relationship with his creatures. You can still have that regardless of how much we understand scientifically. It's not that our science necessarily even points towards random coincidental chaos anyway there is really very mathematically precise finely tuned structure to be found, the whole can be seen to tie together as one whole.  

(//http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.607994127381630968&pid=15.1)

The life we have here on Earth is linked to all of this we're not a byproduct but the end result of a complex process of formation. Why can't it have been a deliberate process? Given the sheer complexity of everything that had to be involved for us to get here it would make more sense if it was.


Quote from: "the_antithesis"You are stupid.

No need to explain why just give your opinion without backing it up.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Plu on March 10, 2014, 01:28:26 PM
QuoteLike how you assume God doesn't exist then pull out passages from the Bible that don't happen to fit with our scientific knowledge of the universe?

No, like how we don't see any reason to believe god exists any more than we see a reason to believe unicorns exist. There's some books talking about them, but no physical evidence and believing or not believing in their existance seems to have no measurable effects, so you might as well assume they aren't real.

Now the reason we don't go out claiming unicorns don't exist is because people believing in unicorns don't have a record of making life miserable for people throughout history. If they did, we'd have more of a problem with them.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 10, 2014, 01:40:10 PM
Quote from: "Passion of Christ"Like how you assume God doesn't exist then pull out passages from the Bible that don't happen to fit with our scientific knowledge of the universe?
This right here is the biggest divide between your thinking and ours. I have far too much experience with this line of theistic thinking, which is this:

The only way you know how to rationalize our position is to assume that we are making an assumption comparable to your own. You can't comprehend the concept of a mutable, evidence-based position that does not include a deity within it, because you have been conditioned to believe that the existence of a deity is simply a given. As a result, you openly project your own biases onto us, not at all self-aware of how flawed your approach is.

You will not be able to have any sort of meaningful conversation on this forum until you are able to discard that method of thinking.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: the_antithesis on March 10, 2014, 01:43:59 PM
Quote from: "Passion of Christ"No need to explain why just give your opinion without backing it up.

When someone comes into your home and shits on the carpet, they do not deserve an explanation for why you smack their head and throw them out.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Passion of Christ on March 10, 2014, 04:19:07 PM
Quote from: "Plu"No, like how we don't see any reason to believe god exists any more than we see a reason to believe unicorns exist.

Whenever you say anything about unicorns, leprechauns or Santa Claus you have what is called "Santa Syndrome" don't fall into that one.

[youtube:3q5h0ucz]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNw1ZalOb54[/youtube:3q5h0ucz]



QuoteThere's some books talking about them, but no physical evidence and believing or not believing in their existance seems to have no measurable effects, so you might as well assume they aren't real.

They were a misidentified African antelope viewed from the side making it look like they had only one horn that's what they were.  They weren't meant to be anything supernatural like that film with Tom Cruise in it just an animal.



QuoteNow the reason we don't go out claiming unicorns don't exist is because people believing in unicorns don't have a record of making life miserable for people throughout history. If they did, we'd have more of a problem with them.

There were no atheists who made life miserable for people?

(//http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.608002687254791101&pid=15.1)

What about the good things religion achieved? Say the things that actually have something to do with the core religious/spiritual teachings? Do you just ignore all that?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Moriarty on March 10, 2014, 04:28:35 PM
Religions has done nothing good. When the balance is done the right side of the equation is in the negative........badly.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hydra009 on March 10, 2014, 04:40:09 PM
Quote from: "Passion of Christ"What about the good things religion achieved? Say the things that actually have something to do with the core religious/spiritual teachings? Do you just ignore all that?
(//http://gregteselle.com/thoughts/wp-content/uploads/hello-my-name-is-irrelevant.jpg)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 10, 2014, 04:45:37 PM
Quote from: "Passion of Christ"What about the good things religion achieved? Say the things that actually have something to do with the core religious/spiritual teachings? Do you just ignore all that?
(//http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/redherring.gif)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: PickelledEggs on March 10, 2014, 05:45:51 PM
Quote from: "Passion of Christ"There were no atheists who made life miserable for people?

[ Image (//http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.608002687254791101&pid=15.1) ]

What about the good things religion achieved? Say the things that actually have something to do with the core religious/spiritual teachings? Do you just ignore all that?
I hear Stalin was an atheist. But there is no evidence that ties lack of belief to how horribly he treated people.

In the words of Steven Weinberg: "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion"

And can you name a few positive things that religion achieved? Aside from comfort from death, which I don't really see as a necessarily good thing or something that can be exclusively achieved from religion, I don't know many and none come to mind right now.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Moriarty on March 10, 2014, 06:33:39 PM
Here's the deal on "Atheist" atrocities. Lets just assume for a moment that the belief Stalin, or any of the others, was an Atheist is accurate. That is one individual, sure he may have had aid from others who may or not have been Atheist as well but NO Atheist organization ever decided to try to wipe out an entire group of people........ Never heard of the Atheist Crusades, or the Atheist Inquisitions, Atheist terrorism, etc...
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hydra009 on March 10, 2014, 06:36:14 PM
Quote from: "PickelledEggs"And can you name a few positive things that religion achieved? Aside from comfort from death, which I don't really see as a necessarily good thing or something that can be exclusively achieved from religion, I don't know many and none come to mind right now.
Charity!  And sometimes, without any aggressive proselytizing or strings attached.  How generous!

Some people might say that a non-taxed organization that rakes in up to 10% of people's earnings might ought to be expected to do a little charity work.  That keeping it all and living lavishly would be monstrous.  To those people I say yeah, that's actually a good point.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Moriarty on March 10, 2014, 06:37:49 PM
Quote from: "Hydra009"
Quote from: "PickelledEggs"And can you name a few positive things that religion achieved? Aside from comfort from death, which I don't really see as a necessarily good thing or something that can be exclusively achieved from religion, I don't know many and none come to mind right now.
Charity!  And sometimes, without any aggressive proselytizing or strings attached.  How generous!

Some people might say that a non-taxed organization that rakes in up to 10% of people's earnings might ought to be expected to do a little charity work.  That keeping it all and living lavishly would be monstrous.  To those people I say yeah, that's actually a good point.


All that charity..........."Please believe my bullshit story and come to our church."
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: PickelledEggs on March 10, 2014, 07:12:34 PM
My sister has been on a few mission trips in the last couple years. And while I am all for the rebuilding of destroyed communities and fixing dilapidated houses that they do, it usually comes with a heap of brain washing. My mom went with her one year and had to deprogram my sister after she (my mom)  was done vomiting from all the wacko stuff that was said by the mission trip organizers. And yes. My mom actually felt sick and vomited because the bullshit was so heavy, even for her.

Yes religion does a lot of charity and sometimes there isn't any religion attached to their favors, but what is something achieved exclusively by religion. Charity and helping other people is something that everyone does. And if you get a group of people together whether they believe in something like a god or not, they can do something very charitable.

Sent from my I-605 JediX20 via Tapatalk
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: the_antithesis on March 10, 2014, 08:01:46 PM
Quote from: "Passion of Christ"What about the good things religion achieved?

Don't care.

The good religion has allegedly done says nothing about the truth value of your claims.

Until you can actual, solid evidence for your bullshit, you have no place here.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Shol'va on March 10, 2014, 08:21:24 PM
Stalin WAS an atheist, but there is no core tenet of atheism that dictates how to behave. In fact atheism is not a world view, it is itself a start to other world views.

Stalin marched against the church because he did not tolerate any challenge to absolute, centralized power.
If there was a Church of Atheists, Stalin would have torn it brick by brick. He was batshit crazy for absolute consolidation of power.

I had the misfortune of having lived under Ceausescu's communist regime. The Orthodox church did just fine. While it was not officially endorsed or encouraged in any way, you could still be a practicing Christian.
As further evidence that atheism does not inescapably lead to Stalin-level assholery, look at all the current, modern countries that are either secular or largely atheistic.

Communism is not a consequence of atheism, it's the other way around. Communists do not take well to any organized anything that is perceived as a challenge to power. The State™ is to provide all the needs to its people.

This whole Stalin argument is beyond debunked.

Still no evidence for god.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 10, 2014, 09:06:46 PM
Quote from: "Shol'va"Communism is not a consequence of atheism, it's the other way around.
*puts on troll hat*

So you're saying people become atheists because they're communists? Just another example of why atheism is bullshit.

*takes off troll hat*
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Shol'va on March 10, 2014, 09:39:37 PM
Yes. We are all commies around here.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: the_antithesis on March 10, 2014, 09:42:33 PM
Not me.

I'm a Johnny-commie-lately.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Shol'va on March 10, 2014, 09:58:03 PM
Reminds me of a joke, a conversation between two communists decrying capitalism. One says that capitalism is about the exploitation of man by man, whereas under communism, it's the other way around!
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Biodome on March 11, 2014, 04:25:51 AM
(//http://asset-1.soup.io/asset/4986/4032_1dd3.jpeg)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: PickelledEggs on December 25, 2014, 10:14:43 PM
*now stickied*
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: SNP1 on December 30, 2014, 06:06:54 PM
I am an atheist, but try refuting this argument (uses modal logic)

CCF - Is a conjunct of all contingent facts in the world
P1) It is possible that a world exists where the CCF has an explanation, and that explanation is q
P2) Explanation q must be a necessary being
P3) It is possible a necessary being exists (from 1 & 2)
P4) If it is possible a necessary being exists, then a necessary being exists (via. axiom s5)
C) A necessary being exists

No one I know has been able to refute the argument
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: GrinningYMIR on January 04, 2015, 10:20:23 AM
P4 does not work to me, just because something is possible doesn't mean its a certainty, for the sake of your argument yes, but I have a possibility of boning Jennifer Lawrence, it doesn't mean that I will, or that it is an action that will most certainly happen, there exists just the chance of it happening/being true.

Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: PickelledEggs on January 04, 2015, 10:34:15 AM
Quote from: SNP1 on December 30, 2014, 06:06:54 PM
I am an atheist, but try refuting this argument (uses modal logic)

CCF - Is a conjunct of all contingent facts in the world
P1) It is possible that a world exists where the CCF has an explanation, and that explanation is q
P2) Explanation q must be a necessary being
P3) It is possible a necessary being exists (from 1 & 2)
P4) If it is possible a necessary being exists, then a necessary being exists (via. axiom s5)
C) A necessary being exists

No one I know has been able to refute the argument
That's too much like algebra for this early in the morning.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: SNP1 on January 04, 2015, 10:35:37 AM
Quote from: GrinningYMIR on January 04, 2015, 10:20:23 AM
P4 does not work to me, just because something is possible doesn't mean its a certainty, for the sake of your argument yes, but I have a possibility of boning Jennifer Lawrence, it doesn't mean that I will, or that it is an action that will most certainly happen, there exists just the chance of it happening/being true.

One of the rules of modal logic is that if something necessary is possible, then it is real.
You boning Jennifer Lawrence is possible, but is not necessary. That means that it will not necessarily happen.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Drummer Guy on January 12, 2015, 03:47:39 AM
Quote from: SNP1 on December 30, 2014, 06:06:54 PM
I am an atheist, but try refuting this argument (uses modal logic)

CCF - Is a conjunct of all contingent facts in the world
P1) It is possible that a world exists where the CCF has an explanation, and that explanation is q
P2) Explanation q must be a necessary being
P3) It is possible a necessary being exists (from 1 & 2)
P4) If it is possible a necessary being exists, then a necessary being exists (via. axiom s5)
C) A necessary being exists

No one I know has been able to refute the argument
Nobody can refute it because it rests on one big fallacy.  P4 is obviously false, but they always pull the "uh-uh, part of modal logic is that it has to be true, check mate!"

Defining something as necessary doesn't mean it has to exist.  It's that simple.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hydra009 on January 12, 2015, 04:06:39 AM
I'm starting to wonder about P2 as well.  What the hell is a necessary being?  I have never even heard of this term outside of religion, and from the looks of it, it's the same old apologetics argument where stuff that we can't explain has to be explained by a "necessary being" (aka god).  Well, yeah, if you stack the deck to the point where there is no other explanation than a god, then you're of course going to arrive at the conclusion that a god is the only explanation.  Doesn't make it a killer argument, though.  Just a flow chart with a predefined answer.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: SNP1 on January 12, 2015, 07:38:13 AM
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 12, 2015, 04:06:39 AM
I'm starting to wonder about P2 as well.  What the hell is a necessary being?  I have never even heard of this term outside of religion, and from the looks of it, it's the same old apologetics argument where stuff that we can't explain has to be explained by a "necessary being" (aka god).  Well, yeah, if you stack the deck to the point where there is no other explanation than a god, then you're of course going to arrive at the conclusion that a god is the only explanation.  Doesn't make it a killer argument, though.  Just a flow chart with a predefined answer.

Quite simple. There are 2 types of facts, contingent and necessary.

The argument is talking about how it is possible for the CCF (which is every contingent fact) to have an explanation.

Now, there are only two things that can explain anything, contingent facts or necessary ones.

Since we are dealing with the explanation of every contingent fact, we know the explanation cannot be contingent (as that would mean we are not talking about every contingent fact). That means that the explanation of the CCF must, by definition, be necessary.

P2 is true by definition.

So, let's go over each premise:

P1) It is possible that a world exists where the CCF has an explanation, and that explanation is q

In modal logic, a possible world is one that you can imagine that is not contradictory. Because of this, this premise works under modal logic.

P2) Explanation q must be a necessary being

I explained this above.

P3) It is possible a necessary being exists (from 1 & 2)

This is the natural conclusion from the first 2 premises. It is possible that there is a world where q exists (P1), and q must be a necessary being (P2), therefore it is possible that there is a necessary being.

P4) If it is possible a necessary being exists, then a necessary being exists (via. axiom s5)

This is based off of one of the axioms of modal logic. Anything that is determined to be necessary exists in all possible worlds.

C) A necessary being exists

This follows directly from premise 4.

This is why I feel like the argument is irrefutable. Everything logically follows when you use modal logic.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: doorknob on January 14, 2015, 01:24:51 PM
where's your proof that only two types of facts exist. When I Googled it I Only got articles about type 2 diabetes.
Also your sense of logic is highly flawed.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: SNP1 on January 14, 2015, 01:27:10 PM
Quote from: doorknob on January 14, 2015, 01:24:51 PM
where's your proof that only two types of facts exist.

It is based off of modal logic. Under modal logic, those are the only types of facts.

QuoteAlso your sense of logic is highly flawed.

How so?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: doorknob on January 14, 2015, 01:49:14 PM
simple. you've failed to explain why the being is necessary or prove that it is necessary. As some one else already stated.

Also I can make any words look like they are modeled after logic that does not make it logical.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: doorknob on January 14, 2015, 01:59:12 PM
I am an atheist, but try refuting this argument (uses modal logic)

CCF - Is a conjunct of all contingent facts in the world
P1) It is possible that my brother has rabies where the CCF has an explanation, and that explanation is q
P2) Explanation q  rabies must be a necessary thing
P3) It is possible  rabies is a necessary  thing (from 1 & 2)
P4) If it is possible rabies is a necessary thing, then my brother has rabies (via. axiom s5)
C) A necessary being exists

looks just like logic to me.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: SNP1 on January 14, 2015, 02:26:34 PM
If you do not understand modal logic, then don't pretend to. You only make yourself look like an idiot.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: SNP1 on January 14, 2015, 02:30:40 PM
Quote from: doorknob on January 14, 2015, 01:49:14 PM
simple. you've failed to explain why the being is necessary or prove that it is necessary. As some one else already stated.

Also I can make any words look like they are modeled after logic that does not make it logical.

1) I explained why it must be necessary. Maybe try reading.

P1) Q is either necessary or contingent
P2) Not contingent
C) Q is necessary

Premise 1 is true by definition.
Premise 2 is supported because the CCF is all contingent facts, Q, being an explanation of the CCF, cannot be a part of the CCF.

2) It isn't "modeled after logic", it is an actual branch of logic called modal logic. You clearly do not understand it based off of your pseudo argument.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: doorknob on January 14, 2015, 02:46:36 PM
Once again you've failed to prove that god is necessary. That's a major problem with it. You missed my point in making words look logical. I was suggesting that your words only looks like logic and are not actual logic. I'm not convinced there are only two types of facts for one thing. If you could provide a link to where this is stated I'd love to see it. I've googled logic and I"ve never seen any where that there are only two types of facts.

also for deductive logic you need to have facts first. You do not have facts.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: SNP1 on January 14, 2015, 02:52:24 PM
Quote from: doorknob on January 14, 2015, 02:46:36 PM
also for deductive logic you need to have facts first. You do not have facts.

This isn't deductive logic, it is modal logic. It is an entirely different school of logic.

Specifically, this is the branch of modal logic sometimes referred to as possible modal logic.

When dealing with modal logic, you have to use the axioms of modal logic. In modal logic, a fact is either contingent or necessary.

I recommend, before making yourself look even more like an idiot about this subject, that you take an introduction to philosophy course. You will touch on the basics of modal logic.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: doorknob on January 14, 2015, 03:03:34 PM
Nice. I can't afford to take a philosophy class thank you very much or I would.

Also one last note I base my facts off science not philosophy. You can use philosophical logic all want it won't make it any more real. There is a reason scientific facts are not based on philosophy.

Also you predefine that god must be necessary. You have nothing backing that statement up
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: SNP1 on January 14, 2015, 03:11:22 PM
Quote from: doorknob on January 14, 2015, 03:03:34 PM
Nice. I can't afford to take a philosophy class thank you very much or I would.

You should. It should be a requirement as it teaches people how to think.

QuoteAlso one last note I base my facts off science not philosophy. You can use philosophical logic all want it won't make it any more real. There is a reason scientific facts are not based on philosophy.

There is a reason that science and philosophy differ. It actually has a historical reason. For the longest time, there were two schools of thought, empiricism and rationalism. No one wanted to mix the two together. Both made great strides in showing certain facts about the world. Eventually, they merged in two different ways.

Modern science is one of those ways. It bases itself mostly off of empiricism, but has some rationalism in it.

Next, modern philosophy. Modern philosophy is mostly rationalism, but has some empiricism in it.

QuoteAlso you predefine that god must be necessary. You have nothing backing that statement up

How was that predefining god as necessary? By definition, an explanation of the CCF must be necessary (under modal logic). And via one of the axioms of possible modal logic, if something that is necessary is possible, then it is real.

The ONLY flaw with this argument does not lie in any premise or the conclusion, but the method. It uses a branch of modal logic sometimes called possible modal logic. There is a debate among some philosopher whether any conclusion reached with possible modal logic reflects what is possible or what is real (I take the position of the former). This means one could say that this argument only shows that a god is possible, meaning that gnositic atheism is an even stupider position than people think.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Desdinova on January 14, 2015, 03:28:39 PM
Despite all of your condescending lecturing all you are saying is that something is possible.  I'm sorry but I don't put stock in possibilities when it comes to belief in a higher power.  Give me scientific data that supports the existence of a god and then you'll have my attention.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: SNP1 on January 14, 2015, 03:41:05 PM
Quote from: Desdinova on January 14, 2015, 03:28:39 PM
Despite all of your condescending lecturing all you are saying is that something is possible.  I'm sorry but I don't put stock in possibilities when it comes to belief in a higher power.  Give me scientific data that supports the existence of a god and then you'll have my attention.

I am saying that some say that it means it is possible, others say that it reflects reality.

If it was conclusive, I wouldn't be an atheist, now would I?

Also, to ask for scientific evidence for god is fundamentally flawed.

Science deals with the natural world. God, by definition, is supernatural. That means that, by definition, it is impossible for there to be direct scientific evidence for a god. That is why the question of "is there a god?" is a philosophical question.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Desdinova on January 14, 2015, 03:57:42 PM
The supernatural is not relevant here.  Something either exists or it doesn't.  Science can be applied to anything that exists.  Science is knowledge.  I don't think that asking for proof of God is flawed.  It may be useless, because he doesn't exist.  Still, the burden of proof is on those that say he exists merely because a book written thousands of years ago says he does.  Furthermore, they have the audacity to say that I have to believe in him or suffer eternal damnation.  I have a problem with that.  So prove this god exists!  What's flawed about that?  What is flawed in my observation is that fact that on one hand you purport to be an atheist and on the other had you seem to champion the possibility that a supreme being may exist.  That sounds like agnosticism to me.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: SNP1 on January 14, 2015, 04:28:25 PM
Quote from: Desdinova on January 14, 2015, 03:57:42 PM
The supernatural is not relevant here.

How isn't it? God is a supernatural being, therefore it is relevant when discussing if there is a god or not.

QuoteSomething either exists or it doesn't.

Correct.

QuoteScience can be applied to anything that exists.

No, it cannot. Science uses methodological materialism. It presupposes that there is only the material, and only works on the material. God would be immaterial, and thus cannot be tested with science.

QuoteI don't think that asking for proof of God is flawed.  It may be useless, because he doesn't exist.

I do not think it is flawed either, but asking only for scientific evidence (which can never have direct evidence for anything immaterial) is flawed.

QuoteStill, the burden of proof is on those that say he exists merely because a book written thousands of years ago says he does.  Furthermore, they have the audacity to say that I have to believe in him or suffer eternal damnation.  I have a problem with that.  So prove this god exists!  What's flawed about that?  What is flawed in my observation is that fact that on one hand you purport to be an atheist and on the other had you seem to champion the possibility that a supreme being may exist.  That sounds like agnosticism to me.

You might go based off of the trichotomy of theism, agnosticism, or atheism. I do not. I take the stance that there are 4 positions, gnostic theism, agnostic theism, agnostic atheism, or gnostic atheism. I fall under agnostic atheism. I personally claim that there isn't a god, but recognize that it is possible that there could be one.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Desdinova on January 14, 2015, 04:48:48 PM
Quote from: SNP1 on January 14, 2015, 04:28:25 PM
How isn't it? God is a supernatural being, therefore it is relevant when discussing if there is a god or not.

I posit that the supernatural does not exist.  Ergo Irrelevant.

QuoteGod would be immaterial, and thus cannot be tested with science.

If something is immaterial it does not exist.  God does not exist.  If you claim God exists then he is material.  Science would apply.

QuoteI take the stance that there are 4 positions, gnostic theism, agnostic theism, agnostic atheism, or gnostic atheism. I fall under agnostic atheism. I personally claim that there isn't a god, but recognize that it is possible that there could be one.

As Billy Joel once said:

"Hot funk, cool punk, even if it's old junk
  It's still rock and roll to me"
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: SNP1 on January 14, 2015, 04:54:24 PM
Quote from: Desdinova on January 14, 2015, 04:48:48 PM
I posit that the supernatural does not exist.  Ergo Irrelevant.

Would you be able to support that assertion?

QuoteIf something is immaterial it does not exist.  God does not exist.

Would you be able to support that assertion?

QuoteIf you claim God exists then he is material.  Science would apply.

If god was defined as something material, then yes, science would apply. Thing is, god is not defined as something material.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Desdinova on January 14, 2015, 05:12:59 PM
Can you support the assertions that god or the supernatural do exist?  See where I'm going here?  We can go back and forth on this forever.  And you are correct, god is defined as something supernatural or immaterial.  I, for one, cannot accept this.  He either exists or he does not.  I cannot prove that god does not exist anymore than the pope can prove he does exist.  However there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest that god does not exist.  It suggests that man created god and all gods before him.  Just like he created unicorns and leprechauns.  Do you go around thinking there is a possibility that these exist as well?  I'll let you have the last word here, as for me, I'm moving on.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hydra009 on January 14, 2015, 06:41:06 PM
Quote from: SNP1 on January 14, 2015, 04:54:24 PMWould you be able to support that assertion?
It's not possible to prove a negative, but the claim that supernatural beings do not exist is the default position.  And all it would take to refute that would be a single scrap of evidence to the contrary.  The fact that we're met with logic games and word salad instead of a simple presentation of evidence in these threads leads me to believe that such evidence is lacking.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: DigitalBot on January 16, 2015, 05:59:53 PM
Quote from: SNP1 on January 14, 2015, 04:54:24 PM
If god was defined as something material, then yes, science would apply. Thing is, god is not defined as something material.
First of all, thing is, god is not defined. Or it is better to say God is defined as something, somewhere, sometime, somehow and it loves us.

Secondly, science would apply in any case, as well as it applies to any immaterial thing like software, data bases,  laws of nature and logic. And by the way God can not breach logic, therefore science would apply to immaterial things even more superior than God. 

Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Moloth on February 20, 2015, 02:53:58 PM
That which is presented without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: ApostateLois on February 27, 2015, 01:09:11 PM
If God is not material, then what is it? What is God made of? Where does it live, what does it look like, what sounds does it make, how does it interact with humans and other objects in the material world, what is the process or method by which it imposes its will upon others (as so many claim that it can)? If God cannot be seen, heard, touched, spoken to, tested, evaluated,  or examined in any way because it is not a part of this material world, then how can anyone claim they are able to talk to God? They contradict themselves in these claims. They cannot even define what it is they believe in, let alone explain to us how it functions.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on February 27, 2015, 08:12:36 PM
Maybe God is made of Kaluza-Klein particles.

:think:
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on February 27, 2015, 08:15:59 PM
Quote from: ApostateLois on February 27, 2015, 01:09:11 PM
They cannot even define what it is they believe in, let alone explain to us how it functions.

If a thing can't be defined, even in principle, can that thing ever be said to exist? If a term can mean anything at all, then it means nothing in particular.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Fidel_Castronaut on March 23, 2015, 03:41:08 PM
Oh I love this thread. "Where the internet goes to die"

Kudos on bringing it back to life and letting me read through the responses.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: kilodelta on March 23, 2015, 06:39:56 PM
Yeah. Too bad it hasn't gotten the theist attention that it used to get...
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: DeathandGrim on May 09, 2015, 05:09:13 PM
Quote from: SNP1 on January 14, 2015, 04:54:24 PM
If god was defined as something material, then yes, science would apply. Thing is, god is not defined as something material.

How is something immaterial? I never understood that.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on May 09, 2015, 06:26:36 PM
Quote from: DeathandGrim on May 09, 2015, 05:09:13 PM
How is something immaterial? I never understood that.
Yeah, think you are right.  Sort of like saying something is unnatural.  That is not possible.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: stromboli on May 09, 2015, 11:07:47 PM
Something that can't be defined, quantified, described or proved to exist, yet humanity has thrown trillions of dollars at it for centuries. Neat trick.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Givemeareason on May 11, 2015, 04:49:29 PM
Quote from: stromboli on May 09, 2015, 11:07:47 PM
Something that can't be defined, quantified, described or proved to exist, yet humanity has thrown trillions of dollars at it for centuries. Neat trick.

I really don't even like that word god because it is so limited in its conceptual view.  And except for our disagreements with the theists I don't think it is conceptually sound.  From a more metaphysical perspective if there is no god, then what is there.  And we should certainly be giving it a name other than a silly god.  Our better question would be why do we exist, rather than whether some god exists.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: aitm on May 11, 2015, 05:34:27 PM
Quote from: Givemeareason on May 11, 2015, 04:49:29 PM
Our better question would be why do we exist,

Why we exist has pretty much been answered quite effectively. The question perhaps more to the point you are trying to convey is, "why do we think we need to have a reason to exist outside that which has already been proven?"
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Givemeareason on May 11, 2015, 07:23:21 PM
Quote from: aitm on May 11, 2015, 05:34:27 PM
Why we exist has pretty much been answered quite effectively. The question perhaps more to the point you are trying to convey is, "why do we think we need to have a reason to exist outside that which has already been proven?"

Because we are human beings and that is our nature.  I don't think it is sufficient to relegate that we live for no purpose any more than it is to relegate that we live because of God.  My purpose is to understand.  I  am not here though just to understand there is no God.  I feel that as Athiests we need to ultimately become more than athiests.  There is no purpose in hating religion nor in arguing over whether there is a god.  Doing so only makes religion look more attractive.  So if we want to eliminate religion which I don't agree with then we should be making ourselves look more attractive.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: kilodelta on May 11, 2015, 07:37:20 PM
Quote from: Givemeareason on May 11, 2015, 07:23:21 PM
I feel that as Athiests we need to ultimately become more than athiests. 

I already am more than an atheist. 
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Givemeareason on May 11, 2015, 07:50:28 PM
Quote from: kilodelta on May 11, 2015, 07:37:20 PM
I already am more than an atheist.

Are you interested in helping others become more than atheists?.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: kilodelta on May 11, 2015, 09:20:36 PM
Quote from: Givemeareason on May 11, 2015, 07:50:28 PM
Are you interested in helping others become more than atheists?.

I can't imagine anyone who is no more than an atheist.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Givemeareason on May 11, 2015, 10:26:10 PM
Quote from: kilodelta on May 11, 2015, 09:20:36 PM
I can't imagine anyone who is no more than an atheist.

How about the fellow I just remember reading earlier who lost a family member.  He left religion and became atheist and then it sounded as if he died in despair.  Do you think he could have used some help in finding something more than just atheism?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: kilodelta on May 12, 2015, 03:57:12 AM
Quote from: Givemeareason on May 11, 2015, 10:26:10 PM
How about the fellow I just remember reading earlier who lost a family member.  He left religion and became atheist and then it sounded as if he died in despair.  Do you think he could have used some help in finding something more than just atheism?

Atheism isn't supposed to help with anything but identify a non-acceptance position on god claims. How one acts based on not accepting god claims is entirely up to the individual based on everything else about that person. Atheism really does not tell too much about a person.

Additionally, god beliefs really do not seem to remedy a person's sense of loss when they lose someone close.

Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Givemeareason on May 12, 2015, 10:08:54 AM
Quote from: kilodelta on May 12, 2015, 03:57:12 AM
Atheism isn't supposed to help with anything but identify a non-acceptance position on god claims. How one acts based on not accepting god claims is entirely up to the individual based on everything else about that person. Atheism really does not tell too much about a person.

Additionally, god beliefs really do not seem to remedy a person's sense of loss when they lose someone close.



Hahahaha... that clip was great!  In the end it makes no difference how we die.  But I am not dead yet.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Odoital778412 on May 18, 2015, 06:31:23 AM
Quote from: Fidel_Castronaut on February 14, 2013, 05:43:21 PM
So, yes, I've made another thread to carry on from the archived one. What happens to this is up to the gods, but its here anyway, just in case. I've copied the OP from the original thread, so let the chat commence:

"We often get many theists claiming to have evidence for the god or gods they hold dear. This thread is created with the aim of allowing them to supply such evidence so that we may debate with them knowing the facts and conclusions they have drawn, and so that we may respond in kind.

So here we are. If you claim to have evidence that supports your god(s), please post it here:"

I'd recommend "Evidence for God: 50 Arguments for Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy, and Science" Edited by Michael Licona and William Dembski as a starting point.  I hope that helps.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: the_antithesis on May 18, 2015, 08:11:35 AM
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 18, 2015, 06:31:23 AM
I'd recommend "Evidence for God: 50 Arguments for Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy, and Science" Edited by Michael Licona and William Dembski as a starting point.  I hope that helps.

This is an internet forum. It is a place for discussion, not for you to hawk your friends' stupid book.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: DeathandGrim on May 18, 2015, 11:39:15 AM
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 18, 2015, 06:31:23 AM
I'd recommend "Evidence for God: 50 Arguments for Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy, and Science" Edited by Michael Licona and William Dembski as a starting point.  I hope that helps.

ogod William Dembski. I've had the displeasure of hearing him in debate.

Look how about you give us some reasons or at least give us an excerpt from this here book that you've read at least? Just present some evidence please :)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Termin on May 18, 2015, 12:39:28 PM
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 18, 2015, 06:31:23 AM
I'd recommend "Evidence for God: 50 Arguments for Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy, and Science" Edited by Michael Licona and William Dembski as a starting point.  I hope that helps.

  Not really unless you can give a link to the book itself ?

  The title is not promising

  Evidence for God: 50 Arguments for Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy, and Science

  Arguments are not evidence.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Odoital778412 on May 19, 2015, 04:47:42 AM
Quote from: the_antithesis on May 18, 2015, 08:11:35 AM
This is an internet forum. It is a place for discussion, not for you to hawk your friends' stupid book.
Um, I've never met Dembski, so I wouldn't actually call him a friend of mine.  Nor am I trying to 'hock' anyone's book.  The thread was asking for evidence, and I was aware of a book that included such evidence.  Therefore, I decided to provide the title so that anyone truly interested in the evidence can check it out.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Odoital778412 on May 19, 2015, 04:52:30 AM
Quote from: DeathandGrim on May 18, 2015, 11:39:15 AM
ogod William Dembski. I've had the displeasure of hearing him in debate.

Look how about you give us some reasons or at least give us an excerpt from this here book that you've read at least? Just present some evidence please :)
Yeah, me too.  He's not a very good debater at all.  Some people are good at things like that, and others aren't.  Whatcha gonna do?  Well, you can go on Amazon and check out the table of contents, but there is a lot included in the book.  It's been 4 or 5 years since I've read it, but I recall the use of the Kalam Cosmological argument, which is available online.  I also recall a chapter that argued for the existence of God on the basis of their existing an objective moral law.  There was a lot of material though.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Odoital778412 on May 19, 2015, 05:05:48 AM
Quote from: Termin on May 18, 2015, 12:39:28 PM
  Not really unless you can give a link to the book itself ?

  The title is not promising

  Evidence for God: 50 Arguments for Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy, and Science

  Arguments are not evidence.
I'm assuming that the thread is not merely rhetorical, and that at least some people might be interested enough in the topic to seek out an actual book on the topic.  Perhaps you don't represent the person with that level of intellectual curiosity, but that fact wouldn't negate the possible usefulness of the book suggestion.

The title is "Evidence for God: 50 Arguments for Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy, and Science", and that would seem to be precisely what the thread was asking for.  So why would the title not be promising?  Or have you made an a priori judgment regarding the book?

Arguments are evidence.  They simply aren't physical evidence.  For example, if a logical deductive argument were given, all of its premises were true, and the words used are clear in their meaning, then the conclusion would be necessarily true.  That would actually be evidence, though I admit that it wouldn't be evidence that is physical in nature.  This kind of erroneous understanding of evidence is pretty common, particularly amongst those given to a materialist or naturalistic worldview.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: SGOS on May 19, 2015, 07:48:08 AM
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 19, 2015, 05:05:48 AM
I'm assuming that the thread is not merely rhetorical, and that at least some people might be interested enough in the topic to seek out an actual book on the topic.  Perhaps you don't represent the person with that level of intellectual curiosity, but that fact wouldn't negate the possible usefulness of the book suggestion.

You typically see some version of this thread title somewhere in the archives of atheist forums.  I think it's an invitation to visiting theists to post their testimony in one trash area, so that they don't interrupt other threads with threadbare arguments.  At least, that's what I see as the purpose of this thread.  So it's unusual for me to even look here.  I think I advanced over 8 or 10 pages without reading anything to get to the final page.

Some atheists actually like discussing theist arguments, but over the years, it's rare that I find anything new in so called theists' evidence.  I think the last one sprung on me that threw me for a loop was the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics about 10 or 12 years ago.  I had no way to respond because I had no idea what that Christian was talking about.  Turns out he didn't either as he couldn't even reference the name of the law, had no idea what it said, except that things become disorganized with the passage of time, and admitted that while he didn't understand it, it was considered proof for God.

I had to look start googling to find out what he was talking about, and finally found it, although by that time, the argument had long been debunked.  While I found it an interesting argument, it was just another false "lead" based on typical Christian ignorance of scientific information.  I've quit looking for evidence long ago.  Ever since I was a child, every bit of evidence ever presented to me on the existence of God turned out to be just some empty blather based on bad information or pure ignorance.

So I kind of see threads like this as trash compactors to keep the theist litter in one consolidated receptacle. They can post here and other interested atheists can point out the logical fallacies, and send them on their way.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: DeathandGrim on May 21, 2015, 04:04:54 AM
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 19, 2015, 05:05:48 AM
I'm assuming that the thread is not merely rhetorical, and that at least some people might be interested enough in the topic to seek out an actual book on the topic.  Perhaps you don't represent the person with that level of intellectual curiosity, but that fact wouldn't negate the possible usefulness of the book suggestion.

The title is "Evidence for God: 50 Arguments for Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy, and Science", and that would seem to be precisely what the thread was asking for.  So why would the title not be promising?  Or have you made an a priori judgment regarding the book?

Arguments are evidence.  They simply aren't physical evidence.  For example, if a logical deductive argument were given, all of its premises were true, and the words used are clear in their meaning, then the conclusion would be necessarily true.  That would actually be evidence, though I admit that it wouldn't be evidence that is physical in nature.  This kind of erroneous understanding of evidence is pretty common, particularly amongst those given to a materialist or naturalistic worldview.

Arguments can be debunked. Objective evidence can not be. And since we're talking about something actually existing in our realm here I'd expect something that points to more of a physical nature.

I don't need to prove that the Eiffel Tower exists with rhetoric I can just show you it. If all I had was rhetoric to prove the existence of something then it's plausible to question its existence.

So if I tried to tell people Hogwarts exists, but can't even scrounge up a real photo of it, it's plausible to call me a dimwit and question my claim. And as such it's far more reasonable to assume my claim is false until proven true. Not True until proven false.

QuoteYeah, me too.  He's not a very good debater at all.  Some people are good at things like that, and others aren't.  Whatcha gonna do?  Well, you can go on Amazon and check out the table of contents, but there is a lot included in the book.  It's been 4 or 5 years since I've read it, but I recall the use of the Kalam Cosmological argument, which is available online.  I also recall a chapter that argued for the existence of God on the basis of their existing an objective moral law.  There was a lot of material though.

The KCA doesn't even come close to proving a god though. If I wrote in a notebook that Voldemort created the universe then I have just as much reason to argue that HE is the cause for the universe with the KCA. It's also a faulty argument.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Termin on May 21, 2015, 11:38:53 AM
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 19, 2015, 05:05:48 AM


Arguments are evidence.  They simply aren't physical evidence.  For example, if a logical deductive argument were given, all of its premises were true, and the words used are clear in their meaning, then the conclusion would be necessarily true.  That would actually be evidence, though I admit that it wouldn't be evidence that is physical in nature.  This kind of erroneous understanding of evidence is pretty common, particularly amongst those given to a materialist or naturalistic worldview.

Unless you have evidence the premises were true, an argument is a waste of time.


It's not about intellectual curiosity, I checked and the book is not available in my library, and I am not going to pay for such a book as I don't the financial flexibility.

I did find one review of the book and it's not very promising

http://confessionsofadoubtingthomas.blogspot.ca/2012/01/evidence-for-god-arguments-8-16-science.html
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Odoital778412 on May 23, 2015, 11:07:43 AM
Quote from: SGOS on May 19, 2015, 07:48:08 AM
You typically see some version of this thread title somewhere in the archives of atheist forums.  I think it's an invitation to visiting theists to post their testimony in one trash area, so that they don't interrupt other threads with threadbare arguments.  At least, that's what I see as the purpose of this thread.  So it's unusual for me to even look here.  I think I advanced over 8 or 10 pages without reading anything to get to the final page.

Some atheists actually like discussing theist arguments, but over the years, it's rare that I find anything new in so called theists' evidence.  I think the last one sprung on me that threw me for a loop was the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics about 10 or 12 years ago.  I had no way to respond because I had no idea what that Christian was talking about.  Turns out he didn't either as he couldn't even reference the name of the law, had no idea what it said, except that things become disorganized with the passage of time, and admitted that while he didn't understand it, it was considered proof for God.

I had to look start googling to find out what he was talking about, and finally found it, although by that time, the argument had long been debunked.  While I found it an interesting argument, it was just another false "lead" based on typical Christian ignorance of scientific information.  I've quit looking for evidence long ago.  Ever since I was a child, every bit of evidence ever presented to me on the existence of God turned out to be just some empty blather based on bad information or pure ignorance.

So I kind of see threads like this as trash compactors to keep the theist litter in one consolidated receptacle. They can post here and other interested atheists can point out the logical fallacies, and send them on their way.
So did all of the evidence you were given come from Christians in forums like this, a long ago Sunday school class, or what?  I'm just curious as to the venues in which you received such terrible evidence or lack of evidence regarding God and/or Christianity?

You can count on me to NOT use this thread to give any kind of testimony.  Some Christians have what they consider a miraculous testimony that is supposed to wow folks, but that certainly isn't my story.  I do find it interesting that this it the kind of thing you'd be expecting.  I could be wrong, but that suggests to me that you've run into a lot of Christians from the so-called "Charismatic" churches, which is to say Pentecostal, Assembly of God, etc...  There are certainly a lot of good Christians within those churches, but my experience has been relatively shallow understandings and a higher than average proportion of error being taught and/or believed within those churches.  As a result, they come off to many of us in the Christian community as not the best representatives of Christianity or Christ.

I'm not really trying to be negative with regard to my fellow Christians, but I'm just being honest regarding my own experience & views.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Odoital778412 on May 23, 2015, 11:17:18 AM
Quote from: DeathandGrim on May 21, 2015, 04:04:54 AM
Arguments can be debunked. Objective evidence can not be. And since we're talking about something actually existing in our realm here I'd expect something that points to more of a physical nature.

I don't need to prove that the Eiffel Tower exists with rhetoric I can just show you it. If all I had was rhetoric to prove the existence of something then it's plausible to question its existence.

So if I tried to tell people Hogwarts exists, but can't even scrounge up a real photo of it, it's plausible to call me a dimwit and question my claim. And as such it's far more reasonable to assume my claim is false until proven true. Not True until proven false.

The KCA doesn't even come close to proving a god though. If I wrote in a notebook that Voldemort created the universe then I have just as much reason to argue that HE is the cause for the universe with the KCA. It's also a faulty argument.
Given that God is timeless, spaceless and immaterial comparing physical proof of the Eiffel Tower to something like physical proof of God isn't quite the same thing.  Having said that, the physical effects of a creator can be seen, but typically there is always a rationalization to close the eyes.  Without getting into that for the time being though, what is your problem with the KCA?  Just curious...
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: stromboli on May 23, 2015, 11:20:21 AM
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 23, 2015, 11:07:43 AM
So did all of the evidence you were given come from Christians in forums like this, a long ago Sunday school class, or what?  I'm just curious as to the venues in which you received such terrible evidence or lack of evidence regarding God and/or Christianity?

You can count on me to NOT use this thread to give any kind of testimony.  Some Christians have what they consider a miraculous testimony that is supposed to wow folks, but that certainly isn't my story.  I do find it interesting that this it the kind of thing you'd be expecting.  I could be wrong, but that suggests to me that you've run into a lot of Christians from the so-called "Charismatic" churches, which is to say Pentecostal, Assembly of God, etc...  There are certainly a lot of good Christians within those churches, but my experience has been relatively shallow understandings and a higher than average proportion of error being taught and/or believed within those churches.  As a result, they come off to many of us in the Christian community as not the best representatives of Christianity or Christ.

I'm not really trying to be negative with regard to my fellow Christians, but I'm just being honest regarding my own experience & views.

And thank you for sharing your opinion on the "present evidence here" thread. Here is my evidence.
http://www.kyroot.com/

446 reasons Christianity is false. This could be wrong 400 times and there are still 46 reasons why xtianity is a made up religion.

Only have to post 1 link, I could post many more. Please do read the linked evidence and respond, disproving all 446. I'll check back in a few days.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: the_antithesis on May 23, 2015, 11:25:18 AM
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 19, 2015, 04:47:42 AM
Um, I've never met Dembski, so I wouldn't actually call him a friend of mine.  Nor am I trying to 'hock' anyone's book.  The thread was asking for evidence, and I was aware of a book that included such evidence.  Therefore, I decided to provide the title so that anyone truly interested in the evidence can check it out.

What you had posted was nothing but an advertizement and we do not appreciate it.

It is basically a logical fallacy known as "argumentum verbosium" or proof by verosity. We get that shit from christians all the time. "Read the bible and you'll understand." In response, I say go read the Library of Congress and you'll see why the bible is a load of hooey.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: the_antithesis on May 23, 2015, 11:33:49 AM
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 23, 2015, 11:17:18 AM
what is your problem with the KCA?  Just curious...

It's an admission of defeat on your part.

A the natural world has been explained, your kind have to find places that are ill-defined to hide your gods because your gods cannot withstand scrutiny. At this point, you have run out of places to hide them, so you must use the beginning of the universe, and the general ignorance of the scientific examination of that area.

You despite knowledge and loathe understanding but delight in ignorance and deception.

you treat your gods like a marble in a shell game and it is frustrating and pointless to talk to you because you cannot even see how you deceive yourself.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Odoital778412 on May 23, 2015, 11:35:09 AM
Quote from: Termin on May 21, 2015, 11:38:53 AM
Unless you have evidence the premises were true, an argument is a waste of time.


It's not about intellectual curiosity, I checked and the book is not available in my library, and I am not going to pay for such a book as I don't the financial flexibility.

I did find one review of the book and it's not very promising

http://confessionsofadoubtingthomas.blogspot.ca/2012/01/evidence-for-god-arguments-8-16-science.html
Yeah, generally speaking, one wouldn't waste time making a deductive argument unless there was significant evidence that the premises were true.  After all, you have no working deductive argument at all if they aren't.

Well, intellectual curiosity does generally have something to do with it, but if you say it doesn't, I'll just take you at your word.  Having said that, if you're looking or a negative review to make the book less enticing, it's often possible to find one.

I found the review interesting though.  I wish there'd been some more substantial & specific reasons for why the book was inadequate and less of the gainsaying, hand-waiving, and condescending dismissals, but I guess we are talking about a review and not a rebuttal.  There are a lot of other books out there though.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: stromboli on May 23, 2015, 11:36:51 AM
Ooh ooh OOH!

Check your sources. Dembski is a Intelligent design proponent and a Creationist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski#Discovery_Institute

QuoteWilliam Albert "Bill" Dembski (born July 18, 1960) is an American mathematician, philosopher and theologian. A proponent of intelligent design (ID), specifically the concept of specified complexity, he serves as of 2013 as a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC).[1] In 2012, he taught as the Phillip E. Johnson Research Professor of Science and Culture at the Southern Evangelical Seminary in Matthews, North Carolina near Charlotte.[2]

Dembski has written books about intelligent design, including The Design Inference (1998), Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology (1999), The Design Revolution (2004), The End of Christianity (2009), and Intelligent Design Uncensored (2010).

The concept of intelligent design involves the argument that an intelligent cause is responsible for the complexity of life and that one can detect that cause empirically.[3] Dembski postulates that probability theory can be used to prove irreducible complexity (IC), or what he calls "specified complexity."[4] The scientific community sees intelligent designâ€"and Dembski's concept of specified complexityâ€"as a form of conservative Christian creationism attempting to portray itself as science.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute

QuoteThe Discovery Institute (DI) is a non-profit public policy think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of the pseudoscience "intelligent design" (ID). Its "Teach the Controversy" campaign aims to teach creationist anti-evolution beliefs in United States public high school science courses alongside accepted scientific theories, positing that a scientific controversy exists over these subjects.[4][5][6][7][8]

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania found:

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.[9]

This federal courtâ€"along with the majority of scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Scienceâ€"say that the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a false perception that evolution is "a theory in crisis"[10] through incorrectly claiming that it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community.[11][12][13] The court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions",[10][12][14] and the Institute's manifesto, the Wedge Document,[15] describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."[16][17] It was the court's opinion that intelligent design was merely a redressing of creationism and that, as such, it was not a scientific proposition.

If you are a proponent of ID, Creationism or any other such refuse, you are already on the losing side. The Dover decision, rendered by a devoutly Christian judge, overwhelmingly determined that ID/Creationism is not science and not relevant in any realistic way. Try again.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Odoital778412 on May 23, 2015, 11:36:59 AM
Quote from: stromboli on May 23, 2015, 11:20:21 AM
And thank you for sharing your opinion on the "present evidence here" thread. Here is my evidence.
http://www.kyroot.com/

446 reasons Christianity is false. This could be wrong 400 times and there are still 46 reasons why xtianity is a made up religion.

Only have to post 1 link, I could post many more. Please do read the linked evidence and respond, disproving all 446. I'll check back in a few days.
You don't even have to post that one link.  I've looked through that page a bit, and most of that stuff has been thoroughly debunked for years.  Only the uninformed would actually find that problematic, to say nothing of convincing.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Odoital778412 on May 23, 2015, 11:39:23 AM
Quote from: the_antithesis on May 23, 2015, 11:25:18 AM
What you had posted was nothing but an advertizement and we do not appreciate it.

It is basically a logical fallacy known as "argumentum verbosium" or proof by verosity. We get that shit from christians all the time. "Read the bible and you'll understand." In response, I say go read the Library of Congress and you'll see why the bible is a load of hooey.
Except that I didn't make any such claim.  I never asked you to read the Bible, and I never said that you'd understand.  My view is that reading the Bible wouldn't do you a lot of good.  The thread was asking for evidence, and I knew of a book that purports to give that very thing, so I provided the title.  If you want to turn that into an advertisement rather than seeing it for what it really was, that's entirely up to you.  I wish you well in your pursuit.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: stromboli on May 23, 2015, 11:40:45 AM
Right, all 446 reasons. And you, rather than debunking a single one, merely blow it off as irrelevant. What a good Christian you are. 446 reasons. Go ahead, disprove every single one. Even if some are wrong or misstated, even one out of that number puts a divot in your golf course.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Odoital778412 on May 23, 2015, 11:42:31 AM
Quote from: the_antithesis on May 23, 2015, 11:33:49 AM
It's an admission of defeat on your part.

A the natural world has been explained, your kind have to find places that are ill-defined to hide your gods because your gods cannot withstand scrutiny. At this point, you have run out of places to hide them, so you must use the beginning of the universe, and the general ignorance of the scientific examination of that area.

You despite knowledge and loathe understanding but delight in ignorance and deception.

you treat your gods like a marble in a shell game and it is frustrating and pointless to talk to you because you cannot even see how you deceive yourself.
But do you have an actual objection to the argument itself?  Or does it suffice to engage in personal attacks?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hydra009 on May 23, 2015, 11:45:55 AM
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 23, 2015, 11:17:18 AMHaving said that, the physical effects of a creator can be seen, but typically there is always a rationalization to close the eyes.
This is an common theistic talking point, that all sorts of stuff that exists in our world somehow points to a god, and specifically, whatever God they already believe in, and that atheists either deliberately ignore this connection or are blind to it.

(http://ak-hdl.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr06/5/0/enhanced-18627-1391576933-2.jpg)

However, these connections only really exist in the minds of theists.  To everyone who doesn't already believe in god, these sorts of arguments come across as non-sequiturs.  If you look up at the night sky and see a god, for example, that's only because you've been conditioned to think that.  If you were not raised as a theist, you wouldn't look at the night sky and conclude that a god had made it.

So yeah, these sorts of "evidences" for a god are about as effective as proving the existence of a god by reciting bible verses.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: the_antithesis on May 23, 2015, 11:50:16 AM
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 23, 2015, 11:39:23 AM
Except that I didn't make any such claim.  I never asked you to read the Bible, and I never said that you'd understand.

Stop being an obtuse little cunt.

I didn't say you did and you know I didn't say you did. You are only going this route because you are dishonest.

What you did was say, read this book. You didn't present any of the evidence given. You had just said go read this book and you were called on how inappropriate that is in this context.

Grow up and deal with your past mistakes.

QuoteBut do you have an actual objection to the argument itself?  Or does it suffice to engage in personal attacks?

There is no argument. KCA is basically "I don't know, therefore god." Well, you don't know so we only have you to discuss using that stupid, stupid, stupid argument.

Never use it again.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: stromboli on May 23, 2015, 11:54:09 AM
Please watch this:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/bibles-buried-secrets.html

Buried Secrets of the Bible. Explains a few things, like how and why Judaism grew from a polytheistic to a monotheistic religion, how the Old Testament/Talmud was created, the how and whether of Exodus and so on.

The whole picture of your religion is that it is a product of human minds, not presented by a god to man. The logic is pretty simple; there are thousands of religions observed by human kind over centuries. Every religion but one is supposedly wrong, a product of the human mind. Is your religion the only true one? Or maybe.like the others, a human invention.

Fundamental beliefs in the bible are demonstrably false; the Garden of Eden is an allegorical tale borrowed from the Babylonians. Noah's Ark is also an impossibility and a borrowed fable, the Epic of Gilgamesh. There is no evidence that the Exodus happened, and if it did not anywhere close to the scale the bible describes. Tower of Babel?

You can't even conclusively prove that Jesus was anything but (A) a personage based on some messianic claimant of the time- of which there were many- or (B) made up of whole cloth by later writers using previous mythological stories as a model.

Sorry, you lose.

Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: PickelledEggs on May 23, 2015, 01:44:23 PM
Wait. Did somebody find actual evidence supporting the bibles claims?

Oh. No?

Ok...  :lol:

Sent from your mom.

Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Odoital778412 on May 24, 2015, 02:32:04 AM
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 23, 2015, 11:45:55 AM
This is an common theistic talking point, that all sorts of stuff that exists in our world somehow points to a god, and specifically, whatever God they already believe in, and that atheists either deliberately ignore this connection or are blind to it.

However, these connections only really exist in the minds of theists.  To everyone who doesn't already believe in god, these sorts of arguments come across as non-sequiturs.  If you look up at the night sky and see a god, for example, that's only because you've been conditioned to think that.  If you were not raised as a theist, you wouldn't look at the night sky and conclude that a god had made it.

So yeah, these sorts of "evidences" for a god are about as effective as proving the existence of a god by reciting bible verses.
I understand what you're saying, though I obviously wouldn't agree.  These are the kinds of dismissals that Christians run into all of the time.  I do think that there is a need to provide good arguments and evidence, but that is not the only thing required.  My suspicion is that often, people are so hostile to the very idea of God, the supernatural, etc... that the other requirements simply aren't there in sufficient measure to make any evidence, even good evidence, sufficient.  Sometimes, that's not true, but it's a rare individual who would put themselves firmly into the atheist camp and also possess that which is necessary to make any evidence meaningful.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Odoital778412 on May 24, 2015, 02:40:55 AM
Quote from: the_antithesis on May 23, 2015, 11:50:16 AM
Stop being an obtuse little cunt.

I didn't say you did and you know I didn't say you did. You are only going this route because you are dishonest.
No, you were addressing me with what you say you get in here all the time from other Christians, as if I were saying the same thing.  I was not.  I simply pointed out that I didn't say it.  In addition, there is a difference between the Bible and a book, at least from my perspective.  You can declare that my having pointed out that I didn't say that is somehow dishonest, but making such a declaration won't make it anymore true than it was before.  Nor will engaging in name calling change anything about the objective facts.

Quote from: the_antithesis on May 23, 2015, 11:50:16 AMWhat you did was say, read this book. You didn't present any of the evidence given. You had just said go read this book and you were called on how inappropriate that is in this context.

Grow up and deal with your past mistakes.
I did in fact offer a book title, incase there was interest.  You may read it or not.  That's entirely up to you, but of course, we both know what your choice will be.  Regarding it's propriety, you'll forgive me if I don't trust that you have a corner on that market, given your behavior.  In any case, I wish you well.

In addition, to provide a little clarity, the thread started out:

Quote from: Fidel_Castronaut on February 14, 2013, 05:43:21 PMSo here we are. If you claim to have evidence that supports your god(s), please post it here:"
I then posted the following book recommendation.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 18, 2015, 06:31:23 AM
I'd recommend "Evidence for God: 50 Arguments for Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy, and Science" Edited by Michael Licona and William Dembski as a starting point.  I hope that helps.
As you can see, I neither told you to read it or had any significant expectation of your understanding it.  Truth be told, the only thing I expected in return were dismissals, rationalizations, and personal attacks either on me or my faith.  Interestingly enough, that's precisely what I received.  Again, you may read or not.  You may understand or not.  You're obviously and intelligent person, so whether what is required for any evidence to be meaningful is actually in your possession is really up to you.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hydra009 on May 24, 2015, 03:54:39 AM
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 24, 2015, 02:32:04 AM
I understand what you're saying, though I obviously wouldn't agree.  These are the kinds of dismissals that Christians run into all of the time.  I do think that there is a need to provide good arguments and evidence, but that is not the only thing required.
But that actually is the only thing required of you.  Providing anything at all that would substantiate any of your claims about god.  And doing exactly not that and counting it as evidence is unlikely to convince.

QuoteMy suspicion is that often, people are so hostile to the very idea of God, the supernatural, etc... that the other requirements simply aren't there in sufficient measure to make any evidence, even good evidence, sufficient.
That's a common accusation, typically deployed when one is failing and needs some way to save face.  "My arguments didn't work because my opponent hates God!"  Or...maybe they could be horrible arguments we've all heard and dissected a thousand times over (and paired with assertions about the natural world that are actually demonstrably untrue (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohd5uqzlwsU)) that aren't actually evidence of any sort and therefore fail to be evidence for a god.

I'll put it this way.  I have a pet dragon in my garage.  What would convince you that one is there?  If I claimed that dragons must be real because lots of people believe in dragons would that be convincing?  If I claimed that dragons are real because all fire has to come from somewhere and therefore, there has to be a creature that created the very first fire and that this creature must've been a dragon, would that be convincing?  If I claimed that if the earlier argument doesn't convince you to believe in dragons, then you must be hostile to the idea of dragons, would that be convincing?  I could go on all day, but you (hopefully) at least somewhat get the point.  The same sorts of arguments commonly used for god suddenly become a lot shakier when they point to conclusions you don't already agree with.  (Or to put it another way, your standards of evidence suddenly become a lot lower when the conclusion matches your own)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Odoital778412 on May 24, 2015, 05:03:19 AM
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 24, 2015, 03:54:39 AM
But that actually is the only thing required of you.  Providing anything at all that would substantiate any of your claims about god.  And doing exactly not that and counting it as evidence is unlikely to convince.
Well, the comment I made was directed at a different person, but I’ll go ahead and provide you a response anyway.  I am not counting as any kind of evidence, the act of not providing evidence as positive evidence for God.  What I was doing in the previous comment was agreeing that providing evidence is an important thing to do, but pointing out that merely providing evidence does absolutely nothing meaningful unless the person reviewing that evidence brings when them, in sufficient measure, that thing which is necessary to make any evidence meaningful or relevant.  So that providing any particular piece of evidence, even good evidence, would not necessarily even count as evidence without this other element being present.  For example:  A Piece of Evidence (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeKavDdRVIg)

Quote from: Hydra009 on May 24, 2015, 03:54:39 AMThat's a common accusation, typically deployed when one is failing and needs some way to save face.  "My arguments didn't work because my opponent hates God!"  Or...maybe they could be horrible arguments we've all heard and dissected a thousand times over (and paired with assertions about the natural world that are actually demonstrably untrue) that aren't actually evidence of any sort and therefore fail to be evidence for a god.
I think you’re right.  It’s possible that a person is providing terrible arguments, and it has nothing to do with the point of view or attitude of the other person.  But are you saying that it is impossible for one person to deny the veracity of another person’s evidential claim?  Are you saying, it’s impossible for someone to provide good evidence and still have another person not concede that good evidence was provided?  Now the ways in which they might go about that are myriad, but they could deny the evidence, couldn’t they?  Maybe they’d come up with an objection or what they believe is a refutation.  Maybe they’d engage in ad hominems and simply attack the person giving the evidence.  Who knows how the denial of good evidence would come.  But isn’t such a denial possible?  Is there any reason that the only option available is that the evidence given was simply terrible?

Quote from: Hydra009 on May 24, 2015, 03:54:39 AMI'll put it this way.  I have a pet dragon in my garage.  What would convince you that one is there?  If I claimed that dragons must be real because lots of people believe in dragons would that be convincing?  If I claimed that dragons are real because all fire has to come from somewhere and therefore, there has to be a creature that created the very first fire and that this creature must've been a dragon, would that be convincing?  If I claimed that if the earlier argument doesn't convince you to believe in dragons, then you must be hostile to the idea of dragons, would that be convincing?  I could go on all day, but you (hopefully) at least somewhat get the point.  The same sorts of arguments commonly used for god suddenly become a lot shakier when they point to conclusions you don't already agree with.  (Or to put it another way, your standards of evidence suddenly become a lot lower when the conclusion matches your own)
So is there a reason for me to believe that fire only comes from dragons in the same way that I have reason to believe that effects only come from causes?  If so, I’d love to hear it?  “I could go on all day, but you (hopefully) at least somewhat get the point”???
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on May 24, 2015, 10:17:30 AM
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 24, 2015, 05:03:19 AM

effects only come from causes?
Yeah, I can agree with that.  For me that leads away from the concept of a creator or a god.  Why does it lead you in the opposite direction?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: stromboli on May 24, 2015, 11:12:04 AM
Ah the evidence. Jesus never existed
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2776194/Jesus-never-existed-Writer-finds-no-mention-Christ-126-historical-texts-says-mythical-character.html

Quote'Jesus NEVER existed': Writer finds no mention of Christ in 126 historical texts and says he was a 'mythical character'
Writer Michael Paulkovich has claimed that there is little evidence for a person known as Jesus existing in history
Jesus is thought to have lived from about 7BC to 33AD in the Roman Empire
However Paulkovich says he found little to no mention of the supposed messiah in 126 texts written in the first to third centuries
Only one mention of Jesus was present, in a book by Roman historian Josephus Flavius, but he says this was added by later editors
He says this is surprising despite the ‘alleged worldwide fame’ of Jesus
And this has led him to believe that Jesus was a 'mythical character'

Historical researcher Michael Paulkovich has claimed that Jesus of Nazareth was a ‘mythical character’ and never existed.
The controversial discovery was apparently made after he found no verifiable mention of Christ from 126 writers during the ‘time of Jesus’ from the first to third centuries.
He says he is a fictional character invented by followers of Christianity to create a figure to worship.

http://www.salon.com/2014/09/01/5_reasons_to_suspect_that_jesus_never_existed/

QuoteMost antiquities scholars think that the New Testament gospels are “mythologized history.”  In other words, they think that around the start of the first century a controversial Jewish rabbi named Yeshua ben Yosef gathered a following and his life and teachings provided the seed that grew into Christianity.

At the same time, these scholars acknowledge that many Bible stories like the virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, and women at the tomb borrow and rework mythic themes that were common in the Ancient Near East, much the way that screenwriters base new movies on old familiar tropes or plot elements. In this view, a “historical Jesus” became mythologized.

For over 200 years, a wide ranging array of theologians and historiansâ€"most of them Christianâ€"analyzed ancient texts, both those that made it into the Bible and those that didn’t, in attempts to excavate the man behind the myth.  Several current or recent bestsellers take this approach, distilling the scholarship for a popular audience. Familiar titles include Zealotby Reza Aslan and  How Jesus Became Godby Bart Ehrman.

But other scholars believe that the gospel stories are actually “historicized mythology.”  In this view, those ancient mythic templates are themselves the kernel. They got filled in with names, places and other real world details as early sects of Jesus worship attempted to understand and defend the devotional traditions they had received.

The notion that Jesus never existed is a minority position.  Of course it is! says David Fitzgerald, author of Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All.For centuries all serious scholars of Christianity were Christians themselves, and modern secular scholars lean heavily on the groundwork that they laid in collecting, preserving, and analyzing ancient texts. Even today most secular scholars come out of a religious background, and many operate by default under historical presumptions of their former faith.



Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: stromboli on May 24, 2015, 11:16:08 AM
The bible is bullshit
http://www.religionisbullshit.net/articles/contradictions.php

QuoteBiblical contradictions

Written by Dan Barker
This particular list was taken from an extract from Losing Faith In Faith: From Preacher to Atheist  | source


Should we kill?

Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill."
Leviticus 24:17 "And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death."
vs

Exodus 32:27 "Thus sayeth the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, . . . and slay every man his brother, . . . companion, . . . neighbor."
I Samuel 6:19 " . . . and the people lamented because the Lord had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter."
I Samuel 15:2,3,7,8 "Thus saith the Lord . . . Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. . . . And Saul smote the Amalekites . . . and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword."
Numbers 15:36 "And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses."
Hosea 13:16 "they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with children shall be ripped up."
For a discussion of the defense that the Commandments prohibit only murder, see "Murder, He Wrote", chapter 27 (Losing Faith In Faith: From Preacher To Atheist).

Should we tell lies?

Exodus 20:16 "Thou shalt not bear false witness."
Proverbs 12:22 "Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord."
vs

I Kings 22:23 "The Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee."
II Thessalonians 2:11 "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."
Also, compare Joshua 2:4-6 with James 2:25.

Should we steal?

Exodus 20:15 "Thou shalt not steal."
Leviticus 19:13 "Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbor, neither rob him."
vs

Exodus 3:22 "And ye shall spoil the Egyptians."
Exodus 12:35-36 "And they spoiled [plundered, NRSV] the Egyptians."
Luke 19:29-34 "[Jesus] sent two of his disciples, Saying, Go ye into the village . . . ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither. And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him. . . . And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them, Why loose ye the colt? And they said, The Lord hath need of him."
I was taught as a child that when you take something without asking for it, that is stealing.

Shall we keep the sabbath?

Exodus 20:8 "Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy."
Exodus 31:15 "Whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death."
Numbers 15:32,36 "And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. . . . And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses."
vs

Isaiah 1:13 "The new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity."
John 5:16 "And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day."
Colossians 2:16 "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days."
Shall we make graven images?

Exodus 20:4 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven . . . earth . . . water."
Leviticus 26:1 "Ye shall make ye no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone."
Deuteronomy 27:15 "Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image."
vs

Exodus 25:18 "And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them."
I Kings 7:15,16,23,25 "For he [Solomon] cast two pillars of brass . . . and two chapiters of molten brass . . . And he made a molten sea . . . it stood upon twelve oxen . . . [and so on]"
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: stromboli on May 24, 2015, 11:20:02 AM
The bible is fiction
https://danielmiessler.com/writing/bible_fiction/

The similarities between the stories and characters in the Bible and those from previous mythologies are both undeniable and well-documented. It is only due to extreme the extreme religious bias that pervades our world today that people rarely get exposed to this information.

QuoteIn this short piece I’ll attempt to show blatant similarities with regard to two of the most important Biblical narratives: the Genesis story and the character of Jesus Christ.

The Book of Genesis’s Flood Story Mirrors The Epic Of Gilgamesh From Hundreds Of Years Earlier

Here are a number of elements that both Gilgamesh and the flood story in Genesis share:

God decided to send a worldwide flood. This would drown men, women, children, babies and infants, as well as eliminate all of the land animals and birds.
God knew of one righteous man, Ut-Napishtim or Noah.
God ordered the hero to build a multi-story wooden ark (called a chest or box in the original Hebrew), and the hero initially complained about the assignment to build the boat.
The arc would have many compartments, a single door, be sealed with pitch and would house one of every animal species.
A great rain covered the land with water.
The arc landed on a mountain in the Middle East.
The first two birds returned to the ark. The third bird apparently found dry land because it did not return.
The hero and his family left the ark, ritually killed an animal, offered it as a sacrifice.
The Babylonian gods seemed genuinely sorry for the genocide that they had created. The God of Noah appears to have regretted his actions as well, because he promised never to do it again.
Keep in mind the level of detail in these similarities. It’s not a matter of just a flood, but specific details: three birds sent out, resisting the call to build the arc, and a single man being chosen by God to build the arc. Then consider that the first story (Gilgamesh) came from Babylon â€" hundreds of years before the Bible was even written.

Do you honestly think, based on the similarities above, that those who wrote the Genesis story had not heard the Gilgamesh story? And if they had heard it, and they were simply rehashing an old, very popular tale, what does that say about the Bible?

Jesus’s Story Is An Obvious Rehashing Of Numerous Previous Characters

Perhaps even more compelling is the story of Christ himself. As it turns out it’s not even remotely original. It is instead nothing more than a collection of bits and pieces from dozens of other stories that came long before. Here are some examples.

Asklepios healed the sick, raised the dead, and was known as the savior and redeemer.

Hercules was born of a divine father and mortal mother and was known as the savior of the world. Prophets foretold his birth and claimed he would be a king, which started a search by a leader who wanted to kill him. He walked on water and told his mother, “Don’t cry, I’m going to heaven.” when he died. As he passed he said, “It is finished.“

Dionysus was literally the “Son of God”, was born of a virgin mother, and was commonly depicted riding a donkey. He healed the sick and turned water to wine. He was killed but was resurrected and became immortal. His greatest accomplishment was his own death, which delivers humanity itself.

Osiris did the same things. He was born of a virgin, was considered the first true king of the people, and when he died he rose from the grave and went to heaven.

Osiris’s son, Horus, was known as the “light of the world”, “The good shepherd”, and “the lamb”. He was also referred to as, “The way, the truth, and the life.” His symbol was a cross.

Mithra‘s birthday was celebrated on the 25th of December, his birth was witnessed by local shepherds who brought him gifts, had 12 disciples, and when he was done on earth he had a final meal before going up to heaven. On judgment day he’ll return to pass judgment on the living and the dead. The good will go to heaven, and the evil will die in a giant fire. His holiday is on Sunday (he’s the Sun God). His followers called themselves “brothers”, and their leaders “fathers”. They had baptism and a meal ritual where symbolic flesh and blood were eaten. Heaven was in the sky, and hell was below with demons and sinners.

Krishna had a miraculous conception that wise men were able to come to because they were guided by a star. After he was born an area ruler tried to have him found and killed. His parents were warned by a divine messenger, however, and they escaped and was met by shepherds. The boy grew up to be the mediator between God and man.

Buddha‘s mother was told by an angel that she’d give birth to a holy child destined to be a savior. As a child he teaches the priests in his temple about religion while his parents look for him. He starts his religious career at roughly 30 years of age and is said to have spoken to 12 disciples on his deathbed. One of the disciples is his favorite, and another is a traitor. He and his disciples abstain from wealth and travel around speaking in parables and metaphors. He called himself “the son of man” and was referred to as, “prophet”, “master”, and “Lord”. He healed the sick, cured the blind and deaf, and he walked on water. One of his disciples tried to walk on water as well but sunk because his faith wasn’t strong enough.

Apollonius of Tyana (a contemporary of Jesus) performed countless miracles (healing sick and crippled, restored sight, casted out demons, etc.) His birth was of a virgin, foretold by an angel. He knew scripture really well as a child. He was crucified, rose from the dead and appeared to his disciples to prove his power before going to heaven to sit at the right hand of the father. He was known as, “The Son of God”.

I can do this all day. Please to present your counter evidence.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Odoital778412 on May 26, 2015, 02:27:13 AM
Quote from: stromboli on May 24, 2015, 11:16:08 AM
The bible is bullshit
http://www.religionisbullshit.net/articles/contradictions.php
If I thought that this post was an honest one rather than a rhetorical one meant only for show, I might be tempted to take the time to clear up some of this confusion.  However, at this point, I don't really have reason to believe that.  What I can point out readily is that every single one of these supposed problems have been addressed, and most have been address many many times and in a thorough manner.  That fact has not kept people from displaying the same objections and supposed or apparent contradictions, based mostly on the objector's ignorance and/or misunderstanding rather than on any genuine problems.  I'll just illustrate quickly with the 1 Kings 22:23 issue that these things have been successfully addressed, but I will point out that the most thorough treatments will usually end up coming from books that are not available to post.  Having said that, if you're interested in clearing up all of these issues, you'd need to familiarize yourself with the field of Hermeneutics.  It would be immensely helpful in providing you with the tools to understand various genres of literature from thousands of years ago, including those in the Bible.  I hope this helps? (http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=661)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Odoital778412 on May 26, 2015, 02:38:56 AM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 24, 2015, 10:17:30 AM
Yeah, I can agree with that.  For me that leads away from the concept of a creator or a god.  Why does it lead you in the opposite direction?
Well, I'd have to start by asking you the very same question.  My understanding is that the Universe and everything in it is essentially finite in nature, in they've all come into being at some point in the finite past.  As such, I see the universe and everything in it as an effect.  If effects come from causes, then the Universe and everything in it must have had a cause.  I would personally identify that cause with God.  The question may then arise, who or what caused God?  My answer would be, nothing caused God, as He never came into being but has always existed.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: DeathandGrim on May 26, 2015, 04:39:05 AM
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 23, 2015, 11:17:18 AM
Given that God is timeless, spaceless and immaterial comparing physical proof of the Eiffel Tower to something like physical proof of God isn't quite the same thing.  Having said that, the physical effects of a creator can be seen, but typically there is always a rationalization to close the eyes.  Without getting into that for the time being though, what is your problem with the KCA?  Just curious...

Unsubstantiated. How do you have attributes that only consist of negative attributes?

timeless, spaceless and immaterial. How do you exist without these?

And the KCA doesn't narrow the topic well enough and remains nebulous in order to flex to several different meanings. But neither of these meanings nail down the conclusion that a god is either existing or needed.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: SGOS on May 26, 2015, 08:02:59 AM
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 26, 2015, 02:38:56 AM
Without getting into that for the time being though, what is your problem with the KCA?  Just curious...

For the Kalam Cosmological Argument to fail there must be a logical fallacy committed in the argument.

Here are 14 fallacies in the KCA.  Take your pick:
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Kalam

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 26, 2015, 02:38:56 AM
Well, I'd have to start by asking you the very same question.  My understanding is that the Universe and everything in it is essentially finite in nature, in they've all come into being at some point in the finite past.  As such, I see the universe and everything in it as an effect.  If effects come from causes, then the Universe and everything in it must have had a cause. 

That specific part of the Kalam is refuted by sections 3.2 and 3.4 in my above link and those two refutations are expanded and explained in greater detail here:
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/03/kalam-cosmological-argument-premise.html

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 26, 2015, 02:38:56 AM
I would personally identify that cause with God.  The question may then arise, who or what caused God?  My answer would be, nothing caused God, as He never came into being but has always existed.

This is refuted by section 3.9 in the first link above "Why only one cause?"  And in response to your first question, it summarizes my main problem with the KCA.  Although the other sections are very tempting also.  Simply put "Why only one cause?" identifies a special pleading for one thing which does not need a cause.  Furthermore tacking on, "and that has to be God," is totally unwarranted as it could be anything else, either unknown at this time, or any other concept mankind is capable of creating.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Gerard on May 26, 2015, 08:33:40 AM
The universe was created by God

God simply exists.

Occam's razor at work!

Gerard
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on May 26, 2015, 09:00:15 AM
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 26, 2015, 02:38:56 AM
Well, I'd have to start by asking you the very same question.  My understanding is that the Universe and everything in it is essentially finite in nature, in they've all come into being at some point in the finite past.  As such, I see the universe and everything in it as an effect.  If effects come from causes, then the Universe and everything in it must have had a cause.  I would personally identify that cause with God.  The question may then arise, who or what caused God?  My answer would be, nothing caused God, as He never came into being but has always existed.
Exactly--what caused God?  He always was.  Okay, for me the process that created the universe always was and always will be.  Yes, I see this universe as finite.  It will end.  But the system that caused it to happen still is.  I understand that black holes siphon off energy from this universe--it must go somewhere.  When a black hole has gathered enough energy, it then balloons up and breaks away from the parent black hole and creates a new universe.  Hence, the big bang.  All that is contained in this universe came from that which was present when this universe broke away from the parent black hole.  So, the cause of earth was a random happening.  It was not planned.  That life grew on this planet was random, not planned.  Human life evolved based on the laws of the universe, not the laws of god.  I don't feel a need to search for any intelligent entity--it is not needed for me to grasp the universe and my place in it.  Did this universe start from nothing?  No, it is part of a system.  Did your god start from nothing?  You say he always existed.  I say the system of the universe always existed.  I am closer to having the mystery of my thinking solved than you are of having the mystery of your belief solved.  But that is not why I think the way I do--it makes sense to me, and I have to run with that. 

So, we each reach a point where we claim 'it always was'.  You go for an immortal creator god.  I go for a universe creating natural system.  Neither can prove or even imagine what came before.  Our minds cannot grasp what possibly could have existed prior to god or the universal system--All we have experienced, all that we can see, all that we can comprehend has a beginning and an end.  So, that ultimate mystery leads you one way, and me another. 

I see proofs about the physical universe being the way I think it is--I see no proof that a creator god is necessary to explain anything.  In fact, I look at nature and see proof against a creator god.  All life, and life of any size, requires energy.  Plants get that energy from either the sun or chemical compounds (creatures under the sea that have never seen light, yet thrive there).  Animal life needs energy, too, but must kill to get it.  Even people who only eat vegs have to kill to live--plants are alive.  Why would a creator god create animals that had to kill to live?  There is a much more efficient source of energy that can be used--stars that emit light.  Light could be gathered as a source of energy.  But no, god created a very cruel system, and for no apparent reason other than that cruelty.  I see evolution as a creator of such a system.  Nature is simply a set of natural laws.  It is totally neutral--the chemicals available in the universe either combine in a certain way, under certain conditions on this planet to produce life, or it doesn't.  The universe is so vast that the right situation must arise someplace.  And so it goes--everywhere I turn I see things that leads me to think that the best answer to my questions is that it is the laws of nature and of the physical universe and not a creator god.   Every solution to a question that is offered by your creator god produces another string of 'but why??' in me.  Not so with nature--it answers the immediate question and I may think of 'well, why that?', but there is a natural progression of answers; yes, some lead to 'we don't know yet', but that is legit to me, in that all knowledge builds upon itself and we, as a species, are young and still learning.  For me, the answer of 'because God can, or that God works in mysterious ways, or that we cannot fathom the mind of God' does not satisfy; for you it does.

And so this is where I see the dividing line with us--the mysteries of life and nature are answered for you in God; for me the mysteries of life and nature are answered in nature.  The dividing line of ' always was and always will be' is where we branch off.  You go your way, and I go mine.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: SGOS on May 26, 2015, 09:42:52 PM
I think there was a force or thing that created the universe.  You say a god created the universe.  So we both say a thing made the universe.  You have no idea how God did it.  I have no idea how my thing did it.  You give your thing a name.  You assign it sentient powers.  My thing doesn't have a name, at least not yet, and there is no indication that it has sentient powers.  But certainly a thing made the universe.  Why is your thing better than my thing?  Because you give it a name?  Because you believe it has certain specified characteristics?  I'm going with my thing.  In both our cases a deep understanding of our thing is not necessary.  It just made the universe.  We don't have to know how.  We don't have to know why.  It does what it does.

For as much each of us are attached to our "theories", unfortunately, it may not be either of those two things.  It could be something entirely different.  Maybe it's not even a thing.  That's because neither of us really know.  We just attached ourselves to our theories, because, let's face it, we don't really have verifiable knowledge of it, and aren't clever enough to come up with something else.  And that's an important bit of the process.  Whatever made the universe, did it, whether we understand it, know what it is, or have a name for it.  It just does it.  I guess we could worship that thing if the mood hit us, but whether we do or not, doesn't seem to keep it from doing what it does.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Fidel_Castronaut on May 29, 2015, 07:42:25 AM
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 23, 2015, 11:17:18 AM
Given that God is timeless, spaceless and immaterial comparing physical proof of the Eiffel Tower to something like physical proof of God isn't quite the same thing.  Having said that, the physical effects of a creator can be seen, but typically there is always a rationalization to close the eyes.  Without getting into that for the time being though, what is your problem with the KCA?  Just curious...

Thing is, you can read that the exact opposite and come to a much more valid and evidenced conclusion.

You have nothing aside an assertion that "the physical effects of a creator can be seen". You have nothing aside belief that that is true, especially considering Occam's razor does an amazing job of eliminating it.

Rationalization does quite the opposite of closing one's eyes. It actually has the effect of opening them. Everything which has always been presumed in the past to be magic has turned out to be not magic (thanks Tim Minchin) once we've attained the ability to actually analyse and quantify them. Now that's not saying that will always be true, but the historic precedent has laid down a 100% success rate. I don't see anything to convince me yet that in the future this will change.

As to the KCA, it is rendered false under its own premise of special pleading. Nothing created the universe except the cosmological constant. Ok, so what created that? The only two answers to that are 1) special pleading (nothing, it is the exception to the rule which nobody has either established or evidenced), or 2). another cosmological constant. And so the process is reduced to absurdity (which could be completely accurate. Hardly compelling evidence though).

Evidenced by:

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 26, 2015, 02:38:56 AM
Well, I'd have to start by asking you the very same question.  My understanding is that the Universe and everything in it is essentially finite in nature, in they've all come into being at some point in the finite past.  As such, I see the universe and everything in it as an effect.  If effects come from causes, then the Universe and everything in it must have had a cause.  I would personally identify that cause with God.  The question may then arise, who or what caused God?  My answer would be, nothing caused God, as He never came into being but has always existed.

aka, special pleading.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Fidel_Castronaut on May 29, 2015, 07:46:30 AM
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 24, 2015, 02:32:04 AM
I understand what you're saying, though I obviously wouldn't agree.  These are the kinds of dismissals that Christians run into all of the time.  I do think that there is a need to provide good arguments and evidence, but that is not the only thing required.  My suspicion is that often, people are so hostile to the very idea of God, the supernatural, etc... that the other requirements simply aren't there in sufficient measure to make any evidence, even good evidence, sufficient.  Sometimes, that's not true, but it's a rare individual who would put themselves firmly into the atheist camp and also possess that which is necessary to make any evidence meaningful.

You are very much correct that there is hostility towards the supernatural, mainly because the concept is nonsensical. It's never been evidenced, never been proven, never had a single piece of verifiable evidence to even suggest there might be something to it.

When someone invokes anything supernatural in a debate or argument I immediately lose interest unless there's something in there which might make me reassess my position. There is no 'meaningful' evidence, and there never was. Maybe there might be at some point, but to date, at the time of writing this post, there is the same as there was 10000+ years ago - nothing aside belief and the desire for the belief to be true. Beliefs, especially religious beliefs, are a powerful thing, but rarely are they rational, and rarely are they correct.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: aitm on May 29, 2015, 02:46:44 PM
 
QuoteHe never came into being but has always existed.

This has always made me laugh. The utter nonsensical saying without even considering what it means.

Something has always existed, it has always had all the knowledge of everything ever since the very day it didn't come into existence.
Think about that. It is a statement so fundamentally flawed that it defies any logic, even retarded logic.

If nothing existed prior to god how could the concept of jealousy be understood ? How could a god possibly understand hunger, or fear, or death without anything capable of that existing? To suggest that something can be aware of things not even existing and cannot exist prior to the existence of other things not yet existent but dependent upon the existence of the second part before the first part can be understood is complete bullshittery.

It is the sure sign of feeble minded thinking that just wishes things to be true and must go through years of gyrations and near infinitesimal denials of truth to obtain that level of deniability.

And yet there is more.

It possess infinite power......

had the chinese available who already had established math and higher education to enlighten, but decided to show himself to uneducated goat herders instead...
couldn't make the stupid uneducated goat herders obey him even after showing them himself so he killed them all and started over ( a sure sign of omniscience)...
couldn't beat any army the first two times...
couldn't beat an army with iron wheels on their chariots....chariots! Ha!
professes to make humans after his image but chastises them for displaying the same behaviors he exhibits with abandon...
gives men nipples for no apparent reason...fickleness perhaps....
riddles the earth with fake bones of what would be considered previous animals that would give pause to millions to accept his presence...
hasn't had a good miracle since science became a field of study other than an occasional grilled cheese or piece of old potato with the likeness of his so-called son..
and oh yea...has his son crucified in a city with thousands of people as witnesses, and has dead people walking around the streets and...nobody there thinks this is incredible enough to bother to mention it to anyone else.

and people come here thinking they can post verses of their ignorant goat herder bullshit and we would be impressed....woooo.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Savior2006 on May 29, 2015, 11:39:42 PM
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 26, 2015, 02:38:56 AM

Well, I'd have to start by asking you the very same question.  My understanding is that the Universe and everything in it is essentially finite in nature, in they've all come into being at some point in the finite past.  As such, I see the universe and everything in it as an effect.  If effects come from causes, then the Universe and everything in it must have had a cause.  I would personally identify that cause with God.  The question may then arise, who or what caused God?  My answer would be, nothing caused God, as He never came into being but has always existed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

Whoops Fidel beat me too it. Oh well.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: 1liesalot on June 26, 2015, 12:17:47 AM
Quote from: Biodome on February 15, 2013, 04:02:57 AM
But...But... The flowers... And the mountains... And the clouds... They are beautiful... Musta been God that did it, right?

Yes, because the bible says so and it is the word of the Lord.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on June 26, 2015, 10:49:33 PM
The division into natural and supernatural came about because of ancient Greek hippies.  They had drugs back then too, and the Platonic academy and the Lyceum of Aristotle and the Garden of Epicurus ... were urban communes.  The much later Oxford and Univ of Paris were the same.  But Pythagoras invented the college frat house ;-)  He banned beans in his fraternity ... probably because you know what that is like if you have lived in a dorm or a frat house.  Groovy, man ;-)

OK, it is a matter of metaphysics ... and materialist/rationalist epistemology, is opposed to most of metaphysics.  So if one is of that persuasion, then one has ruled out most of this cause/effect business even before you start.  Rationality is supposed to exist in the Platonic region of the eternal Forms ... and atomistic matter is supposed to be the underlying reality that is also eternal.  And except for the Big Bang, it pretty much is.  More complicated nuclei have been cooked up since then, but pretty much it follows the same plan (matter gotta be neutral, not prejudiced).  Also supposedly rationality is neutral ... but only if you ignore the axioms.  Logic was originally invented by Parmenides ... as reductio ad absurdum.  That is why the slightly later Zeno of Elea ... had those paradoxes ... which are still only approximately solved.  For example the original tortoise and the hare was Achilles and the tortoise.  After Achilles got killed by an arrow to the foot ... that is probably why we developed a lucky rabbit's foot, as sympathetic magic.  Anyway, without Calculus ... Achilles can't even catch up to the tortoise, let alone pass him.  From this Zeno of Elea deduced that physics (aka phuses aka naturalism) is an illusion.  Logic must win out over the senses ... but materialist responded, but that is senseless! ;-)  The ultimate in logical skepticism was Pyrrho of Elis ... whose students had to pull from in front of a moving ox cart, because he refused to believe that they existed, without logical proof.  A materialist doesn't need a logical argument ... they follow the modern philosopher ... Mike Tyson, who has said "everyone has a plan 'till I they get punched in the mouth".  Tyson is obviously descended from that Bronze Age civilization, the Hittites ;-)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: peacewithoutgod on August 18, 2015, 09:52:57 AM
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 19, 2015, 05:05:48 AM
“I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” - C.S. Lewis, Is Theology Poetry? -
The sun, for it's true role in our existence is a god of sorts, but it is absolutely no evidence for validating the delusions of Christians.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: peacewithoutgod on August 18, 2015, 09:59:54 AM
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 19, 2015, 05:05:48 AM

Arguments are evidence.  They simply aren't physical evidence. 
You can construct an argument based on empirical evidence, or you can mash one up from a mountain of bullshit, on this there is nothing in between.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: peacewithoutgod on August 18, 2015, 10:27:06 AM
This used to be fun for me, before it became too predictable. Every once in awhile the apologists may amuse you when you see them go spelunking into new troughs of outrageous nonsense, but there's never any challenge - it's like playing endlessly the game which you've already reached the top level of consistently. But then I know it's understood that arguing with a believer would be completely pointless if it weren't for the benefit of those who are waking up from the spell which the wolves who shepherd them have had them under, and come here seeking answers to their questions.

Here's how I know for sure, more than any other evidence, that the Christian god cannot exist: it's the idiots who proclaim him - every single one of them! Even those who otherwise display impressive intelligence are reduced to babbling like toddlers when  attempting to make sense out of their beliefs, and with all the maturity of children they reject the reality that there is no good sense to be found in them through the maintenance of fantastical mental constructs.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: drunkenshoe on August 18, 2015, 10:49:33 AM
Quote from: Baruch on June 26, 2015, 10:49:33 PM
OK, it is a matter of metaphysics ... and materialist/rationalist epistemology, is opposed to most of metaphysics.  So if one is of that persuasion, then one has ruled out most of this cause/effect business even before you start. 

Oh what fucking bullshit.

How is that anyone rules out cause and effect because they do not accept magic as the ultimate answer?

Your answer to 'last question' as a religious theist is

-there is a creator out there and he is omnipotent...etc. Why? Because you are told that it is.

And you are talking about 'ruling out' cause and effect vs rational epistomolgy and materialism.

Just say that you believe in god because you want to or choose to or brainwashed into or it is beneficial and profitable for you. Stop using words and names of concepts you don't understand. They do not mean another thing when you use them as how you'd like to see.

If you really knew about half the bullshit you keep pretending to quote, you'd have a better awareness of what you are actually saying.










Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: JBCuzISaidSo on August 18, 2015, 03:38:56 PM
Quote from: peacewithoutgod on August 18, 2015, 10:27:06 AM
This used to be fun for me, before it became too predictable. Every once in awhile the apologists may amuse you when you see them go spelunking into new troughs of outrageous nonsense, but there's never any challenge - it's like playing endlessly the game which you've already reached the top level of consistently. But then I know it's understood that arguing with a believer would be completely pointless if it weren't for the benefit of those who are waking up from the spell which the wolves who shepherd them have had them under, and come here seeking answers to their questions.

Here's how I know for sure, more than any other evidence, that the Christian god cannot exist: it's the idiots who proclaim him - every single one of them! Even those who otherwise display impressive intelligence are reduced to babbling like toddlers when  attempting to make sense out of their beliefs, and with all the maturity of children they reject the reality that there is no good sense to be found in them through the maintenance of fantastical mental constructs.

Think of it like this; belief in an interactive deity takes an extraordinary amount of egotistic behavior. Some god has to exist on another plane of existence AND, also, give a flying fuck about humans, who are no more than another species. It's all ego, down to it's very core, religion. You are not some special little snowflake. 
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: peacewithoutgod on August 30, 2015, 06:45:52 PM
Quote from: SGOS on May 26, 2015, 09:42:52 PM
I think there was a force or thing that created the universe.  You say a god created the universe.  So we both say a thing made the universe.  You have no idea how God did it.  I have no idea how my thing did it.  You give your thing a name.  You assign it sentient powers.  My thing doesn't have a name, at least not yet, and there is no indication that it has sentient powers.  But certainly a thing made the universe.  Why is your thing better than my thing?  Because you give it a name?  Because you believe it has certain specified characteristics?  I'm going with my thing.  In both our cases a deep understanding of our thing is not necessary.  It just made the universe.  We don't have to know how.  We don't have to know why.  It does what it does.
I've got that "thing" for you - it's called gravity. Even if Lawrence Krauss is right on the universe beginning with nothing, it took gravity to form stars and planets once something began expanding.

God is just the falling of an apple, and Newton is his prophet!
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on August 30, 2015, 07:24:30 PM
Quote from: peacewithoutgod on August 30, 2015, 06:45:52 PM
I've got that "thing" for you - it's called gravity. Even if Lawrence Krauss is right on the universe beginning with nothing, it took gravity to form stars and planets once something began expanding.

God is just the falling of an apple, and Newton is his prophet!
Could it be that that 'thing' is also part of a process?  For example, if black holes store energy until a certain point and that energy breaks off, which is called a big bang, and our universe also has black holes that store energy, until a critical point, and then the energy breaks off..................and so on.  A process.  Not a 'thing' at all.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: peacewithoutgod on August 30, 2015, 08:57:29 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 30, 2015, 07:24:30 PM
Could it be that that 'thing' is also part of a process?  For example, if black holes store energy until a certain point and that energy breaks off, which is called a big bang, and our universe also has black holes that store energy, until a critical point, and then the energy breaks off..................and so on.  A process.  Not a 'thing' at all.
Yup - it's a universe from nothing, just a process. To add more would be an assertion without evidence, which can therefore be dismissed without the same.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: 1liesalot on September 30, 2015, 07:03:09 AM
The Defiled Bread

God likes to command people to eat shit. Ezekiel 4:15 says so. Why, though?

http://biblehub.com/ezekiel/4-15.htm (http://biblehub.com/ezekiel/4-15.htm)




Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: josephpalazzo on September 30, 2015, 11:21:33 AM
Quote from: SNP1 on December 30, 2014, 06:06:54 PM
I am an atheist, but try refuting this argument (uses modal logic)

CCF - Is a conjunct of all contingent facts in the world
P1) It is possible that a world exists where the CCF has an explanation, and that explanation is q
P2) Explanation q must be a necessary being
P3) It is possible a necessary being exists (from 1 & 2)
P4) If it is possible a necessary being exists, then a necessary being exists (via. axiom s5)
C) A necessary being exists

No one I know has been able to refute the argument

The problem is with P4 with the use of S5. Some (read: Plantinga) take S5 to mean:


if X is possibly necessary, it is necessary and therefore one can conclude it is necessary in at least one possible world; hence it is necessary in all possible worlds and thus is true in all possible worlds.

It's a leap of faith to go from possibly necessary to existentially necessary, which Plantinga does. Modal logic deals with possibilities, not existential beings. You can't prove the existence of X with just showing the possibility that X exists.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: FaithIsFilth on October 30, 2015, 05:27:05 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjVe_n_EI58
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: neiswander on January 28, 2016, 04:38:20 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDN6un3x7E4    I CANT WAIT TO HEAR THE BLIND FAITH OF ATHEISTS TO COUNTER THIS EVIDENCE.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: josephpalazzo on January 28, 2016, 04:49:49 PM
Quote from: neiswander on January 28, 2016, 04:38:20 PM
    I CANT WAIT TO HEAR THE BLIND FAITH OF ATHEISTS TO COUNTER THIS EVIDENCE.

No, this is no argument, just pure nonsense.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on January 28, 2016, 04:52:12 PM
We don't know how it happened, so God did it?


(https://homoeconomicusnet.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/20131106-144155.jpg)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: neiswander on January 28, 2016, 06:01:04 PM
"No, this is no argument, just pure nonsense. "         It  always is when you have no scientific or logical response. JUST YOUR BLIND FAITH. Your no different than the muslims. The Quran was actually written on the side of a donkey on scrap of paper the goat ate and in clouds in the sky. ALL JUST BLIND IRRATIONAL FAITH THAT MUHAMMAD WAS TELLING THE TRUTH. Just like 90% of science is all theory and your blind faith man created himself. LOL
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: kilodelta on January 28, 2016, 06:17:06 PM
/enable Poe's law

Yeah. How would the hydrogen atom know it needs to covalently bond with another hydrogen atom to obtain a stable electronic configuration unless someone told the atom that? Therefore God. An atom doesn't have that information unless someone gave that information to the atom. Information comes from a programmer. A programmer must be intelligence. Therefore a creator had to make a designer to develop the programmer in order to write the information into the atoms so that they'll know how to bond to each other correctly.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: josephpalazzo on January 28, 2016, 06:20:19 PM
Quote from: neiswander on January 28, 2016, 06:01:04 PM
"No, this is no argument, just pure nonsense. "         It  always is when you have no scientific or logical response.

Evolution is a fact. Period. You're entitled to your opinion, but not to your facts. But nice try in trolling...
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: neiswander on January 28, 2016, 07:06:10 PM
OK smart guy give me some of these imaginary facts.  I WAIT WITH SALIVATING ANTICIPATION.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: josephpalazzo on January 28, 2016, 07:17:19 PM
Quote from: neiswander on January 28, 2016, 07:06:10 PM
OK smart guy give me some of these imaginary facts.  I WAIT WITH SALIVATING ANTICIPATION.

God
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hydra009 on January 28, 2016, 09:54:45 PM
Quote from: neiswander on January 28, 2016, 07:06:10 PM
OK smart guy give me some of these imaginary facts.  I WAIT WITH SALIVATING ANTICIPATION.
Just in case there's someone in the audience who missed it the last million times this was posted, here ya go:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

Literally any decent biology textbook will present at least some of the above discoveries that have corroborated evolution.

It's not the case that evolution is some crazy, baseless idea that someone dreamed up one day and then scientists around the world inexplicably adopted and propagate it out of some sort of infantile dogmatic impulse.  That's how religion works, not science.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: SGOS on January 28, 2016, 09:55:52 PM
Quote from: kilodelta on January 28, 2016, 06:17:06 PM
/enable Poe's law

Yeah. How would the hydrogen atom know it needs to covalently bond with another hydrogen atom to obtain a stable electronic configuration unless someone told the atom that? Therefore God. An atom doesn't have that information unless someone gave that information to the atom. Information comes from a programmer. A programmer must be intelligence. Therefore a creator had to make a designer to develop the programmer in order to write the information into the atoms so that they'll know how to bond to each other correctly.

It does make you think.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on January 29, 2016, 01:41:08 PM
Read this (http://www.creationtheory.org/). Come back when you're done.


Secretly a Warsie.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: josephpalazzo on January 29, 2016, 02:54:40 PM
Quote from: neiswander on January 28, 2016, 06:01:04 PM
JUST YOUR BLIND FAITH.

LOL. Your blind faith is believing in a book just because some grownups told you so.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 30, 2016, 10:23:32 AM
Quote from: SGOS on January 28, 2016, 09:55:52 PM
It does make you think.

I am an IT guy, and a sometimes programmer.  I can tell you the inside secret ... if G-d were some programmer, it would explain why the world is such a mess.  Programmers aren't very intelligent about how they go about their business.  Otherwise Microsoft wouldn't have to constantly patch your stuff.  Since the term "spaghetti code" is suggestive, I would think that programming by humans or G-d, would validate the Flying Spaghetti Monster faith ;-)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on February 02, 2016, 04:43:00 PM
Quote from: neiswander on January 28, 2016, 06:01:04 PM
Just like 90% of science is all theory

Actually 100% of science is all theory. No matter how much confirmation the theory of relativity achieves, e.g., it's still the theory of relativity. A theory is a model, usually mathematical, that explains an aspect of nature in the simplest and least contradictory manner. A theory is not just guesswork on the part of scientists, but is what's left over after all other hypotheses have been tested and ruled out.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on February 02, 2016, 04:47:06 PM

Quote from: neiswander on January 28, 2016, 04:38:20 PM
    I CANT WAIT TO HEAR THE BLIND FAITH OF ATHEISTS TO COUNTER THIS EVIDENCE.

Why does neiswander  keep yelling at us?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: widdershins on March 02, 2016, 05:16:41 PM
I know I'm late to the party, but I'll take a crack at this video.  I have a little time on my hands and it might entertain me for a bit.

In the very first sentence in this video it asserts (not proves, not gives evidence for, simply asserts) that DNA was designed with the term "design ingenuity".  To "assert" something certainly doesn't mean you've proved it.

The second sentence is little different, calling DNA the "densest information storage mechanism known in the universe".  While this statement is technically correct they certainly don't go out of their way to explain that the word "information", as used by science, does not mean the same thing it means in common use.  In common use the word "information" infers a purposeful arrangement of data.  So we've already started with an assertion followed by a lie by omission.

The third sentence goes on to reinforce that lie by omission by purposefully linking the word "information" to its common use.  We find "information" by its common use in books.  But the scientific use of the word has nothing whatsoever to do with the common use, as is true for many words scientists use.

The fourth sentence, again, makes an assertion, calling "the program code and design" and, again, asserting that it "indicates a supremely intelligent designer".

Then Ken Ham says some shit, as Ken Ham often does.  But interestingly, he starts out with "The evidence TO ME..."  He accidentally says right off that this is his belief, his opinion, not a fact of any sort.  He says that DNA is "like books of information that's written by a language system".  Well, not, it is not.  He's using the imagery of "books" there again to bolster his misuse of the word "information".  He then goes on to say, "Scientists know today that languages or code only come from intelligence..."  Well no shit!  Voodoo priests thousands of years ago knew that too.  But the following bit is the interesting bit, the bit where he shows that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, so we'll do a new paragraph for that.

He says "Nobody has ever seen matter by itself give rise to a code."  True, but the idea that DNA is "a code" is an assertions, not a fact which was proved.  He then says, "Nobody has ever seen matter by itself give rise to information."  And THAT is the gotcha moment.  Matter by itself IS information, by the scientific use of the word.  When Stephen Hawking is saying that a black hole can lose mass over time without violating the "conservation of information", he's not talking about the DNA of the black hole.  He's not talking about the volumes upon volumes of books contained within that black hole.  He's talking about the matter "by itself".

He then says, "...as you look at DNA, it actually cries out 'In the beginning, God created...'"  Again, that is an assertion, not a proved fact, and, in fact, that assertion is false in this instance because even he can give NOTHING to suggest that the DNA is in any way indicating his God, specifically.  This is a conclusion he has drawn based on the crap between his ears the spews out of his mouth on a regular basis.

Now, I don't know who Dave Hunt is, but I can tell you he's a moron if he thinks a single cell is the size of a period at the end of a sentence.  I can also tell you he's a moron if he thinks a cell "knows" anything at all.  He hasn't bothered to educate himself on the most basic premises of biology.  And THIS is a man you would have me get my science from?  He goes on to make an argument from ignorance (We can't comprehend it, so it MUST be magic!) which is itself, an ignorant argument.  Then he, too, starts making assertions, saying, "...encoded is the instruction manual..."  Again, he's incorrectly and dishonestly linking scientific processes to human concepts of information, this time in the form of "instructions".  Though, to be fair, I don't think this guy is a liar, I just think he's really old and not that bright.  He goes on to use words such as "manufacture", "build" and "operate", again improperly linking complex biological processes to the human experience.

It then goes back to the narrator, who states that DNA is a "three dimensional molecule that is self-replicating", as if this were unique in nature.  ALL molecules are "three dimensional" because "the universe".  As for the self-replicating part, the narrator claims that "Each molecule is able to make an identical copy quickly and efficiently", suggesting the process is perfect and without flaw, which is very much not the case.  This is followed by the assertion that "The Lord has even programmed DNA...", once again a claim for which no evidence is given.

That was about all of this shit I could be bothered to watch.  Like all "evidence" of design, this video contains nothing but a pile of assertions which are not proved, never once giving any "evidence" which was not, itself, simply an assertion.  The only thing even remotely "evidenced" in this video, at leas to the 2 minute 34 second mark, is how desperate creationists are to convince themselves their mythology is real.  Because this crap disguised as science isn't going to convince anyone with half a brain.  I can only surmise that its total purpose is to strengthen the ignorance of the already ignorant.

Okay, it wasn't as fun as I thought.  More tedious than anything.  Why did I make myself listen to Ken fucking Ham?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on March 02, 2016, 09:39:28 PM
Sounds like Bible Code fantasy, only done with molecules instead of ink on paper.  People see patterns in nature, that aren't there, all the time.  Some of these patterns that we perceive, are more useful than others.  Whether or not the pattern is "there" is debatable.  The meaning isn't "there" until we ascribe it.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: stromboli on March 02, 2016, 09:57:21 PM
I watched the video up to the point that Ken Ham popped up. Nope.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: PickelledEggs on March 02, 2016, 10:02:03 PM
Oh man. I missed the party.... It all happened so fast...
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: widdershins on March 03, 2016, 09:58:19 AM
Quote from: Baruch on March 02, 2016, 09:39:28 PM
Sounds like Bible Code fantasy, only done with molecules instead of ink on paper.  People see patterns in nature, that aren't there, all the time.  Some of these patterns that we perceive, are more useful than others.  Whether or not the pattern is "there" is debatable.  The meaning isn't "there" until we ascribe it.
This isn't even that impressive.  The "proof" they offer is to just keep asserting over and over that it's true and misuse scientific terms to confuse what they're actually saying and make it sound more impressive than it is.  It's almost literally nothing more than an assertion with each sentence.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on March 03, 2016, 06:52:23 PM
Well the only cure for that is better science education ... and fewer R-party folks on school boards.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: widdershins on March 07, 2016, 03:23:13 PM
Fair warning, this is a LONG post, presenting my evidence that ID is all bunk.

[spoiler]
Intelligent Design has many problems and, if you know what to look for, its flaws are obvious and monumental.  The problem people have with understanding why Intelligent Design is nothing like a scientific theory is a lack of understanding of how science works.  So, we’re going to start with a very basic understanding of science and the scientists themselves.

Simplistically speaking, there are three basic types of scientists.  I call them the Thinkers, the Tinkerers and the Doers.  This concept is very simplistic and, thus, not entirely accurate, but it’s a simple way to think about the concepts I’ll be discussing later.

Thinkers are the likes of theoretical physicists.  Their job is to think about what we know about the universe and think about what it could mean.  They propose ideas, many of them wild and crazy, that the scientific community may look into if the idea seems to have merit.  It is important to note that these ideas are not “theories”, which we will discuss later.

Tinkerers are the backbone of science and discovery.  They do the experiments, collect and analyze the data and actually develop scientific theories.  This is the group that makes the new discoveries and actually advances science.

The last type are the Doers, the people who take what we know about science and apply it to the real world.  A good example here are the computer sciences.  Computer scientists use existing theory on electricity and materials to build a better computer, design it to use less power or produce less heat, work faster and the like.

Now, it’s important to note that most scientists don’t actually fit neatly into a single one of these categories.  Again we’ll use the example of computer scientists.  By the description I gave you would think that they did nothing to advance science.  After all, they’re just applying someone else’s theories to the real world.  While that is true, computers are a separate field of science which rely heavily on other fields.  While computer scientists may not advance electrical theory normally, they do advance computer theories.  So the Doer is also a Tinkerer, and possibly even a Thinker.  As I have said, this concept is simplistic and not entirely accurate, but for the purpose of this discussion we’ll shoehorn the sciences into these three categories based on which category best matches what we’re talking about.

The reason I started thinking about this is because I had a friend recently complaining that scientists did not listen to “armchair scientists”, which is apparently how he likes to think of himself.  To him, you did not need any real training in any science to be able to evaluate scientific theories and ideas.  To him, if a guy was “smart”, scientists should sit down and listen to him on any scientific concept because, in his mind, he had something to offer the scientific world.  It occurred to me that what my friend was saying was that he wanted to have his ideas heard, he wanted to be a part of science, but without putting in any of the work.  He didn’t want to get a degree, he didn’t want to get a job in the sciences, he didn’t want to do any research, he didn’t even want to search the Internet for the knowledge he would need to build any equipment to run any tests.  He wanted to be seen as being just as “smart” as scientists, in this case physicists, without doing any of the work.  And it occurred to me, THIS is the Intelligent Design crowd.

Let’s start with why there is no such thing as an “armchair scientist” and why, even if I had the best idea in the world, they would be right not to bother to listen to me.  An “armchair scientist” is really nothing more than a self-important person who thinks very highly of their own intellect and wants to use the word “scientist” to describe themselves.  I’ve never met a person like this, my friend included, who was as smart as they think they are.  Yes, he’s an intelligent guy, but he’s not that intelligent.  He has nothing to offer the physics community.  He has some ideas which sound cool if you don’t know the science very well, but he doesn’t know the material, quantum mechanics, well enough to be advising quantum physicists.

Sitting down and listening to his ideas would be time out of their lives spent explaining why he was wrong that they would never get back.  They couldn’t get by simply telling him that he was wrong.  He would think they were idiots.  They would have to explain why he was wrong.  For that, they would have to teach him quantum mechanics.  Why would they do that?  There are schools to teach him that and if he wasn’t so smug and lazy he’d just go to one to earn his voice in the scientific community like they did.  While he thinks he would dazzle them with his amazing intellect, he would really be wasting their time.  And when they were done explaining that, the next “armchair scientist” would be waiting outside the door to have his voice heard.

Now, of course, there is the chance that one of them would have something intelligent to say; that one of them would actually advance scientific understanding with something brilliant.  But not only is that chance small, the advancement made would utterly pale in comparison to the research time lost by all the scientists in the world having to waste time talking to self-important lunes all day every day.  They simply don’t have time to entertain every crazy idea presented to them by untrained people who fancy themselves scientists but are too lazy to actually become scientists.

And that is the start of Intelligent Design, but nowhere near the whole story.  Intelligent Design was developed by “armchair scientists”, but not just any old armchair scientists.  These were armchair scientists with an agenda.  They wanted to disguise creationism as science.  Now, there are many who would object to this observation, but it has been proven in court.  The first book on Intelligent Design, Of Pandas and People WAS a creationist book in its original form and was modified to be a book on Intelligent Design immediately after the courts struck down teaching creationism in schools.  This is FACT and is indisputable, though that doesn’t stop others with an agenda from disputing it just the same.  Draft copies of the book had clear, undeniable evidence that the word “creationists” was replaced with the term “design proponents”.  Intelligent Design IS creationism relabeled.

So now Intelligent Design is not only put forth by “armchair scientists”, it’s also poorly disguise clearly un-scientific religious teachings.  So, what category does it fit into?  Well, “armchair scientists” fancy themselves Thinkers.  Tinkering and doing are work, but thinking, that’s pretty easy and can be done while you’re getting drunk.  And clearly no “science” was done on Intelligent Design because it is not a science (again, this is FACT proved in court).  But remember, these were armchair scientists with an agenda.  Because of this, Intelligent Design SHOULD fit neatly into the “Thinker” category, but it doesn’t.  That’s because it has be disguised to look as if it fits into the “Tinkerer” category.  In reality, since no science was done on it, Intelligent Design is purely “Thinker” territory, and remember, Thinkers don’t make theory.  They just have ideas.  But those with the agenda to get creationism back into schools called it Intelligent Design “Theory” because they wanted to disguise the fact that it was nothing more than an idea with no testing and no data to support it.  They manufactured the illusion of data with ideas like irreducible complexity, but there is no real “data” there at all.  Literally ALL the “evidence” to support Intelligent Design is not actually evidence “in support of” Intelligent Design, it’s nothing more than attacks on the Theory of Evolution.  Irreducible complexity says nothing of the merits of Intelligent Design, for instance.  It only says that evolution can’t explain this or that.  So let’s take a look at that for a moment.

What if science were to suddenly come across something that evolution simply could not explain?  What would happen?  Intelligent Design proponents appear to think that this would mean the end of the Theory of Evolution; that we’d just scrap the whole thing and simply accept the only other “theory” out there, their drivel.  Well, that’s not how it works.  Unlike religion, science is not “desperate” to answer questions.  Scientists don’t search and accept just any old answer that comes along.  They want the right answer, or at least as close as they can get with current understanding.  The Theory of Evolution works on so many levels and in so many ways.  It is used in medicine and biology every day, and successfully so.  The Theory of Evolution works, so if we found a chink in its armor, what happens?  What would NOT happen is to simply scrap the whole thing and start over.  Let’s look at a real-world example of two conflicting theories which are BOTH accepted, even though they don’t work together.

The Standard Model of physics works very well in some cases and is taken as a very solid scientific theory.  It predicted the quark, the neutrino and the Higgs Boson, all of which were confirmed.  But there are instances where it doesn’t work.  Then we need Quantum Mechanics to explain the behaviors which can’t be predicted or explained by the Standard Model.  Both theories work very well in a particular scope, but when you get out of that particular scope the theories fall apart and don’t work at all.  There are known flaws, known points where these theories are wrong.  But we’re still using both.  That is because they work in known areas and there’s nothing better to replace them with right now.  That is what would happen if someone found a problem with the Theory of Evolution.  The entire theory wouldn’t be scrapped and replaced by whatever else happened to be there.  In the case of the Standard Model vs Quantum Mechanics, when a Grand Unified Theory is found, both will be replaced, BUT components of both will be part of the new, and not small components either.  And the ONLY reason they will be replaced is because they are two distinct theories which have to be combined.  To get one theory out of two you have to replace them.  Normally the existing theory is simply modified to incorporate the new understanding.  So if we found a flaw with the Theory of Evolution, it would not be simply dismissed.  Science doesn’t work that way.  There would be new data collected, new experiments run.  Scientists would try to quantify this inconsistency and would in all likelihood modify the Theory of Evolution to incorporate the new understanding (as has happened with all scientific theories countless times, including evolution).  The only way the Theory of Evolution would be replaced is if there was a better theory out there, which is what proponents hope Intelligent Design will become, but it won’t.  It’s simply impossible because Intelligent Design is not science.

So, how can we know that Intelligent Design is not science?  I keep saying that, but other than showing that it IS creationism relabeled, I have not explained why it is not science.  So, let’s get the obvious thing out of the way first.  Intelligent Design breaks one of the cardinal rules of science, it defers to a supernatural explanation.  This is a big deal.  Why?  Because it’s a show-stopper.  It is the end of knowledge, the end of understanding.  If I ask, “Why does the sun rise every morning and set every night?” I can go about explaining it, for the sake of argument, in 2 ways.  I can use the scientific process to figure it out or I can simply say that it’s “God’s work”.  While the second explanation may make me feel better and give me a special sense of wonder, frankly, it doesn’t make me any smarter.  If it’s God’s magical powers doing it, it’s beyond explanation and I don’t need to do anything else because I couldn’t figure it out anyway.  I learn nothing.  And that’s actually just fine.  If I don’t really want to know how the sun works, if I’d rather comfort myself with thoughts of the sheer power of my deity then I have done what I set out to do.  But science isn’t about comforting us.  Science is about gaining understanding.  If what I really want is to understand it then I CAN NOT simply give a supernatural explanation, one which, let’s face it, I would be just guessing at anyway unless my deity sat down with me and told me that was true.  It may be what I believe, but I would still just be making up an answer as I would have no way to know that what I had said was true.  It wouldn’t be something I knew, it would be something I believed.  Contrary to the beliefs of many religious people, those two things are very much NOT equivalent.  Belief is fine, but it’s not knowledge.  And that’s why calling on a supernatural explanation is not science…EVER.

Next, no matter what you’ve seen, no matter what you’ve heard, there is not one scrap of evidence for Intelligent Design.  Not one shred!  Think about every “fact” (I use that word loosely here) you’ve ever heard in support of Intelligent design.  Really think about it and ask yourself one question: Does that “fact” support Intelligent Design, or does it only dispute the Theory of Evolution?  Let’s look at irreducible complexity.  It says that there are certain structures which “could not”…let’s stop right there.  “Could not”.  The word “not” tells us right there, this isn’t in support of something, it’s disputing something.  I don’t show my support for a politician by “not” supporting him.  I don’t tell you how much I enjoyed a meal by using the word “not”.  That is a negative word, used to do the OPPOSITE of showing support.  So, what could have “not” happened?  “…be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system…”  This quote is from TalkOrigins.org and it is describing evolution as what could “not” happen.  Irreducible complexity is not an argument FOR Intelligent Design.  It’s an argument AGAINST the Theory of Evolution.

That covers “most” of the arguments for Intelligent Design, but there is another type of argument, that certain aspects of nature show “clear evidence” of design.  What “evidence”?  Because that is a claim, not scientific data.  When asked for this “evidence” they will show you something and gain “claim” that it shows “evidence” of design, but when pressed can only give another negative argument trying to shoot down evolution.  The “evidence” they are talking about is either something they believe disputes evolution or a purely subjective analysis of what they’re looking at.  In reality they offer no “evidence” of any sort.

There are a few (VERY few) actual scientists who support Intelligent Design.  The biggest supporter is the Discovery Institute, the religious institution responsible for the creation of Intelligent Design and its push into the public.  Documents from the beginnings of this push show that they intended to get it accepted as a science and use it to replace the Theory of Evolution with a big push to get it into schools.  They used phrases like “teach the controversy” to try to push it into public schools, which is the next indication of a pseudoscience, take your argument to the public instead of the scientific community.  The idea here (and an idiotic one) is that every sixth grade student is as equipped as any scientist to debate the merits of any scientific theory and decide for themselves which one was correct.  Once again, that is not how science works.   The intention wasn’t to “further scientific thinking”, the intention was to get creationism back into schools (again, this was PROVED in court; it is a FACT).

Of the very few scientists who actually back Intelligent Design, fewer still are actually “working on” Intelligent Design, the next indication that it’s a pseudoscience.  Until recently ID proponents had published no papers and done no research.  Since the court case which proved it to be creationism they have begun working on this to bolster the appearance that it is science.  Not surprisingly these papers started showing up the very year Intelligent Design went to court, but even that isn’t exactly honest on the part of ID proponents.  At the time of the Dover trial, which was filed[/] October of 2004 but didn’t actually begin until almost a year later, it came up in court that there were ZERO peer reviewed articles in support of Intelligent Design.  Right now the Discovery Institute page lists at least two from that very year.  The principal author of one of those, Michael Behe, was the very man what had to admit on the stand about a YEAR LATER that there were “no” peer reviewed articles which supported Intelligent Design.  It’s more than a little strange that a scientist would say there were “no” peer reviewed articles in support of it when he, himself, had published one barely a year prior to that.  A much more plausible explanation is that in the scramble to come up with anything in support of this pseudoscientific nonsense they didn’t bother to check the dates; they didn’t bother to hide an obvious deception, which is what Intelligent Design really is.  It’s a lie, and its proponents know it.  By Behe’s own admission on the stand, by the definition one has to use for the word “science” in order to include Intelligent Design as an actual science, astrology is also a science.  Knowing the astrological sign you are born under and what that means for your life is every bit as “scientific” as Intelligent Design, again, by Michale Behe’s own admission under oath.

These people aren’t peddling “truth” and they don’t care one bit about any sort of “truth”.  What they are peddling is belief which they call truth.  Every Christian thinks his beliefs are “truth”.  Every Christian calls their beliefs “the truth”.  But when they talk about their beliefs we understand that it’s their belief that it is the truth, not a fact that it is truth, so at least there is some level of honesty there.  Intelligent Design is a “truth” built on a foundation of lies and deception.  They are pretending that it’s more than just their beliefs.  They are pretending that there is some proof, some evidence to support their claims, their beliefs that this is “truth”.  They are willing to lie to us in any way necessary, to manufacture any “evidence” necessary, to use any trickery necessary to get people to believe in Intelligent Design by misrepresenting a belief system as factual.  Intelligent Design is no more factual than any other form of creationism.  If you want to believe it, fine.  If you believe it’s the “truth”, fine.  But if you really have something special you wouldn’t need to lie to me constantly about it.  If you have to spend so much time disguising and polishing what you’re presenting to me, you’re probably holding a turd.  With Intelligent Design, you’re definitely holding a turd and I can smell it from here.
[/spoiler]
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: RCnal on April 08, 2016, 03:26:58 PM
"They wrote a whole book about god, why wouldn't he be real?"

LOL, This gets me every time!
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on April 08, 2016, 04:48:10 PM
Quote from: RCnal on April 08, 2016, 03:26:58 PM
"They wrote a whole book about god, why wouldn't he be real?"

LOL, This gets me every time!
Harry Potter got 7.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on May 05, 2016, 07:58:37 PM
(http://www.salem-news.com/gphotos/1261174781.jpg)





Euler's proof, to Diderot, that God exists.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on May 05, 2016, 08:03:06 PM
(http://www.pleated-jeans.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/funny-wedding-ring-lost-carrot-1-1-1.jpg)



Therefore God?

It would've been a lot more interesting had the Curiosity rover found it on Mars, but still...
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: TheVirtueOfTruth on June 17, 2016, 05:28:17 PM
Quote from: Fidel_Castronaut on February 14, 2013, 05:43:21 PM
So, yes, I've made another thread to carry on from the archived one. What happens to this is up to the gods, but its here anyway, just in case. I've copied the OP from the original thread, so let the chat commence:

"We often get many theists claiming to have evidence for the god or gods they hold dear. This thread is created with the aim of allowing them to supply such evidence so that we may debate with them knowing the facts and conclusions they have drawn, and so that we may respond in kind.

So here we are. If you claim to have evidence that supports your god(s), please post it here:"
If you have evidence
that supports your belief there is no God please post it here

" I often get many atheist claiming
to have evidence that God does not exist
that they hold dear. This thread is created with the aim
of allowing them to supply such evidence so that
I may debate with them knowing the facts and conclusions
they have drawn, and so that I may respond in kind.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Gerard on June 17, 2016, 05:36:51 PM
Quote from: TheVirtueOfTruth on June 17, 2016, 05:28:17 PM
If you have evidence
that supports your belief there is no God please post it here

" I often get many atheist claiming
to have evidence that God does not exist
that they hold dear. This thread is created with the aim
of allowing them to supply such evidence so that
I may debate with them knowing the facts and conclusions
they have drawn, and so that I may respond in kind.


I wonder how that happened.....

Gerard
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: TheVirtueOfTruth on June 17, 2016, 05:37:41 PM
Quote from: Gerard on June 17, 2016, 05:36:51 PM
I wonder how that happened.....

Gerard
I am God.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: stromboli on June 17, 2016, 07:25:16 PM
God is apparently dead.  :biggrin:
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: widdershins on September 14, 2016, 01:24:09 PM
Wait, if he's God then whose dick did I suck behind the dumpster at the Kwik Star?  Do I still get my free ride?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on September 14, 2016, 06:45:42 PM
Quote from: widdershins on September 14, 2016, 01:24:09 PM
Wait, if he's God then whose dick did I suck behind the dumpster at the Kwik Star?  Do I still get my free ride?

You just made the term Oral Torah into a bad thing ;-)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on September 14, 2016, 07:38:07 PM
Quote from: widdershins on September 14, 2016, 01:24:09 PM
Wait, if he's God then whose dick did I suck behind the dumpster at the Kwik Star?  Do I still get my free ride?
"Thou art filled with shame for glory: drink thou also, and let thy foreskin be uncovered: the cup of the LORD'S right hand shall be turned unto thee, and shameful spewing shall be on thy glory."
:signeew:
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: widdershins on September 15, 2016, 05:15:59 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on September 14, 2016, 07:38:07 PM
"Thou art filled with shame for glory: drink thou also, and let thy foreskin be uncovered: the cup of the LORD'S right hand shall be turned unto thee, and shameful spewing shall be on thy glory."
:signeew:
You are so damned wise!  And your signature so fits into this discussion, so you must be psychic too!  You're a prophet!
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on September 15, 2016, 06:18:55 PM
There seems to be little profit in being a prophet!  :weed:
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Gerard on September 15, 2016, 06:28:22 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on September 15, 2016, 06:18:55 PM
There seems to be little profit in being a prophet!  :weed:
Well, there is if you go about it the right way (financially I mean)....

Gerard
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on September 15, 2016, 06:30:14 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on September 15, 2016, 06:18:55 PM
There seems to be little profit in being a prophet!  :weed:

You could always predict who will win the election in the US ... and if you are wrong, just say it was G-d's will ;-)  No lose proposition.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Gerard on September 15, 2016, 09:20:09 PM
Quote from: Baruch on September 15, 2016, 06:30:14 PM
You could always predict who will win the election in the US ... and if you are wrong, just say it was G-d's will ;-)  No lose proposition.

Now, I wouldn't bet my money (if I had any) on that......

Gerard
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: PopeyesPappy on September 15, 2016, 10:49:39 PM
Quote from: Baruch on September 15, 2016, 06:30:14 PM
You could always predict who will win the election in the US ... and if you are wrong, just say it was G-d's will ;-)  No lose proposition.

If Hillary wins they'd be saying it's God's will that America be punished for deviating from the righteous path...
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on September 16, 2016, 07:24:25 PM
When people talk about God's will, I wonder who the executor is, and was God of sound mind when he made it.

Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: widdershins on September 19, 2016, 01:50:56 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on September 16, 2016, 07:24:25 PM
When people talk about God's will, I wonder who the executor is, and was God of sound mind when he made it.


I would think that by definition a figment of one's imagination cannot be "of sound mind".
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Cavebear on October 15, 2016, 11:13:51 AM
So many replies even jokingly imagining there ever was a deity.  Sad, so sad.  "Useless, useless"...
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: fencerider on December 11, 2016, 04:50:08 PM
God's will is that you never ever find him...

18 pages so far and still no evidence
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on December 11, 2016, 08:13:53 PM
Quote from: fencerider on December 11, 2016, 04:50:08 PM
God's will is that you never ever find him...

18 pages so far and still no evidence

Most humans are like the drunk, who only looks for his lost keys under the streetlight at night, not because that is where he lost them, but that is where he can see them.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on December 12, 2016, 06:42:57 PM
Quote from: fencerider on December 11, 2016, 04:50:08 PM
God's will is that you never ever find him...

18 pages so far and still no evidence
We could have 18 million pages and there would still be no proof.  Can't prove that a fiction is real. 
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on December 13, 2016, 05:20:00 PM
Yeah, the word "God" is just a sound many people make when they can't stand having to say "I don't know."
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: TheCloser on December 16, 2016, 08:15:59 PM
we are alive in a system that is not alive?   hmmm, can't see that happening.

we have emotion that the system we are in can't have more of?   hmmmm, don't think so.

A dude did not die, rise up, and fly away, true enough, but there is something to believe in.  "nothing" just does not match observations. 
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on December 16, 2016, 08:25:49 PM
Quote from: TheCloser on December 16, 2016, 08:15:59 PM
we are alive in a system that is not alive?   hmmm, can't see that happening.

we have emotion that the system we are in can't have more of?   hmmmm, don't think so.

A dude did not die, rise up, and fly away, true enough, but there is something to believe in.  "nothing" just does not match observations.
What is that 'something' to you???
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: TheCloser on December 16, 2016, 09:06:42 PM
don't know.

At the very least it is more valid to claim we are in something alive.  Traits? well, we have only human understanding so I would say a very small part is us.  All of us is most certainly it. 

Theist have many of the traits wrong.  Like we are damned and all of that other magical crap and domination of one religion nonsense.  But the science supports their connections to something bigger then themselves.  That part is real enough.   
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hydra009 on December 16, 2016, 09:15:09 PM
Quote from: TheCloser on December 16, 2016, 08:15:59 PMwe are alive in a system that is not alive?   hmmm, can't see that happening.
Brb, on my way to convert now.  But what religion should I convert to?  Hrmm....
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: TheCloser on December 16, 2016, 09:29:13 PM
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 16, 2016, 09:15:09 PM
Brb, on my way to convert now.  But what religion should I convert to?  Hrmm....

that's not the point.  Unless you're axe grinding or have some other personal need to fight a religion.

The point is; it is more valid to claim something.  You can do anything you want after that.  I would stay away from hurting others for your belief or feeling better than others due to your belief.  Having the "only" truth is stupid too.  But those suggestions are independent of belief, a jerk is a jerk no matter what they believe in.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hydra009 on December 16, 2016, 09:48:42 PM
Quote from: TheCloser on December 16, 2016, 09:29:13 PMThe point is; it is more valid to claim something.
Right.  Because it doesn't make intuitive sense that humans are alive but the universe in general is not alive, therefore some sort of suspiciously nebulous God exists.  Sounds legit.

But whatever, I'll go for it.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/562730154422579200/jxYN5g2V.jpeg)

Bam.  Something.

QuoteYou can do anything you want after that.
Giving me what I already have.  How generous.

QuoteI would stay away from hurting others for your belief or feeling better than others due to your belief.  Having the "only" truth is stupid too.  But those suggestions are independent of belief, a jerk is a jerk no matter what they believe in.
Those are pretty mild codes of conduct for humanity that surprisingly enough, are actually pretty progressive in religious circles.  But let's do more!  How about an insistence on logic and rationality?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on December 16, 2016, 10:53:05 PM
Quote from: TheCloser on December 16, 2016, 09:06:42 PM
don't know.

At the very least it is more valid to claim we are in something alive.  Traits? well, we have only human understanding so I would say a very small part is us.  All of us is most certainly it. 

Theist have many of the traits wrong.  Like we are damned and all of that other magical crap and domination of one religion nonsense.  But the science supports their connections to something bigger then themselves.  That part is real enough.
Why is it more valid to claim we are in something alive?  And what does the word 'alive' mean? 

Of course we are part of something bigger.  So what?  We are also part of something much, much smaller (microbes).  So what?  The sun is bigger than me--does that mean the sun is alive?  I am much smaller than a redwood tree; does that constitute some sort of proof of something??? 

You use the phrase often--something bigger than us.  What are you driving at?  What is your point?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hydra009 on December 16, 2016, 11:27:52 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 16, 2016, 10:53:05 PMYou use the phrase often--something bigger than us.  What are you driving at?  What is your point?
P1: X exists
P2: ?
C: X exists
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on December 17, 2016, 08:50:26 AM
Quote from: TheCloser on December 16, 2016, 08:15:59 PM
we are alive in a system that is not alive?   hmmm, can't see that happening.

we have emotion that the system we are in can't have more of?   hmmmm, don't think so.

A dude did not die, rise up, and fly away, true enough, but there is something to believe in.  "nothing" just does not match observations.

Never talk simple metaphysics to materialists ;-)  These questions are fundamental clues that we are looking in the wrong end of the telescope.  The answer of materialists is the pseudo-science of epiphenomenalism (or emergentism) .. which is in fact a philosophy subset to the philosophy of scientism (which isn't science, in spite of the duplicitous naming).

The problem is analysis (philosophical, not calculus) and abstraction.  I can have a ship.  I can model a ship and put it in a bottle.  I can have the idea of a ship.  These three are not the same.  I can analyze a person down to the atoms, and a rock down to the atoms ... and not surprisingly, I find that both are composed of atoms.  So I conclude, since atoms are primary to their assemblages ... that a rock and a human are one and the same.  In more abstract terms, this is how Pythagoras came up with the idea that there was no material reality either, just numbers (the whole numbers only, starting with one, two ...).  Material analysis aka physics and numerical analysis are both useful disciplines, as an engineer I used both ... but they aren't "Truth".  They are methods, not results.  Scientific method is ... a method, not a result.  Science doesn't produce "Truth" is produces better questions.

So idealists will idealize .. that there is no human doing the experiment, not human thinking the thought (we know this is wrong in QM and psychology).  There was even an attempt in psychology (Behaviorism) to deny that humans had any thoughts, only objectively observable external behaviors ... but while popular in the US during the mid-20th century, this fad faded.  All this abstraction goes back to Plato, anyone who does it is a follower of Plato, who was a philosopher, not a mathematician (like Euclid) nor a scientist (like Aristotle).  Our present day political science however, does go back to Plato's "Republic".
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on December 17, 2016, 08:53:15 AM
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 16, 2016, 11:27:52 PM
P1: X exists
P2: ?
C: X exists

Logic and rationality aren't .. your strongpoints .. at least in this syllogism.  Logic and rationality aren't rhetorical weapons, any more than number theory is.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: TheCloser on December 17, 2016, 09:02:31 AM
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 16, 2016, 09:48:42 PM
Right.  Because it doesn't make intuitive sense that humans are alive but the universe in general is not alive, therefore some sort of suspiciously nebulous God exists.  Sounds legit.

But whatever, I'll go for it.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/562730154422579200/jxYN5g2V.jpeg)

Bam.  Something.
Giving me what I already have.  How generous.
Those are pretty mild codes of conduct for humanity that surprisingly enough, are actually pretty progressive in religious circles.  But let's do more!  How about an insistence on logic and rationality?

yeah, I agree, this is as good as their god.  I mean if we want to pit one religion against another the spaghetti god vs. Jesus god brawl is fine.  I'll watch for amusement.

My fight is not against religion.  their god is not real so i don't fight what is not real.  I fight what is real only. I might as well go back and play eighth grade football and claim victory!!!! 

If we are only dealing with describing and predicting how the universe works then the spaghetti monster is wrong.  It is a figment if people's imagination.  Just like a finger pointing old man in the sky.  Great, one fairytale thrown at another, good stuff right there.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: TheCloser on December 17, 2016, 09:10:27 AM
Quote from: Baruch on December 17, 2016, 08:50:26 AM
Never talk simple metaphysics to materialists ;-)  These questions are fundamental clues that we are looking in the wrong end of the telescope.  The answer of materialists is the pseudo-science of epiphenomenalism (or emergentism) .. which is in fact a philosophy subset to the philosophy of scientism (which isn't science, in spite of the duplicitous naming).

The problem is analysis (philosophical, not calculus) and abstraction.  I can have a ship.  I can model a ship and put it in a bottle.  I can have the idea of a ship.  These three are not the same.  I can analyze a person down to the atoms, and a rock down to the atoms ... and not surprisingly, I find that both are composed of atoms.  So I conclude, since atoms are primary to their assemblages ... that a rock and a human are one and the same.  In more abstract terms, this is how Pythagoras came up with the idea that there was no material reality either, just numbers (the whole numbers only, starting with one, two ...).  Material analysis aka physics and numerical analysis are both useful disciplines, as an engineer I used both ... but they aren't "Truth".  They are methods, not results.  Scientific method is ... a method, not a result.  Science doesn't produce "Truth" is produces better questions.

So idealists will idealize .. that there is no human doing the experiment, not human thinking the thought (we know this is wrong in QM and psychology).  There was even an attempt in psychology (Behaviorism) to deny that humans had any thoughts, only objectively observable external behaviors ... but while popular in the US during the mid-20th century, this fad faded.  All this abstraction goes back to Plato, anyone who does it is a follower of Plato, who was a philosopher, not a mathematician (like Euclid) nor a scientist (like Aristotle).  Our present day political science however, does go back to Plato's "Republic".

you can play with metaphysics if you want.  I am not into that kind of stuff as a rule.  I mean i'll play around with it so long as  we are honest about what we are doing.

I use what we have around us to describe how the universe works to the best of our ability.  If we have a mechanism, explanation for interactions, and prediction of future interactions we have a more valid claim then if we are missing one or more of those parts.

The claim that "we are part of a system that may be alive" fits observations, explains many events, and will make predictions.  I understand that it is incomplete but so is dark matter and energy.

If you are offering a counter claim, I am all ears. 

I am an atheist, so my claim is not about a literal religious god. 
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: TheCloser on December 17, 2016, 09:18:03 AM
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 16, 2016, 10:53:05 PM
Why is it more valid to claim we are in something alive?  And what does the word 'alive' mean? 

Of course we are part of something bigger.  So what?  We are also part of something much, much smaller (microbes).  So what?  The sun is bigger than me--does that mean the sun is alive?  I am much smaller than a redwood tree; does that constitute some sort of proof of something??? 

You use the phrase often--something bigger than us.  What are you driving at?  What is your point?

The world "alive" is complicated when we start digging but I think if we just keep it to mean the everyday use of word it would be just fine.  If I have to explain the word "alive" to you I am not sure what to do.  Would I also have to explain atom parts? or some basic earth sciences?  what other basics would I have to explain?

there is no christian god.  I thinks that's easy enough.  But what describes the system we are in using the best understanding we have?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on December 17, 2016, 09:25:20 AM
Quote from: TheCloser on December 17, 2016, 09:10:27 AM
you can play with metaphysics if you want.  I am not into that kind of stuff as a rule.  I mean i'll play around with it so long as  we are honest about what we are doing.

I use what we have around us to describe how the universe works to the best of our ability.  If we have a mechanism, explanation for interactions, and prediction of future interactions we have a more valid claim then if we are missing one or more of those parts.

The claim that "we are part of a system that may be alive" fits observations, explains many events, and will make predictions.  I understand that it is incomplete but so is dark matter and energy.

If you are offering a counter claim, I am all ears. 

I am an atheist, so my claim is not about a literal religious god.

Though a theist, I am not literal nor religious.  You are making an argument from Natural Philosophy, circa 1800 ... modern physical science has debunked vitalism and panpsychism.  If you want to discuss this as science, you are wasting your time (unless you are wanting to talk about history of science circa 1800).  If you want to discuss Natural Philosophy ... I am afraid there is no way to escape metaphysics (it is what extends beyond physics).

My theistic POV is yes, the whole of reality (as humans can know it) is both spiritual & irrational.  It is impossible for humans to think outside of their human bias .. and a human is both alive and psychological (maybe in a way plants are not).  All human knowledge, is humanistic, part of the humanities.  The battle between Art and Science is a false battle, science itself is a human art, not something omniscient, omnipresent, eternal (aka G-d).
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on December 17, 2016, 09:28:12 AM
Quote from: TheCloser on December 17, 2016, 09:18:03 AM
The world "alive" is complicated when we start digging but I think if we just keep it to mean the everyday use of word it would be just fine.  If I have to explain the word "alive" to you I am not sure what to do.  Would I also have to explain atom parts? or some basic earth sciences?  what other basics would I have to explain?

there is no christian god.  I thinks that's easy enough.  But what describes the system we are in using the best understanding we have?

Christian gods (more than one) exist inside Christian heads .. it is an idea, not a physical entity.  If you aren't Christian ... then that idea doesn't exist inside your head.  On the other hand, Allah (more than one) exists inside Muslim heads.  Some people don't have any gods (human projections) inside their heads at all, such people are atheists (in the sense of non-theist).  This is descriptive, not prescriptive.  You don't need a god idea in your head, if you don't want one ... or an idea of pizza.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: aitm on December 17, 2016, 10:23:34 AM
Quote from: Baruch on December 11, 2016, 08:13:53 PM
Most humans are like the drunk, who only looks for his lost keys under the streetlight at night, not because that is where he lost them, but that is where he can see them.
that is a very old Bazooka Joe cartoon, except the guy is looking for a quarter.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on December 17, 2016, 11:36:47 AM
Quote from: aitm on December 17, 2016, 10:23:34 AM
that is a very old Bazooka Joe cartoon, except the guy is looking for a quarter.

I bet you put your used bubble gum on the underside of your school desk ;-)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: TheCloser on December 17, 2016, 11:39:55 AM
Quote from: Baruch on December 17, 2016, 09:28:12 AM
Christian gods (more than one) exist inside Christian heads .. it is an idea, not a physical entity.  If you aren't Christian ... then that idea doesn't exist inside your head.  On the other hand, Allah (more than one) exists inside Muslim heads.  Some people don't have any gods (human projections) inside their heads at all, such people are atheists (in the sense of non-theist).  This is descriptive, not prescriptive.  You don't need a god idea in your head, if you don't want one ... or an idea of pizza.

I get ya.  But this is a personal opinion and not a descriptor of how the universe works.  The universe works the way it works and we are just trying to figure that out.

The system, at least this small volume of space, is best described as alive regardless of what some people have in their heads or not.  I am open to other claims that have observational support, explain the interactions around us, and make predictions.

So other then a personal opinion, what do ya have?

Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on December 17, 2016, 11:48:25 AM
Quote from: TheCloser on December 17, 2016, 11:39:55 AM
I get ya.  But this is a personal opinion and not a descriptor of how the universe works.  The universe works the way it works and we are just trying to figure that out.

The system, at least this small volume of space, is best described as alive regardless of what some people have in their heads or not.  I am open to other claims that have observational support, explain the interactions around us, and make predictions.

So other then a personal opinion, what do ya have?

Nobody knows how the universe works ... except Platonists who know the abstract truth thru their magical Greek organs.  Pythagoras started this Illuminati bullshit, and they burned down his school and ran him out of town.  Plato tried to implement the philosopher-king, and his first student king put him in slavery for awhile.  You may think that because you have read the Golden Book of Physical Science ... that you know how the universe works.  In my experience it doesn't work at all, and ape men opinions aren't worth much either.

Yes, the vacuum is ... very active.  Do you understand Quantum Field Theory?  If so, you have gone to the wrong blog.  Nobody here understands it (though a few have made false claims).  But neither the vacuum (nor the particles) are alive.  You don't understand "alive".  Are you wanting to solve the renormalization problem?  We can discuss this in the science section, if you want, so that the regulars won't be bored.  Mostly we can share our opinions of Feynman videos or go full retard with the Feynman lectures.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: TheCloser on December 17, 2016, 01:55:40 PM
Quote from: Baruch on December 17, 2016, 11:48:25 AM
Nobody knows how the universe works ... except Platonists who know the abstract truth thru their magical Greek organs.  Pythagoras started this Illuminati bullshit, and they burned down his school and ran him out of town.  Plato tried to implement the philosopher-king, and his first student king put him in slavery for awhile.  You may think that because you have read the Golden Book of Physical Science ... that you know how the universe works.  In my experience it doesn't work at all, and ape men opinions aren't worth much either.

Yes, the vacuum is ... very active.  Do you understand Quantum Field Theory?  If so, you have gone to the wrong blog.  Nobody here understands it (though a few have made false claims).  But neither the vacuum (nor the particles) are alive.  You don't understand "alive".  Are you wanting to solve the renormalization problem?  We can discuss this in the science section, if you want, so that the regulars won't be bored.  Mostly we can share our opinions of Feynman videos or go full retard with the Feynman lectures.

Yeah, I understand quantum field theory as good most non-college professors of quantum field theory, I guess.  And you're right, we do not know a lot.  In fact, it looks like we don't know more than we do know.  So we can base an opinion on what we don't know or we can base our opinions, conclusions, or ideas on what we do know.  Understanding that it is limited.

So back to my claim.  if you understand quantum field theory, even as little as I do, then you fully grasped the notion that we are really a net average of a series of events that we can call gluons, photons, atoms, molecules, people, and so forth.  We can really say that we really become is a set of events, or interactions, in a larger set of events.  It follows that we can get deeper, but I think you know it will just bring us right back to the same spot.

You are right, we do not know a lot.  So lets just use what we do know.  It  really comes to the notions of alive and/or not alive and the separation between the two volumes of space that we are defining as life and non-life.   Of course we do have the tweeners, like viruses, but the notion of a continuum between alive and not alive with the focus on the ends, for now, will do for this site.

Back to "how do we best describe this volume of space that we live in?" 

The notion that we are in a volume that is alive fits observations, offers mechanisms, and make predictions.  It is incomplete, but it's the best we can do.
I do not know, I am only saying "using what we do know it seems that ..." But I am willing to read about another conclusions that are supported by observations.

What notion do you have that best describes what we see around us?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on December 17, 2016, 02:08:10 PM
But I am not a materialist, and this isn't the place in this blog, or even the right blog.  And yes, I probably understand Quantum Field Theory as badly as you do.  Do you recall that Feynman said, anybody who claims to understand quantum mechanics, proves that they don't by making that claim?

But yes, there is a recent push in some quarters, that tries to quantify living vs nonliving in quantum mechanical terms, just as it can be done in classical physics, in terms of entropy.

You are redefining "alive" to "save appearances".  I suspect that is what those "new QM" folks are doing too.
This guy ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwgQVZju1ZM

The best description for me, is metaphysical.  I reject the monism of Thales and Pythagoras et al.  I reject the rationalism of Aristotle.  So my POV won't be of much interest to you.  I don't think you are genuinely interested in vitalism and panpsychism (which is pretty much what you are implying, yet you are trying to drag materialism into your argument).
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: TheCloser on December 17, 2016, 02:23:27 PM
Quote from: Baruch on December 17, 2016, 02:08:10 PM
But I am not a materialist, and this isn't the place in this blog, or even the right blog.  And yes, I probably understand Quantum Field Theory as badly as you do.  Do you recall that Feynman said, anybody who claims to understand quantum mechanics, proves that they don't by making that claim?

But yes, there is a recent push in some quarters, that tries to quantify living vs nonliving in quantum mechanical terms, just as it can be done in classical physics, in terms of entropy.

You are redefining "alive" to "save appearances".  I suspect that is what those "new QM" folks are doing too.
This guy ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwgQVZju1ZM

The best description for me, is metaphysical.  I reject the monism of Thales and Pythagoras et al.  I reject the rationalism of Aristotle.  So my POV won't be of much interest to you.  I don't think you are genuinely interested in vitalism and panpsychism (which is pretty much what you are implying, yet you are trying to drag materialism into your argument).

"metaphysical"? really?  so the base for your "beliefs" is "we don't know that."  That's odd, why would you based your conclusion on what we don't know?

You are right, I have little interest in philosophy that is not based in what we do know.  I am more of an engineer, if it works, it works.  If it doesn't, figure out why and try again.

So how can we ask for a proof of god or proof of no god?  Or proof of "god" being something different than theist or atheist think? That question seems funny to me if we are not going to talk about it using what we do understand about our region of space?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on December 17, 2016, 03:40:58 PM
Ape men don't "know" anything ... even the world "know" ... which refers to intimacy ... similar to sex (I knew my wife).  They also don't know what "science" is ... which is just Latin for knowledge in general terms, not something specific to post 1600 serious materialist research.

I was an aerospace engineer for 10 years, but I didn't get any wisdom from that, just employment ;-)

Change of topic back to the OP Title ... about G-d.  Maybe more later.  Proof?  In actual mathematics, this is a limited concept ... outside of mathematics it is bullshit.  One can have empirical demonstration, usually quantified.  But no G-d there either.  Earlier people found G-d in mathematics or physics ... but not today, when intellectual nihilism rules.

So can one derive supernatural from the natural?  No way that would be a logical contradiction given that these terms are treated as opposites.  The fact that one divides one's human experience into two ... is a prejudice, when one discards one half of what one divides things into.  It is rhetoric ... with an agenda.  I reject Thales ... reality isn't all "water" or any other unified field theory.  Monism in the materialist context .. fails.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: aitm on December 17, 2016, 03:43:11 PM
Quote from: TheCloser on December 17, 2016, 09:18:03 AM
But what describes the system we are in using the best understanding we have?

What if the description does not please you? Is it the description non-the-less, or do you require a description that agrees with your assumption? Common sense and reason tells us that if we do not have the answer we continue to look until we do or we expire. The reality is that many are unable to do this and are more comfortable making shit up that helps them cope. Which do you prefer?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on December 17, 2016, 03:44:53 PM
Quote from: aitm on December 17, 2016, 03:43:11 PM
What if the description does not please you? Is it the description non-the-less, or do you require a description that agrees with your assumption? Common sense and reason tells us that if we do not have the answer we continue to look until we do or we expire. The reality is that many are unable to do this and are more comfortable making shit up that helps them cope. Which do you prefer?

I would rather cope with a wrong answer, than die with a right answer ;-)  And yes, continue to look, until you die.  Exactly what I am doing too.  But I don't have to use method X ... I can use method Y or Z also.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on December 17, 2016, 04:02:24 PM
Quote from: TheCloser on December 17, 2016, 09:18:03 AM
The world "alive" is complicated when we start digging but I think if we just keep it to mean the everyday use of word it would be just fine.  If I have to explain the word "alive" to you I am not sure what to do.  Would I also have to explain atom parts? or some basic earth sciences?  what other basics would I have to explain?

there is no christian god.  I thinks that's easy enough.  But what describes the system we are in using the best understanding we have?
I still don't know what your point is.  The universe is alive or it is dead; or maybe, like a virus, neither.  What difference does it make?  An amoeba is alive; but does it have a purpose?  None that I can see, other than living.  That does not mean it does not have a purpose to an amoeba--but none that I can figure out.  But that does not make it any easier or harder to learn about amoebas.  Maybe the universe is like that.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: TheCloser on December 17, 2016, 04:09:36 PM
Quote from: aitm on December 17, 2016, 03:43:11 PM
What if the description does not please you? Is it the description non-the-less, or do you require a description that agrees with your assumption? Common sense and reason tells us that if we do not have the answer we continue to look until we do or we expire. The reality is that many are unable to do this and are more comfortable making shit up that helps them cope. Which do you prefer?

"Pleasing"? that's an opinion or emotional response.  Plus you have offer one.

How do we judge "god" claims from theists invalid or invalid?  I would say we use something similar.  what do you think?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: TheCloser on December 17, 2016, 04:32:35 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 17, 2016, 04:02:24 PM
I still don't know what your point is.  The universe is alive or it is dead; or maybe, like a virus, neither.  What difference does it make?  An amoeba is alive; but does it have a purpose?  None that I can see, other than living.  That does not mean it does not have a purpose to an amoeba--but none that I can figure out.  But that does not make it any easier or harder to learn about amoebas.  Maybe the universe is like that.

yeah, this is kind of how I feel.  i really don't have a "main point", I guess, I just like figuring out how the universe is working and talking about it.   I don't care where it leads me.  god or no god, I don't care.

It is more valid to claim the amoeba is alive based on what you see going on around it and in it.  It is not valid to say it is not alive, or at least far less valid.  "tweener", doesn't seem to match observations, but in all honesty it seems valid.  More valid than not alive anyway.

I say, the region of space that we live in looks like it is alive.  In fact, based on what we do know, I feel that claim is more valid than any other claim I have heard.  "tweener" is definitely a valid claim.  I don't think it is an in-between because of the number of interactions for the volume we are in, but its valid.

Then we can talk about how observation interrelate to each other.  Like how volcanoes, earthquakes, and weather patters relate to each other.   We don't have to be emotional about it, although I understand there are people with more emotion than me.  Some people love volcanoes.  I think they are cool, but that's it.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: aitm on December 17, 2016, 06:02:05 PM
Quote from: TheCloser on December 17, 2016, 04:09:36 PM
"Pleasing"? that's an opinion or emotional response.  Plus you have offer one.

How do we judge "god" claims from theists invalid or invalid?  I would say we use something similar.  what do you think?
It is quite easy to see you did not try to answer any of my questions. How does one judge god claims? I find that rather easy. If a billion people have a billion different gods, none of which seem to have any more power than random chance, reason and common sense demands that they are all false until one or more shows a substantial and demonstrable  difference.......4 billion years and yet not one stands out......oh my.......what are the chances of that?  100% perhaps.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: aitm on December 17, 2016, 06:08:43 PM
Quote from: TheCloser on December 16, 2016, 08:15:59 PM
we are alive in a system that is not alive? 

we have emotion that the system we are in can't have more of?   

I have to go back to this. Are you suggesting that rocks are alive? Are you suggesting that atoms and molecules have emotions? Are you suggesting that an inanimate universe or parts of, have an identity? Does the universe deliver mail to different parts talking about birthdays etc? Is there a mailbox somewhere or are you suggesting a secret "language" among the planets that only they share and perhaps scream out to others who do nothing while they are devoured by a black hole or super nova? This seems a little more interesting than fancy dan gods prancing about the globe demanding the hands be cut off of women who dare grab the testicles of a man attacking her husband.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on December 17, 2016, 07:33:11 PM
Quote from: TheCloser on December 17, 2016, 04:32:35 PM
yeah, this is kind of how I feel.  i really don't have a "main point", I guess, I just like figuring out how the universe is working and talking about it.   I don't care where it leads me.  god or no god, I don't care.

It is more valid to claim the amoeba is alive based on what you see going on around it and in it.  It is not valid to say it is not alive, or at least far less valid.  "tweener", doesn't seem to match observations, but in all honesty it seems valid.  More valid than not alive anyway.

I say, the region of space that we live in looks like it is alive.  In fact, based on what we do know, I feel that claim is more valid than any other claim I have heard.  "tweener" is definitely a valid claim.  I don't think it is an in-between because of the number of interactions for the volume we are in, but its valid.

Then we can talk about how observation interrelate to each other.  Like how volcanoes, earthquakes, and weather patters relate to each other.   We don't have to be emotional about it, although I understand there are people with more emotion than me.  Some people love volcanoes.  I think they are cool, but that's it.
In order to determine if the universe is alive or not, we have to have some sort of definition of what being alive looks like.  If I remember correctly, a virus is not alive--nor is it dead.  So, being 'alive' can become complicated.  I'll have to look up what the definition of what life is.  Fire satisfies most of what is need for an alive thing to demonstrate.  But I think we can agree that a fire is not alive in the sense you are talking about.  Personally, I don't see any reason for the universe to be alive; nor do I see much evidence that it is. 
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on December 17, 2016, 07:49:26 PM
Here is one definition of life:
The definition of life is controversial. The current definition is that organisms maintain homeostasis, are composed of cells, undergo metabolism, can grow, adapt to their environment, respond to stimuli, and reproduce. However, many other biological definitions have been proposed, and there are some borderline cases, such as viruses. Throughout history, there have been many attempts to define what is meant by "life" and many theories on the properties and emergence of living things, such as materialism, the belief that everything is made out of matter and that life is merely a complex form of it; hylomorphism, the belief that all things are a combination of matter and form, and the form of a living thing is its soul; spontaneous generation, the belief that life repeatedly emerges from non-life; and vitalism, a now largely discredited hypothesis that living organisms possess a "life force" or "vital spark". Modern definitions are more complex, with input from a diversity of scientific disciplines. Biophysicists have proposed many definitions based on chemical systems; there are also some living systems theories, such as the Gaia hypothesis, the idea that the Earth itself is alive. Another theory is that life is the property of ecological systems, and yet another is elaborated in complex systems biology, a branch or subfield of mathematical biology. Abiogenesis describes the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. Properties common to all organisms include the need for certain core chemical elements to sustain biochemical functions.

So, Closer, does the universe exhibit those things that would make it alive?  Or would it be more like a virus and something that is neither dead or alive?    But whatever side you fall on, what difference does it make to you?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: TheCloser on December 17, 2016, 09:42:58 PM
Quote from: aitm on December 17, 2016, 06:02:05 PM

It is quite easy to see you did not try to answer any of my questions. How does one judge god claims? I find that rather easy. If a billion people have a billion different gods, none of which seem to have any more power than random chance, reason and common sense demands that they are all false until one or more shows a substantial and demonstrable  difference.......4 billion years and yet not one stands out......oh my.......what are the chances of that?  100% perhaps.

what?  I did answer.  I said we use the same method that you use to judge god claims as invalid.  You say everybody is wrong.  that's a cop out.

I can add that we judge claims as best we can, with each other.  I think, offering a mechanism, linking observations to each other, and making correct predictions would at least help.

My hypothesis is that the system we are in resembles life more than it does non life.

You will have to offer me something more than "they are all wrong". 

Do you have a hypothesis for the events we see around us?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: TheCloser on December 17, 2016, 09:49:33 PM
Quote from: aitm on December 17, 2016, 06:08:43 PM
I have to go back to this. Are you suggesting that rocks are alive? Are you suggesting that atoms and molecules have emotions? Are you suggesting that an inanimate universe or parts of, have an identity? Does the universe deliver mail to different parts talking about birthdays etc? Is there a mailbox somewhere or are you suggesting a secret "language" among the planets that only they share and perhaps scream out to others who do nothing while they are devoured by a black hole or super nova? This seems a little more interesting than fancy dan gods prancing about the globe demanding the hands be cut off of women who dare grab the testicles of a man attacking her husband.

I am suggesting that rock is as alive as your teeth or hemoglobin is in you.  The rock is in part of the system that is alive as much as your hair is part of your "alive". Or your eye lid is alive. 

You want fancy? really?  I have no such needs, I only do what the universe is doing.  I do understand that some people have emotional stakes in the answers.  That's on them to be honest with themselves.  You want something more, I don't care if there is more or there is not more.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: aitm on December 17, 2016, 10:04:08 PM
Quote from: TheCloser on December 17, 2016, 09:42:58 PM
  You say everybody is wrong.  that's a cop out.


No, I said: If a billion people have a billion different gods, none of which seem to have any more power than random chance, reason and common sense demands that they are all false .
Show me the "cop out" or in other words, prove one of the "gods" exist.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: TheCloser on December 17, 2016, 10:05:50 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 17, 2016, 07:33:11 PM
In order to determine if the universe is alive or not, we have to have some sort of definition of what being alive looks like.  If I remember correctly, a virus is not alive--nor is it dead.  So, being 'alive' can become complicated.  I'll have to look up what the definition of what life is.  Fire satisfies most of what is need for an alive thing to demonstrate.  But I think we can agree that a fire is not alive in the sense you are talking about.  Personally, I don't see any reason for the universe to be alive; nor do I see much evidence that it is.

Very true.  The definition of alive, or life is very tricky.  I am ok with just looking at something and comparing it to what we think is non life and comparing to something we call life to decide.  We can do a more basic definition of  less energy out then energy in.  Thermodynamically speaking that is.  But I do not think we have to get crazy about it at this site.  its a baby site with baby ideas.  Frig, I am a simpleton myself.

I look at the old Gaia notions and a non living earth claim.  I won't go as far as gaia did.  We can only make comparisons of events to other events and do our best to describe the connection between them.  Thats how measurements work I think.

Does earth look like a cell in terms of interactions?  It does.

Does the earth look like a rock?  or any other thing we would describe as non life? I don't think so.

Is there any separation between "stuff" on planet earth?  Even the most understanding of atoms and subatomic particles says there is no clear separation.  The universe is a "net average" of events from our standpoint.

Then a simple commonsense check:

Can we be alive in a system that is not alive?

Lets just keep the volume earth size for now.  How can you show me that any part of us are distinctly separated from the surrounding earth systems? The claim "we can be alive and the biosphere not alive",   that's a pretty hefty claim to me.  Its far more extraordinary than my claim so we would need some examples, mechanisms and predictions.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: TheCloser on December 17, 2016, 10:10:20 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 17, 2016, 07:49:26 PM
Here is one definition of life:
The definition of life is controversial. The current definition is that organisms maintain homeostasis, are composed of cells, undergo metabolism, can grow, adapt to their environment, respond to stimuli, and reproduce. However, many other biological definitions have been proposed, and there are some borderline cases, such as viruses. Throughout history, there have been many attempts to define what is meant by "life" and many theories on the properties and emergence of living things, such as materialism, the belief that everything is made out of matter and that life is merely a complex form of it; hylomorphism, the belief that all things are a combination of matter and form, and the form of a living thing is its soul; spontaneous generation, the belief that life repeatedly emerges from non-life; and vitalism, a now largely discredited hypothesis that living organisms possess a "life force" or "vital spark". Modern definitions are more complex, with input from a diversity of scientific disciplines. Biophysicists have proposed many definitions based on chemical systems; there are also some living systems theories, such as the Gaia hypothesis, the idea that the Earth itself is alive. Another theory is that life is the property of ecological systems, and yet another is elaborated in complex systems biology, a branch or subfield of mathematical biology. Abiogenesis describes the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. Properties common to all organisms include the need for certain core chemical elements to sustain biochemical functions.

So, Closer, does the universe exhibit those things that would make it alive?  Or would it be more like a virus and something that is neither dead or alive?    But whatever side you fall on, what difference does it make to you?

yes, the biosphere of earth, compared to other things that are both alive and not alive, looks alive.

yes, a virus is a tweener, but it does replicate its information using the system around it.  Does the earth's biosphere act like a virus when we compare it to viruses, life, and non life interaction?  I don't think so.  But its a possibility.  the only one of the three that is least likely is that the biosphere matches non life. IMO that is. 
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: TheCloser on December 17, 2016, 10:12:39 PM
Quote from: aitm on December 17, 2016, 10:04:08 PM
No, I said: If a billion people have a billion different gods, none of which seem to have any more power than random chance, reason and common sense demands that they are all false .
Show me the "cop out" or in other words, prove one of the "gods" exist.

lets see,

" ... random chance, reason, and commonsense say they are all wrong." 

very clear to me that I am wrong.  my bad. 
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: aitm on December 17, 2016, 10:16:06 PM
Quote from: TheCloser on December 17, 2016, 09:49:33 PM
I am suggesting that rock is as alive as your teeth or hemoglobin is in you.   
Oh I get you now. Good stuff...yessir.....brilliant thinking....nobel prize worthy I am sure...keep up the good work....say....this place is just too ignorant for you, what say you drift off to www.barneythetalkingtree.com where they appreciate your brilliance? Go on now...sorry to see you go...go ahead...it's okay....spread your brilliance to the world....
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: aitm on December 17, 2016, 10:18:18 PM
Quote from: TheCloser on December 17, 2016, 10:12:39 PM
lets see,

" ... random chance, reason, and commonsense say they are all wrong."   

english is not your first language obviously, sentence structure is important. I accept your apology.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: TheCloser on December 17, 2016, 10:27:14 PM
Quote from: aitm on December 17, 2016, 10:16:06 PM
Oh I get you now. Good stuff...yessir.....brilliant thinking....nobel prize worthy I am sure...keep up the good work....say....this place is just too ignorant for you, what say you drift off to www.barneythetalkingtree.com where they appreciate your brilliance? Go on now...sorry to see you go...go ahead...it's okay....spread your brilliance to the world....

Yeah, I am ok with trying to diminish a claim.  But we will have to stay on topic for your stance to be more valid.

Compare the earth's biosphere to a non living set of events, like a rock, to a living set of events, like an amoeba, and to a tweener life thing, like a virus.

what does it look like it matches up better with?

you make the call.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: TheCloser on December 17, 2016, 10:29:34 PM
Quote from: aitm on December 17, 2016, 10:18:18 PM
english is not your first language obviously, sentence structure is important. I accept your apology.

yeah I gotcha.  I am stupid, dumb, no nothing whateverist you need me to be.

But we will have to stay on topic for your stance to be more valid.

Compare the earth's biosphere to a non living set of events, like a rock, to a living set of events, like an amoeba, and to a tweener life thing, like a virus.

what does it look like it matches up better with?

you make the call.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on December 17, 2016, 10:51:16 PM
"My hypothesis is that the system we are in resembles life more than it does non life."

I agree completely, but not for materialist or rationalist reasons.  Life isn't rational or material.  We characterize part of our human experience as living, another part as non-living, as material or as non-material ... and those categories cross each other up.  But we are the ones doing the categorizing ... nobody else, not G-d, not QM.  You can't take the "people" out of any "people" thought ... they are always implicit if not explicit.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: TheCloser on December 17, 2016, 11:18:07 PM
we measure things as best we can.  Those measurements are really just comparisons to other things we think we understand.  But in the end you are dead right, everything we describe, everything, is in human terms.

The universe is having a human experience, so to speak.
human thinking star stuff.

I don't go so far as to claim life is rational or irrational.  I just don't know enough.  as far as "material" vs "non material" we only have the stand model and it is incomplete at best.  I just don't base any of my hypothesizes off of anything I don't know.  I don't know of 'immaterial" anything but "energy" and I have no idea what energy is other than the ability to do work.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on December 17, 2016, 11:24:08 PM
Energeticism ... the failed idea from the late 19th century, that energy explains everything.  It explains a lot, just not everything.  Not even entropy does.

"Man is the measure of all things" ... Protagoras.

Parmenides invented logic, and he used it for reductio ad absurdum ... particularly his pupil Zeno of Elea.  Reality is absurd.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on December 17, 2016, 11:46:39 PM
Quote from: TheCloser link=topic=44.msg1158808#msg1158808 date=1482030350


Can we be alive in a system that is not alive?


/quote]
Why not?  Can nonalive things exist in me?  Sure.  We are alive in a universe that cares not if we live or die--are alive or not alive. 
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on December 18, 2016, 07:38:02 AM
Part of the problem with TheCloser's problem ... is the difference between subject and predicate/object.  Alive things in the non-alive, or non-alive things in the alive.  This is only a problem if thy think there is a separation.  My body's microcosm extends an indeterminate way into myself, but my macrocosm extends to infinity and beyond.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: TheCloser on December 18, 2016, 09:37:48 AM
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 17, 2016, 11:46:39 PM
[quote author=TheCloser link=topic=44.msg1158808#msg1158808 date=1482030350


Can we be alive in a system that is not alive?



Why not?  Can nonalive things exist in me?  Sure.  We are alive in a universe that cares not if we live or die--are alive or not alive.

these are a mixture of idea's so let me see if I understand.

2) The universe doesn't care about us.  Ok, That is a valid claim.  I lean this way myself.
3) Can non-living things exist in you.  As most people use the word ... Definitely valid.

back to number 1  why not?

I guess we could if we were in a ship or something. Good question.

But lets look at you in a system of life that is keeping you alive.  Like the biosphere. 

when we compare the biosphere to others things we call life, non-life, and tweeners, would you call the biosphere life or non life?

Remember, measurements are comparison to other things that we think we know.  Brauch correctly points out the limits with taking that notion too literally.







Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: TheCloser on December 18, 2016, 10:14:00 AM
Quote from: Baruch on December 18, 2016, 07:38:02 AM
Part of the problem with TheCloser's problem ... is the difference between subject and predicate/object.  Alive things in the non-alive, or non-alive things in the alive.  This is only a problem if thy think there is a separation.  My body's microcosm extends an indeterminate way into myself, but my macrocosm extends to infinity and beyond.

A neutrino would agree with you.

I take you apart and find no you.  hmm, that is an observation that needs to be addressed.  I use the word "illusion" and not "delusion". An illusion is something that  "is there" but we think its something different.  Versus a delusion, where we see something that is not there.

Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on December 18, 2016, 10:58:37 AM
Quote from: TheCloser on December 18, 2016, 09:37:48 AM
these are a mixture of idea's so let me see if I understand.

2) The universe doesn't care about us.  Ok, That is a valid claim.  I lean this way myself.
3) Can non-living things exist in you.  As most people use the word ... Definitely valid.

back to number 1  why not?

I guess we could if we were in a ship or something. Good question.

But lets look at you in a system of life that is keeping you alive.  Like the biosphere. 

when we compare the biosphere to others things we call life, non-life, and tweeners, would you call the biosphere life or non life?

Remember, measurements are comparison to other things that we think we know.  Brauch correctly points out the limits with taking that notion too literally.
Seems to me that biosphere is a specific collection of living and non living things.  A human body needs certain minerals (that are not alive) to remain well and alive.  Those minerals are part of a chemical process within our bodies; without them, we would die--but the chemical reactions are not from an organic source, even.  So, non living things  are essential for humans to live.  In a sense,
the universe is just the ultimate biosphere--and it does not need to be alive for life to happen within it.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on December 18, 2016, 11:59:41 AM
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 18, 2016, 10:58:37 AM
Seems to me that biosphere is a specific collection of living and non living things.  A human body needs certain minerals (that are not alive) to remain well and alive.  Those minerals are part of a chemical process within our bodies; without them, we would die--but the chemical reactions are not from an organic source, even.  So, non living things  are essential for humans to live.  In a sense,
the universe is just the ultimate biosphere--and it does not need to be alive for life to happen within it.

The difference between society and the individual.  Some claim that society exists, but the individual doesn't.  Others claim that society doesn't exist, but the individual does.  Looks like bipolar mania to me.  Maybe both are right?  How can we allow that with binary logic?  Don't limit yourself to binary logic.  There isn't a contradiction, only the use of overly simplistic logic.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on December 18, 2016, 12:19:20 PM
Quote from: Baruch on December 18, 2016, 11:59:41 AM
The difference between society and the individual.  Some claim that society exists, but the individual doesn't.  Others claim that society doesn't exist, but the individual does.  Looks like bipolar mania to me.  Maybe both are right?  How can we allow that with binary logic?  Don't limit yourself to binary logic.  There isn't a contradiction, only the use of overly simplistic logic.
What?????
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hydra009 on December 18, 2016, 12:20:59 PM
Quote from: TheCloser on December 17, 2016, 10:05:50 PMDoes the earth look like a rock?
(http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Hijaz-Mountains-and-Nafud-Desert-Saudi-Arabia-June-1991.jpg)

Honestly?  Yeah, just a tad.  It is literally called earth for a reason.

Take away water and vegetation and I'd be impossible to conceptualize the planet as anything other than a giant rock.

QuoteIs there any separation between "stuff" on planet earth?
There's no élan vital, if that's what you're asking.  However, being made of the same sort of stuff doesn't mean that everything is literally exactly the same.  Because obviously, that's not true.

QuoteEven the most understanding of atoms and subatomic particles says there is no clear separation.
There's also no clear difference, at an atomic level, between the contents of my fridge and a landfill.  Doesn't make them the same thing.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on December 18, 2016, 12:33:13 PM
Put all the sophistry on one side of the scale, and all of tradition on the other ...
King's College Choir Cambridge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSotvFWKvhc
Samaritan tradition longer than Rabbinic tradition
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC1XRB06tr4
Muslim Friday worship
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWOKB5EzHSo
Hindu pilgrimage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9tApZIaCN8

The evidence is present in human thought, emotion and behavior ... because religion doesn't exist outside of people.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Blackleaf on December 18, 2016, 01:56:04 PM
My reaction after reading the last several pages:

(http://replygif.net/i/544.gif)

Edit: 666 posts! Woot!
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: TheCloser on December 18, 2016, 02:13:37 PM
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 18, 2016, 12:20:59 PM
(http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Hijaz-Mountains-and-Nafud-Desert-Saudi-Arabia-June-1991.jpg)

Honestly?  Yeah, just a tad.  It is literally called earth for a reason.

Take away water and vegetation and I'd be impossible to conceptualize the planet as anything other than a giant rock.
There's no élan vital, if that's what you're asking.  However, being made of the same sort of stuff doesn't mean that everything is literally exactly the same.  Because obviously, that's not true.
There's also no clear difference, at an atomic level, between the contents of my fridge and a landfill.  Doesn't make them the same thing.

The words inaccurate and precision apply your measurement system.

By your measurements we can call a basket ball a planet.

"the same stuff" is not what I implied or said.  I said compare the interactions of the biosphere to those interactions within a rock.  There most certainly is a difference between the interactions withing your refrigerator and those of a landfill. 

When I compare the refrigerator's interactions and landfill interactions I would classify them as both non life.  As I would your teeth and stomach.



Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: TheCloser on December 18, 2016, 02:22:26 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 18, 2016, 01:56:04 PM
My reaction after reading the last several pages:


Edit: 666 posts! Woot!

yeah, most people do not understand.  Better to leave the room and thought a fool then to open ones mouth and remove all doubt.  And no matter how much we teach them, they will no sooner understand then a dog understands anything past

"come here boy."  or  "fetch."  But that dog controls many of the choices the owner has in life doesn't it?


Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Blackleaf on December 18, 2016, 02:31:44 PM
Quote from: TheCloser on December 18, 2016, 02:22:26 PM
yeah, most people do not understand.  Better to leave the room and thought a fool then to open ones mouth and remove all doubt.  And no matter how much we teach them, they will no sooner understand then a dog understands anything past

"come here boy."  or  "fetch."  But that dog controls many of the choices the owner has in life doesn't it?

Seems to me no one understands what the hell you're saying. You think yourself a teacher of rare knowledge? If no one understands the teacher, the fault lies with the teacher, not the students. But I don't think you have any knowledge to share. Only meaningless nonsense.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: TheCloser on December 18, 2016, 02:56:51 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 18, 2016, 02:31:44 PM
Seems to me no one understands what the hell you're saying. You think yourself a teacher of rare knowledge? If no one understands the teacher, the fault lies with the teacher, not the students. But I don't think you have any knowledge to share. Only meaningless nonsense.

seems to me I am not fighting you about this.  The information I am using is basic college level science. 

If you have a hypothesis I am willing to listen.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hydra009 on December 18, 2016, 03:32:04 PM
Quote from: TheCloser on December 18, 2016, 02:13:37 PMThe words inaccurate and precision apply your measurement system.

By your measurements we can call a basket ball a planet.
Hilarious.  2/10 troll.

Quote"the same stuff" is not what I implied or said
This is only partially correct.  While those weren't your exact words, you've repeatedly claimed that humans and the universe as a whole are alive and submitted as proof (laughably, btw) that they're both made out of atoms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition) - i.e. the same stuff.  This erroneously assumes that the properties of a part the universe is true for the whole of the universe.

Quoteyeah, most people do not understand.  Better to leave the room and thought a fool then to open ones mouth and remove all doubt.
Too late for that.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: TheCloser on December 18, 2016, 03:47:47 PM
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 18, 2016, 03:32:04 PM
Hilarious.  2/10 troll.
This is only partially correct.  While those weren't your exact words, you've repeatedly claimed that humans and the universe as a whole are alive and submitted as proof (laughably, btw) that they're both made out of atoms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition) - i.e. the same stuff.
Too late for that.

yeah, mocking without observational support does not lessen the validity of the claim.  You'll have to do a better job then cutting and pasting a fallacy from wiki.  your comparison between the the interactions that make up the earth and the interactions within a rock are inaccurate. There really is nothing to add.

Your measuring device is also flat out wrong.  By your measurement device a basketball and the earth are the same thing.  Or a rock and the earth are the same thing based on your picture.  Both of those claims are just flat out wrong.  Logical fallacy has nothing to do with it.

Come up with another hypothesis that is based on what we do know or at least using the proper comparisons.  I mean there is nothing to talk about with you until you correct the measurements. 

Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on December 18, 2016, 04:27:33 PM
That is the problem with materialists ... only things outside themselves is true, anything inside is false ... but that is a self judgement, not a judgement of reality.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: TheCloser on December 18, 2016, 05:08:13 PM
Quote from: Baruch on December 18, 2016, 04:27:33 PM
That is the problem with materialists ... only things outside themselves is real, anything inside is false ... but that is a self judgement, not a judgement of reality.

the question is why the emotional investment in their rejection?  Basically "whats the big deal claiming the biosphere looks alive?"

The claim is not irrational but the aggressive nature of rejection is.  Unless of course he is willing to talk about why he is rejecting it so vehemently.  The facts I am using are in any high school or college science textbooks.  Degrasse, witten, even suskind, to a lessor degree, talk to these notions.
   
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Blackleaf on December 18, 2016, 06:26:50 PM
Quote from: TheCloser on December 18, 2016, 02:56:51 PM
seems to me I am not fighting you about this.  The information I am using is basic college level science. 

If you have a hypothesis I am willing to listen.

As someone who graduated with a Master of Arts in Psychology just yesterday, I'm familiar with the scientific method. Judging from your arguments, I'd be surprised if you you knew what "basic college level science" even means.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on December 18, 2016, 07:11:20 PM
Quote from: TheCloser on December 18, 2016, 05:08:13 PM
the question is why the emotional investment in their rejection?  Basically "whats the big deal claiming the biosphere looks alive?"

The claim is not irrational but the aggressive nature of rejection is.  Unless of course he is willing to talk about why he is rejecting it so vehemently.  The facts I am using are in any high school or college science textbooks.  Degrasse, witten, even suskind, to a lessor degree, talk to these notions.
   

People aren't very introspective in general.  They don't know themselves, and don't want to know.  Also they don't like themselves or are afraid that if they know themselves, they won't feel good about it.  These are legitimate concerns.  Can one "bull" one's way past one's own inhibitions?

I find nothing controversial about what you say (in a secular sense).  But people like to not only categorize (life vs non-life), they like to keep them separate ... don't mix their peas with their carrots.  Fact is, experience is messy, it doesn't fit into neat cubicles.  And materialists are in denial that anything is alive.  They are semi-nihilists.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on December 18, 2016, 07:29:34 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 18, 2016, 06:26:50 PM
As someone who graduated with a Master of Arts in Psychology just yesterday, I'm familiar with the scientific method. Judging from your arguments, I'd be surprised if you you knew what "basic college level science" even means.
Hey, Blackleaf, congratulations on your degree!!  Not easy.  My daughter has a degree in psychology, but went into education instead of the field of psychology.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: TheCloser on December 18, 2016, 08:27:26 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 18, 2016, 06:26:50 PM
As someone who graduated with a Master of Arts in Psychology just yesterday, I'm familiar with the scientific method. Judging from your arguments, I'd be surprised if you you knew what "basic college level science" even means.

Yeah, this is irrational.  I think you guys are just messing around now.  You are rejecting the idea that the biosphere alive for something other than reason, commonsense, and logic.   

Is there is a personal reason that you just smash it with claims that counter observations? 
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: TheCloser on December 18, 2016, 08:51:44 PM
Quote from: Baruch on December 18, 2016, 07:11:20 PM
People aren't very introspective in general.  They don't know themselves, and don't want to know.  Also they don't like themselves or are afraid that if they know themselves, they won't feel good about it.  These are legitimate concerns.  Can one "bull" one's way past one's own inhibitions?

I find nothing controversial about what you say (in a secular sense).  But people like to not only categorize (life vs non-life), they like to keep them separate ... don't mix their peas with their carrots.  Fact is, experience is messy, it doesn't fit into neat cubicles.  And materialists are in denial that anything is alive.  They are semi-nihilists.

well, the claim the biosphere matches "life" more than it matches "non life" is easy stuff.  Their rejecting of it is more do to a brain state then another thing thing.  They offered no counter claim, no observations, and no mechanisms that will make predictions.  They did mock, miss quote, and change meaning.  Errr, yeah, that's rational right there.

They must just be kids playing around because its just so nonsensical. 

They may be just trying to squash the idea because they feel it is dangerous.  But the question is, these guys are clearly in no position to make the call with arts degrees. 

why would they feel that they have enough experience to hide how the universe works?  Or why would they think that what they know is enough?

what gives with that?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on December 18, 2016, 10:37:16 PM
Closer, I'm confused--what is the point of your discussion?  Just that the universe itself is alive?  Or that life exists in the biosphere? 

This is what the National Geographic site has to say of the biosphere:  "The biosphere is made up of the parts of Earth where life exists. The biosphere extends from the deepest root systems of trees, to the dark environment of ocean trenches, to lush rain forests and high mountaintops.

Scientists describe the Earth in terms of spheres. The solid surface layer of the Earth is the lithosphere. The atmosphere is the layer of air that stretches above the lithosphere. The Earth’s waterâ€"on the surface, in the ground, and in the airâ€"makes up the hydrosphere.

Since life exists on the ground, in the air, and in the water, the biosphere overlaps all these spheres. Although the biosphere measures about 20 kilometers (12 miles) from top to bottom, almost all life exists between about 500 meters (1,640 feet) below the ocean’s surface to about 6 kilometers (3.75 miles) above sea level."

I would say that life exists within the biosphere; but not that the biosphere itself is alive.  Do you contend that the biosphere itself is alive?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Blackleaf on December 18, 2016, 11:22:49 PM
Quote from: TheCloser on December 18, 2016, 08:27:26 PM
Yeah, this is irrational.  I think you guys are just messing around now.  You are rejecting the idea that the biosphere alive for something other than reason, commonsense, and logic.   

Is there is a personal reason that you just smash it with claims that counter observations?

Show me one peer-reviewed article that supports your argument. If your argument is supported by scientific observations, you should have no trouble.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Blackleaf on December 19, 2016, 02:17:57 AM
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 18, 2016, 07:29:34 PM
Hey, Blackleaf, congratulations on your degree!!  Not easy.  My daughter has a degree in psychology, but went into education instead of the field of psychology.

That's what I'm planning to do. lol

With a Masters, I qualify to teach at community college. If I get a Doctorate, I could teach at higher levels, but I'm not sure I have the energy to go for that. The Master's thesis was almost enough to kill me.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Sorginak on December 19, 2016, 02:26:46 AM
I had to delve back a few pages.

It seems to me that TheCloser is quite fond of the Gaia concept. 
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: TheCloser on December 19, 2016, 06:55:00 AM
Quote from: Sorginak on December 19, 2016, 02:26:46 AM
I had to delve back a few pages.

It seems to me that TheCloser is quite fond of the Gaia concept.

yes, I said that at the very beginning.  I am just not willing to go as far as he did.

the question still stands.  Do the interactions in the biosphere, as a whole, look more like a cell, a rock, or a virus?

Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: TheCloser on December 19, 2016, 07:01:23 AM
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 18, 2016, 11:22:49 PM
Show me one peer-reviewed article that supports your argument. If your argument is supported by scientific observations, you should have no trouble.

peer review? I am not doing your work.  Go study some and see whats out there.  I am not the first one thinking this kid.

The question is simple.  Does the biosphere's interactions resemble the interactions of life, non life, or something in the middle. 

Just answer the question, its simple. 

so what gives? why will you not answer it to the best of your ability?

Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on December 19, 2016, 07:10:34 AM
Quote from: TheCloser on December 19, 2016, 06:55:00 AM
yes, I said that at the very beginning.  I am just not willing to go as far as he did.

the question still stands.  Do the interactions in the biosphere, as a whole, look more like a cell, a rock, or a virus?

There is a problem ... the idea of individuality vs collectivity.  Are all germs of the same species, a mega-organism or not.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on December 19, 2016, 07:11:43 AM
Quote from: TheCloser on December 19, 2016, 07:01:23 AM
peer review? I am not doing your work.  Go study some and see whats out there.  I am not the first one thinking this kid.

The question is simple.  Does the biosphere's interactions resemble the interactions of life, non life, or something in the middle. 

Just answer the question, its simple. 

so what gives? why will you not answer it to the best of your ability?

Materialists like spiritualists, don't like to be called on their own BS, just like to call BS on the other guy.  Simple human psychology.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: TheCloser on December 19, 2016, 07:36:08 AM
Quote from: Baruch on December 19, 2016, 07:10:34 AM
There is a problem ... the idea of individuality vs collectivity.  Are all germs of the same species, a mega-organism or not.

you and I agree on this.  "feedback lops" are a major process in the universe.  There is no "isolated" anything.  i am more of an engineer than you, but you make a point that we need to keep bring up if we go any further.  I personally don't need to good further than the biosphere looks more like a form than a non-life form when taken as a whole.

The microbes would be classified as one of the systems to me as apposed to a super orgasm.  I wouldn't even use the word super, i would use just the word bigger.  When I look at the biosphere I would classify it in terms of systems, just like we do with cells and the human body.  With the understanding that they are not isolated in anyway, nor do they work independently in anyway, and they are fraught with back loops.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on December 19, 2016, 08:55:44 AM
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 19, 2016, 02:17:57 AM
That's what I'm planning to do. lol

With a Masters, I qualify to teach at community college. If I get a Doctorate, I could teach at higher levels, but I'm not sure I have the energy to go for that. The Master's thesis was almost enough to kill me.
My daughter went a slightly different route.  She got her Masters in Ed--went into admin and is now in the middle of her doctorate.  According to her, it is hard and tedious.  But in another 6/8 months she should have it.  She then wants to become a principal somewhere for awhile and then go into a district level research team somewhere.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Blackleaf on December 19, 2016, 11:34:53 AM
Quote from: TheCloser on December 19, 2016, 07:01:23 AM
peer review? I am not doing your work.  Go study some and see whats out there.  I am not the first one thinking this kid.

The question is simple.  Does the biosphere's interactions resemble the interactions of life, non life, or something in the middle. 

Just answer the question, its simple. 

so what gives? why will you not answer it to the best of your ability?

Ha. No. You make the claim, you support it. Otherwise I'm going to ignore your claim and move on with my day.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: TheCloser on December 19, 2016, 12:47:02 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 19, 2016, 11:34:53 AM
Ha. No. You make the claim, you support it. Otherwise I'm going to ignore your claim and move on with my day.

this is avoidance by cop out. 

I said the biosphere's interactions look like life.  The hypothesis is supported by any college chemistry book, bio book, and physics book.  the term used in the 60's or 70's was gaia.  but i said I am not willing to go as far as he did . The earths systems do not resemble the interactions of a rock.  That statement is just foolish.  They are vastly more complicated then even the suns.

I asked you do you think the interactions resemble life, non life, or in between given the complexity versus volume we see on earth?


I am also interested in why you are afraid to answer?  I mean its a simple question and even if we are just playing around? 

I am thinking, like Christians, you are avoiding the question because it directly counters your religious world view.





Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on December 19, 2016, 01:17:17 PM
Quote from: TheCloser on December 19, 2016, 07:36:08 AM
you and I agree on this.  "feedback lops" are a major process in the universe.  There is no "isolated" anything.  i am more of an engineer than you, but you make a point that we need to keep bring up if we go any further.  I personally don't need to good further than the biosphere looks more like a form than a non-life form when taken as a whole.

The microbes would be classified as one of the systems to me as apposed to a super orgasm.  I wouldn't even use the word super, i would use just the word bigger.  When I look at the biosphere I would classify it in terms of systems, just like we do with cells and the human body.  With the understanding that they are not isolated in anyway, nor do they work independently in anyway, and they are fraught with back loops.

The idea of analysis ... is that things are sufficiently "separable" that you can break it down into parts that can be analyzed themselves, in isolation.  This is a fundamental limitation on reductionism.  But given most real situations (chaos, turbulence etc) is all feedback loops ... you can only analyze toy problems, like Newtonian mechanics ... yes, the planets and Sun and Moon are sufficiently independent, that analysis works.  Living organisms are the mother-of-all feedback.  This is why if you chop a living person into their individual organs ... they are no longer alive.  Usually if you divide a packet granular salt, into smaller packets of granular salt ... nothing substantial is lost ... it is still salt.  Why?  Because (in this narrow sense) the salt packet isn't alive.  However we must not neglect that a human being, created that salt packet from salt water.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Blackleaf on December 19, 2016, 02:39:44 PM
Quote from: TheCloser on December 19, 2016, 12:47:02 PM
this is avoidance by cop out. 

I said the biosphere's interactions look like life.  The hypothesis is supported by any college chemistry book, bio book, and physics book.  the term used in the 60's or 70's was gaia.  but i said I am not willing to go as far as he did . The earths systems do not resemble the interactions of a rock.  That statement is just foolish.  They are vastly more complicated then even the suns.

I asked you do you think the interactions resemble life, non life, or in between given the complexity versus volume we see on earth?


I am also interested in why you are afraid to answer?  I mean its a simple question and even if we are just playing around? 

I am thinking, like Christians, you are avoiding the question because it directly counters your religious world view.

Seems you've never taken a class in philosophy either. It's your responsibility to prove your point, not mine to prove you wrong. Stop trying to shift the burden of proof onto me. It won't work.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: TrueStory on December 19, 2016, 02:54:27 PM
Quote from: TheCloser on December 19, 2016, 06:55:00 AM
yes, I said that at the very beginning.  I am just not willing to go as far as he did.

the question still stands.  Do the interactions in the biosphere, as a whole, look more like a cell, a rock, or a virus?


So what, how does that impact anything I do?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: TheCloser on December 19, 2016, 04:25:31 PM
Quote from: Baruch on December 19, 2016, 01:17:17 PM
The idea of analysis ... is that things are sufficiently "separable" that you can break it down into parts that can be analyzed themselves, in isolation.  This is a fundamental limitation on reductionism.  But given most real situations (chaos, turbulence etc) is all feedback loops ... you can only analyze toy problems, like Newtonian mechanics ... yes, the planets and Sun and Moon are sufficiently independent, that analysis works.  Living organisms are the mother-of-all feedback.  This is why if you chop a living person into their individual organs ... they are no longer alive.  Usually if you divide a packet granular salt, into smaller packets of granular salt ... nothing substantial is lost ... it is still salt.  Why?  Because (in this narrow sense) the salt packet isn't alive.  However we must not neglect that a human being, created that salt packet from salt water.

yuppers.

To your last line.  Ultimately, the universe made that salt packet.  That is an undeniable conclusion. 

well, unless we are light weights.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: TheCloser on December 19, 2016, 04:26:31 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 19, 2016, 02:39:44 PM
Seems you've never taken a class in philosophy either. It's your responsibility to prove your point, not mine to prove you wrong. Stop trying to shift the burden of proof onto me. It won't work.

dude, your a light weight.
Be gone, like you promised.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: TheCloser on December 19, 2016, 04:31:36 PM
Quote from: TrueStory on December 19, 2016, 02:54:27 PM
So what, how does that impact anything I do?

you're asking for a personal meaning or emotional need.  that's not my area.

I only do "how the universe works". 

I only thing I would say is that in the middle 1800"s many people asked the same thing about electrons.  The practical application of gaia-ish notions is left for better people then me.  I think, because we are in a living system that we will create the next form in less than 200 years.  Just like proteins have done for the last 500 million years.  Well, the "boom" of life making, you understand.

***edit***

That last part is the prediction component needed to make any claim reasonable.  It explains "dust to man", it predicts a new life form coming up.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on December 19, 2016, 06:20:17 PM
Quote from: TheCloser on December 19, 2016, 04:25:31 PM
yuppers.

To your last line.  Ultimately, the universe made that salt packet.  That is an undeniable conclusion. 

well, unless we are light weights.

So Ouranos ... rather than Gaia.  Some ancient speculation (Shi'ur Qomah) ... said that the world was in fact a gigantic body, and we were fleas upon it.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: TheCloser on December 19, 2016, 06:50:34 PM
is a rose not a rose by any other name? 

as you correctly point out, we just need to be a little careful how we grasp such a notion; as beautiful as it.

I am in awe of how smart they were back then, given what they didn't know.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on December 19, 2016, 07:18:16 PM
Quote from: TheCloser on December 19, 2016, 06:50:34 PM
is a rose not a rose by any other name? 

as you correctly point out, we just need to be a little careful how we grasp such a notion; as beautiful as it.

I am in awe of how smart they were back then, given what they didn't know.

You don't need Seri or Cortana to be smart.  You just need to use the brains you are born with.  Everything you need to know today, was already known by cave men.  Anything since the Stone Age is nice, but not necessary for survival, in many cases it ends survival (nuclear weapons).
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: TheCloser on December 19, 2016, 07:33:52 PM
Quote from: Baruch on December 19, 2016, 07:18:16 PM
You don't need Seri or Cortana to be smart.  You just need to use the brains you are born with.  Everything you need to know today, was already known by cave men.  Anything since the Stone Age is nice, but not necessary for survival, in many cases it ends survival (nuclear weapons).

maybe.

They looked around, used what they knew, and made predictions.  That's good science.  Many top level physicists believe the universe knows how it is running and we are just pieces for the universe to experience itself.   I don't go that far, they assume a close system, but I also understand what I do not know.

To many people think that what they know is all anybody needs to know.  I don't understand why they won't listen and try to piece it together.  Oh well.

I might not be back for some time baruch, these boiz are light weights, you hang in there. 
Give me a shout if you recognize my writing.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Blackleaf on December 20, 2016, 01:14:38 AM
Quote from: TheCloser on December 19, 2016, 04:26:31 PM
dude, your a light weight.
Be gone, like you promised.

Yeah, keep acting superior. We all know which of us has a leg to stand on. Hint: It's not the one who claims scientific evidence and then demands that his skeptics find the evidence.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Cavebear on December 20, 2016, 07:08:05 AM
Rocks don't have DNA.  That matters.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on December 20, 2016, 07:11:49 AM
Quote from: Cavebear on December 20, 2016, 07:08:05 AM
Rocks don't have DNA.  That matters.

They have mineral crystals ... a superior life form (in some Star Trek episodes) ;-)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on December 20, 2016, 09:40:19 AM
Quote from: TheCloser on December 19, 2016, 07:33:52 PM
maybe.

They looked around, used what they knew, and made predictions.  That's good science.  Many top level physicists believe the universe knows how it is running and we are just pieces for the universe to experience itself.   I don't go that far, they assume a close system, but I also understand what I do not know.

To many people think that what they know is all anybody needs to know.  I don't understand why they won't listen and try to piece it together.  Oh well.

I might not be back for some time baruch, these boiz are light weights, you hang in there. 
Give me a shout if you recognize my writing.
Hey, dude, don't hurry back.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on December 20, 2016, 05:32:42 PM
Quote from: TheCloser on December 16, 2016, 08:15:59 PM
we are alive in a system that is not alive?   hmmm, can't see that happening.
No one can even define what it means to be alive:

Life's Working Definition: Does It Work? (https://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/life's_working_definition.html)

But, definitions aside for now, I consider the universe to be alive merely because it engendered life. The universe contains life, and seems to me therefore to be alive.

Quotewe have emotion that the system we are in can't have more of?   hmmmm, don't think so.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here, could you clarify it?


QuoteA dude did not die, rise up, and fly away, true enough, but there is something to believe in.  "nothing" just does not match observations. 
In modern physics, even "nothing" is still full of stuff, such as fields, but no one really knows what those "are" either.

I don't quite get why it is that "something" must be believed in. I get along just fine believing in nothing at all. Hence, my moniker.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Blackleaf on December 20, 2016, 10:19:30 PM
Quote from: Cavebear on December 20, 2016, 07:08:05 AM
Rocks don't have DNA.  That matters.

Well, some single-celled organisms don't have DNA either. Many believe that RNA predated DNA.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Sorginak on December 20, 2016, 11:44:37 PM
Quote from: TheCloser on December 19, 2016, 07:33:52 PM
maybe.

They looked around, used what they knew, and made predictions.  That's good science.

Incorrect.

Good science uses hypothesis and then performs experiments. 
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: fencerider on December 22, 2016, 04:21:05 AM
some factions of spiritualism actually believe rocks are alive. Certain kinds of rocks have good spirits living in them that can benefit you, and others contain evil spirits that can negatively affect you if you keep them close to you too long.

When you talk about the biosphere being alive are you talking about an organism or a deist theory?

Here we are a bunch of believers in god argueing with non-believers in god about the existence of god. And the believers are argueing with each other about who has the correct concept of god. So if there are any real gods around, why aren't they showing up to straighten us out? I don't remember modesty being a characteristic of any god.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on December 22, 2016, 06:40:04 AM
In folk belief, amethyst was regarded as effective in preventing drunkenness.  It is ironical that materialists don't believe in such obvious magic ;-)

99% when the talk of G-d, are using a straw man argument, both theists and non-theists.  They also play games over what evidence is admissible or not.  Randy likes to use human judicial procedure for example.  Magic and G-d are matters of perception, not about Independence Day (god is an alien).
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Sorginak on December 22, 2016, 10:37:23 PM
Quote from: Baruch on December 22, 2016, 06:40:04 AM


99% when the talk of G-d

Can you not properly spell "god"?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on December 23, 2016, 06:29:47 AM
Quote from: Sorginak on December 22, 2016, 10:37:23 PM
Can you not properly spell "god"?

There is more than one way.  For example in Greek, Dios is one form of Zeus, reflecting the superior position of Zeus over the Olympian community.

I have used god, God and G-d.  The first is generic and not specifically monotheist.  The second is specifically monotheist, but not my own god.  G-d is how I spell my own god, who is a God.  Makes perfect sense, while avoiding confusion.  G-d is often used by Jews, though as a Jew, I am a freethinking heretic.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Cavebear on December 25, 2016, 11:46:12 PM
Quote from: Baruch on December 19, 2016, 07:18:16 PM
You don't need Seri or Cortana to be smart.  You just need to use the brains you are born with.  Everything you need to know today, was already known by cave men.  Anything since the Stone Age is nice, but not necessary for survival, in many cases it ends survival (nuclear weapons).

Everything we need to know?  Like vaccines, internal surgery, antiseptics, agriculture, domestication of animals, organized differentiation of labor, standardized currency, writing, etc?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on December 26, 2016, 07:24:07 AM
Quote from: Cavebear on December 25, 2016, 11:46:12 PM
Everything we need to know?  Like vaccines, internal surgery, antiseptics, agriculture, domestication of animals, organized differentiation of labor, standardized currency, writing, etc?

Knowing is over-rated.  It would be better not to know that we are mortal.  It has been all down-hill since the last Ice Age.  Not even the San people know how to hunt now ... if we have to return to the Stone Age to regroup, we are toast.  We can still regroup at the Neolithic ... unless we become further disabled by our own machines and arrogance ... (see loss of numeracy since advent of electronic calculators).
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Cavebear on January 01, 2017, 06:04:39 AM
Quote from: Baruch on December 26, 2016, 07:24:07 AM
Knowing is over-rated.  It would be better not to know that we are mortal.  It has been all down-hill since the last Ice Age.  Not even the San people know how to hunt now ... if we have to return to the Stone Age to regroup, we are toast.  We can still regroup at the Neolithic ... unless we become further disabled by our own machines and arrogance ... (see loss of numeracy since advent of electronic calculators).

In what way is it better not to know that we are mortal?

In what way has it been downhill since the last Ice Age?

Why do you assume that humans could not adapt to Ice Age life (never mind that there would be vast areas not iced)?

Is there some reason you think that humans can't do basic math with calculators?  I do it all the time grocery-shopping.

Many humans routinely hunt.  Are you suggesting they would magically vanish?  I can hunt, butcher and preserve meat and I'm relatively unskilled at it.

Why do you assume that humans would revert to Neolithic tools? 

Why do you assume we need machines to survive? 

Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 01, 2017, 11:13:35 AM
Very few of us can survive without civilization, or would want to.  This might not be a bad thing, if there is a ... crisis

Very few of us can raise animals and plants without the infrastructure of modern agriculture

Monsanto and it's death seeds would prevent the ability to grow crops for a new season (the seeds grown from their seeds are sterile).

Your hunting ability, when your gun runs out of bullets is minimal.  Study what San people could do.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: PopeyesPappy on January 01, 2017, 12:05:19 PM
Quote from: Baruch on January 01, 2017, 11:13:35 AM
Very few of us can survive without civilization, or would want to.  This might not be a bad thing, if there is a ... crisis

Very few of us can raise animals and plants without the infrastructure of modern agriculture

Monsanto and it's death seeds would prevent the ability to grow crops for a new season (the seeds grown from their seeds are sterile).

Your hunting ability, when your gun runs out of bullets is minimal.  Study what San people could do.

You really need to make an effort to curb your conspiracy theory bullshit, Baruch. Plants grown from the seeds Monsanto sells to farmers are not sterile. They produce seeds that grow just fine.

As far as hunting goes modern humans are at least as capable of hunting by primitive means as our stone age ancestors were. If not more so. The problem there isn't our abilities it's more people less game.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 01, 2017, 12:10:28 PM
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-seeds-of-suicide-how-monsanto-destroys-farming/5329947

Monsanto has promised not to deploy this mutually assured destruction technology ... I saw on their web site that it is true.

And no, with bullets, and since most hunters aren't bow hunters, you will run out of ability to hunt quickly.  That and there are too many people and too little game ... but a few weeks of apocalypse should solve that little problem.

However ... is this (OP) proof of G-d?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: PopeyesPappy on January 01, 2017, 12:20:24 PM
Yes, Monsanto has developed seeds that produce plants that produce sterile seeds, but they don't sell those seeds to farmers. They might like to, but they don't. One of the reasons they don't is because farmers have told them they won't buy them. Monsanto isn't the only seed producer. Just the biggest, and they aren't all that much bigger than Dupont. Monsanto sales account for less than 25% of the global market, and they are smart enough to realize that if they try to sale a product their customers don't want their customers will go elsewhere.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 01, 2017, 12:22:58 PM
Let us hope it stays that way.  But with government intervention, and profit motive ... what is good for farmers doesn't matter much.  They are just stinking peasants.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: fencerider on January 07, 2017, 12:49:19 AM
so the topic is presenting evidence of god and here we are talking about Monsantos. hmmm so if you can make people dependant on you and you start manipulating them and telling them what to do, and controlling them, you can call yourself a god. I guess that means the earth is full of gods. mmm and the gvment acts like god. has uncle sam started callin himself god yet?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Atheon on January 07, 2017, 01:08:18 AM
God exists. How could he not exist? Therefore god exists.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 07, 2017, 09:28:55 AM
Quote from: fencerider on January 07, 2017, 12:49:19 AM
so the topic is presenting evidence of god and here we are talking about Monsantos. hmmm so if you can make people dependant on you and you start manipulating them and telling them what to do, and controlling them, you can call yourself a god. I guess that means the earth is full of gods. mmm and the gvment acts like god. has uncle sam started callin himself god yet?

Many here, worship Holy Obama, and his second coming, Holy Hillary ;-)  Yes, in a non-theistic way, in a cultural/psychological way, we are very much polytheists.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: fencerider on January 09, 2017, 01:49:04 AM
atheon that is so bad it doesnt even qualify as faulty logic, but it has several possible follow-ups in a comedy routine
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hydra009 on January 09, 2017, 02:50:36 AM
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on January 01, 2017, 12:05:19 PMAs far as hunting goes modern humans are at least as capable of hunting by primitive means as our stone age ancestors were. If not more so. The problem there isn't our abilities it's more people less game.
Definitely.  Much better diet and shelter.  Instant access to relevant information and tips from experts from around the world.  And even when modern hunters go low tech, we're usually talking about the modern compact bows, winter jackets, boots, compass, etc.  Modern hunters have huge advantages over ancient hunters.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 09, 2017, 01:03:16 PM
How are you going to get to the hunting/fishing grounds, when your pickup is out of gas?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: MysterMenace on January 11, 2017, 04:25:43 PM
from the OP: "So here we are. If you claim to have evidence that supports your god(s), please post it here: "

Proof by Homophone:

  1) I have a spiral notebook, each page in it is an ink-lined plane
  2) An inclined plane is a slope up
  3) A slow pup is a backward dog
  4) A backward dog is a god
  5) Therefore, if my (or any) spiral notebook exists, then so does god

QED
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on January 12, 2017, 05:28:27 PM
Then again, there's this:




(http://therecoveringpolitician.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/math-proof-of-god.png)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 12, 2017, 07:24:43 PM
Too small a print.  Also I reject all of those axioms as nonsense.  Therefore the deduction, if there is one, it irrelevant for me.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: fencerider on January 14, 2017, 01:18:07 AM
yes Baruch it is nonsense. Very disconnected logic. Here is the text as best I can make it out. Can we please make a real logic class a requirement...

----------
Godel's Mathematical Proof of God's Existence
axiom 1. (dichotomy) a property is positive if and only if its negation is negative.
axiom 2. (closure) a property is positive if it necessarily contains a positive property.

theorem 1. a positive property is logically consistent ( i.e. it possibly has some instance)

definition: something is God-like if and only if it possesses all positive properties.

axiom 3. being God-like is a positive property.
axiom 4. being a positive property is (logical, hence) necessary.

definition: a property P is the essence of x if and only if x has P and P is necessarily minimal.

theorem 2. if x is God-like, then being God-like is the essence of x.

definition: NE(x) x necessarily exists if it has an essential property.

axiom 5. being NE is God-like.

theorem 3. necessarily there is some x such that x is God-like.
-----------

That is all of it. appears the conclusion is missing. and what is there isnt very logical
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 14, 2017, 02:08:58 AM
It looks more like something St Aquinas or St Anselm would write, not Kurt Godel.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: godmessenger on January 26, 2017, 05:42:43 PM
First of all, present evidence that there is no God. And don't say that it is up to theists to present evidence of God. That is copping out. Also, don't say that you can't prove a negative. That is not true. The negative can be proven. It's just harder, because you have to prove the whole medium. Also, don't state that you can't prove something that doesn't exist. That is stupid, and assumes something not proven yet. If God doesn't exist, as atheists obviously believe, then there must be a logical reason why He doesn't. I say logic, not philosophic, like "why does God allow bad things to happen".
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: TrueStory on January 26, 2017, 05:45:22 PM
Quote from: godmessenger on January 26, 2017, 05:42:43 PM
First of all, present evidence that there is no God. And don't say that it is up to theists to present evidence of God. That is copping out. Also, don't say that you can't prove a negative. That is not true. The negative can be proven. It's just harder, because you have to prove the whole medium. Also, don't state that you can't prove something that doesn't exist. That is stupid, and assumes something not proven yet. If God doesn't exist, as atheists obviously believe, then there must be a logical reason why He doesn't. I say logic, not philosophic, like "why does God allow bad things to happen".
POOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOE.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on January 26, 2017, 05:54:26 PM
I don't need to provide evidence that God does not exist, because I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else that God does not exist. All my atheism means is that I don't believe in God, and that I don't have to prove.

Besides, The word "God" has not been defined. What does the word mean? Does it mean that some vague "something" exists out there? Does it mean that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnipresent God exists?

Does this God have such properties as these:
Quote(a) perfect                   (g) personal
(b) immutable                 (h) free
(c) transcendent              (i) all-loving
(d) nonphysical               (j) all-just
(e) omniscient                (k) all-merciful
(f) omnipresent               (l) the creator of the universe


If so, then this God cannot logically exist, due to the fact that so many of these properties are mutually exclusive (https://infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/incompatible.html), incompatible properties.


If a thing cannot logically exist, then I submit that it does not, in fact, exist. Unless logic is complete bullshit, that is.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on January 26, 2017, 07:53:30 PM
Quote from: godmessenger on January 26, 2017, 05:42:43 PM
First of all, present evidence that there is no God. And don't say that it is up to theists to present evidence of God. That is copping out. Also, don't say that you can't prove a negative. That is not true. The negative can be proven. It's just harder, because you have to prove the whole medium. Also, don't state that you can't prove something that doesn't exist. That is stupid, and assumes something not proven yet. If God doesn't exist, as atheists obviously believe, then there must be a logical reason why He doesn't. I say logic, not philosophic, like "why does God allow bad things to happen".
It is up to theists to prove god's existence . Why?  Because there is no evidence that shows god(s) exist.  If I were to make the claim that Bugs Bunny exists or that fairies exist, then it would be up to me to prove that I am right by presenting evidence that they do exist.  Your god is no different than a fairy or Bugs Bunny in that they are all fictions invented by man.  That you don't present evidence that  your god exists then you are the cop out.  And I do know that you cannot prove your god exists for one cannot prove than a fiction is a nonfiction.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: aitm on January 26, 2017, 08:06:58 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 26, 2017, 07:53:30 PM

argue with fools and they call you a fool...
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on January 26, 2017, 11:47:56 PM
Quote from: aitm on January 26, 2017, 08:06:58 PM
argue with fools and they call you a fool...
Not the first time......................
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on January 27, 2017, 04:10:40 PM
Quote from: aitm on January 26, 2017, 08:06:58 PM
argue with fools and they call you a fool...

The Bible says:

Proverbs 26:4:
QuoteAnswer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

But then, in the very next verse it also says:

Proverbs 26:5
QuoteAnswer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

But that's not a contradiction - it can't be since the Bible is the perfect Word of God! And it doesn't teach us situational ethics...

Or maybe it just means that we shouldn't answer a fool at all, whether "according to his folly" of otherwise.


Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 28, 2017, 09:14:38 AM
Folk wisdom doesn't make sense to sophisticates.  But the city slickers are taken in by the country bumpkins.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: fencerider on January 28, 2017, 01:48:25 PM
Now we know how a Budhist can sit and meditate for hours. Its because they start thinking about something like Proverbs 26:4-5. almost like a computer program starting an infinite loop that keeps going until you push the power button.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Drew_2017 on January 28, 2017, 06:03:38 PM
This is the evidence that persuades me of theism.

We all have the same evidence for or against the existence of God defined here as a personal intelligent agent capable of causing a universe with the conditions for life to exist. Evidence is merely facts that comport with a belief.
The following indisputable facts lead me to believe we owe our existence to an intelligent agent commonly referred to as God as opposed to the counter belief that mindless unguided forces are responsible for all we observe.

1.   The fact the universe exists
2.   The fact life exists
3.   The fact intelligent life exists
4.   The fact the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms.
5.   The fact there are several characteristics of the universe that fall within an extremely narrow range that not only allow life as we know it, but also allow the existence of planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies.
6.   The fact that sentient beings cause virtual universes to exist which in effect is a working model of theism.

These are the primary facts of our existence and one can believe these facts came into existence minus any plan, intent or designer or doubt that claim and believe it was the intentional result of a personal agent. I subscribe to the former belief. I don't care if anyone else does everyone can decide for themselves...
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on January 28, 2017, 06:04:28 PM
Welcome Drew!
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Blackleaf on January 28, 2017, 06:12:11 PM
Quote from: Drew_2017 on January 28, 2017, 06:03:38 PM
This is the evidence that persuades me of theism.

We all have the same evidence for or against the existence of God defined here as a personal intelligent agent capable of causing a universe with the conditions for life to exist. Evidence is merely facts that comport with a belief.
The following indisputable facts lead me to believe we owe our existence to an intelligent agent commonly referred to as God as opposed to the counter belief that mindless unguided forces are responsible for all we observe.

1.   The fact the universe exists
2.   The fact life exists
3.   The fact intelligent life exists
4.   The fact the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms.
5.   The fact there are several characteristics of the universe that fall within an extremely narrow range that not only allow life as we know it, but also allow the existence of planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies.
6.   The fact that sentient beings cause virtual universes to exist which in effect is a working model of theism.

These are the primary facts of our existence and one can believe these facts came into existence minus any plan, intent or designer or doubt that claim and believe it was the intentional result of a personal agent. I subscribe to the former belief. I don't care if anyone else does everyone can decide for themselves...

What's with all of the theists showing up here all of a sudden? If your writing style wasn't so different, I'd suspect that you were an alt of someone who got banned.

I bolded the most important part of your post here. If you don't care if anyone here agrees with you, why did you come here? If you're telling the truth, you may be a more tolerable theist than the majority who come here. But if you intend to stay, I recommend you make a post in the Introductions forum (http://atheistforums.com/index.php?board=2.0).
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Drew_2017 on January 28, 2017, 06:50:41 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 28, 2017, 06:12:11 PM
What's with all of the theists showing up here all of a sudden? If your writing style wasn't so different, I'd suspect that you were an alt of someone who got banned.

I bolded the most important part of your post here. If you don't care if anyone here agrees with you, why did you come here? If you're telling the truth, you may be a more tolerable theist than the majority who come here. But if you intend to stay, I recommend you make a post in the Introductions forum (http://atheistforums.com/index.php?board=2.0).

I'm merely justifying my own belief I'm not on a mission to persuade others. Even if we debated the subject, it would be for the benefit of the undecided, not those convinced of their point of view...I posted to the Introduction forum.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hydra009 on January 28, 2017, 07:01:38 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 28, 2017, 06:12:11 PM
What's with all of the theists showing up here all of a sudden? If your writing style wasn't so different, I'd suspect that you were an alt of someone who got banned.
(http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/236x/60/f2/79/60f27938c4b227b5b03ae6ff50591c63.jpg)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 28, 2017, 07:59:39 PM
Quote from: fencerider on January 28, 2017, 01:48:25 PM
Now we know how a Budhist can sit and meditate for hours. Its because they start thinking about something like Proverbs 26:4-5. almost like a computer program starting an infinite loop that keeps going until you push the power button.

Sanskrit, at reformed by Panini about 2400 years ago, is so logical, it can be compiled like a computer program.  It is the only language that is sufficiently logical to be so ;-)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: fencerider on January 30, 2017, 10:10:14 PM
is sanskrit hard to learn. might make an interesting alternative to C++.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 30, 2017, 10:35:23 PM
Quote from: fencerider on January 30, 2017, 10:10:14 PM
is sanskrit hard to learn. might make an interesting alternative to C++.

With Sanskrit, you can only compile a superior karma ;-)

Unfortunately it is hard to learn, it is a very old language, and its grammar was perfected, to aid memorization of Hindu prayers and scriptures, even though this means a lot of limited application rules .... but there is a rule for everything ... a context-sensitive "production" as we would say in computer science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pāṇini ... in Devanagari type for example à¤...ष्टाध्यायी १
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 31, 2017, 06:19:03 AM
Cartoon evidence ....
http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2013-10-28

People find the god they expect to find.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Cavebear on January 31, 2017, 09:14:55 AM
A sparrow fell unobserved today.  Therefore there is no deity...  (coff, coff)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 31, 2017, 06:53:21 PM
Quote from: Cavebear on January 31, 2017, 09:14:55 AM
A sparrow fell unobserved today.  Therefore there is no deity...  (coff, coff)

What is the content of an ignored post?  One hand clapping ;-)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: surreptitious57 on February 04, 2017, 06:22:21 AM
The universe is not fine tuned for life. Rather life is fine tuned for the universe. Albeit infinitesimally so given that over 99 per cent of it is
actually incompatible with human existence. And further more were one of the four fundamental forces [ weak nuclear ] removed entirely
it would not adversely affect life on Earth. In fact it would allow for greater diversity of life to exist not less. The ratios of the constants are
what makes it possible for life to exist. Now this is a random process. However random here does not mean chance but instead a statistical
probability based upon all possible outcomes. That is to say something which can be predicted in advance so is not something unanticipated
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: sdelsolray on February 04, 2017, 12:11:34 PM
Quote from: Drew_2017 on January 28, 2017, 06:03:38 PM
This is the evidence that persuades me of theism.

We all have the same evidence for or against the existence of God defined here as a personal intelligent agent capable of causing a universe with the conditions for life to exist. Evidence is merely facts that comport with a belief.
The following indisputable facts lead me to believe we owe our existence to an intelligent agent commonly referred to as God as opposed to the counter belief that mindless unguided forces are responsible for all we observe.

1.   The fact the universe exists
2.   The fact life exists
3.   The fact intelligent life exists
4.   The fact the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms.
5.   The fact there are several characteristics of the universe that fall within an extremely narrow range that not only allow life as we know it, but also allow the existence of planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies.
6.   The fact that sentient beings cause virtual universes to exist which in effect is a working model of theism.

These are the primary facts of our existence and one can believe these facts came into existence minus any plan, intent or designer or doubt that claim and believe it was the intentional result of a personal agent. I subscribe to the former belief. I don't care if anyone else does everyone can decide for themselves...

Welcome Drew.

I take issue with two of your listed items:

"5.    The fact there are several characteristics of the universe that fall within an extremely narrow range that not only allow life as we know it, but also allow the existence of planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies."

You imply that if these "several characteristics" had different values, then life as we know it, as well as the existence of planets, starts, etc.  would not be possible.  This is speculation, your assumption and not fact.  I do not know (and neither do you) whether such characteristics can have different values, or if they did whether intelligent life of some form could not emerge from that.  The "fine tuning" thought experiment does not demonstrate what you imply.

For those characteristics that can vary in value (e.g., distance of Earth from Sol), the fine tuning argument must take probability properly into account.  Virtually all theists who promote the fine tuning argument as "evidence" of their particular god(s) fail to do so.

"6.   The fact that sentient beings cause virtual universes to exist which in effect is a working model of theism."

The "fact" that you or I can imagine something does not make that something real.

As to points 1 through 4, I fail to see how those observations necessarily requires a GODDIDIT conclusion.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Blackleaf on February 04, 2017, 04:59:45 PM
Quote from: sdelsolray on February 04, 2017, 12:11:34 PM
Welcome Drew.

I take issue with two of your listed items:

"5.    The fact there are several characteristics of the universe that fall within an extremely narrow range that not only allow life as we know it, but also allow the existence of planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies."

You imply that if these "several characteristics" had different values, then life as we know it, as well as the existence of planets, starts, etc.  would not be possible.  This is speculation, your assumption and not fact.  I do not know (and neither do you) whether such characteristics can have different values, or if they did whether intelligent life of some form could not emerge from that.  The "fine tuning" thought experiment does not demonstrate what you imply.

For those characteristics that can vary in value (e.g., distance of Earth from Sol), the fine tuning argument must take probability properly into account.  Virtually all theists who promote the fine tuning argument as "evidence" of their particular god(s) fail to do so.

"6.   The fact that sentient beings cause virtual universes to exist which in effect is a working model of theism."

The "fact" that you or I can imagine something does not make that something real.

As to points 1 through 4, I fail to see how those observations necessarily requires a GODDIDIT conclusion.

I'll just add that the "fine tuning" argument also fails to consider how huge the universe is. The Milky Way galaxy alone contains about 100,000,000,000 stars. It's unknown how many galaxies there are, but in the currently observable universe, there are an estimated 100,000,000,000 galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars. This number is expected to increase as technology advances. So no matter how unlikely the chances are of life appearing somewhere in the universe by random chance, it's bound to happen at least once. I'd be surprised if Earth was the only planet in existence with randomly generated life.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Cavebear on February 05, 2017, 11:28:27 AM
Quote from: Baruch on January 31, 2017, 06:53:21 PM
What is the content of an ignored post?  One hand clapping ;-)

One reply...
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on February 05, 2017, 11:39:12 AM
Quote from: Cavebear on February 05, 2017, 11:28:27 AM
One reply...

Good try!  No gold star ... you aren't young enough to be a snowflake ;-)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Cavebear on February 05, 2017, 01:54:54 PM
Quote from: Baruch on February 05, 2017, 11:39:12 AM
Good try!  No gold star ... you aren't young enough to be a snowflake ;-)

Yet you called me one elsewhere. 
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on February 05, 2017, 02:22:10 PM
Quote from: Cavebear on February 05, 2017, 01:54:54 PM
Yet you called me one elsewhere.

Are you the only one who reads my posts?  Might not have meant a particular reader but a class of readers, of which you are unlikely to be ... given you are even older than me ;-)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Drew_2017 on February 05, 2017, 03:15:50 PM
Quote from: surreptitious57 on February 04, 2017, 06:22:21 AM
The universe is not fine tuned for life. Rather life is fine tuned for the universe. Albeit infinitesimally so given that over 99 per cent of it is
actually incompatible with human existence. And further more were one of the four fundamental forces [ weak nuclear ] removed entirely
it would not adversely affect life on Earth. In fact it would allow for greater diversity of life to exist not less. The ratios of the constants are
what makes it possible for life to exist. Now this is a random process. However random here does not mean chance but instead a statistical
probability based upon all possible outcomes. That is to say something which can be predicted in advance so is not something unanticipated

First things first, it's not really known how life started or what conditions led to life. The only life we know of adapted to the conditions on earth we have yet to observe other life adapting to the conditions of their planets. If we did that would be powerful evidence life can adapt to a variety of conditions. The only life we do know of requires a host of conditions.

1. A Universe
2. Stars
4. Planets
5. Stars that go super nova and create the stuff planets are made of. This is not trivial a host of exacting conditions cause stars to go super nova and a host of laws of physics allow new more complex matter to be created when a super nova occurs which is essential to life.   
6. Gravity at a certain strength so that stars occur, super nova's occur and subsequently planets occur.
7. Black matter and black energy are critical to the existence of life. Without the existence of black matter galaxies would fly apart.
8. The ratio of matter to anti matter at the beginning of the universe. Had it been the same all matter would have been annihilated.

It turns out our solar system itself is very atypical, most solar systems have giant gas planets that wind up flinging the inner rocky planets out of their orbit. If by your own admission 99% of the universe is inhabitable how can you claim life adapts to prevailing conditions? Evidently it doesn't.





Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Drew_2017 on February 05, 2017, 03:54:12 PM
Quote from: sdelsolray on February 04, 2017, 12:11:34 PM
Welcome Drew.

I take issue with two of your listed items:

"5.    The fact there are several characteristics of the universe that fall within an extremely narrow range that not only allow life as we know it, but also allow the existence of planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies."

You imply that if these "several characteristics" had different values, then life as we know it, as well as the existence of planets, starts, etc.  would not be possible.  This is speculation, your assumption and not fact.  I do not know (and neither do you) whether such characteristics can have different values, or if they did whether intelligent life of some form could not emerge from that.  The "fine tuning" thought experiment does not demonstrate what you imply.

For those characteristics that can vary in value (e.g., distance of Earth from Sol), the fine tuning argument must take probability properly into account.  Virtually all theists who promote the fine tuning argument as "evidence" of their particular god(s) fail to do so.



"6.   The fact that sentient beings cause virtual universes to exist which in effect is a working model of theism."

The "fact" that you or I can imagine something does not make that something real.

As to points 1 through 4, I fail to see how those observations necessarily requires a GODDIDIT conclusion.

Hi Fungus thanks for responding...

It doesn't matter if the constants, laws of physics could be variable or not. It would be no less odd that if a universe comes into existence it has to be in a manner that allows life and sentience to obtain. You don't believe life had to happen right? What could possibly explain that if naturalistic forces somehow cause a universe to exist the only kind of universe that can come into existence has to have the laws and constants that allow not only life, but sentient life to exist? Actually from a naturalistic stand point you're better off claiming the conditions of a universe are random and this is one of an infinitude of possibilities that resulted in sentient life existing. That would be more simpatico with the belief our existence wasn't intended. Why do a thousand complicated circuit boards come out exactly identical? Because the engineers designed it that way. Why would a universe have to be in a certain configuration...because it was designed that way?

They don't require a Godidit explanation...they cast doubt on a Naturedidit explanation. In my opinion, the nature did it explanation is far more miraculous than a Goddidit explanation. This is what a naturedidit explanation requires.

First it requires naturalistic explanations 'all the way down' or that the naturalistic forces and matter we observe came into existence un-caused out of nothing, a magic act at best. If its natural causes infinitely all the way down we would never reach this time because we'd have to cross an infinitude of events to arrive at this time. Or you can believe that natural forces existed outside of time and later caused time to exist but that wouldn't be any type of naturalism we are familiar with.

Lets skip all that and assume that somehow naturalistic unguided forces caused the natural universe to exist. If so such forces without plan, intent, desire or a degree in physics caused something completely unlike itself to exist, life and mind. Life and mind came from mindless lifeless forces by happenstance.

Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on February 05, 2017, 04:01:49 PM
Still thinking in terms of cause/effect?  Non-temporal logic solves that.

Explanations are ape problems .. nature itself, doesn't require consciousness, let along explanations.  Nature is like the bandits at the end of The Treasure of Sierra Madre ... "We don't need no steenkin' explanations!"
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Drew_2017 on February 05, 2017, 05:02:46 PM
Quote from: Baruch on February 05, 2017, 04:01:49 PM
Still thinking in terms of cause/effect?  Non-temporal logic solves that.

Explanations are ape problems .. nature itself, doesn't require consciousness, let along explanations.  Nature is like the bandits at the end of The Treasure of Sierra Madre ... "We don't need no steenkin' explanations!"

I'll assume your responding to me...I allow natural forces need no explanation and always existed. That just imbues nature with divine properties...
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on February 05, 2017, 07:12:32 PM
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 05, 2017, 05:02:46 PM
I'll assume your responding to me...I allow natural forces need no explanation and always existed. That just imbues nature with divine properties...
All natural forces have always existed?  Really?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hydra009 on February 05, 2017, 08:05:31 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 05, 2017, 07:12:32 PMAll natural forces have always existed?  Really?
Yeah.  I coulda sworn there was a Grand Unification Epoch, then Electroweak Epoch, etc.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on February 05, 2017, 08:23:44 PM
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 05, 2017, 05:02:46 PM
I'll assume your responding to me...I allow natural forces need no explanation and always existed. That just imbues nature with divine properties...

Correct, before Galileo et al, we had Aristotelian teleology.  Science was based on biology, which is living, conscious and purposeful.  The purpose of the acorn is to make more acorns, using oak trees as the means ... not just the purpose of the oak tree is to make more oak trees using the acorns as the means.  Then we moved the paradigm to physics and astronomy ... not living, not conscious, without purpose.  So I would still threaten Galileo with the Inquisition, for that!  Nature wasn't formerly considered to be lifeless, now it is.  The real basis of human culture is psychology, not even biology.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on February 05, 2017, 08:26:17 PM
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 05, 2017, 08:05:31 PM
Yeah.  I coulda sworn there was a Grand Unification Epoch, then Electroweak Epoch, etc.

Undemonstrated by direct evidence.  We know nothing before the first 300 million years after the Big Bang.  It is assumed by particle physicists, that their experiments (and by reductionism) show what happens to very early times, before the first one second.  I find this claim to be ... marginal.  We kind of know what a tiny plasma ball or quark plasma behaves like .. but is that what a really big ball does?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hydra009 on February 05, 2017, 08:32:31 PM
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 05, 2017, 03:54:12 PMIn my opinion, the nature did it explanation is far more miraculous than a Goddidit explanation.
Yeah, well, lots of people have lots of opinions.  Sometimes very strong opinions.  It doesn't really have much of a bearing on what's real and what's not.

QuoteFirst it requires naturalistic explanations 'all the way down' or that the naturalistic forces and matter we observe came into existence un-caused out of nothing, a magic act at best.
That's weird, I could've sworn the theistic explanation was more magical.  So on one hand we have naturalistic forces that we don't fully understand eventually giving rise to everything we know.  On the other hand, we have an uncaused anthromorphic God figure (who is also eternal, omniscient, and omnipotent) literally speaking the universe into existence from nothing.  Hmmm...I wonder which explanation sounds more plausible?  *puts hands to his sides, mimicking balancing scales*

QuoteIf its natural causes infinitely all the way down we would never reach this time because we'd have to cross an infinitude of events to arrive at this time.
I've heard that argument before.  I can't quite pin it down, but I believe it was a Way of the Master video.  Great stuff.  Very convincing.

Now, infinity is a strange term and difficult concept to understand, but it seems reasonable to trust one's intuition and decree that infinite time cannot exist.  Normally, the only other explanation would be God, but I'm going to try a strange new thing here:  a third option.  What if the universe isn't eternal?  What if the universe had a beginning?

QuoteLets skip all that and assume that somehow naturalistic unguided forces caused the natural universe to exist. If so such forces without plan, intent, desire or a degree in physics caused something completely unlike itself to exist, life and mind. Life and mind came from mindless lifeless forces by happenstance.
That would seem pretty miraculous to someone completely unaware of the concept of emergence.  Relatively simple interactions can cause some pretty neat stuff:

(http://i.imgur.com/Y32j4tP.jpg)

Moral of the story:  just because it looks like it a giant built it, doesn't mean a giant actually did build it.  Just because it seems miraculous doesn't mean it was actually a miracle.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Blackleaf on February 05, 2017, 08:48:09 PM
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 05, 2017, 03:15:50 PM
First things first, it's not really known how life started or what conditions led to life. The only life we know of adapted to the conditions on earth we have yet to observe other life adapting to the conditions of their planets. If we did that would be powerful evidence life can adapt to a variety of conditions. The only life we do know of requires a host of conditions.

1. A Universe
2. Stars
4. Planets
5. Stars that go super nova and create the stuff planets are made of. This is not trivial a host of exacting conditions cause stars to go super nova and a host of laws of physics allow new more complex matter to be created when a super nova occurs which is essential to life.   
6. Gravity at a certain strength so that stars occur, super nova's occur and subsequently planets occur.
7. Black matter and black energy are critical to the existence of life. Without the existence of black matter galaxies would fly apart.
8. The ratio of matter to anti matter at the beginning of the universe. Had it been the same all matter would have been annihilated.

It turns out our solar system itself is very atypical, most solar systems have giant gas planets that wind up flinging the inner rocky planets out of their orbit. If by your own admission 99% of the universe is inhabitable how can you claim life adapts to prevailing conditions? Evidently it doesn't.

You think that our universe of 100,000,000,000+ galaxies only has one solar system like ours? You do not know that 99% of the universe is inhospitable, but even if it was, 1% of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 is still 100,000,000,000,000,000,000.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Cavebear on February 11, 2017, 04:27:45 AM
Quote from: Baruch on February 05, 2017, 02:22:10 PM
Are you the only one who reads my posts?  Might not have meant a particular reader but a class of readers, of which you are unlikely to be ... given you are even older than me ;-)

I might be. Others tell me to ignore your posts as meaningless. Sometimes I agree.  But sometimes you offer interestingly odd references.

Personally, I suspect there may be more to you than meets the eye.  Fewer posts and more thought to them might serve you better.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Solomon Zorn on February 11, 2017, 05:25:00 AM
Okay, once again, I am just an uneducated hick. But I don't get it. Why do you guys insist on giving in, to this "alternate laws of physics" crap? Surely the mathematics are unchangeable. What is, results from what was, and all of the cause and effect relationships, all of their proportions and ratios, and uniform interactions, are the simple extension, of something basic, or the equivalent of 1+1=2. It just works that way. There are equations which work, and any which won't, never take shape. They can't exist.

We don't yet have all of the math to describe the earliest interactions perfectly, but that doesn't support the contention that God spoke it into existence. Such a premise requires a whole magnitude of greater complexity, ending in some very similar unresolved questions.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Cavebear on February 11, 2017, 06:05:22 AM
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on February 11, 2017, 05:25:00 AM
Okay, once again, I am just an uneducated hick. But I don't get it. Why do you guys insist on giving in, to this "alternate laws of physics" crap? Surely the mathematics are unchangeable. What is, results from what was, and all of the cause and effect relationships, all of their proportions and ratios, and uniform interactions, are the simple extension, of something basic, or the equivalent of 1+1=2. It just works that way. There are equations which work, and any which won't, never take shape. They can't exist.

We don't yet have all of the math to describe the earliest interactions perfectly, but that doesn't support the contention that God spoke it into existence. Such a premise requires a whole magnitude of greater complexity, ending in some very similar unresolved questions.

For whatever it is worth (not being a physicist), I trust maths, trust results from careful experiments, and trust accuracy and facts.

But I do wonder at the idea that only results arrived at with current maths are all that is true.  That would leave us at Newtonian equations, for example.  Who knows what equations will be developed in the future?

I suspect that our current thoughts of spacetime are going to seem archaic in the next century.  There should be sensible logic to the universe, and spacetime just seems to make illogical paradoxes. Paradoxes seem like a proof of error. 
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on February 11, 2017, 08:16:36 AM
A change of pace ... regarding demigods ... are all demigods sociopaths?
http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2014-10-16

And what does that tell us about G-d? ;-)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on February 11, 2017, 09:29:44 AM
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on February 11, 2017, 05:25:00 AM
Okay, once again, I am just an uneducated hick. But I don't get it. Why do you guys insist on giving in, to this "alternate laws of physics" crap? Surely the mathematics are unchangeable. What is, results from what was, and all of the cause and effect relationships, all of their proportions and ratios, and uniform interactions, are the simple extension, of something basic, or the equivalent of 1+1=2. It just works that way. There are equations which work, and any which won't, never take shape. They can't exist.

We don't yet have all of the math to describe the earliest interactions perfectly, but that doesn't support the contention that God spoke it into existence. Such a premise requires a whole magnitude of greater complexity, ending in some very similar unresolved questions.
Yeah, I've wondered that myself.  I conclude that it is simply easier to not approach the math.  Math requires from most of us concentration and the application of our mind and attention that is not easy for us to achieve.  The more complex the '1 + 1=2" becomes, the easier it is to simply say, 'yeah, god did it' and go do something else.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: fencerider on February 11, 2017, 11:59:44 AM
all psychopaths are sociopaths, but not all sociopaths are psycopaths. Sociopath is a less severe form of mental illness

Sociopath: inability to follow laws and social norms, deceitfullness for personal benefit, irritability, aggressiveness, impulsive, reckless, using or abusing other people with no ability for remorse for personal benefit, no ability to empathize.
Quote from: Baruch on February 11, 2017, 08:16:36 AM
what does that tell us about G-d? ;-)
.... so a demi-god is half human and half god; and this makes the entity sociopathic.

I suppose that if you are a full blooded god you have a superiority-complex, definitely arrogant. You would not have any remorse for injury to humans because they are below you. Maybe you feel like you have the right to use them any way you want...

I guess a god would show sociopathic behavior to humans in the same way that humans show sociopathic behavior toward chickens and cows.... briquettes warmin up the grill
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on February 11, 2017, 12:13:59 PM
By the ancient definition of a demigod ... a demigod is a super-person, like Caesar Augustus etc ... we aren't talking Hercules here.  We still have that same definition, we worship the wealthy, powerful and famous, just like our Greco-Roman ancestors.  I just democratize it, not just priesthood of all believers, but demigods of all the demos.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: fencerider on February 12, 2017, 05:41:41 PM
ahhh. I see. I'm still in the pion stage of existence. They all look the same to me. The difference between a god and a demi-god is non-existent from my perspective.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Sorginak on February 12, 2017, 05:47:16 PM
Quote from: fencerider on February 11, 2017, 11:59:44 AM
all psychopaths are sociopaths, but not all sociopaths are psycopaths. Sociopath is a less severe form of mental illness



I quite disagree with that.

QuoteToday, the terms “sociopath” and “psychopath” are used interchangeably â€" often as a nice way of avoiding “crazy” â€" yet in recent years the difference between “psychopath” and “sociopath” has become as widely pronounced as the scientific difference between shell shock and post-traumatic stress disorder, which is to say it’s massive.

Psychologists tend to break down the two groups by certain factors, and they have a lot in common. Both tend to be charming, despite being unable to empathize normally with others. They offer convincing systems of fear and disgust, but tend to lack both. Here’s the crux, though: Psychopaths cross the line. Sociopaths may hole up in their houses and remove themselves from society, while a psychopath is busy in his basement rigging shackles to his furnace.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/whats-difference-between-sociopath-and-psychopath-not-much-one-might-kill-you-270694
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: fencerider on February 12, 2017, 06:31:24 PM
well i actually looked it up because I didnt know the definition of those words. supposed to be from American Psychiatric Association or something like that. There was a definition of psychopath including the definition of a sociopath + some additional items.

In relation to Baruch's question "demi-gods are sociopathic what does that say about full blooded gods?", would you expect a full blooded god to be a psychopath, sociopath, or something else.

Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Sorginak on February 12, 2017, 06:36:41 PM
Quote from: fencerider on February 12, 2017, 06:31:24 PM
would you expect a full blooded god to be a psychopath, sociopath, or something else.

A full blooded god, or the god in question, especially after reading the atrocities he committed and commanded in the bible, would undoubtedly make him a psychopath of the worst nature.

Considering his current role in the world, the fact that he does not reveal himself as he supposedly did in the old testament, I would then classify that god as a sociopath. 
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on February 12, 2017, 06:51:57 PM
Yes, demigods are awful people ... if one is empirically honest.  Setting up a non-existent ideal is a straw man.  You only believe in Santa Clause if he leaves you gifts, not a lump of coal?  G-d isn't less than a person, but something more ... just as a class of objects is different than the objects in that class.  This is necessary maths.  See Russell's Paradox.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Sorginak on February 12, 2017, 06:54:58 PM
Quote from: Baruch on February 12, 2017, 06:51:57 PM
Yes, demigods are awful people ... if one is empirically honest.  Setting up a non-existent ideal is a straw man.  You only believe in Santa Clause if he leaves you gifts, not a lump of coal?  G-d isn't less than a person, but something more ... just as a class of objects is different than the objects in that class.  This is necessary maths.  See Russell's Paradox.

That is quite the apologetic you have built for yourself there.  So according to your logic, god is real because he tortures you. 

I can introduce you to a battered women's home.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on February 12, 2017, 06:58:50 PM
Quote from: Sorginak on February 12, 2017, 06:54:58 PM
That is quite the apologetic you have built for yourself there.  So according to your logic, god is real because he tortures you. 

I can introduce you to a battered women's home.

I am tortured, therefor I am ... "I am" being a theological title of G-d.  Sorry if you batter women ... do you use beer batter? (sarc).  So to be more specific, G-d is real, because G-d is the class which has demi-gods as elements of that class.  But no Russell's Paradox (Cretan Liar Paradox) because G-d and demigod aren't equivalent.  The logic is quite sound ... or at least the sound of a tree falling when nobody is around.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Sorginak on February 12, 2017, 07:00:39 PM
Quote from: Baruch on February 12, 2017, 06:58:50 PM
or at least the sound of a tree falling when nobody is around.

Precisely.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on February 12, 2017, 07:09:43 PM
Quote from: Sorginak on February 12, 2017, 07:00:39 PM
Precisely.

Well that is a famous joke "the sound of a tree falling in a forest if nobody is around" ... but if people are god-like, if we are therefore omniscient-like ... then the falling tree is never alone.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on February 12, 2017, 07:17:10 PM
Quote from: Baruch on February 12, 2017, 07:09:43 PM
Well that is a famous joke "the sound of a tree falling in a forest if nobody is around" ... but if people are god-like, if we are therefore omniscient-like ... then the falling tree is never alone.
That saying about the falling tree is fairly absurd if one thinks about it.  The generation of sound has nothing to do with the receiver of sound, but the generator of sound. 
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on February 12, 2017, 07:39:46 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 12, 2017, 07:17:10 PM
That saying about the falling tree is fairly absurd if one thinks about it.  The generation of sound has nothing to do with the receiver of sound, but the generator of sound.

Prove it.  One can put a microphone in the forest to record the sound ... but that is merely a way of extending your ears.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Blackleaf on February 12, 2017, 07:43:48 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 12, 2017, 07:17:10 PM
That saying about the falling tree is fairly absurd if one thinks about it.  The generation of sound has nothing to do with the receiver of sound, but the generator of sound.

The problem with the question is that it lumps two definitions of sound together. Sound waves exist whether or not someone is able to hear them. But sound is also something that we perceive. Our perceptions of sound don't require sound waves. We can hear music in our heads without a radio or band to play it for us.

So if the question is, "If a tree falls in the woods, and no one is around to hear it, does it make sound waves?" The answer is yes. If the question is, "If a tree falls in the woods, and no one is around to hear it, does it cause someone to hear sound?" It answers itself.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Gerard on February 12, 2017, 07:55:35 PM
Quote from: Baruch on February 12, 2017, 07:39:46 PM
Prove it.  One can put a microphone in the forest to record the sound ... but that is merely a way of extending your ears.

We do know how sound comes about.

Gerard
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on February 12, 2017, 08:07:29 PM
Quote from: Gerard on February 12, 2017, 07:55:35 PM
We do know how sound comes about.

Gerard

Sound isn't hearing, you have to have a living being for hearing.  And that is the rub of the example, not an experiment in acoustics.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Gerard on February 12, 2017, 08:11:36 PM
Quote from: Baruch on February 12, 2017, 08:07:29 PM
Sound isn't hearing, you have to have a living being for hearing.  And that is the rub of the example, not an experiment in acoustics.

Of course sound isn't hearing. It can lead to hearing but not necessarily.

Gerard
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on February 12, 2017, 08:19:20 PM
Quote from: Gerard on February 12, 2017, 08:11:36 PM
Of course sound isn't hearing. It can lead to hearing but not necessarily.

Gerard

Naive realism says ... if I think I see a snake, then a snake it is (not a rope I mistook in the dark).  David Hume gargles you all, and spits you all out.  Rude, the Scottish.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Sorginak on February 12, 2017, 08:20:42 PM
Quote from: Baruch on February 12, 2017, 08:19:20 PM
Naive realism says ... if I think I see a snake, then a snake it is (not a rope I mistook in the dark).  David Hume gargles you all, and spits you all out.  Rude, the Scottish.

But what if it was a snake?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on February 12, 2017, 08:59:53 PM
Quote from: Baruch on February 12, 2017, 07:39:46 PM
Prove it.  One can put a microphone in the forest to record the sound ... but that is merely a way of extending your ears.
Sound is not dependent upon ears hearing.  Sound is, according to wiki, a vibration that propagates as a typically audible mechanical wave of pressure and displacement, through a transmission medium such as air or water.  That wave is propagated whether there is an instrument or ear to hear it.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on February 13, 2017, 01:17:55 AM
Quote from: Sorginak on February 12, 2017, 08:20:42 PM
But what if it was a snake?

There is nothing to fear ... but don't be foolish either ;-)  A rope might be more dangerous, if it is already around your neck.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on February 13, 2017, 01:21:24 AM
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 12, 2017, 08:59:53 PM
Sound is not dependent upon ears hearing.  Sound is, according to wiki, a vibration that propagates as a typically audible mechanical wave of pressure and displacement, through a transmission medium such as air or water.  That wave is propagated whether there is an instrument or ear to hear it.

You and I aren't scientists.  That might be right, be we have no knowledge, just pretense of knowledge.  Master Hui Neng came upon a monastery having a teaching session.  The local monk was asking them, about the flag at the top of the pole ... why is it waving?  One student said ... the flag was waving.  Another student said the wind was waving.  Master Hui Neng said ... you are both wrong, it is your mind that is waving.  At this, all the students were silent, and the local monk asked him to stay and become their master.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Cavebear on February 13, 2017, 04:33:24 AM
Quote from: Baruch on February 13, 2017, 01:21:24 AM
You and I aren't scientists.  That might be right, be we have no knowledge, just pretense of knowledge.  Master Hui Neng came upon a monastery having a teaching session.  The local monk was asking them, about the flag at the top of the pole ... why is it waving?  One student said ... the flag was waving.  Another student said the wind was waving.  Master Hui Neng said ... you are both wrong, it is your mind that is waving.  At this, all the students were silent, and the local monk asked him to stay and become their master.

They were in superlative wonderful error.  Obviously, the flag was the sister of the wind and the wind was waving waving waving superbly because the the gull of the water wanted it.  Therefore, the wives of the ocean of magnificence knew what was happening.

*coff, coff*
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on February 13, 2017, 07:08:32 AM
No gold star for you ;-)  Naive empiricism is you.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Cavebear on February 13, 2017, 07:52:58 AM
Quote from: Baruch on February 13, 2017, 07:08:32 AM
No gold star for you ;-)  Naive empiricism is you.

You are missing a scarcasm gene...
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on February 13, 2017, 08:55:19 AM
Quote from: Baruch on February 13, 2017, 01:21:24 AM
You and I aren't scientists.  That might be right, be we have no knowledge, just pretense of knowledge.  Master Hui Neng came upon a monastery having a teaching session.  The local monk was asking them, about the flag at the top of the pole ... why is it waving?  One student said ... the flag was waving.  Another student said the wind was waving.  Master Hui Neng said ... you are both wrong, it is your mind that is waving.  At this, all the students were silent, and the local monk asked him to stay and become their master.
That little story, while sounding nice and cute, is really that--a nice and cute 'sounding' story.  It is empty of any real meaning. 
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on February 13, 2017, 05:32:06 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 13, 2017, 08:55:19 AM
That little story, while sounding nice and cute, is really that--a nice and cute 'sounding' story.  It is empty of any real meaning.

Yes, I know all metaphor is wasted on you.  Short stories are extended metaphors.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on February 14, 2017, 12:48:56 PM
Quote from: Baruch on February 13, 2017, 05:32:06 PM
Yes, I know all metaphor is wasted on you.  Short stories are extended metaphors.
If a metaphor makes sense, I like it.  Don't forget, I love Joseph Campbell and his take on the value of myth.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on February 14, 2017, 01:40:44 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 14, 2017, 12:48:56 PM
If a metaphor makes sense, I like it.  Don't forget, I love Joseph Campbell and his take on the value of myth.

Unfortunately I don't think that word "mythology" means what you think it means.  If you understood Campbell, you would be singing a different song.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on February 14, 2017, 03:16:15 PM
Quote from: Baruch on February 14, 2017, 01:40:44 PM
Unfortunately I don't think that word "mythology" means what you think it means.  If you understood Campbell, you would be singing a different song.
Really?  It doesn't mean what I think it means?  Oh, then, please tell me.  And what song would I sing?  "It Takes a Worried Man?"  Or "Don't Worry, Be Happy?"  Or what?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on February 14, 2017, 03:18:57 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 14, 2017, 03:16:15 PM
Really?  It doesn't mean what I think it means?  Oh, then, please tell me.  And what song would I sing?  "It Takes a Worried Man?"  Or "Don't Worry, Be Happy?"  Or what?

But songs are just metaphors, and some are silly love songs ... silly love songs ...
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on February 14, 2017, 10:08:18 PM
Quote from: Baruch on February 14, 2017, 03:18:57 PM
But songs are just metaphors, and some are silly love songs ... silly love songs ...
Isn't just about everything a metaphor if you want it to be?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on February 14, 2017, 11:02:10 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 14, 2017, 10:08:18 PM
Isn't just about everything a metaphor if you want it to be?

I guess you are the anti-metaphor ... you don't want anything to be a metaphor then?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Cavebear on February 15, 2017, 02:51:23 AM
Quote from: Baruch on February 14, 2017, 01:40:44 PM
Unfortunately I don't think that word "mythology" means what you think it means.  If you understood Campbell, you would be singing a different song.

I doubt it.  Everytime I listen to Campbell, I decide he is a fixated bloviating fool.  He's like those people who are convinced that all atheists are secretly theists, that Atlantis exists.  On Mars maybe. 

Yes, he thinks myths are real.  But some people think Bigfoot is real. 
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on February 15, 2017, 09:36:26 AM
Quote from: Cavebear on February 15, 2017, 02:51:23 AM
I doubt it.  Everytime I listen to Campbell, I decide he is a fixated bloviating fool.  He's like those people who are convinced that all atheists are secretly theists, that Atlantis exists.  On Mars maybe. 

Yes, he thinks myths are real.  But some people think Bigfoot is real.
From my reading of Campbell he knows myths are not real--he studies the function of myths within various societies and times.  What caught my eye--and mind--was when he suggests that the purpose of life is life.  I agree with that.  My purpose is to live and whatever that purpose looks like is what my purpose is.  And he suggested that we will live life more fully if one finds and follows their bliss.  Sounds easy--but not really, at least not for all.  He means find what gives you a purpose, what you love to do, what makes getting up in the morning fun and exciting.  My bliss is like my purpose--it is whatever get me going and it has nothing to do with anybody else. 
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on February 15, 2017, 01:11:59 PM
But bliss includes fitting into your time, your place, your people.  Misfits don't have that.  We can only have partial bliss.  Complete individualists are idiotes (Greek word meaning individualist aka fool) and sociopaths.  Unabomber types.  I have alienation, but it isn't because Marx was right.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on February 15, 2017, 04:26:28 PM
Here's an interesting article about mythology and how myths change with time:


Scientists Trace Society’s Myths to Primordial Origins: Analyzing how stories change in the retelling down through the generations sheds light on the history of human migration going as far back as the Paleolithic period (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-trace-society-rsquo-s-myths-to-primordial-origins/)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on February 15, 2017, 06:25:37 PM
That analysis is behind a paywall, but here is one commentary that is not ...
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/anthropology/scientists-trace-society-s-myths-to-primordial-origins-t53208.html
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on February 15, 2017, 06:30:06 PM
Thanx B!
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Cavebear on February 17, 2017, 02:01:33 AM
Campbell makes me laugh everytime I hear him.  A pure case of education and talent making no sense at all.  It happens.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on February 17, 2017, 04:55:26 AM
Quote from: Cavebear on February 17, 2017, 02:01:33 AM
Campbell makes me laugh everytime I hear him.  A pure case of education and talent making no sense at all.  It happens.

Where Campbell was biased, was against America and against Abrahamic religion.  He loved primitive and Native American mythology (which aren't bad things).  He was a self hating Gentile.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Cavebear on February 17, 2017, 06:23:31 AM
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 15, 2017, 04:26:28 PM
Here's an interesting article about mythology and how myths change with time:


Scientists Trace Society’s Myths to Primordial Origins: Analyzing how stories change in the retelling down through the generations sheds light on the history of human migration going as far back as the Paleolithic period (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-trace-society-rsquo-s-myths-to-primordial-origins/)

That and other myths show how bad people were to each other in the past.  The less mythology we have, the freer we are to consider equlaity and appreciate the values that all contribute to society.

Mythology represents the past (and most oftentimes the worst of it).  I would rather live in the present and have hopes for improvement in the future.   
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on February 17, 2017, 12:43:36 PM
Have hope?  Good for you.  Don't want to be mean to other people, or to yourself?  Good for you.

But please, the idea that modern man is any less savage to each other .. compared to past ages ... is ... wrong.  On that basis, many people would not have hope, or feel that it is necessary to become more savage, to keep up with the Capital One credit card using neighbors.

The US is a myth.  Hate myths?  Look in mirror.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on February 17, 2017, 04:33:22 PM
Quote from: Cavebear on February 17, 2017, 06:23:31 AM
I would rather live in the present and have hopes for improvement in the future.   

Quote from: A.A. AttanasioAbandon hope, and in its absence you will be closer to the truth.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Cavebear on February 19, 2017, 02:48:15 AM
Quote from: Baruch on February 17, 2017, 12:43:36 PM
Have hope?  Good for you.  Don't want to be mean to other people, or to yourself?  Good for you.

But please, the idea that modern man is any less savage to each other .. compared to past ages ... is ... wrong.  On that basis, many people would not have hope, or feel that it is necessary to become more savage, to keep up with the Capital One credit card using neighbors.

The US is a myth.  Hate myths?  Look in mirror.

If you have to say "good for you" twice, you probably don't really mean it.

"to keep up with the Capital One credit card using neighbors."  What on Earth does THAT mean?  Especially the "using neighbors" part?  Bet you ignore that.



Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on February 19, 2017, 08:50:14 AM
Quote from: Cavebear on February 19, 2017, 02:48:15 AM
If you have to say "good for you" twice, you probably don't really mean it.

"to keep up with the Capital One credit card using neighbors."  What on Earth does THAT mean?  Especially the "using neighbors" part?  Bet you ignore that.

Sorry if you miss the cross-references .. if you have been in a cave for the last 20 years.  And yes, I am the Truth, when I am being sincere.  In the case of good x2 I am sincere.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: fencerider on February 21, 2017, 03:38:05 AM
not all the neighbors are using Capitol One. Some of them have Chase Freedom cards. ;-)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on February 21, 2017, 06:16:15 AM
Quote from: fencerider on February 21, 2017, 03:38:05 AM
not all the neighbors are using Capitol One. Some of them have Chase Freedom cards. ;-)

Chase ... the 1984 of banks ;-)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Cavebear on February 23, 2017, 04:07:48 AM
Well, I'm probably not understanding this.  But I have specific cards that offer me the best rebates.  I buy almost everything on them.  Interest rates are irrelevant when you pay fully each month.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on February 23, 2017, 05:53:51 AM
Quote from: Cavebear on February 23, 2017, 04:07:48 AM
Well, I'm probably not understanding this.  But I have specific cards that offer me the best rebates.  I buy almost everything on them.  Interest rates are irrelevant when you pay fully each month.

Chase is deeply involved in banking fraud, and the Deep State (David Rockefeller).
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Cavebear on February 23, 2017, 10:54:30 AM
And that matters to me how?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on February 23, 2017, 12:19:19 PM
Quote from: Cavebear on February 23, 2017, 10:54:30 AM
And that matters to me how?

It didn't it was for Fencerider.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: fencerider on February 24, 2017, 01:40:02 AM
Probably banking fraud was invented by Chase... it started out as a WaMu card, just sayin
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Cavebear on February 26, 2017, 10:07:25 AM
Quote from: Baruch on February 23, 2017, 12:19:19 PM
It didn't it was for Fencerider.

You were quoting me.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on February 26, 2017, 12:15:31 PM
Quote from: Cavebear on February 26, 2017, 10:07:25 AM
You were quoting me.

My bad then.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Cavebear on February 26, 2017, 01:17:23 PM
Quote from: Baruch on February 26, 2017, 12:15:31 PM
My bad then.

Been there.  More intelligently, of course, but been there. 

Your therapy is to tolerate criticism, isn't it?  ;)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on February 26, 2017, 07:44:49 PM
Quote from: Cavebear on February 26, 2017, 01:17:23 PM
Been there.  More intelligently, of course, but been there. 

Your therapy is to tolerate criticism, isn't it?  ;)

I always tolerate criticism, but I consider the source ;-)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on February 28, 2017, 06:30:09 AM
http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2010-05-22

Food for thought
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: etienne on March 14, 2017, 02:08:33 AM
"I John I-Think-I-Am-Winston-Churchill-But-Am-Really-An-Over-Paid-Over-Fed-Shill-For-The-Fixed-Point-Foundation-And-Oxford-"Theologian"-Got-My-Ass-Handed-To-Me-By-Dawkins-And-Hitchens-Many-Times LENNOX, do hereby present my evidence for my Christian God":

(http://images.christianpost.com/blog/full/17239/lennox.jpg?w=500&h=333)

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-c7reYHx6a9Y/TZFs84B_9cI/AAAAAAAACGg/Q77xoqZrSoI/s1600/pile-of-bullshit.jpg)

"I WIN!"

(http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1953/churchill.jpg)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on March 14, 2017, 06:40:34 AM
The gods of Egypt thank you.  Now get out of the way of the scarab beetle so that she can push the Sun across the sky ;-)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on July 22, 2017, 07:27:22 AM
Had an eidetic dream last night.  Yes, that is subjective.  Not only saw my recently departed mother, but we touched hands (I felt it).  Helps with the grieving.

People who think science is 18th or 19the century, who think time is linear ... are obsolete by over 100 years now.

So no, I don't believe in an afterlife ... but I do experience that time is non-linear, and that reality is subjective and humanistic (given than I am an individual human, I can't do otherwise).  Platonists claim to be trans-human and objective ... but then they are nuts.

So no, this doesn't prove G-d.  But it does show that autistic people are narrow minded boobs.  I feel sorry for them, to be confined in a mental nut shell and to consider themselves masters of the universe.  Hamlet that.  If Hamlet had gotten more help from his father's ghost, maybe he could have both gotten revenge and survived to be king of Denmark.

Hamlet only a story?  All human experience is a human story, that each of us is writing ad lib.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Cavebear on September 11, 2017, 08:33:04 AM
Hey Admins, you can unpin this thread any time.  It's dead...
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on September 11, 2017, 11:51:23 PM
All dogs go to heaven, and all threads have an afterlife (at least in an NSA server).
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on September 12, 2017, 10:32:53 AM
Quote from: Baruch on September 11, 2017, 11:51:23 PM
All dogs go to heaven, and all threads have an afterlife (at least in an NSA server).
Yeah--but you have to go over The Rainbow Bridge to get to them.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on September 12, 2017, 12:57:13 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on September 12, 2017, 10:32:53 AM
Yeah--but you have to go over The Rainbow Bridge to get to them.

Thor works for the NSA?  Cool!
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on September 12, 2017, 02:18:54 PM
Yeah - the Norse Sons of Asgaard.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on September 12, 2017, 07:00:58 PM
I'm a mixed breed.  Part of it is Scandinavian in the early 19th century.  Just don't go berserker on me.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Cavebear on September 14, 2017, 03:56:15 AM
Quote from: Baruch on September 12, 2017, 07:00:58 PM
I'm a mixed breed.  Part of it is Scandinavian in the early 19th century.  Just don't go berserker on me.

One might Loki a joke and Balder-snatch a yew arrow...
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: cabinetmaker on January 25, 2018, 03:41:52 PM
Good afternoon.  Its been a while since I've been here, a good long while.

This thread asks me to post evidence for God.  I find this an interesting request as it assumes that there must be proof for something to be real.  Can you prove to me that you love your mother?  Can you prove to me you love your significant other?  Can you prove to me that friendship is even possible?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mr.Obvious on January 25, 2018, 03:47:59 PM
Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 25, 2018, 03:41:52 PM
Good afternoon.  Its been a while since I've been here, a good long while.

Sure it was. Who were you?
Make an intro, why don't ya?
Tell us about who you are.

And hopefully, who you aren't.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on January 25, 2018, 03:49:48 PM
Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 25, 2018, 03:41:52 PM
Good afternoon.  Its been a while since I've been here, a good long while.

This thread asks me to post evidence for God.  I find this an interesting request as it assumes that there must be proof for something to be real.  Can you prove to me that you love your mother?  Can you prove to me you love your significant other?  Can you prove to me that friendship is even possible?
No, I can't - but then, I have no mother, I have no significant other, and I only have acquaintances, not friends. But none of those things are objectively existing things, as a God is assumed to be. If, on the other hand, God has only some subjective meaning, then what good is it?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Blackleaf on January 25, 2018, 04:21:28 PM
Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 25, 2018, 03:41:52 PM
Good afternoon.  Its been a while since I've been here, a good long while.

This thread asks me to post evidence for God.  I find this an interesting request as it assumes that there must be proof for something to be real.  Can you prove to me that you love your mother?  Can you prove to me you love your significant other?  Can you prove to me that friendship is even possible?

You felt the need to make a new account. That immediately makes me suspicious of you. Hopefully I'm wrong. Do you remember your previous screen name?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on January 25, 2018, 06:50:49 PM
Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 25, 2018, 03:41:52 PM
Good afternoon.  Its been a while since I've been here, a good long while.
One post. You made a new account. Which means this is a sock account. I wonder how long the mods will entertain you before the banhammer comes down.

Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 25, 2018, 03:41:52 PMThis thread asks me to post evidence for God.  I find this an interesting request as it assumes that there must be proof for something to be real.  Can you prove to me that you love your mother?  Can you prove to me you love your significant other?  Can you prove to me that friendship is even possible?
Why are you comparing God to an emotion?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 25, 2018, 06:52:37 PM
Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 25, 2018, 03:41:52 PM
Good afternoon.  Its been a while since I've been here, a good long while.

This thread asks me to post evidence for God.  I find this an interesting request as it assumes that there must be proof for something to be real.  Can you prove to me that you love your mother?  Can you prove to me you love your significant other?  Can you prove to me that friendship is even possible?

Excellent questions.  Which materialists and epistemological fundies can't answer honestly.  However that doesn't exhaust secularism.  Perhaps more human secularists won't have trouble answering you.  Plato on the other hand, would say that only ideals are real, like ideal love, and any love you might have, is unreal.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 25, 2018, 06:53:24 PM
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on January 25, 2018, 03:47:59 PM
Sure it was. Who were you?
Make an intro, why don't ya?
Tell us about who you are.

And hopefully, who you aren't.

Good theology ... via positiva plus via negativa
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: cabinetmaker on January 26, 2018, 09:44:26 AM
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 25, 2018, 04:21:28 PM
You felt the need to make a new account. That immediately makes me suspicious of you. Hopefully I'm wrong. Do you remember your previous screen name?
Should have been the same screen name.  I tried my original logon info and it said that the user name did not exist.  So I resurrected it.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: cabinetmaker on January 26, 2018, 09:47:56 AM
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on January 25, 2018, 06:50:49 PM
One post. You made a new account. Which means this is a sock account. I wonder how long the mods will entertain you before the banhammer comes down.
Why are you comparing God to an emotion?
I wasn't comparing God to an emotion, I was asking about believing in things that we cannot prove.  Love is an emotion we all feel yet there is no scientific proof that love exists.  Yet we all feel it regardless of the lack of proof.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: trdsf on January 26, 2018, 10:25:57 AM
Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 26, 2018, 09:47:56 AM
I wasn't comparing God to an emotion, I was asking about believing in things that we cannot prove.  Love is an emotion we all feel yet there is no scientific proof that love exists.  Yet we all feel it regardless of the lack of proof.
Love -- and other emotions -- at least present us with the possibility of being examined in the physical world.  A broad study of EEG, FMRI, PET, MEG and other brain function measurements may reveal identifiable traces through cerebral activity.  Physical studies may reveal specific biochemical and hormonal changes.  No doubt someone here more up on biology can think of other tests that I haven't.

Even if current data gathering techniques aren't able to resolve information on a fine enough level, that's a technical issue that can in principle be overcome.

Where is even the potential physical test for the presence of a divine entity, much less any current one?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: cabinetmaker on January 26, 2018, 11:52:15 AM
Quote from: trdsf on January 26, 2018, 10:25:57 AM
Love -- and other emotions -- at least present us with the possibility of being examined in the physical world.  A broad study of EEG, FMRI, PET, MEG and other brain function measurements may reveal identifiable traces through cerebral activity.  Physical studies may reveal specific biochemical and hormonal changes.  No doubt someone here more up on biology can think of other tests that I haven't.

Even if current data gathering techniques aren't able to resolve information on a fine enough level, that's a technical issue that can in principle be overcome.

Where is even the potential physical test for the presence of a divine entity, much less any current one?
Some of these tests have been done.  There some MRI studies showing that the brain of a person in love looks like the brain of a person high on cocaine.  Interestingly, a person deep in religious thought triggers the same areas of the brain.  Love, cocaine and religion all trigger the brains reward mechanism.  What do you conclude from this data?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on January 26, 2018, 12:21:24 PM
Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 26, 2018, 11:52:15 AM
Some of these tests have been done.  There some MRI studies showing that the brain of a person in love looks like the brain of a person high on cocaine.  Interestingly, a person deep in religious thought triggers the same areas of the brain.  Love, cocaine and religion all trigger the brains reward mechanism.  What do you conclude from this data?
I conclude that emotions have a actual, physical cause and that humans have evolved with them to this point.  And that god still cannot be tested for, has no empirical data to support it and is basically, a man-made fiction.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on January 26, 2018, 12:21:37 PM
Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 26, 2018, 11:52:15 AM
Some of these tests have been done.  There some MRI studies showing that the brain of a person in love looks like the brain of a person high on cocaine.  Interestingly, a person deep in religious thought triggers the same areas of the brain.  Love, cocaine and religion all trigger the brains reward mechanism.  What do you conclude from this data?
I conclude that religion is a helluva drug.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: cabinetmaker on January 26, 2018, 12:34:08 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 26, 2018, 12:21:24 PM
I conclude that emotions have a actual, physical cause and that humans have evolved with them to this point.  And that god still cannot be tested for, has no empirical data to support it and is basically, a man-made fiction.
Do you trust your emotions?  Do you need to prove that your emotions are real and not just the result of something you ate last night.  The brain seems to react to same to both so how do you know that you are in love or just high?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: cabinetmaker on January 26, 2018, 12:44:44 PM
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on January 26, 2018, 12:21:37 PM
I conclude that religion is a helluva drug.
It would not be unreasonable to conclude that faith is as real as love and drugs.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 26, 2018, 12:47:37 PM
Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 26, 2018, 12:34:08 PM
Do you trust your emotions?  Do you need to prove that your emotions are real and not just the result of something you ate last night.  The brain seems to react to same to both so how do you know that you are in love or just high?

Kibitzing, sorry.  Don't fall into the trap of epistemological reductionism?  Materialists and Pythagoreans do that.  I am a humanist and an empiricist, I find scientism, rationalism, Pythagoreanism to be reductionist ... and therefore limited (but I can use them professionally).  Epistemological fundies reject all metaphysics, all value theory, all subjectivity.

So since proof involves objectivity, no, you can't prove what emotion you have, or what it means to you, or why it would have any meaning to anyone else, it is correlation error to use PET scans etc to analyze it.  But demand for proof is a fallacy itself.  I can't prove I am typing this, but I don't need to either.  Proof only applies in logic and math, not in natural language theater ... aka rhetoric, propaganda, dialectic.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 26, 2018, 12:50:37 PM
Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 26, 2018, 12:44:44 PM
It would not be unreasonable to conclude that faith is as real as love and drugs.

"Real" is a metaphysical concept.  Epistemological fundies and physicists expropriate it to defend their own minimalist position.

In their position, love and faith are unreasonable, drugs are reasonable.  You can demonstrate drugs with chemistry, and with clinical trials.  Anything that involves introspection falls under confirmation bias.

Also be careful with "faith" if by that you mean "belief".  Epistemologists will tear apart "belief" as unjustified.  Originally "faith" equals "fides" equals "trustworthiness".  It has to do with relationship between people, not the psychological state of an individual.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on January 26, 2018, 01:18:34 PM
Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 26, 2018, 12:44:44 PM
It would not be unreasonable to conclude that faith is as real as love and drugs.
What do you mean "faith is real"? So what? That's no indication that the object of that faith is indeed real.

Reason is a lighthouse, faith is the rocks below.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on January 26, 2018, 02:03:40 PM
Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 26, 2018, 12:34:08 PM
Do you trust your emotions?  Do you need to prove that your emotions are real and not just the result of something you ate last night.  The brain seems to react to same to both so how do you know that you are in love or just high?
Do I trust my emotions?  Some of them I do.  Most of them, actually---at this point in my life.  Whatever emotion(s) I am feeling right now I can check on for source and how does this emotion feel like.  It was/is through trial and error I learned what particular emotions made me feel and led me to either trust those feelings or not to.  I am not very steeped in any of those scientific studies about emotions and where they come from, so I can't comment on those much.  But if getting high and being in love affect the same part of the brain, it does not mean that the same feelings are the result of that stimulation.  Being high is a temporary thing.  Being in love can be temporary but if it is not, then it most likely is love and not infatuation.  That's a harder test--are you in love or infatuated with them/it.  Time will tell and I learned what each emotion felt like and when I could trust that what I was feeling was love or infatuation.  And then I acted in accordance with those feelings. 

God does not offer anything outwardly.  I love somebody or something.  God is neither--god is a fiction.  I might as well say I worship and love Bugs Bunny; god and Bugs offer the same reality--fictional.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: trdsf on January 26, 2018, 02:46:10 PM
Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 26, 2018, 11:52:15 AM
Some of these tests have been done.  There some MRI studies showing that the brain of a person in love looks like the brain of a person high on cocaine.  Interestingly, a person deep in religious thought triggers the same areas of the brain.  Love, cocaine and religion all trigger the brains reward mechanism.  What do you conclude from this data?
Not being a researcher in the area myself, and not being a biologist of any stripe (I took bio in high school with the explicit intention of getting it over with once and for all, and that was in 1976), I conclude only that more research needs to be done so it can be understood well enough to distill it down to a level I can understand.  :)

However, that connection does make a certain amount of sense.  Love and religious belief are both powerful perception-altering mental activities; cocaine is a powerful perception alterant.  Also remember that there are only just so many neurotransmitters to work with, and only so many ccs of brain, so we shouldn't be surprised to see many things using similar areas.

If I had to hazard a guess, and it's only a guess because I'm just not au courant with the current state of consciousness research, the connection has to to with addictionâ€"to another person (love), to an idea (god) or to a chemical (cocaine).  In the absence of chemical intake, the cerebral cortex does its best to explain the underlying biochemical changes affecting it.  Emotions at that point are really just the label we apply to a set of un- or sub- or even non-consciously controlled chemical changes in the brain.

One last pointâ€"I'm familiar in outline with the research on the effects of religion on the brain.  It's worth noting that the effects appear related only to religiosity, not to the specific religion of the person under study.  This is exactly what we would expect to see if religion was a completely human-made social construct.  Otherwise, if Christianity were 'correct', we should see differences between Christians and at least non-Judeo-Christo-Islamic adherents; if Wiccans are correct, we should see differences between them and non-Wiccans; and so on.  We don't see that; we see similar activity across all believers.  Since it is not possible for all religions to be true, the only consistent result we can infer from that is that either none of them are, or that they're all wrong to precisely the same degree.

The latter is also not possible -- if there are three gods, dualist Pagans are 'more correct' than monotheists.  If there is something that exists in a non-countable state, Buddhists are 'more correct' than mono- and polytheists.

In short, the MRI data on religious thought tends to support the idea that religion is man-made and internal, rather than divinely imposed and external.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: trdsf on January 26, 2018, 02:50:23 PM
Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 26, 2018, 12:34:08 PM
Do you trust your emotions?  Do you need to prove that your emotions are real and not just the result of something you ate last night.  The brain seems to react to same to both so how do you know that you are in love or just high?
I know I haven't done any chemical alterants other than caffeine.  And I can be drug-tested to demonstrate that I'm not high.

Obviously, the brain is going to react similarly to similar stimuli -- and that's independent of the trigger cause of the stimulus.  Kind of like how 4 is 4 whether you're getting it by multiplying 2x2 or -2x-2.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: cabinetmaker on January 26, 2018, 03:27:46 PM
Quote from: trdsf on January 26, 2018, 02:46:10 PM
Not being a researcher in the area myself, and not being a biologist of any stripe (I took bio in high school with the explicit intention of getting it over with once and for all, and that was in 1976), I conclude only that more research needs to be done so it can be understood well enough to distill it down to a level I can understand.  :)

However, that connection does make a certain amount of sense.  Love and religious belief are both powerful perception-altering mental activities; cocaine is a powerful perception alterant.  Also remember that there are only just so many neurotransmitters to work with, and only so many ccs of brain, so we shouldn't be surprised to see many things using similar areas.

If I had to hazard a guess, and it's only a guess because I'm just not au courant with the current state of consciousness research, the connection has to to with addictionâ€"to another person (love), to an idea (god) or to a chemical (cocaine).  In the absence of chemical intake, the cerebral cortex does its best to explain the underlying biochemical changes affecting it.  Emotions at that point are really just the label we apply to a set of un- or sub- or even non-consciously controlled chemical changes in the brain.

One last pointâ€"I'm familiar in outline with the research on the effects of religion on the brain.  It's worth noting that the effects appear related only to religiosity, not to the specific religion of the person under study.  This is exactly what we would expect to see if religion was a completely human-made social construct.  Otherwise, if Christianity were 'correct', we should see differences between Christians and at least non-Judeo-Christo-Islamic adherents; if Wiccans are correct, we should see differences between them and non-Wiccans; and so on.  We don't see that; we see similar activity across all believers.  Since it is not possible for all religions to be true, the only consistent result we can infer from that is that either none of them are, or that they're all wrong to precisely the same degree.

The latter is also not possible -- if there are three gods, dualist Pagans are 'more correct' than monotheists.  If there is something that exists in a non-countable state, Buddhists are 'more correct' than mono- and polytheists.

In short, the MRI data on religious thought tends to support the idea that religion is man-made and internal, rather than divinely imposed and external.
Scientific research can only take us so far.  It is not long before we enter the realm of speculation regardless of which side of the line you are on.  I speculate that the brain responds to a stimuli such as cocaine or the presence of another person.  If this is true, then could the stimuli that triggers the "religious experience response" be the presence of God in that persons experience?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on January 26, 2018, 03:39:39 PM
No, it couldn't be the presence of God, since no such thing exists, but it could be a hallucination or simply a delusion, or wishful thinking.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: trdsf on January 26, 2018, 05:03:11 PM
Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 26, 2018, 03:27:46 PM
Scientific research can only take us so far.  It is not long before we enter the realm of speculation regardless of which side of the line you are on.  I speculate that the brain responds to a stimuli such as cocaine or the presence of another person.  If this is true, then could the stimuli that triggers the "religious experience response" be the presence of God in that persons experience?
The determinant is not "you can't say it's not this", the determinant is "the data says this".  There is absolutely zero justification to make the assumption that any divine power was involved without evidence beforehand.

"It could be this" is not evidence, nor is it even a theory.  It's the barest speculation that lacks even the slightest independent data pointing in that direction.  All you're doing here is presupposing the result you want, and when you do that, you've abandoned the scientific method.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 26, 2018, 06:15:50 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 26, 2018, 01:18:34 PM
What do you mean "faith is real"? So what? That's no indication that the object of that faith is indeed real.

Reason is a lighthouse, faith is the rocks below.

Yes, Bugs Bunny is real ... as a cartoon.

No, Bugs Bunny isn't real ... as a living person (or even formerly living person)

So this is how rhetoric works, we take a person's words, make s subtle shift in meaning, and bitch slap them.

A sentence is usually made up of a subject and a predicate.  A predicate is made up of a verb and an object.  Nut cases want to deny the existence of one or more of those things.  A materialist will emphasize the "object" over the "verb" or the "subject".  A solipsist will emphasize the "subject" over the "object" or the "verb".  The break dancer will emphasize the "verb" over the "subject" or the "object".  Balance the Force, Luke.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 26, 2018, 06:20:44 PM
Quote from: trdsf on January 26, 2018, 02:50:23 PM
I know I haven't done any chemical alterants other than caffeine.  And I can be drug-tested to demonstrate that I'm not high.

Obviously, the brain is going to react similarly to similar stimuli -- and that's independent of the trigger cause of the stimulus.  Kind of like how 4 is 4 whether you're getting it by multiplying 2x2 or -2x-2.

That is just the rational function of the brain.  It does more than arithmetic.  The objectivity status of arithmetic is also, very different than the objectivity status of my typing this right now.  Pythagoras didn't get that, he overgeneralized.  Aristotle developed biology, he knew more about brains than any other contemporary, being an anatomist.  And no, I don't find that the chaotic nature of humanity, to be ... reacts similar to similar stimuli.  That would be a rational system.  Since human beings do science and math, and since humans are irrational and delusional, the acme of math or science is unreachable.  We are not the species to achieve that.  We are not Vulcans.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 26, 2018, 06:22:57 PM
Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 26, 2018, 03:27:46 PM
Scientific research can only take us so far.  It is not long before we enter the realm of speculation regardless of which side of the line you are on.  I speculate that the brain responds to a stimuli such as cocaine or the presence of another person.  If this is true, then could the stimuli that triggers the "religious experience response" be the presence of God in that persons experience?

Good question.  But the presence can be subjective or objective.  I would deny the objective presence of G-d, in ordinary terms.  But i don't agree with those terms, being a mystic.  I find the objective presence of G-d in everything, because I don't limit myself to self-defeating definitions or confusing notions.  And that objective presence, is something I subjectively experience.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Blackleaf on January 26, 2018, 06:26:34 PM
Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 26, 2018, 12:44:44 PM
It would not be unreasonable to conclude that faith is as real as love and drugs.

Faith being real and God being real are two totally different things. One is a subjective experience, the other is a supposed person. If God really existed, and he were a personal god, his existence would be as plain to see as anyone here.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 26, 2018, 06:31:00 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 26, 2018, 06:26:34 PM
Faith being real and God being real are two totally different things. One is a subjective experience, the other is a supposed person. If God really existed, and he were a personal god, his existence would be as plain to see as anyone here.

The Christian god isn't objective.  No religion god is.  All such gods are invisible.  And that is something hard to demonstrate.  I reject religion gods.  Humans are demigods, I accept them as real.  Faith isn't real ... it is a belief (as misdefined).  Faith is real ... it is trust between two people (at least it is real for some pairs of people).  So keep using the worthless English language, and only achieve confusion?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on January 26, 2018, 06:48:57 PM
Quote from: Baruch on January 26, 2018, 06:22:57 PM
Good question.  But the presence can be subjective or objective.  I would deny the objective presence of G-d, in ordinary terms.  But i don't agree with those terms, being a mystic.  I find the objective presence of G-d in everything, because I don't limit myself to self-defeating definitions or confusing notions.  And that objective presence, is something I subjectively experience.
False.  You cannot experience an objective presence when none exists.  Therefore, all you CAN experience is a subjective experience.  I'm sure your god is real to you, but not to anybody else--and you cannot demonstrate it/him or whatever to anybody else.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 26, 2018, 08:38:53 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 26, 2018, 06:48:57 PM
False.  You cannot experience an objective presence when none exists.  Therefore, all you CAN experience is a subjective experience.  I'm sure your god is real to you, but not to anybody else--and you cannot demonstrate it/him or whatever to anybody else.

You misidentify your hand, you think it is something else, or that it is nothing, a figment of your imagination, for example.  Like the man who mistook his wife for a hat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Mistook_His_Wife_for_a_Hat

As an antitheist, you can't admit even to the vocabulary of religion (see Wittgenstein).  You are a particular anti-logos, an embodiment or meme carrier of one part of Newspeak, who limits the OED to your cultural ideology.  In Newspeak, any words you don't like, are nonsense (as Logical Positivism claimed against metaphysics).

I can demonstrate my hand, and much more ... a whole living person.  There are many of people here and now.  You can misdefine that as ... jello.  And we all know that jello isn't alive, so therefore it is logical, that these non-people are not alive.  If we carefully misdefine natural, then all things are natural, by definition, but that is circular and thus invalid reasoning.

I recognize the whole living person, as a demigod.  This isn't G-d, it isn't the Christian god etc.  It is democratic Greco-Roman paganism.  I reject the false dichotomy of natural/supernatural as used here.  Rhetorically, being duplicitous is the whole game.  All people are rhetorical, so all people are duplicitous.  Thus there is no trustworthiness ... which means all relationships are faithless.

It has nothing to do with believing in a particular number of unicorns that can dance on the head of an angel.  That is a misdirection, which I choose to ignore.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on January 26, 2018, 08:54:56 PM
We don't need a way to compare God to an emotion like love. We need to compare God to a fiction like Gandalf. That is the relevant comparison.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 26, 2018, 08:57:24 PM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on January 26, 2018, 08:54:56 PM
We don't need a way to compare God to an emotion like love. We need to compare God to a fiction like Gandalf. That is the relevant comparison.

I would take a fictional Gandalf over any of you ;-)  Your bodies may be real, but your ideas are no less fictional.  All ideas are notional.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on January 26, 2018, 09:29:24 PM
Quote from: Baruch on January 26, 2018, 08:38:53 PM
You misidentify your hand, you think it is something else, or that it is nothing, a figment of your imagination, for example.  Like the man who mistook his wife for a hat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Mistook_His_Wife_for_a_Hat

As an antitheist, you can't admit even to the vocabulary of religion (see Wittgenstein).  You are a particular anti-logos, an embodiment or meme carrier of one part of Newspeak, who limits the OED to your cultural ideology.  In Newspeak, any words you don't like, are nonsense (as Logical Positivism claimed against metaphysics).

I can demonstrate my hand, and much more ... a whole living person.  There are many of people here and now.  You can misdefine that as ... jello.  And we all know that jello isn't alive, so therefore it is logical, that these non-people are not alive.  If we carefully misdefine natural, then all things are natural, by definition, but that is circular and thus invalid reasoning.

I recognize the whole living person, as a demigod.  This isn't G-d, it isn't the Christian god etc.  It is democratic Greco-Roman paganism.  I reject the false dichotomy of natural/supernatural as used here.  Rhetorically, being duplicitous is the whole game.  All people are rhetorical, so all people are duplicitous.  Thus there is no trustworthiness ... which means all relationships are faithless.

It has nothing to do with believing in a particular number of unicorns that can dance on the head of an angel.  That is a misdirection, which I choose to ignore.
All of that is your opinion--The world according to Garp--or Baruch.  Yes, you can demonstrate your hand--but not your god.  You recognize people as demigods--that is simply your opinion and nothing more.  You can believe in the supernatural all you want, with the greatest of  sincerity and just is still your opinion.  Your god and demigod is still a fiction whether you chose to 'believe' that or not.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Cavebear on January 27, 2018, 08:15:48 AM
Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 25, 2018, 03:41:52 PM
Good afternoon.  Its been a while since I've been here, a good long while.

This thread asks me to post evidence for God.  I find this an interesting request as it assumes that there must be proof for something to be real.  Can you prove to me that you love your mother?  Can you prove to me you love your significant other?  Can you prove to me that friendship is even possible?

Ah, so THIS is where you have been lurking!  I saw rumors of you elsewhere.

I had a mother and Father, and loved them as much as they deserved.  I have friends.  I can see them.  Can you see a deity in that same way?  If you can, then you need professional help...
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 27, 2018, 09:02:11 AM
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 26, 2018, 09:29:24 PM
All of that is your opinion--The world according to Garp--or Baruch.  Yes, you can demonstrate your hand--but not your god.  You recognize people as demigods--that is simply your opinion and nothing more.  You can believe in the supernatural all you want, with the greatest of  sincerity and just is still your opinion.  Your god and demigod is still a fiction whether you chose to 'believe' that or not.

Yes, it is merely my deluded opinion, that Wikipedia exists, and that this forum exists.  But why do you share similar delusions with me?

Do you recognize people in the street as Americans?  How would you know?  Did you ask to see their papers?  Well I can't either, but I do know a human when I see one.  And yes, American etc are just nationalist memes, they aren't real.  So how is raising my hand to type, supernatural?  I am saying that natural/supernatural, as used here, are meaningless words used rhetorically (dishonestly?).  Raising my hand to type is artificial, not natural.  The hunger in my stomach each morning, that is natural.  But people misuse words, for many reasons?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on January 27, 2018, 09:39:06 AM
Quote from: Baruch on January 27, 2018, 09:02:11 AM
Yes, it is merely my deluded opinion, that Wikipedia exists, and that this forum exists.  But why do you share similar delusions with me?

Do you recognize people in the street as Americans?  How would you know?  Did you ask to see their papers?  Well I can't either, but I do know a human when I see one.  And yes, American etc are just nationalist memes, they aren't real.  So how is raising my hand to type, supernatural?  I am saying that natural/supernatural, as used here, are meaningless words used rhetorically (dishonestly?).  Raising my hand to type is artificial, not natural.  The hunger in my stomach each morning, that is natural.  But people misuse words, for many reasons?
I hope you feel better.  I don't really know what your rant is supposed to mean.  Why is typing 'unnatural' (much less supernatural) and hunger pangs 'natural'?  Humans have always manipulated their environments with their hands, so I'd suggest typing is completely  natural.   People do misuse words all them time and for many reasons.  You do it to confuse--like using the word 'supernatural' as though it has any real meaning; you use it as the theists who invented it to help them 'prove' the fiction of their god, or your G_d; your god and all others, are fictions and you have a hard time with that.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 27, 2018, 09:43:17 AM
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 27, 2018, 09:39:06 AM
I hope you feel better.  I don't really know what your rant is supposed to mean.  Why is typing 'unnatural' (much less supernatural) and hunger pangs 'natural'?  Humans have always manipulated their environments with their hands, so I'd suggest typing is completely  natural.   People do misuse words all them time and for many reasons.  You do it to confuse--like using the word 'supernatural' as though it has any real meaning; you use it as the theists who invented it to help them 'prove' the fiction of their god, or your G_d; your god and all others, are fictions and you have a hard time with that.

Theists didn't invent "supernatural" ... atheists did.  They also invented "natural".  Before that, there wasn't even a word for religion.  Your views are too contemporary, to apply to ancient times.

Yes, all things end, but I am not sure how happy I am with that.  Are you?  Oh, that would be a religious question ...
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: cabinetmaker on January 27, 2018, 11:05:15 AM
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 26, 2018, 03:39:39 PM
No, it couldn't be the presence of God, since no such thing exists, but it could be a hallucination or simply a delusion, or wishful thinking.
You offer an assertion, not proof.  People put much time and effort into proving or disproving the existence of God without ever first pausing to think about what they are trying to prove.  Is there a  physical nature to God?  If so, what would that look like?  Does God exist in ways that we cannot fathom?  For instance. we exist in a 4 dimensional world; x,y,z, and t.  A biology professor from CU-Boulder speculates that God exists in at least 5 dimensions.  What is that 5th dimension.  He went on to say that God would exist in n+1 dimensions.  Mathematically we can prove that there are at least 12 dimensions meaning God exists in 13 dimensions.  How does one begin to prove or disprove the existence of a 13 dimensional Being?  In short, asserting that God doesn't exist is just an assertion. 

This leaves me in the same position though.  I can no more prove that God exists than you can prove that God does not exist.  None the less, I believe that He does exist. 
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: cabinetmaker on January 27, 2018, 11:08:42 AM
Quote from: trdsf on January 26, 2018, 05:03:11 PM
The determinant is not "you can't say it's not this", the determinant is "the data says this".  There is absolutely zero justification to make the assumption that any divine power was involved without evidence beforehand.

"It could be this" is not evidence, nor is it even a theory.  It's the barest speculation that lacks even the slightest independent data pointing in that direction.  All you're doing here is presupposing the result you want, and when you do that, you've abandoned the scientific method.
There are three triggers that produce the same result.  The data is the same for each.  So why are two interpretations valid but the third not?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: cabinetmaker on January 27, 2018, 11:13:43 AM
Quote from: Cavebear on January 27, 2018, 08:15:48 AM
Ah, so THIS is where you have been lurking!  I saw rumors of you elsewhere.

I had a mother and Father, and loved them as much as they deserved.  I have friends.  I can see them.  Can you see a deity in that same way?  If you can, then you need professional help...
Do you only feel love towards your parents and friends in their physical presence or do you feel that same emotion when you think of them when they are not there.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: cabinetmaker on January 27, 2018, 11:15:03 AM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on January 26, 2018, 08:54:56 PM
We don't need a way to compare God to an emotion like love. We need to compare God to a fiction like Gandalf. That is the relevant comparison.
You are assuming the conclusion to define the debate.  No debate is possible when you open with a fallacy.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Cavebear on January 27, 2018, 11:42:35 AM
Quote from: Baruch on January 27, 2018, 09:02:11 AM
Yes, it is merely my deluded opinion, that Wikipedia exists, and that this forum exists.  But why do you share similar delusions with me?

Do you recognize people in the street as Americans?  How would you know?  Did you ask to see their papers?  Well I can't either, but I do know a human when I see one.  And yes, American etc are just nationalist memes, they aren't real.  So how is raising my hand to type, supernatural?  I am saying that natural/supernatural, as used here, are meaningless words used rhetorically (dishonestly?).  Raising my hand to type is artificial, not natural.  The hunger in my stomach each morning, that is natural.  But people misuse words, for many reasons?

No.  See that's where you go wrong about reality.  There IS reality.  On the atomic level anyway.  Wikipedia exists; I can find it indepentently of you.  I perceive I exist independently of you.  Cogito Ergo Somewhat...  What I can't prove is that YOU exist independently of ME.  After all, your only existence to me is when *I* log on. 

You could be a part of a Truman's World of which I am the ignorant star (do as you wish with that).  Well, OK, It would be "cavebear's World, but you get my drift.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on January 27, 2018, 01:51:19 PM
Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 27, 2018, 11:05:15 AM
You offer an assertion, not proof.  People put much time and effort into proving or disproving the existence of God without ever first pausing to think about what they are trying to prove.  Is there a  physical nature to God?  If so, what would that look like?  Does God exist in ways that we cannot fathom?  For instance. we exist in a 4 dimensional world; x,y,z, and t.  A biology professor from CU-Boulder speculates that God exists in at least 5 dimensions.  What is that 5th dimension.  He went on to say that God would exist in n+1 dimensions.  Mathematically we can prove that there are at least 12 dimensions meaning God exists in 13 dimensions.  How does one begin to prove or disprove the existence of a 13 dimensional Being?  In short, asserting that God doesn't exist is just an assertion. 

This leaves me in the same position though.  I can no more prove that God exists than you can prove that God does not exist.  None the less, I believe that He does exist. 

Well, it depends on the exact "nature" of the supposed God and its characteristics (or properties). If it has contradictory characteristics then it cannot logically exist, and so it does not exist. If you posit a God that has entirely self-consistent characteristics then it could at least logically exist. But the Christian (theistic) God isn't this type of God, since its supposed characteristics are, indeed, contradictory.

Incompatible-Properties Arguments: A Survey (https://infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/incompatible.html)

So, what properties do you consider God to have? Does it have any properties at all, or is it just some vague "something out there"?

Actually, I fall into the label of "non-cognitivist," since the word God can mean just about anything at all, and so it really means nothing at all.


Quote from: Charles BradlaughThe atheist does not say," There is no God", but he says, "I know not what you mean by God"; the word God is to me a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on January 27, 2018, 01:54:41 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6wjgNhgaNU
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 27, 2018, 02:31:23 PM
Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 27, 2018, 11:15:03 AM
You are assuming the conclusion to define the debate.  No debate is possible when you open with a fallacy.

Rationalists have no fallacy ;-)  Every word that proceeds from their mouths, is scripture ;-))
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Cavebear on January 27, 2018, 02:32:43 PM
Quote from: Baruch on January 27, 2018, 02:31:23 PM
Rationalists have no fallacy ;-)  Every word that proceeds from their mouths, is scripture ;-))

That itself is a fallacy. 
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 27, 2018, 02:33:13 PM
Quote from: Cavebear on January 27, 2018, 02:32:43 PM
That itself is a fallacy. 
Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 27, 2018, 11:05:15 AM
You offer an assertion, not proof.  People put much time and effort into proving or disproving the existence of God without ever first pausing to think about what they are trying to prove.  Is there a  physical nature to God?  If so, what would that look like?  Does God exist in ways that we cannot fathom?  For instance. we exist in a 4 dimensional world; x,y,z, and t.  A biology professor from CU-Boulder speculates that God exists in at least 5 dimensions.  What is that 5th dimension.  He went on to say that God would exist in n+1 dimensions.  Mathematically we can prove that there are at least 12 dimensions meaning God exists in 13 dimensions.  How does one begin to prove or disprove the existence of a 13 dimensional Being?  In short, asserting that God doesn't exist is just an assertion. 

This leaves me in the same position though.  I can no more prove that God exists than you can prove that God does not exist.  None the less, I believe that He does exist.

That is the Flatland theology ;-)  I don't need extra dimensions, my gut already has too many dimensions ;-(
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 27, 2018, 02:35:41 PM
Quote from: Cavebear on January 27, 2018, 02:32:43 PM
That itself is a fallacy.

Your arguments are typically ex-cathedra ... yet you are not the Pope.  Even if you were, you could ... kiss my yarmulka.

Almost all arguments, made by people, including people here, are fallacy based.  Particularly ad hominem and begging the question.  This isn't a parliamentary debate class in HS ... we have no proctors.

Any real assertion I make (not rhetorical) is based on personal experience.  You can deny my lying eyes, but I respectfully decline.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on January 27, 2018, 02:36:40 PM
Quote from: Cavebear on January 27, 2018, 02:32:43 PM
That itself is a fallacy. 
More like a phallacy...









(https://cdn1.lockerdomecdn.com/uploads/ab42ad9f59866893840e83ff0d363f28d9370fd8b4544cfd7ce331bb7fa9d612_large)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 27, 2018, 02:37:29 PM
Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 27, 2018, 11:15:03 AM
You are assuming the conclusion to define the debate.  No debate is possible when you open with a fallacy.

Unfortunately all debates, like elections, are fixed in advance.  If you have the power, and someone is willing to play your game, you make them your bitch.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Cavebear on January 27, 2018, 02:38:58 PM
Quote from: Baruch on January 27, 2018, 02:35:41 PM
Your arguments are typically ex-cathedra ... yet you are not the Pope.  Even if you were, you could ... kiss my yarmulka.

Almost all arguments, made by people, including people here, are fallacy based.  Particularly ad hominem and begging the question.  This isn't a parliamentary debate class in HS ... we have no proctors.

Any real assertion I make (not rhetorical) is based on personal experience.  You can deny my lying eyes, but I respectfully decline.

Well, we both know that it is not necessary to disprove something to refute an argument.  The claim must be positively proven. 
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 27, 2018, 02:42:27 PM
Quote from: Cavebear on January 27, 2018, 11:42:35 AM
No.  See that's where you go wrong about reality.  There IS reality.  On the atomic level anyway.  Wikipedia exists; I can find it indepentently of you.  I perceive I exist independently of you.  Cogito Ergo Somewhat...  What I can't prove is that YOU exist independently of ME.  After all, your only existence to me is when *I* log on. 

You could be a part of a Truman's World of which I am the ignorant star (do as you wish with that).  Well, OK, It would be "cavebear's World, but you get my drift.

Yes, the Platonists can see this reality, in their imagination, because as ubermenschen outside the Cave ... they can see pure Euclidean geometry and Pythagorean arithmetic.  Sorry, it is an assumption, that there is hard objective reality (qualia).  I think that soft objective reality can be demonstrated, and that will have to do.  I can be holding a sandwich for lunch, and two independent observers selected at random and with no connection with me, can confirm that.

Since that kind of objectivity can be demonstrated, therefore your cultural, linguistic, political etc positions are ... reality?  Sorry, I see no way to derive all that from confirmed observation of my sandwich.  Also the fact that I made that sandwich, it didn't spontaneously assemble without human intervention, isn't proof or disproof of the strawman god used by theists and atheists to make empty arguments.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 27, 2018, 02:46:35 PM
Quote from: Cavebear on January 27, 2018, 02:38:58 PM
Well, we both know that it is not necessary to disprove something to refute an argument.  The claim must be positively proven.

That is also an assumption, but not a bad one.  In mathematics, Constructivism would agree with you, that reductio ad absurdum or even existence proofs, are invalid, you have to "show" the content of a mathematical concept in some sense (say as a triangle is in geometry).  But if mathematics is unsure, I am sure that philosophical argument is weak sauce indeed, being based on natural language.  I cannot prove that you are alive, that you aren't a successful Turing Test.  So on that basis, should I minimalistically assume that you don't exist?

In a law court, there is the requirement for "corpus delicti" usually.  This is because a person't life or property is at stake, not a mere "win".
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Cavebear on January 27, 2018, 02:47:16 PM
Quote from: Baruch on January 27, 2018, 02:42:27 PM
Yes, the Platonists can see this reality, in their imagination, because as ubermenschen outside the Cave ... they can see pure Euclidean geometry and Pythagorean arithmetic.  Sorry, it is an assumption, that there is hard objective reality (qualia).  I think that soft objective reality can be demonstrated, and that will have to do.  I can be holding a sandwich for lunch, and two independent observers selected at random and with no connection with me, can confirm that.

Since that kind of objectivity can be demonstrated, therefore your cultural, linguistic, political etc positions are ... reality?  Sorry, I see no way to derive all that from confirmed observation of my sandwich.  Also the fact that I made that sandwich, it didn't spontaneously assemble without human intervention, isn't proof or disproof of the strawman god used by theists and atheists to make empty arguments.

Reality is sufficiently proven to me when a fall on the floor and cut my hand open (tripped over a cat the other night).  Blood is quite real.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 27, 2018, 02:47:39 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 27, 2018, 02:36:40 PM
More like a phallacy...









(https://cdn1.lockerdomecdn.com/uploads/ab42ad9f59866893840e83ff0d363f28d9370fd8b4544cfd7ce331bb7fa9d612_large)

Competing with Munch ;-)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 27, 2018, 02:49:14 PM
Quote from: Cavebear on January 27, 2018, 02:47:16 PM
Reality is sufficiently proven to me when a fall on the floor and cut my hand open (tripped over a cat the other night).  Blood is quite real.

Congratulations you are Samuel Johnson, 18th century English lexicographer.  He said to Boswell ... "I refute him thus!" kicking a stone with his foot.  He was refuting philosopher George Berkeley.  But David Hume took it further than George Berkeley ... that almost nothing is real or true ... except by hidden assumption (unconscious or duplicitous).
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Cavebear on January 27, 2018, 02:50:20 PM
Quote from: Baruch on January 27, 2018, 02:47:39 PM
Competing with Munch ;-)

There is NO competing with Munch.  Especially if you are a Munchkin.  And I will certainly not go any further than that...
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 27, 2018, 02:52:50 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 27, 2018, 01:54:41 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6wjgNhgaNU

Good addition.  But Logical Positivism and Nietzsche, beat that by 90 - 130 years.  Then it was sealed by Wittgenstein (second version) that all philosophical problems are just language problems ... that language is real, but what language refers to isn't real.

See Wittgenstein's Poker ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittgenstein's_Poker

I will support Karl Popper any day.  The German idealists were psychopaths.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 27, 2018, 02:53:41 PM
Quote from: Cavebear on January 27, 2018, 02:50:20 PM
There is NO competing with Munch.  Especially if you are a Munchkin.  And I will certainly not go any further than that...

Unbeliever needs to be careful, given that I mostly sit in front of my computer in a semi-nude condition, for reasons best left unmentionable.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on January 27, 2018, 02:55:18 PM
Quote from: Baruch on January 27, 2018, 02:52:50 PM
Good addition.  But Logical Positivism and Nietzsche, beat that by 90 - 130 years.  Then it was sealed by Wittgenstein (second version) that all philosophical problems are just language problems ... that language is real, but what language refers to isn't real.

See Wittgenstein's Poker ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittgenstein's_Poker

I will support Karl Popper any day.  The German idealists were psychopaths.
I read that book a couple of years ago, if you recall our brief discussion of it.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Cavebear on January 27, 2018, 02:56:30 PM
Quote from: Baruch on January 27, 2018, 02:52:50 PM
Good addition.  But Logical Positivism and Nietzsche, beat that by 90 - 130 years.  Then it was sealed by Wittgenstein (second version) that all philosophical problems are just language problems ... that language is real, but what language refers to isn't real.

See Wittgenstein's Poker ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittgenstein's_Poker

I will support Karl Popper any day.  The German idealists were psychopaths.

One can easily construct a situation where the poker would be justified.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 27, 2018, 02:59:06 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 27, 2018, 02:55:18 PM
I read that book a couple of years ago, if you recall our brief discussion of it.

No, but glad you read it.  It was a good book (on modern philosophy) if by modern you mean circa 1950.  The standard today is ... whatever a college student imagines with passion, is real.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 27, 2018, 03:00:33 PM
Quote from: Cavebear on January 27, 2018, 02:56:30 PM
One can easily construct a situation where the poker would be justified.

You didn't read the book.  Also I don't think that Wittgenstein would have hit Popper with the fireplace poker (in the colloquia room at Cambridge).  But it made the book more dramatic.  If you want to support Wittgenstein or diss Popper, then you will have to work harder than this ;-)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Cavebear on January 27, 2018, 03:02:24 PM
Quote from: Baruch on January 27, 2018, 03:00:33 PM
You didn't read the book.  Also I don't think that Wittgenstein would have hit Popper with the fireplace poker (in the colloquia room at Cambridge).  But it made the book more dramatic.  If you want to support Wittgenstein or diss Popper, then you will have to work harder than this ;-)

I'm not on either side.  Merely saying that the poker was not any sort of conclusive argument-winner.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 27, 2018, 03:05:26 PM
Quote from: Cavebear on January 27, 2018, 03:02:24 PM
I'm not on either side.  Merely saying that the poker was not any sort of conclusive argument-winner.

Ah ... well then be more clear next time.  Or I will have to hit you with my poker ;-)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Cavebear on January 27, 2018, 03:08:33 PM
Quote from: Baruch on January 27, 2018, 03:05:26 PM
Ah ... well then be more clear next time.  Or I will have to hit you with my poker ;-)

I read a sci-fi story once where the humans confused the telepathis aliens by focussing on an image of a knight climbing a poker.  The irrational image confused the aliens suficiently...
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 27, 2018, 03:10:39 PM
Quote from: Cavebear on January 27, 2018, 03:08:33 PM
I read a sci-fi story once where the humans confused the telepathis aliens by focussing on an image of a knight climbing a poker.  The irrational image confused the aliens suficiently...

Guess aliens don't understand homonyms (night).  And Kirk did this on Mudd's Planet ... to an poorly designed Norman, the android.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on January 27, 2018, 03:15:56 PM
I think Kirk did something similar in more than one episode. Wasn't something like that used against Landru?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 27, 2018, 03:33:17 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 27, 2018, 03:15:56 PM
I think Kirk did something similar in more than one episode. Wasn't something like that used against Landru?

Correct, poor Landru never got his Windows patch, after Bob was loaded ;-)  I liked "Clippy" planet better ;-))
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: trdsf on January 27, 2018, 07:31:22 PM
Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 27, 2018, 11:08:42 AM
There are three triggers that produce the same result.  The data is the same for each.  So why are two interpretations valid but the third not?
Two reasons.

First, there's nothing in the data to indicate that the "hand of god" is a plausible option.

Second, you can't run a cause/effect experiment in reverse.  While we can do an MRI on someone who's just done cocaine, or is looking at a picture (or in the physical presence of) someone they care deeply about, we cannot do an MRI to tell what drug someone has taken, or what person they're looking at.

This is the fallacy you're pursuing: it's a non-reversible process, and you're trying to use it reversibly.  You're saying, in effect: "This is the result I wanted, therefore it could have come from the cause I want it to come from."  I have a really good way to test that way of doing things: go out and start spending like you hit next Saturday's Powerball, because it could happen.  Be sure to let me know what happens when the bills start showing up.

You can not assume a cause just because you want it to be a cause.  If you really want to say a god did it, you first need to be able to demonstrate the existence of that god in a concrete way.  Then and only then can you run a test to see first if a god can influence a person's MRI readings, and then if the influence of that god on a person's MRI is comparable to that of cocaine or of other people.

When you just say "well, a god could have done it", you assume far, far too much and leave out far, far too many necessary steps.  If yours is a reasonable assumption, then it is every bit as reasonable for me to say a unicorn did it, or an alien did, or Santa, or the Tooth Fairy, or the influence of the asteroid Ceres as it retrogrades through Scorpio.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: cabinetmaker on January 29, 2018, 10:49:28 AM
Quote from: trdsf on January 27, 2018, 07:31:22 PM
Two reasons.

First, there's nothing in the data to indicate that the "hand of god" is a plausible option.

Second, you can't run a cause/effect experiment in reverse.  While we can do an MRI on someone who's just done cocaine, or is looking at a picture (or in the physical presence of) someone they care deeply about, we cannot do an MRI to tell what drug someone has taken, or what person they're looking at.

This is the fallacy you're pursuing: it's a non-reversible process, and you're trying to use it reversibly.  You're saying, in effect: "This is the result I wanted, therefore it could have come from the cause I want it to come from."  I have a really good way to test that way of doing things: go out and start spending like you hit next Saturday's Powerball, because it could happen.  Be sure to let me know what happens when the bills start showing up.

You can not assume a cause just because you want it to be a cause.  If you really want to say a god did it, you first need to be able to demonstrate the existence of that god in a concrete way.  Then and only then can you run a test to see first if a god can influence a person's MRI readings, and then if the influence of that god on a person's MRI is comparable to that of cocaine or of other people.

When you just say "well, a god could have done it", you assume far, far too much and leave out far, far too many necessary steps.  If yours is a reasonable assumption, then it is every bit as reasonable for me to say a unicorn did it, or an alien did, or Santa, or the Tooth Fairy, or the influence of the asteroid Ceres as it retrogrades through Scorpio.
I'm not assuming a cause.  The data indicates that a cause was observed that was neither love nor cocaine.  The data does not conclusively rule out the hand of God.  I posted something a bit earlier discussing the extra dimensional qualities of God.  A professor out of the biology department at CU-Boulder hypothesized that God exists in n+1 dimensions.  Mathematically, we can prove the existence of 12 orthogonal dimensions.  This would mean that God exists in 13 dimensions.  How does one create tests to prove or disprove the existence of a 13 dimension being?  Now lets say that that 13 dimensional being is intelligent is ways that we cannot begin to grasp and, that for purposes of its own, it does not wish to be "observed," how would we be able to "observe" it? 
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Blackleaf on January 29, 2018, 11:02:29 AM
Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 29, 2018, 10:49:28 AM
I'm not assuming a cause.  The data indicates that a cause was observed that was neither love nor cocaine.  The data does not conclusively rule out the hand of God.  I posted something a bit earlier discussing the extra dimensional qualities of God.  A professor out of the biology department at CU-Boulder hypothesized that God exists in n+1 dimensions.  Mathematically, we can prove the existence of 12 orthogonal dimensions.  This would mean that God exists in 13 dimensions.  How does one create tests to prove or disprove the existence of a 13 dimension being?  Now lets say that that 13 dimensional being is intelligent is ways that we cannot begin to grasp and, that for purposes of its own, it does not wish to be "observed," how would we be able to "observe" it?

He doesn't want us to observe him, but he expects us to believe in him anyway? If that's the way it is, then God is an asshole, especially if he throws people into Hell simply for not believing in them. As for how we would possibly observe it, I don't know. You tell me. You're the one who claimed to have the evidence. I would like to see evidence for this 13 dimensional stuff too. Sounds like science fiction to me.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 29, 2018, 01:08:55 PM
1. Cause/effect is pre-scientific ... like phlogiston

2. The Tao of Physics proves that physics can be used to prove Buddhist etc

3. And yes, G-d is a jerk
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: trdsf on January 29, 2018, 02:13:13 PM
Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 29, 2018, 10:49:28 AM
I'm not assuming a cause.  The data indicates that a cause was observed that was neither love nor cocaine.  The data does not conclusively rule out the hand of God.  I posted something a bit earlier discussing the extra dimensional qualities of God.  A professor out of the biology department at CU-Boulder hypothesized that God exists in n+1 dimensions.  Mathematically, we can prove the existence of 12 orthogonal dimensions.  This would mean that God exists in 13 dimensions.  How does one create tests to prove or disprove the existence of a 13 dimension being?  Now lets say that that 13 dimensional being is intelligent is ways that we cannot begin to grasp and, that for purposes of its own, it does not wish to be "observed," how would we be able to "observe" it?

You can't just say "the data does not conclusively rule out the hand of god".  It also doesn't rule out unicorns, aliens or astrology, or that my great aunt sneaked into the lab and screwed with the data when no one was looking.  Where are your assertions that it was any of those?

'Not ruled out' is in no way, shape or form anywhere near 'could have been'.  As soon as you make up a causal chain that has not been observed, you very much are assuming a cause.

All the data indicated was that people in a certain frame of mind experienced brain chemistry changes similar to love and cocaine.  That proves nothing about any god, because we already know that those changes can be induced strictly internally to the brain being measuredâ€"unless you want to further assert that 'love' occupies some independent existence outside of consciousness.  And frankly, I'm willing to bet that I can achieve that same state of mind without thinking one religious thought.  If you know someone who can make an MRI happen, I will cheerily submit to it.

You're repeating the same two logical faults: you're still trying to run the experiment backwards, and you cannot assert any cause involving a divine power, however many caveats you want to put on it, without first demonstrating that divine power exists.

Furthermore, if it doesn't "wish to be observed", two even more important things.  One, this is called 'special pleading', making up a "reason" we can't observe these things in controlled settings.  Second, if it's not observable, then we may proceed as if it does not exist, because if it's not observable, then it can have no effect on this universe.  As soon as there's an effect, it's measurable.

I also question a mathematical "proof" coming from a professor of biology rather than a professor of mathematics.  Lastly, the number of dimensions the universe occupies has nowhere near been proven, and the number of dimensions plus 1 does not demonstrate the existence of a god.  It only demonstrates the ability to add one.  This is back to special pleading again -- "it's where we can't look for it" is what you're saying.  Then it may as well not exist, and I therefore have reason to say it doesn't, and you therefore have no reason to say it does.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on January 29, 2018, 02:34:43 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 27, 2018, 01:51:19 PM
Well, it depends on the exact "nature" of the supposed God and its characteristics (or properties). If it has contradictory characteristics then it cannot logically exist, and so it does not exist. If you posit a God that has entirely self-consistent characteristics then it could at least logically exist. But the Christian (theistic) God isn't this type of God, since its supposed characteristics are, indeed, contradictory.

Incompatible-Properties Arguments: A Survey (https://infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/incompatible.html)

So, what properties do you consider God to have? Does it have any properties at all, or is it just some vague "something out there"?

Actually, I fall into the label of "non-cognitivist," since the word God can mean just about anything at all, and so it really means nothing at all.


I guess I'll get no response to this from cabinetmaker. He must've given up on trying to convert me. Good, that'll save him both time and energy.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: cabinetmaker on January 29, 2018, 03:53:39 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 29, 2018, 11:02:29 AM
He doesn't want us to observe him, but he expects us to believe in him anyway? If that's the way it is, then God is an asshole, especially if he throws people into Hell simply for not believing in them. As for how we would possibly observe it, I don't know. You tell me. You're the one who claimed to have the evidence. I would like to see evidence for this 13 dimensional stuff too. Sounds like science fiction to me.
The proof of God is not in the physical world.  I think the reason for that is confoundingly simple.  "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithâ€"and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of Godâ€" 9 not by works, so that no one can boast."  Knowledge will not save a person, faith does.  You can't really have faith in that which can proven and tested.  Understanding God requires the ability to acknowledge that there is more to the universe than we can perceive with our senses.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: cabinetmaker on January 29, 2018, 03:55:15 PM
Quote from: Baruch on January 29, 2018, 01:08:55 PM
1. Cause/effect is pre-scientific ... like phlogiston
They ran three trials with three separate stimuli and all three produced significantly similar results.  Why?

Quote2. The Tao of Physics proves that physics can be used to prove Buddhist etc
That's nice.

Quote3. And yes, G-d is a jerk
I cannot agree with this statement.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 29, 2018, 03:57:44 PM
Quoting Apostle Paul now?

Ah ... a response ...

Cause/effect is a matter of interpretation, not fact.   See David Hume.  When we see something has happened, followed by something else, we make an assumption that the first causes the second.  It is like the Black Swan problem ... they didn't exist, until someone sighted one.

The more modern view is "description" which is neutral statement of the facts, not "cause/effect" which is tendentious bias.

On religious and political idealism ... nice for you.  My experience of life is not favorable to idealisms.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on January 29, 2018, 04:05:25 PM
Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 29, 2018, 03:55:15 PM



Quote

3. And yes, G-d is a jerk
I cannot agree with this statement.


This proves that the God of the Bible is even worse than a jerk:
What the Bible's God is really like (http://nullgod.com/index.php?topic=164.0)



Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: cabinetmaker on January 29, 2018, 04:14:13 PM
Quote from: trdsf on January 29, 2018, 02:13:13 PM
You can't just say "the data does not conclusively rule out the hand of god".  It also doesn't rule out unicorns, aliens or astrology, or that my great aunt sneaked into the lab and screwed with the data when no one was looking.  Where are your assertions that it was any of those?
They did not run the test with unicorns or aliens or astrology.  They did run for people experiancing a religious experience.  And got a repeatable result.

Quote'Not ruled out' is in no way, shape or form anywhere near 'could have been'.  As soon as you make up a causal chain that has not been observed, you very much are assuming a cause.
If you cannot rule something out after a test then more and different testing is required.

QuoteAll the data indicated was that people in a certain frame of mind experienced brain chemistry changes similar to love and cocaine.  That proves nothing about any god, because we already know that those changes can be induced strictly internally to the brain being measuredâ€"unless you want to further assert that 'love' occupies some independent existence outside of consciousness.  And frankly, I'm willing to bet that I can achieve that same state of mind without thinking one religious thought.  If you know someone who can make an MRI happen, I will cheerily submit to it.
Yes, you probably can.  But that still doesn't mean that people who are experiencing God in this test are not truly experiencing God. 

QuoteYou're repeating the same two logical faults: you're still trying to run the experiment backwards, and you cannot assert any cause involving a divine power, however many caveats you want to put on it, without first demonstrating that divine power exists.
False.  Sometimes you run and experiment and get a result that you did not anticipate.  It gives you hint that there is something else going on that requires further research.  You have long ago reached a conclusion that God does not exist.  Therefore, all your arguments are predicated on that mind set.  I look at this data and see a result that was not anticipated and ask what explains that result.  OF the two of us, I am the one actually open to following the evidence.

QuoteFurthermore, if it doesn't "wish to be observed", two even more important things.  One, this is called 'special pleading', making up a "reason" we can't observe these things in controlled settings.  Second, if it's not observable, then we may proceed as if it does not exist, because if it's not observable, then it can have no effect on this universe.  As soon as there's an effect, it's measurable.
Yes, at some point any discussion regarding God is going to come down to a statement of faith.  Your faith is that God does not exist.  I contend that it is a statement of faith given that we DO NOT know all that there is to know.  Our understanding of the universe around us is constantly evolving.

QuoteI also question a mathematical "proof" coming from a professor of biology rather than a professor of mathematics.  Lastly, the number of dimensions the universe occupies has nowhere near been proven, and the number of dimensions plus 1 does not demonstrate the existence of a god.  It only demonstrates the ability to add one.  This is back to special pleading again -- "it's where we can't look for it" is what you're saying.  Then it may as well not exist, and I therefore have reason to say it doesn't, and you therefore have no reason to say it does.
Funny thing about university professors, a lot of their friends are university professors.  Even from other departments.  He did not offer the proof as his own but included the information in his presentation.  You will also note that I stated that it is a mathematical proof.  This makes sense as proofs only exist in math.  Now, since math is frequently used to model the physical, it can be applied to the universe.  It has been some time, but I recall a program on The Science Channel that was discussing extra dimensional and how it related to the universe.  The orthogonality of the dimensions makes ones head hurt when trying to understand how you can four dimensions and they are all are right angles to each other.  12 at all right angles?  Very difficult to understand.  The fact that we can't easily understand these concepts does not mean they are not true.  As it relates to God, you failed to answer my question.  IF (This requires you to use your imagination now) there exists a being that exists in 13 dimensions, what properties would that being have and how would we test for it?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: cabinetmaker on January 29, 2018, 04:16:49 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 29, 2018, 04:05:25 PM
I cannot agree with this statement.



This proves that the God of the Bible is even worse than a jerk:
What the Bible's God is really like (http://nullgod.com/index.php?topic=164.0)
I cannot agree with this either.  It is based on a presupposition that is false.  Any idea what that might be?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 29, 2018, 04:17:11 PM
"They did not run the test with unicorns or aliens or astrology.  They did run for people experiancing a religious experience.  And got a repeatable result."

It is called confirmation bias.  Perhaps unintentional.  I you poll cats, 9/10 cats agree that dogs are horrible.  See, that is what you get when you cherry pick the sample.

My experience is my own, it is not based on hearsay, opinion, authority etc.  I experience G-d all the time, because my eyes are open to a more correct definition, something only a few share.  Most people are not mystics (which is a matter of adjusted perspective, not magic tricks).
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on January 29, 2018, 04:23:00 PM
Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 29, 2018, 04:16:49 PM
I cannot agree with this either.  It is based on a presupposition that is false.  Any idea what that might be?
You didn't even look at the page I posted, did you?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: trdsf on January 29, 2018, 04:54:51 PM
Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 29, 2018, 04:14:13 PM
They did not run the test with unicorns or aliens or astrology.  They did run for people experiancing a religious experience.  And got a repeatable result.
They also didn't run the test on any divine power.  They ran it on people who believed in a divine power.  That's two completely different things.

Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 29, 2018, 04:14:13 PM
If you cannot rule something out after a test then more and different testing is required.
Wrong.  You need something to test first.  Otherwise you spend the rest of your life trying to rule out unicorns and leprechauns.

Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 29, 2018, 04:14:13 PM
Yes, you probably can.  But that still doesn't mean that people who are experiencing God in this test are not truly experiencing God.
Nor does it mean they are.  And if I can reproduce the same effect in a non-religious way, that actually goes a long way towards explaining it as a strictly physical phenomenon.

Unless, of course, you want to identify me as a god.

I'd be flattered, of course, but I'd have to decline.

Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 29, 2018, 04:14:13 PM
False.  Sometimes you run and experiment and get a result that you did not anticipate.  It gives you hint that there is something else going on that requires further research.  You have long ago reached a conclusion that God does not exist.  Therefore, all your arguments are predicated on that mind set.  I look at this data and see a result that was not anticipated and ask what explains that result.  OF the two of us, I am the one actually open to following the evidence.
I love how all of a sudden because I'm the one who actually follows the evidence, I'm not the one following the evidence.

You have results that have perfectly understandable physical explanations.  You are the one trying to force an unwarranted interpretation on them.  If you really believed what you just typed here, you would say, "Huh, this is a peculiar result, let's do some further research with believers in other religions, and with non-believers, and see if this genuinely is something inexplicable, or is a common feature of human mentality."  No, instead you want to leap straight to "LOOK LOOK IT COULD BE GOD!" and despite having it patiently explained to you why you can't do that, you keep doing it anyway.

This is the stage where you have become a hypocrite.

No evidence says there is a god.  Therefore I have no reason to think there is one.  Show me the evidence, and I'll be happy to say, "Well, fuck me sideways, I was wrong."

You are in no way, shape or form following evidence.  You are in pursuit of your pre-existing opinion, and are not afraid to twist any interpretation, misuse any method to get there.  I have twisted nothing.

Frankly sir (or madam, I don't know which), you owe me an apology for that smear.

Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 29, 2018, 04:14:13 PM
Yes, at some point any discussion regarding God is going to come down to a statement of faith.  Your faith is that God does not exist.  I contend that it is a statement of faith given that we DO NOT know all that there is to know.  Our understanding of the universe around us is constantly evolving.
Wrong.  I don't "have faith that no gods exist" (correcting you thereâ€"I promise you, I'm just as atheistic towards Krishna, Thor and Ahura Mazda as I am towards Jehovah).  I have no evidence to accept the proposition that any exist in the first place.  A distinct but important difference.

You also ignore the fact that our understanding of the universe continually explains that which used to be explained by divine intervention.  At no point in our evolving understanding of the universe has the data ever said, "here is where a miracle happened".

Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 29, 2018, 04:14:13 PM
Funny thing about university professors, a lot of their friends are university professors.  Even from other departments.  He did not offer the proof as his own but included the information in his presentation.  You will also note that I stated that it is a mathematical proof.  This makes sense as proofs only exist in math.  Now, since math is frequently used to model the physical, it can be applied to the universe.  It has been some time, but I recall a program on The Science Channel that was discussing extra dimensional and how it related to the universe.  The orthogonality of the dimensions makes ones head hurt when trying to understand how you can four dimensions and they are all are right angles to each other.  12 at all right angles?  Very difficult to understand.  The fact that we can't easily understand these concepts does not mean they are not true.  As it relates to God, you failed to answer my question.  IF (This requires you to use your imagination now) there exists a being that exists in 13 dimensions, what properties would that being have and how would we test for it?
Another couple errors here.  For one thing, even I can do math in 12 dimensions.  I don't have to be able to envision it to do it.  It's a pain in the ass because you have 12 axes of rotation, but it's a perfectly reasonable thing.

And, predictably, you're begging the question again.  What evidence do we have that there is a god of any sort in the N+1th dimension?  You keep jumping to "there's (maybe) a god in there!" without first demonstrating a good reason one even exists in the first place.

I don't know and I don't care what properties a 13-dimensional god has.  Without some evidentiary reason to suppose one exists in the first place, there's no reason to even speculate on where it might be hiding.  If you really want me to speculate on where a god might be hiding, you're going to first need to demonstrate one exists.  I refuse to chase black cats in a coal cellar that contains no black cats.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on January 29, 2018, 05:10:13 PM
Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 29, 2018, 03:53:39 PM
The proof of God is not in the physical world.  I think the reason for that is confoundingly simple.  "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithâ€"and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of Godâ€" 9 not by works, so that no one can boast."  Knowledge will not save a person, faith does.  You can't really have faith in that which can proven and tested.  Understanding God requires the ability to acknowledge that there is more to the universe than we can perceive with our senses.
What a wonderful catch-22.  Can't have faith in that which can be proven--and faith is delivered by the grace of god.  In order to be saved one needs to simply be blindly obedient to somebody who has been given faith through grace.  Why doesn't this wonderful god just give grace to everybody? 
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Blackleaf on January 29, 2018, 06:12:07 PM
Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 29, 2018, 03:53:39 PM
The proof of God is not in the physical world.  I think the reason for that is confoundingly simple.  "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithâ€"and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of Godâ€" 9 not by works, so that no one can boast."  Knowledge will not save a person, faith does.  You can't really have faith in that which can proven and tested.  Understanding God requires the ability to acknowledge that there is more to the universe than we can perceive with our senses.

Yes. I am well aware of this doctrine. Funny how knowledge has been the enemy of God since the first few chapters of Genesis, when Adam and Eve doomed the whole world by obtaining knowledge from a magic fruit.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Blackleaf on January 29, 2018, 06:15:04 PM
Also, what about all of those times God did show himself? Moses, all of the prophets, everyone who witnessed the miracles of Jesus, Saul/Paul, and others all saw proof of God. Yet in the modern age, where cameras are readily available to capture such evidence, God has gone into hiding.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on January 29, 2018, 06:18:41 PM
Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 27, 2018, 11:15:03 AM
You are assuming the conclusion to define the debate.  No debate is possible when you open with a fallacy.
How is that "assuming a conclusion"? What I meant was you need to be able to distinguish between this god-thing of yours and a fiction like Gandalf.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on January 29, 2018, 06:20:17 PM
Quote from: Lassic on January 29, 2018, 06:18:06 PM
Hey, Blackleaf, fuck you!
Hi, Zen! You still not reading this forum? Glad to hear it!

Here's a text that I posted earlier, in answer to your previous sock:
1. We know Blackleaf. We know he's not usually like how he presented himself in that thread. Everyone can be immature at times, and even I'm not exception. You, however, seemed to only show an immature side, even after being dumped in the troll bin.

2. You are not in a race to acquire a high post-count. You had plenty of time to compose yourself and think about how you might come across, create thoughtful, composed content, and research your subject matter, especially on "race realism" because we will fact-check you. It's always useful to have your ducks in a row when you make a contentious claim. Something to carry forward to the next board you join.

3. You had a chance to redeem yourself after you were put in Purgatory. You spoiled that chance by acting like an immature brat instead of taking your punishment like a grown man and working to prove your worth in that small channel we provide specifically for that opportunity. For a member of a 'superior race,' you have done very little to live up to that.

4. We've granted amnesty for banned members before. We've always been disappointed. So, yeah, no second chances here, I'm afraid. (Actually, that might have been on stardestroyer.net â€" it was a while ago.)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on January 29, 2018, 06:51:48 PM
Hey wanker, I thought you were leaving and not coming back. I also see in another thread where you say you're not a sock puppet. Obviously you can't stop lying, it's in your blood.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on January 29, 2018, 07:02:20 PM
^What's this about not being a sock? (http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=12342.msg1206127#msg1206127)

Quote from: Lassic on January 29, 2018, 06:44:07 PM
I tried to be mature at first, but then Bitchleaf came to the thread to stir up drama.
Oh, believe me, the drama was already happening.

Quote from: Lassic on January 29, 2018, 06:44:07 PM
Well, okay, my points where a bit flawed, but banning me over that though?
You were banned over sock-puppet accounts, not that. And "a bit"?

Quote from: Lassic on January 29, 2018, 06:44:07 PM
Well, it was like a 0.1% chance that they would let me out of purgatory, I mean, if they wouldn't let other members out of there, what makes you think they'll let a white supremacist out?
You didn't even try. Granted, those others didn't try either, but what result were you expecting if you don't even try to be a good member of the forum. And by good member, I don't mean "not being white supremicist." You went out of your way to antagonize other people on the forum (including me), without first acquiring any goodwill to burn before doing that.

Quote from: Lassic on January 29, 2018, 06:44:07 PM
Well, I would of lived up to the claim if y'all did give me another chance, since not everyone is like that, but it's too late anyways.
Eh, you've kinda shown yourself to be exactly the kind of person who would not live up to the claim.

Quote from: Lassic on January 29, 2018, 06:44:07 PM
P.S. â€" I know you were the jackass who falsely flagged my review about this website.
What, just like you "knew" my grandfather was a kike? Nap, sorry, but wrong again. I didn't even visit the page on YouTube your review as on, let alone flag it, because in the end you are simply an immature little brat who has delusions of adequacy.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on January 29, 2018, 09:51:30 PM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on January 29, 2018, 07:02:20 PMI didn't even visit the page on YouTube your review as on, let alone flag it
Spoilers: it was me. :3
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: cabinetmaker on January 30, 2018, 03:24:44 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 29, 2018, 04:23:00 PM
You didn't even look at the page I posted, did you?
Yes, I did.  I stand by what I said.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on January 30, 2018, 04:38:38 PM
A creator God cannot exist, and therefore a creator God does not exist:

Why God is Impossible: A 60 Second Proof (http://godgone.com/)



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQm-vMMDe-E
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 30, 2018, 05:45:51 PM
Given the usual definition of existence, a creator god can't exist, because that god would have to create themselves, before they exist.  So it really is that simple, as to why conventional belief is impossible.  But that is only given the usual definition of existence, and creation ... and given temporal logic.  This is  why eternity has to be invoked, and transcendence (rather than imminence).  All human material creation for example, is temporal, effect following cause.  And is always just a rearrangement of what is already there.  But what of immaterial things?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: cabinetmaker on January 31, 2018, 10:06:58 AM
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 30, 2018, 04:38:38 PM
A creator God cannot exist, and therefore a creator God does not exist:

Why God is Impossible: A 60 Second Proof (http://godgone.com/)



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQm-vMMDe-E
It's always in the way the argument is defined.  I do not accept at least one of the defining arguments, that nothing implies that there was no God.  God is the uncaused first cause.  He has always existed and is, therefore, able to create.

If you ignore God, then the big bang as a similar problem.  It too MUST have an uncaused first cause.  Where did that infinitesimally small "particle" from which the entirety of creation exploded originate?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: cabinetmaker on January 31, 2018, 10:12:38 AM
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 29, 2018, 05:10:13 PM
What a wonderful catch-22.  Can't have faith in that which can be proven--and faith is delivered by the grace of god.  In order to be saved one needs to simply be blindly obedient to somebody who has been given faith through grace.  Why doesn't this wonderful god just give grace to everybody?
Because you have to be receptive.  If you do not want God to be part of your life, why would He force you to accept Him?  No, God will respect your wishes.  But like ALL choices in life there are consequences.  Sometimes good, sometimes bad, but there are always consequences.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: cabinetmaker on January 31, 2018, 10:31:05 AM
Quote from: trdsf on January 29, 2018, 04:54:51 PM
They also didn't run the test on any divine power.  They ran it on people who believed in a divine power.  That's two completely different things.
That does not rule out the possibility of divine power.  Think about that for a bit.


QuoteWrong.  You need something to test first.  Otherwise you spend the rest of your life trying to rule out unicorns and leprechauns.
Nor does it mean they are.  And if I can reproduce the same effect in a non-religious way, that actually goes a long way towards explaining it as a strictly physical phenomenon.
When you have a hypothesis that you start to test, every now and then your get an unexpected result that needs further research.  In this case, they did have something to test for first - religious experience.

QuoteUnless, of course, you want to identify me as a god.

I'd be flattered, of course, but I'd have to decline.
I don't think you have the necessary qualification to be identified as a god let alone God.

QuoteI love how all of a sudden because I'm the one who actually follows the evidence, I'm not the one following the evidence.

You have results that have perfectly understandable physical explanations.  You are the one trying to force an unwarranted interpretation on them.  If you really believed what you just typed here, you would say, "Huh, this is a peculiar result, let's do some further research with believers in other religions, and with non-believers, and see if this genuinely is something inexplicable, or is a common feature of human mentality."  No, instead you want to leap straight to "LOOK LOOK IT COULD BE GOD!" and despite having it patiently explained to you why you can't do that, you keep doing it anyway.

This is the stage where you have become a hypocrite.
Not at all.  I have been very consistent in what I believe and why.  And I have stated, a couple of times, that a result was achieved that needs additional research.

QuoteNo evidence says there is a god.  Therefore I have no reason to think there is one.  Show me the evidence, and I'll be happy to say, "Well, fuck me sideways, I was wrong."
In my opinion, we will never conclusive physical evidence for God.  Proof of God exists in a different realm, a realm that conveniently works in favor of the non-believer.

QuoteYou are in no way, shape or form following evidence.  You are in pursuit of your pre-existing opinion, and are not afraid to twist any interpretation, misuse any method to get there.  I have twisted nothing.
Nor have I.  I have referenced a study that has three separate results for separate stimuli.  I have said that this is an interesting result that bears further research.  That is where the evidence leads me - more research.  Yes, I have a pre existing opinion.  So did the researchers which, ironically, is why they do the research; to validate an opinion (sometimes called hypothesis).

QuoteFrankly sir (or madam, I don't know which), you owe me an apology for that smear.
Sorry, not sorry.

QuoteWrong.  I don't "have faith that no gods exist" (correcting you thereâ€"I promise you, I'm just as atheistic towards Krishna, Thor and Ahura Mazda as I am towards Jehovah).  I have no evidence to accept the proposition that any exist in the first place.  A distinct but important difference.

You also ignore the fact that our understanding of the universe continually explains that which used to be explained by divine intervention.  At no point in our evolving understanding of the universe has the data ever said, "here is where a miracle happened".
There is one very large miricle that took place a very very long time ago: where did the mass the created the big bang come from?

QuoteAnother couple errors here.  For one thing, even I can do math in 12 dimensions.  I don't have to be able to envision it to do it.  It's a pain in the ass because you have 12 axes of rotation, but it's a perfectly reasonable thing.

And, predictably, you're begging the question again.  What evidence do we have that there is a god of any sort in the N+1th dimension?  You keep jumping to "there's (maybe) a god in there!" without first demonstrating a good reason one even exists in the first place.
I never stated that there is any God in the n+1 dimension, I said that God would exist in n+1 dimensions.  A distinct but import difference.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: cabinetmaker on January 31, 2018, 10:32:15 AM
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 29, 2018, 06:12:07 PM
Yes. I am well aware of this doctrine. Funny how knowledge has been the enemy of God since the first few chapters of Genesis, when Adam and Eve doomed the whole world by obtaining knowledge from a magic fruit.
Knowledge wasn't God's enemy but it did turn out to be the downfall of mankind.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: cabinetmaker on January 31, 2018, 10:34:05 AM
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 29, 2018, 06:15:04 PM
Also, what about all of those times God did show himself? Moses, all of the prophets, everyone who witnessed the miracles of Jesus, Saul/Paul, and others all saw proof of God. Yet in the modern age, where cameras are readily available to capture such evidence, God has gone into hiding.
We are not saved by absolute knowledge of God, be seeing God.  He wants you to come to Him of your own free will.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on January 31, 2018, 10:39:45 AM
Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 31, 2018, 10:12:38 AM
Because you have to be receptive.  If you do not want God to be part of your life, why would He force you to accept Him?  No, God will respect your wishes.  But like ALL choices in life there are consequences.  Sometimes good, sometimes bad, but there are always consequences.
That's the key--"Because you have to be receptive."  Facts and evidence matter not, it only matters if you want to believe.  And if you do, then god exists.  And that works with any and all gods.  It is interesting that you take the stance that I have a choice to accept or deny god; like there is not a question there is a god (not only a god but your god)  and so it is on me and I will suffer (or enjoy) my choice.  I have not ever seen any kind of evidence to suggest there is any god(s) anywhere.  So, I reject your notion that god exists whether or not I like it.  God does not exist.  There is evidence to suggest god was created by mankind not that god created mankind.  There is no evidence of any god. 

Why should I not send away for my "Free Miracle Spring Water"?  I would then be the 'next in line for God's miracle' and most likely get a check in the mail soon, if I accept and believe.  Why not?  Would it cost me anything?  No, just a phone call away!  If I am receptive then I can look forward to the pleasure of being involved in all sorts of scams all brought to me by those who know the 'word of god' and are bringing me to god.  Glory, glory, glory....................................
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 31, 2018, 11:29:55 AM
It isn't about epistemology, but about relationship.  But "come to G-d" means establishing a positive relationship between two people, that is the Holy Spirit.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on January 31, 2018, 12:30:31 PM
Quote from: Baruch on January 31, 2018, 11:29:55 AM
It isn't about epistemology, but about relationship. 
And that is like having, or trying to have, a relationship with Bugs Bunny.  A fiction can be read and appreciated, but one would have a very hard time establishing a relationship with a fiction.  Not a real one, anyway.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: trdsf on January 31, 2018, 12:53:06 PM
Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 31, 2018, 10:31:05 AM
That does not rule out the possibility of divine power.  Think about that for a bit.
Wrong end of the telescope again.  You can't say "it doesn't rule it out".  You need to rule it in.  I repeat: it also doesn't rule out aliens, unicorns, Santa or Russian hackers compromising the results.

What did I say?  I said the test was done on people who have religious beliefs.  That's completely different from doing a test on a putative god.  Think about that for a bit.  You're conflating 'belief' with 'existence', and you don't get to do that.

I would lay you any odds that you get the same result from Christians, Hindus, Neopagans, etc.  You do get the 'religious' response from Apple users (https://www.engadget.com/2011/05/17/bbc-loving-apple-looks-like-a-religion-to-an-mri-scan/), after all.  Religious belief also shrinks the hippocampus (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/religious-experiences-shrink-part-of-brain/).

As it turns out, sufferers of PTSD also tend to have a reduced hippocampus.  By using the methodology you yourself have put into play here, I can say that religious belief is the same as traumatic stress.  It's not ruled out, after all -- they both have the same result.

Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 31, 2018, 10:31:05 AM
When you have a hypothesis that you start to test, every now and then your get an unexpected result that needs further research.  In this case, they did have something to test for first - religious experience.
Wrong.  They tested those who had religious belief, not religious experiences directly.  I very much doubt anyone in that test happened to have their conversion experience while sitting there.  You're still conflating things that cannot be conflated.

As it happens, I do believe there is not only extraterrestrial life in this galaxy, but there are other sentient species in this galaxy.  I freely admit that it's a belief and not a fact, I accept the hypothesis on the basis of statistics and the Principle of Mediocrity (to wit: we should not assume there is anything unique about our existence, including the fact of our existence, as we are statistically much more likely to be typical of our environment than exceptional), and the observation on our own planet that life manages to evolve solutions to the knottiest environmental problems.

As it also happens, I am a participant at Planet Hunters (https://www.planethunters.org/), and am a co-discoverer of a planet that appears to be in its star's habitable zone.

Using your own standards, I could claim that I've found evidence that there could be life, maybe even intelligent life there.

Obviously, that's claiming too much, and I really hope you see that, because otherwise this is a waste of time.

There isn't the slightest shred of evidence for that; all I have found is a place consistent with being a potential habitatâ€"and equally consistent with being completely uninhabitable.  We have, after all, two observations of planets that are (just) within their star's habitable zone, and are both so far as we know not even host to the simplest bacterium: Venus and Mars.

When you claim this study doesn't rule out a god, it doesn't rule a god in either.  In fact, it says nothing about divine presences.  It speaks only to the brain activity of those who believe in one, and which brain activity was have observational evidence has perfectly rational causes, and for which we need make no appeal to the supernatural.

Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 31, 2018, 10:31:05 AM
I don't think you have the necessary qualification to be identified as a god let alone God.
I'd do a damn sight better job of it, although you might have to kiss free will goodbye.  Also, I'd provide some reliable evidence for my existence.

Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 31, 2018, 10:31:05 AM
Not at all.  I have been very consistent in what I believe and why.  And I have stated, a couple of times, that a result was achieved that needs additional research.
We have three causes, and three results, and you keep trying to run backwards from 'religious believers have similar experiences to love and drugs' to 'because there's an effect on the brainwaves of religious believers, what they believe might be true'.  The only consistency is in insisting upon this fallacy.

Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 31, 2018, 10:31:05 AM
In my opinion, we will never conclusive physical evidence for God.  Proof of God exists in a different realm, a realm that conveniently works in favor of the non-believer.
I happen to agree there will never be conclusive physical evidence.  We at have that as common groundâ€"although of course we have different reasons to not expect to find physical evidence.

Of course, if there is no conclusive physical evidence, then there is no reason to take the god hypothesis even provisionally.  To quote Christopher Hitchens, "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."  I have no responsibility to even bother refuting that claim; if you want to assert a divine power, finding the evidence is your job, not mine.

Religion, in my view, is just a Stone Age attempt to explain the universe without science and observation.  The 'god did it' hypothesis of reality is now every bit as irrelevant as the theories of caloric, phlogiston, and luminiferous æther.  Or do you think CERN has a responsibility to check and make sure there's still no æther before applying General Relativity?

Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 31, 2018, 10:31:05 AM
Nor have I.  I have referenced a study that has three separate results for separate stimuli.  I have said that this is an interesting result that bears further research.  That is where the evidence leads me - more research.  Yes, I have a pre existing opinion.  So did the researchers which, ironically, is why they do the research; to validate an opinion (sometimes called hypothesis).
Wrong.  What you're doing is conflating 'religious belief' with 'existence of a divine power'.  It's what you've done repeatedly, and it's not a link you can justifiably make.

I suppose I'll have to say it again in the hopes that somehow it penetrates this time: there's no justification to say "it doesn't rule out a god" because it wasn't testing for that in the first place.  It was testing the brain activity of people who believe.  That simply and flatly is a) not the same thing and b) only evidence that people believe, not that what they believe has any validity.

Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 31, 2018, 10:31:05 AM
Sorry, not sorry.
Well, then, fine.  I didn't figure you would, but you were given the opportunity to correct yourself.  My conscience is clear; however, my respect for you as a debater is nearly nil.

Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 31, 2018, 10:31:05 AM
There is one very large miricle that took place a very very long time ago: where did the mass the created the big bang come from?
That's a matter of current research.  Just because there is no generally agreed upon answer doesn't mean that any answer is equally valid, nor that it was a miracle -- I am not ceding that point in any way, shape or form.

"I don't understand how this happened" is not a justification to call it a miracle.  I don't understand how the liver works.  That doesn't mean its function is miraculous.  I couldn't describe how an automatic transmission works on a bet.  That doesn't mean magic gets power from the engine to the wheels.

Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 31, 2018, 10:31:05 AM
I never stated that there is any God in the n+1 dimension, I said that God would exist in n+1 dimensions.  A distinct but import difference.
Okay, do you even read what you type?  You didn't even make it to the period of that first sentence before contradicting yourself.

Also, your own words:
Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 27, 2018, 11:05:15 AM
Mathematically we can prove that there are at least 12 dimensions meaning God exists in 13 dimensions.
Seems a pretty straightforward statement that requires no "distinctions" to me.

At least be an honest disputant.

Let me ask you this: you have already ceded the point that there's no physical evidence for any god, and that you don't expect any to turn up.

Then what, exactly, do you have to offer when you come before a forum of rationalists when you admit you completely lack the one thing that is going to be required the most?

My explanation is that you just want to buff up your own ego, you want to be able to say to yourself (and also tell your concept of god), "Well, I faced down those nasty godless heathens and still have my faith, didn't I do good, Daddy?"  It's consistent with the evidence at hand, at least.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on January 31, 2018, 01:26:28 PM
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ImDrCaN75i8/hqdefault.jpg)


The Dragon In My Garage
by Carl Sagan
(http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: cabinetmaker on January 31, 2018, 01:45:54 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 31, 2018, 10:39:45 AM
That's the key--"Because you have to be receptive."  Facts and evidence matter not, it only matters if you want to believe.  And if you do, then god exists.  And that works with any and all gods.  It is interesting that you take the stance that I have a choice to accept or deny god; like there is not a question there is a god (not only a god but your god)  and so it is on me and I will suffer (or enjoy) my choice.  I have not ever seen any kind of evidence to suggest there is any god(s) anywhere.  So, I reject your notion that god exists whether or not I like it.  God does not exist.  There is evidence to suggest god was created by mankind not that god created mankind.  There is no evidence of any god. 

Why should I not send away for my "Free Miracle Spring Water"?  I would then be the 'next in line for God's miracle' and most likely get a check in the mail soon, if I accept and believe.  Why not?  Would it cost me anything?  No, just a phone call away!  If I am receptive then I can look forward to the pleasure of being involved in all sorts of scams all brought to me by those who know the 'word of god' and are bringing me to god.  Glory, glory, glory....................................
You made a choice.  You have your reasons for making your choice.  I made my choice.  I have my reasons for making my choice.  I do not think that we have enough information at this time to conclusively that God does not exist.  Said a bit differently absence of evidence is not proof that something doesn't exist.

Sidebar: What is interesting about our relative choices is that if you are right, I will never know it.  If I am right, you will absolutely know it.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 31, 2018, 01:50:23 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 31, 2018, 12:30:31 PM
And that is like having, or trying to have, a relationship with Bugs Bunny.  A fiction can be read and appreciated, but one would have a very hard time establishing a relationship with a fiction.  Not a real one, anyway.

Wrong metaphysical direction.  Between thee and me.  G-d is only implicitly involved.  When our relationship is positive, that is the Holy Spirit, even if you don't believe in anything at all.  You and I are not fictions.  Don't be so desperate to repeat old talking points that don't apply.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 31, 2018, 01:54:01 PM
Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 31, 2018, 01:45:54 PM
You made a choice.  You have your reasons for making your choice.  I made my choice.  I have my reasons for making my choice.  I do not think that we have enough information at this time to conclusively that God does not exist.  Said a bit differently absence of evidence is not proof that something doesn't exist.

Sidebar: What is interesting about our relative choices is that if you are right, I will never know it.  If I am right, you will absolutely know it.

It isn't about comparing spiritual dick length.  All humans are wrong.  Only G-d is right.  None of us is G-d ... though all of us are demigods (aka imago dei).

Christianity has no monopoly on Holy Spirit, they are just a very large sect.  I don't think the Holy Spirit is even limited to religious people, let alone Abrahamics.  Everyone had the potential, each in their own way.  One way generically isn't better than another (provided it is positive relationship).
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on January 31, 2018, 02:25:41 PM
(http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-time-spent-arguing-with-the-faithful-is-oddly-enough-almost-never-wasted-christopher-hitchens-237649.jpg)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: cabinetmaker on January 31, 2018, 02:40:48 PM
Quote from: trdsf on January 31, 2018, 12:53:06 PM
Wrong end of the telescope again.  You can't say "it doesn't rule it out".  You need to rule it in.  I repeat: it also doesn't rule out aliens, unicorns, Santa or Russian hackers compromising the results.

What did I say?  I said the test was done on people who have religious beliefs.  That's completely different from doing a test on a putative god.  Think about that for a bit.  You're conflating 'belief' with 'existence', and you don't get to do that.

I would lay you any odds that you get the same result from Christians, Hindus, Neopagans, etc.  You do get the 'religious' response from Apple users (https://www.engadget.com/2011/05/17/bbc-loving-apple-looks-like-a-religion-to-an-mri-scan/), after all.  Religious belief also shrinks the hippocampus (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/religious-experiences-shrink-part-of-brain/).

As it turns out, sufferers of PTSD also tend to have a reduced hippocampus.  By using the methodology you yourself have put into play here, I can say that religious belief is the same as traumatic stress.  It's not ruled out, after all -- they both have the same result.
The study does rule in that believers have a measurable response when experiencing a religious event.  It is a measurable response.  The responds to a chemical stimuli which isn't all that surprising given that we know chemicals effect all organs in the body.  People who are thinking about a loved one have a measurable response even when the object of that love is not present with them in the MRI.  Finally, people having a religious experience have the same response as a person thinking about a loved one.  So what triggers the response in the brain?  Thinking about a loved one triggers a response.  A person praying has the same response.  What is it about the human brain that causes it to react when in love or in prayer?  I am not so willing as you to write it off without further research. 


QuoteWrong.  They tested those who had religious belief, not religious experiences directly.  I very much doubt anyone in that test happened to have their conversion experience while sitting there.  You're still conflating things that cannot be conflated.

As it happens, I do believe there is not only extraterrestrial life in this galaxy, but there are other sentient species in this galaxy.  I freely admit that it's a belief and not a fact, I accept the hypothesis on the basis of statistics and the Principle of Mediocrity (to wit: we should not assume there is anything unique about our existence, including the fact of our existence, as we are statistically much more likely to be typical of our environment than exceptional), and the observation on our own planet that life manages to evolve solutions to the knottiest environmental problems.

As it also happens, I am a participant at Planet Hunters (https://www.planethunters.org/), and am a co-discoverer of a planet that appears to be in its star's habitable zone.

Using your own standards, I could claim that I've found evidence that there could be life, maybe even intelligent life there.
That is not my standard.  I see an experiment with three measurable results for three separate stimuli.  You found a planet in the habitual zone of a star.  That in and of it self neither includes nor excludes the possibility of life, even intelligent life.  More research is needed.  Oddly enough, I have been saying the same thing about the MRI scans.

QuoteObviously, that's claiming too much, and I really hope you see that, because otherwise this is a waste of time.

There isn't the slightest shred of evidence for that; all I have found is a place consistent with being a potential habitatâ€"and equally consistent with being completely uninhabitable.  We have, after all, two observations of planets that are (just) within their star's habitable zone, and are both so far as we know not even host to the simplest bacterium: Venus and Mars.

When you claim this study doesn't rule out a god, it doesn't rule a god in either.  In fact, it says nothing about divine presences.  It speaks only to the brain activity of those who believe in one, and which brain activity was have observational evidence has perfectly rational causes, and for which we need make no appeal to the supernatural.
The study speaks to the brains response to a stimuli.  Something caused the brain to react.  In tow of those cases, the stimuli was not purely physical.  Being an engineer, I look at that and say hmmm, I need to study this more.


QuoteI'd do a damn sight better job of it, although you might have to kiss free will goodbye.  Also, I'd provide some reliable evidence for my existence.
I doubt that.  I have no doubt that in your opinion that you think you would do a better job.  But I don't think that we, as humans, are able to grasp what God's plans truly are.  You think you would be better because you would announce your existence.  I rather think that God has a reason for NOT announcing His presence, at least for now.

QuoteWe have three causes, and three results, and you keep trying to run backwards from 'religious believers have similar experiences to love and drugs' to 'because there's an effect on the brainwaves of religious believers, what they believe might be true'.  The only consistency is in insisting upon this fallacy.
Here is where you are constantly misrepresenting what I have said.  I have said, and continue to say, that it is an interesting result deserving of additional research.

QuoteI happen to agree there will never be conclusive physical evidence.  We at have that as common groundâ€"although of course we have different reasons to not expect to find physical evidence.

Of course, if there is no conclusive physical evidence, then there is no reason to take the god hypothesis even provisionally.  To quote Christopher Hitchens, "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."  I have no responsibility to even bother refuting that claim; if you want to assert a divine power, finding the evidence is your job, not mine.
Absolutely true.

QuoteReligion, in my view, is just a Stone Age attempt to explain the universe without science and observation.  The 'god did it' hypothesis of reality is now every bit as irrelevant as the theories of caloric, phlogiston, and luminiferous æther.  Or do you think CERN has a responsibility to check and make sure there's still no æther before applying General Relativity?
Religion and Faith are two entierly different things that occasionally overlap.  People find God in spite of religion, not because of it.

QuoteWrong.  What you're doing is conflating 'religious belief' with 'existence of a divine power'.  It's what you've done repeatedly, and it's not a link you can justifiably make.

I suppose I'll have to say it again in the hopes that somehow it penetrates this time: there's no justification to say "it doesn't rule out a god" because it wasn't testing for that in the first place.  It was testing the brain activity of people who believe.  That simply and flatly is a) not the same thing and b) only evidence that people believe, not that what they believe has any validity.
I never said that it was testing for divine presence.  I did say that the brain has a response when people are have a religious experience.  Love is a real emotion and the brain responds to it. The brain equally responds when people have a religious experience.  Why?  Well there you have it, the single question that has lead to more human understanding than any other question: why?  I guess there is room for more research.  Just like your planet, you wont stop trying to find out more about it simply because you have found something interesting.  You know nothing conclusive other than that is something there.  Same with the brain.

QuoteWell, then, fine.  I didn't figure you would, but you were given the opportunity to correct yourself.  My conscience is clear; however, my respect for you as a debater is nearly nil.
My conscience is clear as well.

QuoteThat's a matter of current research.  Just because there is no generally agreed upon answer doesn't mean that any answer is equally valid, nor that it was a miracle -- I am not ceding that point in any way, shape or form.

"I don't understand how this happened" is not a justification to call it a miracle.  I don't understand how the liver works.  That doesn't mean its function is miraculous.  I couldn't describe how an automatic transmission works on a bet.  That doesn't mean magic gets power from the engine to the wheels.
Okay, do you even read what you type?  You didn't even make it to the period of that first sentence before contradicting yourself.
Ah, more research.  I agree, more research is always needed.  On a wide variety of topics.  And with very open minds from those doing the research.

QuoteAlso, your own words:Seems a pretty straightforward statement that requires no "distinctions" to me.

At least be an honest disputant.

Let me ask you this: you have already ceded the point that there's no physical evidence for any god, and that you don't expect any to turn up.
This forum, by its own admission, is a community open to all including believers.  Am I not welcome regardless of why I'm here?

QuoteThen what, exactly, do you have to offer when you come before a forum of rationalists when you admit you completely lack the one thing that is going to be required the most?
I love discussions with the "rational" minds here.  There is a very rational video here that sets out to prove that God could not exist in 60 seconds.  That very same video proves that the big bank could not have happened either and for the exact same reason.  I find that reason can close a mind as firmly and effectively as faith.

QuoteMy explanation is that you just want to buff up your own ego, you want to be able to say to yourself (and also tell your concept of god), "Well, I faced down those nasty godless heathens and still have my faith, didn't I do good, Daddy?"  It's consistent with the evidence at hand, at least.
You are welcome to your opinion.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on January 31, 2018, 02:45:43 PM
Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 31, 2018, 01:45:54 PM
You made a choice.  You have your reasons for making your choice.  I made my choice.  I have my reasons for making my choice.  I do not think that we have enough information at this time to conclusively that God does not exist.  Said a bit differently absence of evidence is not proof that something doesn't exist.

Sidebar: What is interesting about our relative choices is that if you are right, I will never know it.  If I am right, you will absolutely know it.
I used to put stock in the 'absence of evidence is not proof that something doesn't exist'  saying.  I don't much any more.  One could use that saying for a myriad of entities.  Thor, Zeus, Allah, Zoroaster, Pecos Bill, Paul Bunion, the Tooth Fairy, Tinker Bell, and on and on.  Put your god there as well.  So, for me the absence of ANY evidence is proof that there is none.  Especially for your god, for he has been around for 2000 years or so.  Still no evidence.  And you can smugly say that you want to cover all your bases so that you are 'right' even after death.  Fear driven stuff.  I' m not fearful of death. 

On a side note, the absence of evidence is proof when considering the existence of Jesus as well.  Not a single 'contemporary' (that is would be contemporary if Jesus were not a fiction) wrote of this fictional character.  Not any, zip, zero.  Jesus is in good company with his fictional father, your god.  Fiction.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on January 31, 2018, 02:48:39 PM
Quote from: Baruch on January 31, 2018, 01:50:23 PM
Wrong metaphysical direction.  Between thee and me.  G-d is only implicitly involved.  When our relationship is positive, that is the Holy Spirit, even if you don't believe in anything at all.  You and I are not fictions.  Don't be so desperate to repeat old talking points that don't apply.
"Holy Spirit"--that is fictional as well.  Simpy another way of putting your god.  You and I are not fictions--your god (don't worry, just like every other god as well) is.  Always was and always will be.  And that 'talking point' does apply whether you like it or not.  So, unknot your panties.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: cabinetmaker on January 31, 2018, 03:46:20 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 31, 2018, 02:45:43 PM
I used to put stock in the 'absence of evidence is not proof that something doesn't exist'  saying.  I don't much any more.  One could use that saying for a myriad of entities.  Thor, Zeus, Allah, Zoroaster, Pecos Bill, Paul Bunion, the Tooth Fairy, Tinker Bell, and on and on.  Put your god there as well.  So, for me the absence of ANY evidence is proof that there is none.  Especially for your god, for he has been around for 2000 years or so.  Still no evidence.  And you can smugly say that you want to cover all your bases so that you are 'right' even after death.  Fear driven stuff.  I' m not fearful of death. 

On a side note, the absence of evidence is proof when considering the existence of Jesus as well.  Not a single 'contemporary' (that is would be contemporary if Jesus were not a fiction) wrote of this fictional character.  Not any, zip, zero.  Jesus is in good company with his fictional father, your god.  Fiction.
For a long time there was no evidence for, nor even the concept of, an atom.  And then a scientist hypothesized an atom but really had no way to test that hypothesis.  It has only been very recently that we have actually captured a picture of an atom and molecules.  Does this mean that in all the time that we had no evidence for atoms that they did not exist?  SOme times it takes a great deal of time and patience to find ways to explorer things in a definitive manor.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on January 31, 2018, 03:59:38 PM
Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 31, 2018, 03:46:20 PM
For a long time there was no evidence for, nor even the concept of, an atom.  And then a scientist hypothesized an atom but really had no way to test that hypothesis.  It has only been very recently that we have actually captured a picture of an atom and molecules.  Does this mean that in all the time that we had no evidence for atoms that they did not exist?  SOme times it takes a great deal of time and patience to find ways to explorer things in a definitive manor.
In the case of the atom, you favorite axiom works--lack of evidence is not evidence for the existence of an atom.  But an atom had much more hypothetical evidence, even prior to the bible, than god does.  Eventually a person constructed a hypothesis that allowed for the testing of that hypothesis.  So far, there is no hypothesis that can be constructed about god much less tested for.   And god(s) have been around since mankind invented them from the beginning of humankind. 

I suppose one could say the bible is a proof of sorts of the existence of your god since it is called The Word of God.  Can it be shown that the bible is anything other than the work of man?  No.  Can it be shown there is really only one bible?  No.  Can it be shown that this Word was supplied everywhere at the same time?  No.  I would think that the bible simply is a set of documents that demonstrate that was cobbled together from many, many works, penned by many, many men and found in one general location of time and space.  It is not found universally all over the planet; not written in any other languages than those spoken in that location.  After reading it and considering what it says, it seems to prove that god and his word are an invention of humans.  Not any god or gods.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on January 31, 2018, 04:07:36 PM
Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 31, 2018, 03:46:20 PM
For a long time there was no evidence for, nor even the concept of, an atom.  And then a scientist hypothesized an atom but really had no way to test that hypothesis.  It has only been very recently that we have actually captured a picture of an atom and molecules.  Does this mean that in all the time that we had no evidence for atoms that they did not exist?  SOme times it takes a great deal of time and patience to find ways to explorer things in a definitive manor.
You're entire approach is wrong. We cannot dictate what exists and what doesn't. That something might exist does not constitute that there is serious reason to suppose that it does. The time to believe that atoms exist was when evidence turned up to indicate their existence. Similarly with your God: the time to believe that he exists is when evidence is uncovered to indicate his existence. Until then, God is not a serious proposition. It's like having faith that you have the winning lottery ticket before the numbers are announced. Okay, but until you have good reason to believe that your ticket is actually the winner (and no, your faith is not a good reason), you might want to reconsider buying that million-dollar mansion, and stop bugging us about loans that you promise you'll pay back until the money comes in.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: trdsf on January 31, 2018, 04:45:10 PM
Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 31, 2018, 02:40:48 PM
The study does rule in that believers have a measurable response when experiencing a religious event.  It is a measurable response.  The responds to a chemical stimuli which isn't all that surprising given that we know chemicals effect all organs in the body.  People who are thinking about a loved one have a measurable response even when the object of that love is not present with them in the MRI.  Finally, people having a religious experience have the same response as a person thinking about a loved one.  So what triggers the response in the brain?  Thinking about a loved one triggers a response.  A person praying has the same response.  What is it about the human brain that causes it to react when in love or in prayer?  I am not so willing as you to write it off without further research.

That is not my standard.  I see an experiment with three measurable results for three separate stimuli.  You found a planet in the habitual zone of a star.  That in and of it self neither includes nor excludes the possibility of life, even intelligent life.  More research is needed.  Oddly enough, I have been saying the same thing about the MRI scans.

The study speaks to the brains response to a stimuli.  Something caused the brain to react.  In tow of those cases, the stimuli was not purely physical.  Being an engineer, I look at that and say hmmm, I need to study this more.

.
.
.

Here is where you are constantly misrepresenting what I have said.  I have said, and continue to say, that it is an interesting result deserving of additional research.
No, what you have been repeatedly saying is, "it doesn't rule out god":

Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 31, 2018, 10:31:05 AM
That does not rule out the possibility of divine power.  Think about that for a bit.
Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 26, 2018, 03:27:46 PM
If this is true, then could the stimuli that triggers the "religious experience response" be the presence of God in that persons experience?
That's not the same thing as saying you want more research.  That's front-loading your desired result.

What you should be saying is, "Why should being in a religious mindset look similar to an emotion and a drug?"

What you should be saying is, "Does the particular religious belief held by the subject has an effect on this reading, or is it common to all adherents regardless?  Is there a difference between monotheists and polytheists?  Are there differences between different sects of the same religion?"

What you should be saying is, "Is this something that requires religious belief, or can non-believers achieve this mental state as well?"

Ironically, you yourself threw all of this completely out the window when you then asserted:

Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 29, 2018, 03:53:39 PM
The proof of God is not in the physical world.
Why bother looking any further into the MRI results?  Right here you've admitted there isn't any evidence and that you can't find any.

Conclusion: further study is of no relevance to you, you've made up your mind.  Don't try to change your tune when you've already left a clear trail.


Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 31, 2018, 02:40:48 PM
Religion and Faith are two entierly different things that occasionally overlap.  People find God in spite of religion, not because of it.
I never said that it was testing for divine presence.  I did say that the brain has a response when people are have a religious experience.  Love is a real emotion and the brain responds to it. The brain equally responds when people have a religious experience.  Why?  Well there you have it, the single question that has lead to more human understanding than any other question: why?  I guess there is room for more research.  Just like your planet, you wont stop trying to find out more about it simply because you have found something interesting.  You know nothing conclusive other than that is something there.  Same with the brain.
Yes, exactly.  And this is why you cannot prejudice any research with "it doesn't rule out god".

Don't get me wrong, there are very few people that would be happier than me if all of a sudden we started receiving radio signals from there of unquestionably extraterrestrial origin.  But I have zero justification to say the presence of a planet "doesn't rule out aliens".  The presence of the planet says exactly nothing about whether anything living is there.  And more detailed research, absent positive evidence in the form of an unequivocal signal, will continue to say nothing about whether there's aliens there.  Even if we were able to spectrographically analyze its atmosphere and it turned up oxygen, that still says nothing about whether something's actually there, because there are non-living processes that can produce an oxygen atmosphere.

You are very obviously trying to say "let's see if a god is there" when all you're justified in saying is "let's see what's there".


Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 31, 2018, 02:40:48 PM
Ah, more research.  I agree, more research is always needed.  On a wide variety of topics.  And with very open minds from those doing the research.
Then quit trying to front-load your conclusion, and we'll be on the same page.


Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 31, 2018, 02:40:48 PM
This forum, by its own admission, is a community open to all including believers.  Am I not welcome regardless of why I'm here?
I love discussions with the "rational" minds here.  There is a very rational video here that sets out to prove that God could not exist in 60 seconds.  That very same video proves that the big bank could not have happened either and for the exact same reason.  I find that reason can close a mind as firmly and effectively as faith.
You're certainly welcome to be here, but you're not entitled to manipulate the rules of scientific research.


Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 31, 2018, 02:40:48 PM
You are welcome to your opinion.
Fair enough.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 31, 2018, 07:12:17 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 31, 2018, 02:48:39 PM
"Holy Spirit"--that is fictional as well.  Simpy another way of putting your god.  You and I are not fictions--your god (don't worry, just like every other god as well) is.  Always was and always will be.  And that 'talking point' does apply whether you like it or not.  So, unknot your panties.

It is a metaphor ... for positive personal relationships.  People use it that way ... like Uncle Sam represents patriotism.  But since it is triggering to you ... I guess negative personal relationships are more your style?

Newspeak dictators can ban all the words you want, and ban poetry and fiction (aka fake news).  Good luck with that.  The Left is as rapacious as the Right.  There is Satan in both.

Sorry, I am not a Christian.  The Holy Spirit isn't my god, it is Cabinetmaker's (well one third anyway).  I am my own god, thank you very much.  Please be more careful who your post you are addressing otherwise it will be construed as misrepresentation.  I can understand the Christian Trinity, from my own POV, but it isn't a Christian POV, but Kabbalah.  In Sephirot there are ten parts of the godhead.  But I am not stuck on that particular model.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 31, 2018, 07:14:25 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 31, 2018, 02:25:41 PM
(http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-time-spent-arguing-with-the-faithful-is-oddly-enough-almost-never-wasted-christopher-hitchens-237649.jpg)

Particularly those faithful (trusting) to Thales and Pythagoras ;-)  Materialism and rationalism are ... ideologies.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 31, 2018, 07:16:22 PM
Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 31, 2018, 10:34:05 AM
We are not saved by absolute knowledge of God, be seeing God.  He wants you to come to Him of your own free will.

True positive relationships are bidirectional and voluntary.  Between humans (metaphysical entities need not apply).  Geeks think that absolute knowledge of reality is ... doable, and something they should aim for ... because they are Brights, not Dims.  Theologians are no better than physicists.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 31, 2018, 07:20:57 PM
Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 31, 2018, 03:46:20 PM
For a long time there was no evidence for, nor even the concept of, an atom.  And then a scientist hypothesized an atom but really had no way to test that hypothesis.  It has only been very recently that we have actually captured a picture of an atom and molecules.  Does this mean that in all the time that we had no evidence for atoms that they did not exist?  SOme times it takes a great deal of time and patience to find ways to explorer things in a definitive manor.

The atoms of Democritus, were shown thru nuclear physics, to not exist.  The atom is cuttable indeed.  So the use of "atom" as something that exits, is a bait-and-switch gambit, reusing an old term, for a new idea.  Tom exists not a-tom.  Aka "tomos" means cuttable in ancient Greek.  Your POV is Platonic ... and Plato was wrong about a lot of things too.  Physics isn't like geometry ... and Einstein showed that reality isn't Euclidean either.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: cabinetmaker on February 01, 2018, 11:02:30 AM
Quote from: Baruch on January 31, 2018, 07:20:57 PM
The atoms of Democritus, were shown thru nuclear physics, to not exist.  The atom is cuttable indeed.  So the use of "atom" as something that exits, is a bait-and-switch gambit, reusing an old term, for a new idea.  Tom exists not a-tom.  Aka "tomos" means cuttable in ancient Greek.  Your POV is Platonic ... and Plato was wrong about a lot of things too.  Physics isn't like geometry ... and Einstein showed that reality isn't Euclidean either.
Look up John Dalton.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on February 01, 2018, 06:00:28 PM
Quote from: cabinetmaker on February 01, 2018, 11:02:30 AM
Look up John Dalton.

Ah, Chemistry, 200 years ago.  You have to read newer copies of Popular Science.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Blackleaf on February 01, 2018, 06:42:07 PM
Quote from: cabinetmaker on January 31, 2018, 10:34:05 AM
We are not saved by absolute knowledge of God, be seeing God.  He wants you to come to Him of your own free will.

And why should I believe in your version of Yahweh over all the countless gods that have ever been worshipped? We both disbelieve in thousands of gods. I just disbelieve in one more god than you do. Sorry, but I'm not playing the god lottery. If there is a god who demands worship, he's going to have to give me a reason to think he exists, and then he'll have to specify which exact god he happens to be.

As for free will, there is no such thing. Even the Bible says so, and this is one of the points the Bible never overtly contradicts itself on. Read Romans 9:6-24. Paul says quite clearly here that god predestines people for Heaven or Hell, according to no criteria other than his own random whims. And he even addresses the number one objection to the doctrine of predistination in verse 19.

But even if the Bible did say that humans have free will, it still would not be possible. Free will is fundamentally incompatible with a universe where a omnipotent omniscient god exists. It's like an immovable object being hit by an unstoppable force. Both cannot exist at the same time.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on February 01, 2018, 07:02:42 PM
Not only can humans not have
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 01, 2018, 06:42:07 PM
But even if the Bible did say that humans have free will, it still would not be possible. Free will is fundamentally incompatible with a universe where a omnipotent omniscient god exists. It's like an immovable object being hit by an unstoppable force. Both cannot exist at the same time.
Not only can humans not have free will, but an omniscient (all knowing) God cannot have free will either, since it will have known from eternity past everything it would ever do and not do, so it would never be able to make any choices at all, since any choice it might make would already have been known to it from eternity past.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Blackleaf on February 02, 2018, 12:47:05 AM
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 01, 2018, 07:02:42 PM
Not only can humans not have free will, but an omniscient (all knowing) God cannot have free will either, since it will have known from eternity past everything it would ever do and not do, so it would never be able to make any choices at all, since any choice it might make would already have been known to it from eternity past.

I guess that means that omniscience and omnipotence are incompatible as well. A god who knows everything, even what he's going to do before he does it, is a slave to destiny. I imagine such an existence would be torture. We can at least live with the illusion that our actions are not determined by electro-chemical processes in our brains that we have no control over.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Cavebear on February 02, 2018, 03:21:55 AM
Quote from: Baruch on January 27, 2018, 03:10:39 PM
Guess aliens don't understand homonyms (night).  And Kirk did this on Mudd's Planet ... to an poorly designed Norman, the android.

No, the literal image of a medieval knight climbing a fireplace poker made no sense to them and gave the standard (brilliant) Earthlings a chance to defeat a vastly technological species who managed to cross interstellar space to get here.  Let's not delve too deeply into the unlikelihood of THAT.

Though if you WANT to explore how that might be possible, read Harry Turtledove's Colonization series.  He really put some logic in there.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 03, 2018, 10:53:53 AM
Quote from: Cavebear on February 02, 2018, 03:21:55 AM
Though if you WANT to explore how that might be possible, read Harry Turtledove's Colonization series.  He really put some logic in there.
But read Worldwar first. Colonization doesn’t make a lot of sense if you don’t read Worldwar.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Cavebear on February 07, 2018, 06:48:16 AM
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on February 03, 2018, 10:53:53 AM
But read Worldwar first. Colonization doesn’t make a lot of sense if you don’t read Worldwar.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have read all his books.  And you are quite correct.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Arik on April 17, 2019, 04:36:12 AM
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 01, 2018, 07:02:42 PM
Not only can humans not have Not only can humans not have free will, but an omniscient (all knowing) God cannot have free will either, since it will have known from eternity past everything it would ever do and not do, so it would never be able to make any choices at all, since any choice it might make would already have been known to it from eternity past.


To me whether God would know about past, present and future is totally irrelevant to the notion of free will.

Suppose all this creation is a game to God.
Without this creation it would create solitude and a sense to be alone in his mind so to share that enormous bliss that he owns-possess would be a way to solve that problem.

By creating in his mind this universe He would have the possibility to see this creation going from a very low state of consciousness to such an high degree of consciousness that eventually everything in this creation would go back to him and be Him again as the single entity reach that stage.

This is the universal game according to yoga.

Some religions say that God is perfect so to put my logic in this way it may imply that God is not perfect because he needs to be in company beside there are also two other things that God can not do which are that he can not create an other God and that he can not hate anyone.
To me all these points are irrelevant to put the case whether God is perfect or not and I am quite happy to leave the argument to those who wish to argue about whether God is perfect or not because to me He is.

As far as to say that there is no free will all this doesn't follow any logic.

You as a father whether you like it or not are not going to interfere with the free will of any of your kids decision which are now adults.
You may suggest them to do or not to do something but the final decision is theirs.
This is how things go in your family so why God would act differently? 


Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on April 17, 2019, 08:59:08 AM
The question of determinism is peculiar to Western theology.  Eastern Christian theology accepts mystery, and doesn't insist on logic.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on April 17, 2019, 01:41:27 PM
Western Christian theology doesn't seem to insist on logic, either.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on April 17, 2019, 06:22:54 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on April 17, 2019, 01:41:27 PM
Western Christian theology doesn't seem to insist on logic, either.

In Catholicism they call is "casuistry" ... it is a special version they use.  Ancient Greek logic is ... I want to be a older male companion of a younger male companion, because gay men of my own age aren't "purdy".
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Arik on April 18, 2019, 10:00:34 AM
Quote from: Baruch on April 17, 2019, 06:22:54 PM
In Catholicism they call is "casuistry" ... it is a special version they use.  Ancient Greek logic is ... I want to be a older male companion of a younger male companion, because gay men of my own age aren't "purdy".


I think there is a big problem with religions that try to turn their own rot in "PURDY".

After creating lies after lies and turn these lies into something mentally edible to the masses now they find themselves in a situation from which they can not get out anymore.
These lies build up and up and in order to find any decent way out the pile of rot they try once more to create one more lie that suppose to wipe the previous rot away but now the boat is sinking and nothing can be done to prevent the boat to sink down.

AMEN.


(https://image.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/white-paper-boat-sinking-sea-260nw-107513780.jpg)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on April 18, 2019, 10:13:09 AM
This is why the Protestant Reformation happened.  But it opened the doors to secularism aka Enlightenment.  The European materialists however are guilty of cultural appropriation ... Enlightenment belongs to the East, primarily to India.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Arik on April 18, 2019, 10:57:37 AM
Quote from: Baruch on April 18, 2019, 10:13:09 AM
This is why the Protestant Reformation happened.  But it opened the doors to secularism aka Enlightenment.  The European materialists however are gusty of cultural appropriation ... Enlightenment belongs to the East, primarily to India.


Actually the situation is more simple than that.

Jesus brought enlightenment to the west as well although the first awaken was given long before by Shiva and Krishna in the east.
Nothing really belong to the east or to the west because when the individual is ready Shiva or not Shiva, Jesus or not Jesus  he or she will get the message.

The old saying is still valid............when the student is ready the teacher will appear.........
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on April 18, 2019, 11:03:19 AM
Jesus is cultural appropriation of Krishna, not Shiva.  John the Baptist is Shiva.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Arik on April 18, 2019, 11:06:49 AM
Quote from: Baruch on April 18, 2019, 11:03:19 AM
Jesus is cultural appropriation of Krishna, not Shiva.  John the Baptist is Shiva.


Can you please explain your point?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on April 18, 2019, 02:15:32 PM
Quote from: Arik on April 18, 2019, 11:06:49 AM

Can you please explain your point?

I know you are metaphysical not religious.  That is a finer position to take than most.

There are Jungian archetypes.  Different cultures pull from these archetypes, that are both deep and shallow.  The deep aspects have to do with being a human, they are universal.  The collective unconscious.  The shallower aspects are cultural and regional ... the Spirit is known by many names, and sometimes we need the name as well as the unnamed.  We need both the absolute and the relative.  It is very hard for people to deal directly with the absolute (see Zen).  Even the Logos of Greek philosophy or Johannine theology is superficial, Greco-Roman/Judeo-Christian.

So regardless of any particular ideas of historical cultural appropriation (we know of Hindus and Buddhists and even Chinese who were in the W Roman Empire 350 BCE to 50 CE) and such cultural contacts go back to Sumer and Harrapa ... the metaphorical connection can be thru inner space, not just thru physical space.

Jesus is an apocalyptic salvation figure, so is Krishna.  Krishna with the Gopis is like the non-canonical stories of Jesus as a boy.  And it is possible that a Jewish shaman could have visited Malabar or Kashmir centuries before.  But the connection is at least thru the archetypes/forms.  In addition there were Indians closer to Judea in Antioch and Alexandria.

John the Baptist is a austerity figure, so is Shiva.  Both originally living in the wild places.  Orthodox religion tends to ignore or hide the broader cultural and historical connections.  One can see a whole panoply of syncretism in the NT, Hellenistic religion being of that type.  Rabbinic Judaism is a conservative core of what was once a much broader spectrum of Jewish culture.  Christianity is cultural borrowing of one of several extinct forms of Judaism.  Which could not have happened without Paul.

There are numerous books on the connection of Jesus to Buddhism and even Taoism.  And as syncretism, to Egyptian, Greek and Roman paganism  The point at which this all comes together is, chavurim (pietistic conclave members) coming together, some orthodox (rabbinic) and some heterodox (hellenistic).  New forms of religion for changing times, as the needs of individuals and societies change.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Arik on April 19, 2019, 04:29:51 AM
Quote from: Baruch on April 18, 2019, 02:15:32 PM
I know you are metaphysical not religious.  That is a finer position to take than most.

There are Jungian archetypes.  Different cultures pull from these archetypes, that are both deep and shallow.  The deep aspects have to do with being a human, they are universal.  The collective unconscious.  The shallower aspects are cultural and regional ... the Spirit is known by many names, and sometimes we need the name as well as the unnamed.  We need both the absolute and the relative.  It is very hard for people to deal directly with the absolute (see Zen).  Even the Logos of Greek philosophy or Johannine theology is superficial, Greco-Roman/Judeo-Christian.

So regardless of any particular ideas of historical cultural appropriation (we know of Hindus and Buddhists and even Chinese who were in the W Roman Empire 350 BCE to 50 CE) and such cultural contacts go back to Sumer and Harrapa ... the metaphorical connection can be thru inner space, not just thru physical space.

Jesus is an apocalyptic salvation figure, so is Krishna.  Krishna with the Gopis is like the non-canonical stories of Jesus as a boy.  And it is possible that a Jewish shaman could have visited Malabar or Kashmir centuries before.  But the connection is at least thru the archetypes/forms.  In addition there were Indians closer to Judea in Antioch and Alexandria.

John the Baptist is a austerity figure, so is Shiva.  Both originally living in the wild places.  Orthodox religion tends to ignore or hide the broader cultural and historical connections.  One can see a whole panoply of syncretism in the NT, Hellenistic religion being of that type.  Rabbinic Judaism is a conservative core of what was once a much broader spectrum of Jewish culture.  Christianity is cultural borrowing of one of several extinct forms of Judaism.  Which could not have happened without Paul.

There are numerous books on the connection of Jesus to Buddhism and even Taoism.  And as syncretism, to Egyptian, Greek and Roman paganism  The point at which this all comes together is, chavurim (pietistic conclave members) coming together, some orthodox (rabbinic) and some heterodox (hellenistic).  New forms of religion for changing times, as the needs of individuals and societies change.


Actually yoga goes well behind the metaphysical aspect for the simple reason that yoga is 1 or 2% theory and 98-99% practice.

In yoga you do not think or reason in order to obtain knowledge.
In yoga the knowledge emerge from the subconscious mind as you progress in your practice.
This is exactly what Shiva, Krishna, Buddha, Jesus and others were teaching.

What came after these gurus is a different story altogether.

People become lazy and the original teachings are lost in a myriad of invented ideas better known as dogmas.
What we got these days are just dogmas which have nothing to do with the original teachings.
The only thing left today that yoga share with religions is the belief that God exist.


Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on April 19, 2019, 09:42:54 AM
Traditional practices and asceticism aren't populist.  Buddhism faced this same pressure.  The original indigent monk system was replaced with a householder system that tangentially supported the indigent monks.  Lay people ruin everything ;-)  One can easily see this with the original followers of Jesus (not a coincidence).  The Buddha had the advantage of initial monarchial support, and Jesus did not.  Buddhism underwent the same cycle in China and Japan, again with initial monarchial support.  Miuhammad may of may not have been a contemplative ... but once he was the leader of Arabia, he was the monarch.  It took several centuries before the founder of the Han dynasty in China, made Confucianism a part of state-craft (that is also what happened to Gentile Christianity).  Daoism was a competing/contrasting Chinese practice v Confucianism.  It could be said that government sponsorship is also a death kiss.

So yes, yoga as you define it, the usual definition, is an individual practice as a disciple under a teacher.  Zen Buddhism comes close to that.  And both eschew excessive scripture.  One has to suspect that Bodhidharma, who came from S India, was not unfamiliar with yoga ;-)

Let me know if you are interested in discussing Patanjali or yoga in general.  In orthodox Hinduism, the authorities tie Sankhya with Yoga, to make it astika.  I am particularly fond of Sankhya.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Arik on April 20, 2019, 09:24:45 AM
Quote from: Baruch on April 19, 2019, 09:42:54 AM
Traditional practices and asceticism aren't populist.  Buddhism faced this same pressure.  The original indigent monk system was replaced with a householder system that tangentially supported the indigent monks.  Lay people ruin everything ;-)  One can easily see this with the original followers of Jesus (not a coincidence).  The Buddha had the advantage of initial monarchial support, and Jesus did not.  Buddhism underwent the same cycle in China and Japan, again with initial monarchial support.  Miuhammad may of may not have been a contemplative ... but once he was the leader of Arabia, he was the monarch.  It took several centuries before the founder of the Han dynasty in China, made Confucianism a part of state-craft (that is also what happened to Gentile Christianity).  Daoism was a competing/contrasting Chinese practice v Confucianism.  It could be said that government sponsorship is also a death kiss.

So yes, yoga as you define it, the usual definition, is an individual practice as a disciple under a teacher.  Zen Buddhism comes close to that.  And both eschew excessive scripture.  One has to suspect that Bodhidharma, who came from S India, was not unfamiliar with yoga ;-)


Yoga is the ultimate art because it fulfill the very purpose of life which is to merge in the ocean of cosmic consciousness and to become one with it but as all other art forms it require a lot of pin pointed effort and effort without a strong desire is impossible to achieve anything.

That is the very reason why people give up or change the rules of the "game" (so to speak) in the intent to make it easier and all your accounts-description are just typical examples of how the original version turn into something that has none or little to do with what suppose to mean. 


QuoteLet me know if you are interested in discussing Patanjali or yoga in general.  In orthodox Hinduism, the authorities tie Sankhya with Yoga, to make it astika.  I am particularly fond of Sankhya.


Here below are just two interesting comments about yoga and Patanjali from two different version of yoga that seem to have a lot in common.
I hope you find them interesting.
https://www.ananda.org/video/patanjali-explained/

https://www.ananda.org/video/patanjali-explained/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfVL1oHNR8c
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: trdsf on April 23, 2019, 11:12:43 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on April 17, 2019, 01:41:27 PM
Western Christian theology doesn't seem to insist on logic, either.
Well, if it -- or any other religion -- was logical, they wouldn't need faith.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on April 23, 2019, 11:36:26 PM
Quote from: trdsf on April 23, 2019, 11:12:43 PM
Well, if it -- or any other religion -- was logical, they wouldn't need faith.

2+2=4, therefore .... atheism is logical?  Logic doesn't get you much if your axioms are wrong.  I think we can trust arithmetic, but not much else.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Minimalist on April 24, 2019, 12:44:06 PM
Well, B, xtians operate under the proposition that 1+1+1 = 1

Hard to get much more illogical than that!
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on April 24, 2019, 01:10:59 PM
Yeah, when it comes to religion the numbers don't always add up:

Numerical contradictions and errors in the Bible (http://nullgod.com/index.php/topic,5.msg13.html#msg13)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on April 28, 2019, 09:11:11 PM
Arik -

Watched the first video.  It was very good.  I was already familiar with Paramhansa Yogananda (Autobiography of a Yogi), so I look forward to listening to more talks.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Arik on May 08, 2019, 08:08:52 AM
Quote from: Baruch on April 28, 2019, 09:11:11 PM
Arik -

Watched the first video.  It was very good.  I was already familiar with Paramhansa Yogananda (Autobiography of a Yogi), so I look forward to listening to more talks.


If you like that particular yoga then you can find many more talks about that.
Although is not my guru I agree with many of his teachings.
After all He is a nice and sincere guy.

Good luck with that.



https://www.ananda.org/video/the-power-of-the-master/
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on May 09, 2019, 12:10:17 PM
Quote from: Arik on May 08, 2019, 08:08:52 AM

If you like that particular yoga then you can find many more talks about that.
Although is not my guru I agree with many of his teachings.
After all He is a nice and sincere guy.

Good luck with that.



https://www.ananda.org/video/the-power-of-the-master/

You missed reading my quote regarding Yoga from the Gita?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Simon Moon on July 25, 2019, 07:11:44 PM
Quote from: Baruch on April 23, 2019, 11:36:26 PM
2+2=4, therefore .... atheism is logical?  Logic doesn't get you much if your axioms are wrong.  I think we can trust arithmetic, but not much else.

No...

Atheism is a logical position, as long as theists continue to fail meet their burden of proof. As soon as theism is evidently demonstrable, then atheism becomes an illogical position.

As far as I can tell, since the existence of gods are not supported by demonstrable evidence, and valid and sound logical arguments, theism is the illogical position. And yes, I am quite familiar with all the so called 'logical' arguments (ontological, teleological, cosmological, TAG) for the existence of a god.

But speaking of axioms...

I am sure, for the most part, we both share many of the same axioms. I.E., there is an external reality, we share the same external reality, other minds exist, the past exists. There seems to be evidence for these, since we all seem to experience them. Unless, you are a solipsist of course, then this entire discussion is moot.

But you and other theists are adding other axioms, that do not seem to be in evidence, i.e., the supernatural exists, a god exists, said god interacts with the physical universe. We don't all experience these theistic axioms.

Please let me know why your additional axioms, besides the ones we both agree on, are reasonable to hold, and I will alter my atheist position.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on July 25, 2019, 07:21:06 PM
Logic is foolish, as I have demonstrated repeatedly.  Nerds LARPing as Vulcans.  A futile semantic game.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on July 25, 2019, 07:31:53 PM
So, illogic is not foolish?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on July 25, 2019, 07:53:08 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 25, 2019, 07:31:53 PM
So, illogic is not foolish?

You are being binary.  In a Venn diagram, for you, there is only set A, set B .. no other sets, and the sets don't overlap (both A & B).  Also in some languages (smarter than English) ... a double negative doesn't return you to "start".  Not (Not (A) isn't equal to A.  Exclusive 19th century European culture, plus general ignorance of a technical subject (don't ask me to fix your car) ...

All logical systems, except toy systems (binary numbers is a toy system) are semantically ambiguous.  Aka ... unreasonable.  This applies to all the classic word problems in Greco-Roman philosophy and law.  This wasn't clear until the later 19th century (and set theory (Venn diagrams)).  A good example is false dichotomy ... foolish isn't the opposite of wise.  Un-wise is the opposite of wise.  Un-foolish is the opposite of foolish.  Irrational is the opposite of rational.  Un-reasonable is the opposite of reasonable.  Illogical is the opposite of logical.  But it is "begging the question" to equate foolish with un-wise with un-reasonable with illogical.  These are commonly confabulated, because ... rhetoric.  When done for dishonest or political reasons, combining synonyms is Newspeak.

In my empirical (not rational) analysis ... humans are illogical, irrational, un-reasonable, foolish, un-wise creatures.  There isn't any choice if you are referring to human beings.  To "err" is human, and what an "err" it is!
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Sal1981 on July 26, 2019, 12:47:06 PM
Atheism is just a default position.

Same as asking before someone becomes a stamp collector (or even know about stamps for that matter), they're essentially a-stampeists.

Of course, I know (in analog) about the existence of stamps, but this isn't the same about gods. I know about various concepts of gods, but they aren't even tangible (which is where the analogy breaks down).
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on July 26, 2019, 01:09:21 PM
Quote from: Sal1981 on July 26, 2019, 12:47:06 PM
Atheism is just a default position.

Same as asking before someone becomes a stamp collector (or even know about stamps for that matter), they're essentially a-stampeists.

Of course, I know (in analog) about the existence of stamps, but this isn't the same about gods. I know about various concepts of gods, but they aren't even tangible (which is where the analogy breaks down).

One can choose that, or something else.  I choose to have humanity as my default position.  Not materialism.

Your analogy involves people.  The stamps don't spontaneously appear.  Love isn't tangible either.  So is your default position indifference or hate?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Sal1981 on July 26, 2019, 02:26:12 PM


Quote from: Baruch on July 26, 2019, 01:09:21 PM
One can choose that, or something else.  I choose to have humanity as my default position.  Not materialism.

Your analogy involves people.  The stamps don't spontaneously appear.  Love isn't tangible either.  So is your default position indifference or hate?

Indifference, obviously.

You need an object of love to love someone or something. The starting position is then first indifference.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on July 26, 2019, 02:41:42 PM
Quote from: Sal1981 on July 26, 2019, 02:26:12 PM

Indifference, obviously.

You need an object of love to love someone or something. The starting position is then first indifference.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

Indifference is the true opposite of love, hate is not.  Sad ;-(
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Blackleaf on July 26, 2019, 04:30:15 PM
Quote from: Baruch on July 26, 2019, 02:41:42 PM
Indifference is the true opposite of love, hate is not.  Sad ;-(

Nope. Hate is the opposite of love. Love motivates you to protect someone. Hate motivates you to harm them. Love motivates you to want to be around someone. Hate motivates you to avoid being around someone. Those things are, obviously, opposed to one another. Indifference is the neutral position, where you just don't care much either way.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on July 26, 2019, 05:38:47 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 26, 2019, 04:30:15 PM
Nope. Hate is the opposite of love. Love motivates you to protect someone. Hate motivates you to harm them. Love motivates you to want to be around someone. Hate motivates you to avoid being around someone. Those things are, obviously, opposed to one another. Indifference is the neutral position, where you just don't care much either way.
I disagree--sort of.  I don't hate my ex.  It took awhile, but I did not want to hate her, for that would have entailed thinking of her and hoping harm to befall her--I did not want to expend the energy.  I clearly, don't love her.  So, I am indifferent--I don't think of her, I don't care if she is well or ill; I don't care if she is happy or not.  I don't care if she lives or dies.  I don't care--I'm indifferent to her. 
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Simon Moon on July 26, 2019, 05:41:24 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 26, 2019, 04:30:15 PM
Nope. Hate is the opposite of love. Love motivates you to protect someone. Hate motivates you to harm them. Love motivates you to want to be around someone. Hate motivates you to avoid being around someone. Those things are, obviously, opposed to one another. Indifference is the neutral position, where you just don't care much either way.

The opposite of love is indifference.

Hate and love are different sides of the same coin, not opposites.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hydra009 on July 26, 2019, 05:42:08 PM
Quote from: Baruch on July 26, 2019, 01:09:21 PMI choose to have humanity as my default position.  Not materialism.
I'll take spot the assumption for $400, Alex.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on July 27, 2019, 11:18:52 AM
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 26, 2019, 05:38:47 PM
I disagree--sort of.  I don't hate my ex.  It took awhile, but I did not want to hate her, for that would have entailed thinking of her and hoping harm to befall her--I did not want to expend the energy.  I clearly, don't love her.  So, I am indifferent--I don't think of her, I don't care if she is well or ill; I don't care if she is happy or not.  I don't care if she lives or dies.  I don't care--I'm indifferent to her.

With love or hate, the other person is in the center of your attention.  With indifference, that fades to black.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on July 27, 2019, 11:19:42 AM
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 26, 2019, 05:42:08 PM
I'll take spot the assumption for $400, Alex.

Materialists have no assumptions?  Do tell ...

Top down beats bottoms up.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on July 27, 2019, 12:46:27 PM
Quote from: Baruch on July 27, 2019, 11:18:52 AM
With love or hate, the other person is in the center of your attention.  With indifference, that fades to black.
If not the center, at least they are on your mind.  My ex is 'black'--don't think of her.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Blackleaf on August 02, 2019, 11:44:05 AM
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 26, 2019, 05:38:47 PM
I disagree--sort of.  I don't hate my ex.  It took awhile, but I did not want to hate her, for that would have entailed thinking of her and hoping harm to befall her--I did not want to expend the energy.  I clearly, don't love her.  So, I am indifferent--I don't think of her, I don't care if she is well or ill; I don't care if she is happy or not.  I don't care if she lives or dies.  I don't care--I'm indifferent to her.

Indifference is the low energy alternative to hate. Even your indifference is motivated by hate, as you don't want to think about your ex. Both because thinking about her is unpleasant and because you don't think she is worthy of your energy. If you crossed paths with her, however, I suspect you would have a negative reaction. At least I did, when my exgirlfriend showed up at my workplace eight years later, and felt the need to make sure she was noticed. But after she left, it was back to my hate fueled indifference.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on August 02, 2019, 11:51:32 AM
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 02, 2019, 11:44:05 AM
Indifference is the low energy alternative to hate. Even your indifference is motivated by hate, as you don't want to think about your ex. Both because thinking about her is unpleasant and because you don't think she is worthy of your energy. If you crossed paths with her, however, I suspect you would have a negative reaction. At least I did, when my exgirlfriend showed up at my workplace eight years later, and felt the need to make sure she was noticed. But after she left, it was back to my hate fueled indifference.
I see your point.  But I don't see it that way.  Love and hate need fuel to keep going.  Indifference doesn't. 
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on August 02, 2019, 11:54:07 AM
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 02, 2019, 11:51:32 AM
I see your point.  But I don't see it that way.  Love and hate need fuel to keep going.  Indifference doesn't.

For me, I take an even lower energy position ... I have forgiven her.  Nor have I ever been indifferent.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Blackleaf on August 02, 2019, 12:13:06 PM
Quote from: Baruch on August 02, 2019, 11:54:07 AM
For me, I take an even lower energy position ... I have forgiven her.  Nor have I ever been indifferent.

I forget, but I don't forgive. If you fuck with me and make no attempts to make amends, you're staying on my shit list.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 02, 2019, 01:04:40 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 02, 2019, 12:13:06 PM
I forget, but I don't forgive. If you fuck with me and make no attempts to make amends, you're staying on my shit list.

And that's not going to help. He's our permanent troll. And that's what he does everyday - troll. Now, be a good sport and get on with the program. It's people like you who ruin everything...;-)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on August 02, 2019, 03:28:28 PM
Quote from: Baruch on August 02, 2019, 11:54:07 AM
For me, I take an even lower energy position ... I have forgiven her.  Nor have I ever been indifferent.
Good for you.  but then, you are a theist and therefore more moral, ethical and a much clearer thinker than I, a lowly atheist.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on August 02, 2019, 08:51:57 PM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 02, 2019, 01:04:40 PM
And that's not going to help. He's our permanent troll. And that's what he does everyday - troll. Now, be a good sport and get on with the program. It's people like you who ruin everything...;-)

He was talking about his Ex.  Not about me.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on August 02, 2019, 08:52:55 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 02, 2019, 03:28:28 PM
Good for you.  but then, you are a theist and therefore more moral, ethical and a much clearer thinker than I, a lowly atheist.

Hardly.  You have more of an anger control problem.  And I deny all morality and ethics.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on August 02, 2019, 09:13:45 PM
Quote from: Baruch on August 02, 2019, 08:52:55 PM
Hardly.  You have more of an anger control problem.  And I deny all morality and ethics.
Probably.  But you have more of an ignore the facts problem than I.  But I also deny all morality and ethics. 
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on August 02, 2019, 09:20:49 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 02, 2019, 09:13:45 PM
Probably.  But you have more of an ignore the facts problem than I.  But I also deny all morality and ethics.

The facts are always subject to interpretation.  And I expect you, buddy, to seek out any outstanding posts I have made in the past week, and study them.  There will be a quiz ;-)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 04, 2019, 12:52:18 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 02, 2019, 09:13:45 PM
  But I also deny all morality and ethics. 

Hmmm... I don't think you do. We all set for ourselves certain rules of conduct. Otherwise you would be paralyzed, not knowing what to do the very next second. And that's not the case. Perhaps you mean Christian morality and ethics, which I would also subscribe.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on August 04, 2019, 01:39:09 PM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 04, 2019, 12:52:18 PM
Hmmm... I don't think you do. We all set for ourselves certain rules of conduct. Otherwise you would be paralyzed, not knowing what to do the very next second. And that's not the case. Perhaps you mean Christian morality and ethics, which I would also subscribe.
That's correct, Joseph.  I do have both morals and ethics--but they are internal and guide only my actions--nobody else.  I actually meant to say there is no objective set of ethics nor morals.  I will suggest our system of laws and courts is this countries morals.  All societies make their own.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on August 04, 2019, 07:15:11 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 04, 2019, 01:39:09 PM
That's correct, Joseph.  I do have both morals and ethics--but they are internal and guide only my actions--nobody else.  I actually meant to say there is no objective set of ethics nor morals.  I will suggest our system of laws and courts is this countries morals.  All societies make their own.

Nobody disagrees with private morality.  Jack the Ripper had that.  The problem is the social contract.  Hence the need for segregation, ala George Wallace? 

If it isn't a big tent legal system, a secular system, a non-ideological system.  But it is theological, then you have to kick out the non-members.  If it is ideological, then you have to kick out the non-members.  No difference.  In a situation of fanaticism, there can't be any tolerance, any pragmatism.

Lets say, if the Green New Deal had very high support in Cali, but not in the rest of the US.  Then Cali can't stay in the Union, they need a hippie Jefferson Davis.  How Democrat is that?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Cavebear on August 20, 2019, 06:53:03 PM
Quote from: Sal1981 on July 26, 2019, 02:26:12 PM

Indifference, obviously.

You need an object of love to love someone or something. The starting position is then first indifference.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

If indifference is a starting point, when does active interest begin?  There must be a change, at some point, right?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on August 20, 2019, 08:02:36 PM
Quote from: Cavebear on August 20, 2019, 06:53:03 PM
If indifference is a starting point, when does active interest begin?  There must be a change, at some point, right?

When you meet a girl and she gives you some attention ;-)  Then it is OK to reciprocate.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Cavebear on August 20, 2019, 09:39:06 PM
Quote from: Baruch on August 20, 2019, 08:02:36 PM
When you meet a girl and she gives you some attention ;-)  Then it is OK to reciprocate.

Better not bet on that these days..
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on August 21, 2019, 12:04:14 AM
Quote from: Cavebear on August 20, 2019, 09:39:06 PM
Better not bet on that these days..

Y'all wanted the dystopia of man-eating Harpies.  And you got it now.  Only Jason and the (very manly) Argonauts can save you beta-males now.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Sal1981 on August 21, 2019, 01:39:20 PM
Quote from: Cavebear on August 20, 2019, 06:53:03 PM
If indifference is a starting point, when does active interest begin?  There must be a change, at some point, right?
When you encounter something that requires action.

I would argue that if our brains got no stimulation from our senses, then we'd pretty much be inert. But since we do, we obviously act on a lot of things.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hydra009 on August 22, 2019, 11:08:12 PM
Quote from: Sal1981 on August 21, 2019, 01:39:20 PMI would argue that if our brains got no stimulation from our senses, then we'd pretty much be inert.
Pssht.  I'm like that most of the time.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on August 23, 2019, 02:50:18 AM
Quote from: Sal1981 on August 21, 2019, 01:39:20 PM
When you encounter something that requires action.

I would argue that if our brains got no stimulation from our senses, then we'd pretty much be inert. But since we do, we obviously act on a lot of things.

Didn't experiments with isolation tanks show that people who have no sensor input start to hallucinate?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Blackleaf on August 23, 2019, 02:54:20 AM
Quote from: Baruch on August 23, 2019, 02:50:18 AM
Didn't experiments with isolation tanks show that people who have no sensor input start to hallucinate?

Yes. Our brains don't know what to do with a complete lack if stimulation. If you're in a soundproof room, you'll start hearing your own heartbeat. If you're in a dimly lit room and stare at someone (including your reflection) it will look as if their face is morphing. I don't know why the brain behaves this way. It doesn't seem advantageous at all.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on August 23, 2019, 05:22:00 AM
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 23, 2019, 02:54:20 AM
Yes. Our brains don't know what to do with a complete lack if stimulation. If you're in a soundproof room, you'll start hearing your own heartbeat. If you're in a dimly lit room and stare at someone (including your reflection) it will look as if their face is morphing. I don't know why the brain behaves this way. It doesn't seem advantageous at all.

Right.  Scary.  There was that guy, in the movie, who used an isolation tank to regress, and went back too far, becoming a cave man ;-(

We often don't know the warning signs of bad health, bad mind.  No operating instructions.

Anyway this must be the source of much shaman experience.  Sleep deprivation, mild stimulants, isolation ...
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Cavebear on August 24, 2019, 05:22:59 AM
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 23, 2019, 02:54:20 AM
Yes. Our brains don't know what to do with a complete lack if stimulation. If you're in a soundproof room, you'll start hearing your own heartbeat. If you're in a dimly lit room and stare at someone (including your reflection) it will look as if their face is morphing. I don't know why the brain behaves this way. It doesn't seem advantageous at all.

When the brain lacks stimulation, all sorts of off things occur in it.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on August 24, 2019, 08:33:29 AM
Quote from: Cavebear on August 24, 2019, 05:22:59 AM
When the brain lacks stimulation, all sorts of off things occur in it.

And when stimulated, the brain provides a simulation of what is sensed.  The sight in your head is a stitch up based on external data, it isn't the data itself.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on August 24, 2019, 02:01:24 PM
Yeah, it's amazing how the brain creates a "map" of the external, sensed world, almost like a 3+1 dimensional mirror of reality. But without sensory input, it becomes like a fun-house mirror, distorting reality in strange ways.

The human brain is the most interesting thing in the known universe, except for the universe itself, which generated human brains.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on August 24, 2019, 03:42:50 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 24, 2019, 02:01:24 PM
Yeah, it's amazing how the brain creates a "map" of the external, sensed world, almost like a 3+1 dimensional mirror of reality. But without sensory input, it becomes like a fun-house mirror, distorting reality in strange ways.

The human brain is the most interesting thing in the known universe, except for the universe itself, which generated human brains.

"It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma" ... Winston Churchill (in other words, a dialectic not a deduction)

This is why I say, for ordinary conversation involving people, if it doesn't start from psychology, it didn't start at all.

Because of convergent evolution, the eye of the octopus is a lot like the eye of the human, but I bet the processing and subsequent cogitation is different.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Cavebear on August 24, 2019, 05:30:54 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 24, 2019, 02:01:24 PM
Yeah, it's amazing how the brain creates a "map" of the external, sensed world, almost like a 3+1 dimensional mirror of reality. But without sensory input, it becomes like a fun-house mirror, distorting reality in strange ways.

The human brain is the most interesting thing in the known universe, except for the universe itself, which generated human brains.

I've read that intelligence is the way the universe understands itself.  Note that I did not say that myself.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on August 24, 2019, 08:03:16 PM
Quote from: Cavebear on August 24, 2019, 05:30:54 PM
I've read that intelligence is the way the universe understands itself.  Note that I did not say that myself.

Correct.  I could say that.  You did not say that.  It would violate your materialist metaphysics.  For you the atoms are almost eternal, they whirl around (see pre-Socratic philosophers).  How non-living atoms live, how non-mental atoms cogitate, is a mystery.

Or are atoms, a concept developed and used by humans?  Are humans prior to atoms?  Not if you are Plato.  Per Plato, to see people as people is ignorant caveman stuff.  To see people as atoms, that is woke.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Cavebear on August 24, 2019, 09:16:37 PM
Quote from: Baruch on August 24, 2019, 08:03:16 PM
Correct.  I could say that.  You did not say that.  It would violate your materialist metaphysics.  For you the atoms are almost eternal, they whirl around (see pre-Socratic philosophers).  How non-living atoms live, how non-mental atoms cogitate, is a mystery.

Or are atoms, a concept developed and used by humans?  Are humans prior to atoms?  Not if you are Plato.  Per Plato, to see people as people is ignorant caveman stuff.  To see people as atoms, that is woke.

I've said before that I consider Plato an idiot. (though I do allow for the times he lived in).  If we stand on the shoulders of giants, Plato is not one of them to me.

But I'm mostly Kantish with some Hume. 
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on August 24, 2019, 10:26:47 PM
Quote from: Cavebear on August 24, 2019, 09:16:37 PM
I've said before that I consider Plato an idiot. (though I do allow for the times he lived in).  If we stand on the shoulders of giants, Plato is not one of them to me.

But I'm mostly Kantish with some Hume.

Kant follows Plato.  Most philosophers don't.  Hume is his own man, a real skeptic.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Cavebear on August 25, 2019, 12:09:59 AM
Quote from: Baruch on August 24, 2019, 10:26:47 PM
Kant follows Plato.  Most philosophers don't.  Hume is his own man, a real skeptic.

"The basic features of Kant’s moral philosophy are these; it’s deontological (i.e. rule based) and normative (concerned with establishing the difference between right and wrong and creating moral rules, as opposed to, for instance, practical ethics which looks at individual moral dilemmas and tries to figure out what the ethically correct response might be), values autonomy (so everyone should arrive at his conclusions by exercising their own reason, rather than simply taking his word for it), holds that people can never be used as means to an end (i.e. you can’t kill or manipulate people “for the greater good”), and holds that rationality is the key to making the right decisions in ethical situations. It is often praised for the fact that it provides people with a relatively simple decision-making procedure that they can use when an ethical decision needs to be made, and criticized for its rigidity and lack of emotion.

By contrast, Plato’s ethics are virtue-based and eudaimonistic,"

And no I don't have the slightest idea what some of those terms mean.   I don't actually care.  I just know that when questioned in onsite tests, I turn out to be 100% Kantian and 75% Hume.  Have fun with that.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on August 25, 2019, 01:09:42 AM
Quote from: Cavebear on August 25, 2019, 12:09:59 AM
"The basic features of Kant’s moral philosophy are these; it’s deontological (i.e. rule based) and normative (concerned with establishing the difference between right and wrong and creating moral rules, as opposed to, for instance, practical ethics which looks at individual moral dilemmas and tries to figure out what the ethically correct response might be), values autonomy (so everyone should arrive at his conclusions by exercising their own reason, rather than simply taking his word for it), holds that people can never be used as means to an end (i.e. you can’t kill or manipulate people “for the greater good”), and holds that rationality is the key to making the right decisions in ethical situations. It is often praised for the fact that it provides people with a relatively simple decision-making procedure that they can use when an ethical decision needs to be made, and criticized for its rigidity and lack of emotion.

By contrast, Plato’s ethics are virtue-based and eudaimonistic,"

And no I don't have the slightest idea what some of those terms mean.   I don't actually care.  I just know that when questioned in onsite tests, I turn out to be 100% Kantian and 75% Hume.  Have fun with that.

"I don't actually care." ,,, so why should I?  OK, short school session.  Kant supports both "a priori" and "a posteriori" epistemology (theory of knowledge).  Plato was all "a priori" and Hume would be all "a posteriori".  Because Plato was all about dogma, and Hume was all about skepticism.  One .. claims to be rational usually aren't.  And claims to evidence usually aren't.  But claims to evidence are more easily checked.  So Kant is "half-Plato".  Kant's "a priori" failed as soon as non-Euclidean geometry was discovered.  I totally respect Hume.  Myself, I am "a posteriori" all the way.  I love a girl's ass ;-)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Cavebear on August 27, 2019, 03:43:21 AM
Quote from: Baruch on August 25, 2019, 01:09:42 AM
"I don't actually care." ,,, so why should I?  OK, short school session.  Kant supports both "a priori" and "a posteriori" epistemology (theory of knowledge).  Plato was all "a priori" and Hume would be all "a posteriori".  Because Plato was all about dogma, and Hume was all about skepticism.  One .. claims to be rational usually aren't.  And claims to evidence usually aren't.  But claims to evidence are more easily checked.  So Kant is "half-Plato".  Kant's "a priori" failed as soon as non-Euclidean geometry was discovered.  I totally respect Hume.  Myself, I am "a posteriori" all the way.  I love a girl's ass ;-)

Interesting thoughts.  I look at Kant as arguing for general laws of nature, that human reason itself gives itself moral (which I call ethical laws to distinguish from religious "moral -from mores- law" of theism), which is our basis for scientific and rational thought.  So science and ethics are consistent because they arise from inherent human reasoning.

I have a tendency toward Hume in that he considers the psychological basis of human nature and that passion is important to understanding human nature.   And I know that is accurate.  So I'm mostly Kant and somewhat Hume.

You might not understand Kant as well as you think.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on August 27, 2019, 07:46:42 AM
Quote from: Cavebear on August 27, 2019, 03:43:21 AM
Interesting thoughts.  I look at Kant as arguing for general laws of nature, that human reason itself gives itself moral (which I call ethical laws to distinguish from religious "moral -from mores- law" of theism), which is our basis for scientific and rational thought.  So science and ethics are consistent because they arise from inherent human reasoning.

I have a tendency toward Hume in that he considers the psychological basis of human nature and that passion is important to understanding human nature.   And I know that is accurate.  So I'm mostly Kant and somewhat Hume.

You might not understand Kant as well as you think.

These thinkers have many angles.  I have pointed out one angle I see as obsolete.  What about the rest?  Not taking time to comprehensively analyze him.  For others interested ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsgAsw4XGvU
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Cavebear on August 28, 2019, 12:31:31 AM
Quote from: Baruch on August 27, 2019, 07:46:42 AM
These thinkers have many angles.  I have pointed out one angle I see as obsolete.  What about the rest?  Not taking time to comprehensively analyze him.  For others interested ...

That was very good!  I have some objections to the narrative.  The narrative assumes that religion is the source of most ethics.  In my view, sensible and practical beliefs like "Don't steal and don't murder" long proceed religion and come from older human experience in how to live among neighbors.  Other than that, I was quite impressed.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on August 28, 2019, 12:34:51 AM
Really?  Now I will have to watch it again.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Cavebear on August 28, 2019, 12:39:49 AM
Quote from: Baruch on August 28, 2019, 12:34:51 AM
Really?  Now I will have to watch it again.

I think it was about 1/4 to 1/3 the way through...
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on August 28, 2019, 03:46:14 AM
Quote from: Cavebear on August 28, 2019, 12:39:49 AM
I think it was about 1/4 to 1/3 the way through...

You made me temporarily suspend the Brandenberg Concertos, monster!

So … in the presentation, a narrator description of Kant's POV on religion vs ethics.  And that we can replace the Golden Rule with a secular version, the Categorical Imperative.  Whose best description is that people aren't means, but ends in themselves.  I see no problem with this.  The Categorical Imperative stands against totalitarianism.  But then Kant goes onto say, liberty is about humans only doing what is best, not what they want.  That is neo-Liberalism.  Not OK.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Cavebear on August 28, 2019, 04:06:22 AM
Quote from: Baruch on August 28, 2019, 03:46:14 AM
You made me temporarily suspend the Brandenberg Concertos, monster!

So … in the presentation, a narrator description of Kant's POV on religion vs ethics.  And that we can replace the Golden Rule with a secular version, the Categorical Imperative.  Whose best description is that people aren't means, but ends in themselves.  I see no problem with this.  The Categorical Imperative stands against totalitarianism.  But then Kant goes onto say, liberty is about humans only doing what is best, not what they want.  That is neo-Liberalism.  Not OK.

Might explain why I am a Progressive and secular.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on August 28, 2019, 04:10:57 AM
Quote from: Cavebear on August 28, 2019, 04:06:22 AM
Might explain why I am a Progressive and secular.


The video wasn't pushing religion, and neither was Kant.  So you were just tiggered.  Did Roy Rodgers use to ride you?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Cavebear on August 28, 2019, 04:23:03 AM
Quote from: Baruch on August 28, 2019, 04:10:57 AM

The video wasn't pushing religion, and neither was Kant.  So you were just tiggered.  Did Roy Rodgers use to ride you?

Partly, it was the refutation of religion as the basis of ethics.  But when I took the survey that suggested I was Kantish, I didn't know that.

Had you typed "triggerred" the Roy Rodgers thing would have made more sense.  On the other hand "tiggered" is more catish in a Pooh sense.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on August 29, 2019, 09:51:58 AM
Haha …. at least you aren't a Snowflake ;-)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on August 29, 2019, 01:25:44 PM
No 2 snowflakes are alike, so anyone could be a snowflake.

:-P
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on August 30, 2019, 02:25:37 PM
Do animals get their morality from God? Of course not, and neither do humans.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcJxRqTs5nk
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on August 30, 2019, 03:57:48 PM
Neither.  There is no morality.  Virtue signaling humans projecting onto other species.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Cavebear on August 31, 2019, 02:25:17 AM
Quote from: Baruch on August 30, 2019, 03:57:48 PM
Neither.  There is no morality.  Virtue signaling humans projecting onto other species.

There is indeed no "morality".  Morality is a set of religious rules created by humans and assigned to non-human reasons.  There are human ethics though.  We created them too and they apply to us better.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on August 31, 2019, 09:55:58 AM
Quote from: Cavebear on August 31, 2019, 02:25:17 AM
There is indeed no "morality".  Morality is a set of religious rules created by humans and assigned to non-human reasons.  There are human ethics though.  We created them too and they apply to us better.

Correct.  We don't have morality or ethics.  We do have laws.  As established by political process.  Not that is wonderful, because … politicians.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Cavebear on August 31, 2019, 11:42:11 AM
Quote from: Baruch on August 31, 2019, 09:55:58 AM
Correct.  We don't have morality or ethics.  We do have laws.  As established by political process.  Not that is wonderful, because … politicians.

The slipperiest way to make an argument is to not "quite" finish the last sentence, as you did.  One could almost suggest...
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on August 31, 2019, 04:21:02 PM
Exactly ...
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Cavebear on August 31, 2019, 08:06:49 PM
Quote from: Baruch on August 31, 2019, 04:21:02 PM
Exactly ...

One might almost think...
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on November 02, 2019, 03:04:53 PM
Didn't see a better place for this, so here it is:

Quote from: Genetically Modified SkepticWhat is the best argument for god's existence? Although I haven't yet found any which are without error, some arguments are better, or more convincing, than others. Apologetics can appear dry on the surface, but they're fascinating upon closer inspection. These arguments often sneak in false premises and tricky debate tactics which many don't catch. Here, though, I've analyzed some of the most popular arguments for god, charted their stats, examined their special abilities, and ranked them accordingly. The arguments discussed here are, in no particular order: The Ontological Argument, The Argument from Personal Experience, The Kalam Cosmological Argument, the Teleological Argument, Paschal's Wager, and the Moral Argument.

Want to know how to prove that god exists, or how to convince an atheist of god's existence? This tier list may shed light on the difficulties in doing that, and the tools at your disposal.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpC8WtufJbo
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on November 02, 2019, 06:41:57 PM
If one has had direct experience, no convincing is necessary.  Most religious people have only had indirect experience.  An atheist may have had indirect experience in the past.  The primary question is evidence more than clever argument.  Someone who has indirect experience may or may not be able to articulate that experience.  Someone with direct experience has encountered the ineffable.  It can't be properly spoken of.  In so far as someone with indirect experience is able to articulate that experience, they are articulating an effect not a cause.  The "Cause of all things", is necessarily ineffable, because articulation, is in the domain of effect.  An atheist only accepts the domain of effect.  For him nothing in ineffable.  There can be no "Cause of all things".

People who argue that G-d exists or does not exist ... do not properly understand what the word "exists" means.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: od19g6 on January 02, 2020, 10:37:32 PM
Quote from: Fidel_Castronaut on February 14, 2013, 05:43:21 PM
So, yes, I've made another thread to carry on from the archived one. What happens to this is up to the gods, but its here anyway, just in case. I've copied the OP from the original thread, so let the chat commence:

"We often get many theists claiming to have evidence for the god or gods they hold dear. This thread is created with the aim of allowing them to supply such evidence so that we may debate with them knowing the facts and conclusions they have drawn, and so that we may respond in kind.

So here we are. If you claim to have evidence that supports your god(s), please post it here:"
The best evidence of God is the human being itself.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hydra009 on January 02, 2020, 11:39:49 PM
Quote from: od19g6 on January 02, 2020, 10:37:32 PM
The best evidence of God is the human being itself.
Now all you have to show how the human being is necessarily linked to this god character.

Otherwise, it's just an embarrassing non-sequitur and your argument is DOA.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: od19g6 on January 02, 2020, 11:47:24 PM
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 02, 2020, 11:39:49 PM
Now all you have to show how the human being is necessarily linked to this god character.

Otherwise, it's just an embarrassing non-sequitur and your argument is DOA.
The link between the human being and God is a special one in that the human being has the potential to display all of the names and attributes of God at the highest level beyond any living creature in the universe.

We are the most perfect creation in the universe.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: od19g6 on January 03, 2020, 12:35:40 AM
Quote from: od19g6 on January 02, 2020, 11:47:24 PM
The link between the human being and God is a special one in that the human being has the potential to display all of the names and attributes of God at the highest level beyond any living creature in the universe.

We are the most perfect creation among all creatures.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on January 03, 2020, 01:36:35 PM
You still haven't told us anything about these "names and attributes" of God, so how can we discuss them rationally?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on January 03, 2020, 01:56:30 PM
QuoteWouldn't it be dumb if an unborn baby claimed his mother didn't exist just because he couldn't see her?  That's the scenario proposed by a stupid Christian analogy.  I recently saw it circulating Facebook and have run into it many times before in my history as a Christian.  But does this make sense?  Does this story show how stupid skepticism is and how smart faith is?  Or does it just take advantage of obvious storytelling tricks to belittle atheists in the eyes of Christians?  (Spoiler - it's the second).  Join me as I break down this comparison and fix it with a more realistic version.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKsiIRr-IBg
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hydra009 on January 03, 2020, 09:40:09 PM
Quote from: od19g6 on January 02, 2020, 11:47:24 PM
The link between the human being and God is a special one in that the human being has the potential to display all of the names and attributes of God at the highest level beyond any living creature in the universe.

We are the most perfect creation in the universe.
Proof by assertion.  Yawn.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on January 04, 2020, 01:23:09 PM
Assertions are all you can expect from theists, of any stripe. No means of demonstrating their God, so they assert, and expect skeptics to just believe them because they've asserted.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: od19g6 on January 04, 2020, 05:17:44 PM
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 02, 2020, 11:39:49 PM
Now all you have to show how the human being is necessarily linked to this god character.

Otherwise, it's just an embarrassing non-sequitur and your argument is DOA.
The only link that we will ever have is through the names and attributes. And they are manifested in the physical world.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: od19g6 on January 04, 2020, 05:19:24 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 03, 2020, 01:36:35 PM
You still haven't told us anything about these "names and attributes" of God, so how can we discuss them rationally?
Are you saying that you want a list of them?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: od19g6 on January 04, 2020, 05:21:26 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 04, 2020, 01:23:09 PM
Assertions are all you can expect from theists, of any stripe. No means of demonstrating their God, so they assert, and expect skeptics to just believe them because they've asserted.
God best demonstration is the human being itself.
You'll never have "physical evidence" of God.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on January 04, 2020, 05:29:04 PM
Quote from: od19g6 on January 04, 2020, 05:19:24 PM
Are you saying that you want a list of them?

How else can I know what you're talking about?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on January 04, 2020, 05:29:47 PM
Quote from: od19g6 on January 04, 2020, 05:21:26 PM
God best demonstration is the human being itself.
You'll never have "physical evidence" of God.

If at first you don't succeed, assert, assert again.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: od19g6 on January 04, 2020, 05:32:09 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 04, 2020, 05:29:04 PM
How else can I know what you're talking about?
Ok, I have to gather them.
I'll have them for you.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: od19g6 on January 04, 2020, 05:35:26 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 04, 2020, 05:29:47 PM
If at first you don't succeed, assert, assert again.
Well unbeliever, you may think that they are just assertions because basically you just want to put God under a microscope, which you will never do.

The only thing we have to work with is the names and attributes.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on January 04, 2020, 05:36:28 PM
I can't put something under a microscope that does not exist.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: od19g6 on January 04, 2020, 05:59:34 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 04, 2020, 05:36:28 PM
I can't put something under a microscope that does not exist.
But that's what you seem to keep saying and keep trying to do?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on January 04, 2020, 06:02:04 PM
I'm just trying to find out what the fuck you're talking about, but you just keep repeating the same drivel.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: od19g6 on January 04, 2020, 07:04:34 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 04, 2020, 06:02:04 PM
I'm just trying to find out what the fuck you're talking about, but you just keep repeating the same drivel.
I'll give you the list of the names and attributes of God and go from there.

Maybe there will be more understanding.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on January 04, 2020, 07:07:00 PM
No, you won't. You'll keep driveling and will never say anything worth listening to. Go the fuck back wherever you came from. we don't need or want you here.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 04, 2020, 09:46:10 PM
Quote from: od19g6 on January 04, 2020, 05:35:26 PM
Well unbeliever, you may think that they are just assertions because basically you just want to put God under a microscope, which you will never do.

The only thing we have to work with is the names and attributes.

Hence the "Logos".
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: trdsf on January 05, 2020, 12:03:39 PM
Quote from: od19g6 on January 04, 2020, 05:21:26 PM
God best demonstration is the human being itself.
You'll never have "physical evidence" of God.
Which is why I do not accept claims of any god's existence.  If something exists, at the very least its effects can be measured reliably even when the thing itself cannot be observed directly.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: trdsf on January 05, 2020, 12:06:10 PM
Quote from: od19g6 on January 04, 2020, 07:04:34 PM
I'll give you the list of the names and attributes of God and go from there.

Maybe there will be more understanding.
A list of names and alleged attributes is just a pile of words.  What actual concrete measurements and observations can you offer?  Otherwise all you're saying is that there is a god because you say there is a god, and that's simply not good enough.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on January 05, 2020, 05:35:58 PM
Quote from: trdsf on January 05, 2020, 12:03:39 PM
Which is why I do not accept claims of any god's existence.  If something exists, at the very least its effects can be measured reliably even when the thing itself cannot be observed directly.

Yeah, like dark matter, that we can't see, but we can see its effects on the stars of the galaxy and other galaxies' motions.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 05, 2020, 06:36:38 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 05, 2020, 05:35:58 PM
Yeah, like dark matter, that we can't see, but we can see its effects on the stars of the galaxy and other galaxies' motions.

That is one explanation.  May or may not be true.  Same with Dark Energy.   But I do believe in Dark Souls ;-)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on January 05, 2020, 06:39:08 PM
Science doesn't look for "true," it looks for models that fit observations.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 05, 2020, 06:44:35 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 05, 2020, 06:39:08 PM
Science doesn't look for "true," it looks for models that fit observations.

Maximum kudos.  Also add "quantitative and can be checked independently and repeatedly".  This is why most things aren't science, they are BS.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on January 05, 2020, 08:14:23 PM
Quote from: Baruch on January 05, 2020, 06:44:35 PM
  This is why most things aren't science, they are BS.
Well, you certainly have BS part of that down pat! 
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on January 05, 2020, 08:19:26 PM
Quote from: Baruch on January 05, 2020, 06:44:35 PM
Maximum kudos.  Also add "quantitative and can be checked independently and repeatedly".  This is why most things aren't science, they are BS.

Well, I was trying for succinctness.  ;-)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hydra009 on January 05, 2020, 09:10:00 PM
Quote from: od19g6 on January 04, 2020, 05:35:26 PMThe only thing we have to work with is the names and attributes.
Here's an idea: if you don't have evidence, don't say you have evidence.

And if you don't even understand the concept of evidence, absolutely do not say you have evidence.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: od19g6 on January 06, 2020, 02:07:47 AM
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 05, 2020, 09:10:00 PM
Here's an idea: if you don't have evidence, don't say you have evidence.

And if you don't even understand the concept of evidence, absolutely do not say you have evidence.
You'll never have physical evidence hydra009.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mr.Obvious on January 06, 2020, 02:23:25 AM
Quote from: od19g6 on January 06, 2020, 02:07:47 AM
You'll never have physical evidence hydra009.

Well, I think we can all agree on this one.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on January 06, 2020, 09:03:31 AM
Quote from: od19g6 on January 06, 2020, 02:07:47 AM
You'll never have physical evidence hydra009.
True, true, true.  And one will never have physical evidence of Pacos Bill, Bugs Bunny, Tweety Bird, Mickey Mouse or any other fiction.  And fiction is what your god (and all others) really are.

And the Invisible Pink Unicorn will not produce physical evidence, even though she has a few websites dedicated to he.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on January 06, 2020, 01:35:00 PM
At least the IPU isn't a jealous God.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hydra009 on January 06, 2020, 07:45:04 PM
Quote from: od19g6 on January 06, 2020, 02:07:47 AM
You'll never have physical evidence hydra009.
No kidding.  The difference between us is that it hasn't yet dawned on you why this is the case.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on January 06, 2020, 07:46:54 PM
Hydra, it will never dawn on him because he has "manifestations" (I'd call them infestations) who tell him what to think and believe, so he will never be able to think for himself.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 06, 2020, 07:49:52 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 06, 2020, 07:46:54 PM
Hydra, it will never dawn on him because he has "manifestations" (I'd call them infestations) who tell him what to think and believe, so he will never be able to think for himself.

Think for himself?  Atheist is White-Priv?  What about all those Muslims.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 06, 2020, 07:50:24 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 05, 2020, 08:14:23 PM
Well, you certainly have BS part of that down pat!

I said nothing about Patrick Star.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 06, 2020, 07:50:54 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 05, 2020, 08:19:26 PM
Well, I was trying for succinctness.  ;-)

It didn't suck at all.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: od19g6 on January 07, 2020, 04:13:46 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 06, 2020, 09:03:31 AM
True, true, true.  And one will never have physical evidence of Pacos Bill, Bugs Bunny, Tweety Bird, Mickey Mouse or any other fiction.  And fiction is what your god (and all others) really are.

And the Invisible Pink Unicorn will not produce physical evidence, even though she has a few websites dedicated to he.
If course we have "evidence" for Pacos Bill, Bugs Bunny, Tweety Bird, Mickey Mouse or any other fiction. Heck, we "created" those fictional creatures including the "Invisible Pink Unicorn"

You can't compare God which is beyond the physical universe to things that we can easily create ourselves.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on January 07, 2020, 04:19:14 PM
Quote from: od19g6 on January 07, 2020, 04:13:46 PM
If course we have "evidence" for Pacos Bill, Bugs Bunny, Tweety Bird, Mickey Mouse or any other fiction. Heck, we "created" those fictional creatures including the "Invisible Pink Unicorn"

You can compare God which is beyond the physical universe to things that we can easily create ourselves.
Your god is exactly the same as Bugs Bunny--both are total and complete fictions.  Understand--god isn't beyond the universe--it isn't anywhere or anywhen.  Your god, and all others, simply aren't.................pure and total fictions.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: trdsf on January 08, 2020, 11:58:33 AM
Quote from: od19g6 on January 07, 2020, 04:13:46 PM
You can compare God which is beyond the physical universe to things that we can easily create ourselves.
That says quite a bit about the nature of supposed gods, that they are indistinguishable from other fictions.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: od19g6 on January 08, 2020, 03:26:51 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 07, 2020, 04:19:14 PM
Your god is exactly the same as Bugs Bunny--both are total and complete fictions.  Understand--god isn't beyond the universe--it isn't anywhere or anywhen.  Your god, and all others, simply aren't.................pure and total fictions.
Just a typo reminder: I meant to say 'can't compare'.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: od19g6 on January 08, 2020, 03:27:53 PM
Quote from: trdsf on January 08, 2020, 11:58:33 AM
That says quite a bit about the nature of supposed gods, that they are indistinguishable from other fictions.
Just a typo reminder: I meant to say 'can't compare'.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: trdsf on January 08, 2020, 06:01:44 PM
Quote from: od19g6 on January 08, 2020, 03:27:53 PM
Just a typo reminder: I meant to say 'can't compare'.
"Can't compare" may be what you meant to say, but it's demonstrably untrue -- I not only can compare gods to other fictions, I have.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: od19g6 on January 08, 2020, 07:27:03 PM
Quote from: trdsf on January 08, 2020, 06:01:44 PM
"Can't compare" may be what you meant to say, but it's demonstrably untrue -- I not only can compare gods to other fictions, I have.
You said 'gods'. As far as the One that created the universe, It is beyond physical reality.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Sal1981 on January 08, 2020, 07:31:05 PM
Quote from: od19g6 on January 08, 2020, 07:27:03 PM
You said 'gods'. As far as the One that created the universe, It is beyond physical reality.
if it is, then I'll place it on the same pedestal as any fictitious character.

Convince me otherwise.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: od19g6 on January 08, 2020, 07:49:45 PM
Quote from: Sal1981 on January 08, 2020, 07:31:05 PM
if it is, then I'll place it on the same pedestal as any fictitious character.

Convince me otherwise.
I'm not here to convince you or convert you.

I just came here to talk.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on January 08, 2020, 07:50:28 PM
Well, you've talked a lot, but you haven't yet said anything.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on January 08, 2020, 09:40:36 PM
Quote from: od19g6 on January 08, 2020, 03:26:51 PM
Just a typo reminder: I meant to say 'can't compare'.
Yes, I can and do compare all gods to Bugs Bunny.  The only difference is that Bugs is not as old as your god--the fiction of god came first.  And Bugs is much less harmful than your god.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on January 08, 2020, 09:41:19 PM
Quote from: od19g6 on January 08, 2020, 07:27:03 PM
You said 'gods'. As far as the One that created the universe, It is beyond physical reality.
Of course it is because it is not real. 
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: od19g6 on January 08, 2020, 09:48:54 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 08, 2020, 09:40:36 PM
Yes, I can and do compare all gods to Bugs Bunny.  The only difference is that Bugs is not as old as your god--the fiction of god came first.  And Bugs is much less harmful than your god.
How is it less harmful?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: trdsf on January 08, 2020, 10:56:51 PM
Quote from: od19g6 on January 08, 2020, 07:27:03 PM
You said 'gods'. As far as the One that created the universe, It is beyond physical reality.
Yet another assertion without evidence.  There is nothing known beyond physical reality, and there is no reason to suspect there is.  Support your assertion.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 08, 2020, 11:16:05 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 08, 2020, 09:40:36 PM
Yes, I can and do compare all gods to Bugs Bunny.  The only difference is that Bugs is not as old as your god--the fiction of god came first.  And Bugs is much less harmful than your god.

I came here to be "tooned".  I feel like Roger Rabbit, not Bugs Bunny ;-)  Bugs is harmful to Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: od19g6 on January 08, 2020, 11:16:30 PM
Quote from: trdsf on January 08, 2020, 10:56:51 PM
Yet another assertion without evidence.  There is nothing known beyond physical reality, and there is no reason to suspect there is.  Support your assertion.
Well here's the thing.

You're like the person in the painting. All you know is the world that's in the painting.

What you're not aware of and what you don't believe in is that, there is an entity beyond the world of the painting, the "painter" that controls everything that is about the painting.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on January 08, 2020, 11:18:09 PM
Quote from: od19g6 on January 08, 2020, 09:48:54 PM
How is it less harmful?
Because I don't think anybody have ever used Bugs Bunny as a reason to kill people.  Religions throughout history have killed millions upon millions.  Religion is a bloody business. 
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 08, 2020, 11:18:39 PM
Quote from: od19g6 on January 08, 2020, 11:16:30 PM
Well here's the thing.

You're like the person in the painting. All you know is the world that's in the painting.

What you're not aware of and what you don't believe in is that, there is an entity beyond the world of the painting, the "painter" that controls everything that is about the painting.

Some don't want to admit to any agency outside themselves.  Some don't want to acknowledge agency at all.  That is because some of us "toons" don't want or don't believe in agents.  No way to get ahead in Tinsel Town that way.

MikeCL ... everyone wants to kill you, unless they are just like you.  Every tribe ever.  Your only mistake is that your own tribe wants to kill you too.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on January 08, 2020, 11:20:55 PM
Quote from: od19g6 on January 08, 2020, 11:16:30 PM
Well here's the thing.

You're like the person in the painting. All you know is the world that's in the painting.

What you're not aware of and what you don't believe in is that, there is an entity beyond the world of the painting, the "painter" that controls everything that is about the painting.
Can you give me any evidence whatsoever???  No, so far you haven't even tried.  And I can understand why--because it is impossible to produce evidence when there isn't any.  Which is why your god is a fiction and only a fiction.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 08, 2020, 11:21:39 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 08, 2020, 09:41:19 PM
Of course it is because it is not real.

Nothing is real - Buddha.  In my own experience, the Buddha is correct.  We only have delusions (maya), no reality at all.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: od19g6 on January 08, 2020, 11:26:50 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 08, 2020, 11:20:55 PM
Can you give me any evidence whatsoever???  No, so far you haven't even tried.  And I can understand why--because it is impossible to produce evidence when there isn't any.  Which is why your god is a fiction and only a fiction.
Tell you what.

If you really want to know truth and serious about finding "evidence",

Do a little study on a individual called Baha'u'llah.

With that individual you will find God.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 08, 2020, 11:28:24 PM
Quote from: od19g6 on January 08, 2020, 11:26:50 PM
Tell you what.

If you really want to know truth and serious about finding "evidence",

Do a little study on a individual called Baha'u'llah.

With that individual you will find God.

He is an example of a "woke" person.  But not an atheist Democrat White middle class American, and he never had a cell phone.  So not very "woke".
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 08, 2020, 11:29:28 PM
Quote from: Sal1981 on January 08, 2020, 07:31:05 PM
if it is, then I'll place it on the same pedestal as any fictitious character.

Convince me otherwise.

The George Washington we know is propaganda.  The real George Washington we will never know.  George Washington looks very good on a pedestal, to most Americans.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: od19g6 on January 08, 2020, 11:37:54 PM
Quote from: Baruch on January 08, 2020, 11:28:24 PM
He is an example of a "woke" person.  But not an atheist Democrat White middle class American, and he never had a cell phone.  So not very "woke".
He's far beyond a "woke person". He's a Prophet / Messenger  / Manifestation of God for this time and age. This is the individual where I learnt my divine education from.

If you really want to know truths, investigate Baha'u'llah.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 08, 2020, 11:48:59 PM
Quote from: od19g6 on January 08, 2020, 11:37:54 PM
He's far beyond a "woke person". He's a Prophet / Messenger  / Manifestation of God for this time and age. This is the individual where I learnt my divine education from.

If you really want to know truths, investigate Baha'u'llah.

OK.  I agree, in fact, you can examine the life of any human being, and G-d will jump right out at you.  But not all of us are boogiemen.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: trdsf on January 09, 2020, 12:01:30 AM
Quote from: od19g6 on January 08, 2020, 11:16:30 PM
Well here's the thing.

You're like the person in the painting. All you know is the world that's in the painting.

What you're not aware of and what you don't believe in is that, there is an entity beyond the world of the painting, the "painter" that controls everything that is about the painting.
No, you have to prove this is a painting, and there's a painter out there.  You're the one making the assertion, the burden of proof is entirely in your lap.

I am under absolutely no obligation to keep an "open mind" about anything for which there is not only absolutely zero evidence, but no reason to think that it's even worth looking for evidence.  Your unsupported assertions are completely meaningless, and throwing out more unsupported assertions to try to bolster your claim is like adding zero to zero infinitely many times, thinking if you pile on enough zeros, it might add up to one.

That's just not the way making a claim works.

If you were to say, "Well, this is just the way I believe things work", I'm good with that.  And I might ask you why you believe that, and you might reference a mystical experience you think you had, and I have no problem with that.  I might believe you're misinterpreting the event, but I can't tell you that it wasn't important to you, whether or not it actually happened.

The problem here is you're omitting the 'I believe' part and going straight for "this is the way things work" and your word is simply not good enough to back that up.  When you make a positive claim like that, you are obligated to back it up with evidence that can be independently verified.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: trdsf on January 09, 2020, 12:07:53 AM
Quote from: od19g6 on January 08, 2020, 11:26:50 PM
Tell you what.

If you really want to know truth and serious about finding "evidence",

Do a little study on a individual called Baha'u'llah.

With that individual you will find God.
No, no, no, no, no.

It's your assertion, therefore demonstrating it is your responsibility.  You have descended into a demonstration of the most pathetic intellectual cowardice.

As it happens, I have studied the history and origins of the Bahá'i religion, and it's utterly unconvincing.  And I am fairly confident -- not certain, of course, but fairly confident -- that you would then assert that I didn't study it "deeply" or "closely" or "correctly" and try to make your inability to prove your claim my fault.

You are making the claims, it's your responsibility to back them up.  You do not get to shrug that off onto the person you're trying to convince.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hydra009 on January 09, 2020, 12:40:49 AM
Quote from: od19g6 on January 08, 2020, 11:26:50 PM
Tell you what.

If you really want to know truth and serious about finding "evidence",

Do a little study on a individual called Baha'u'llah.

With that individual you will find God.
"I'm not here to convert you, but please believe in my God and read all about my prophet"
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: od19g6 on January 09, 2020, 01:10:27 AM
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 09, 2020, 12:40:49 AM
"I'm not here to convert you, but please believe in my God and read all about my prophet"
You're right, I'm not here to try and convince and convert no one, it's impossible.

I said that because since I keep getting, "I want physical evidence, I want physical evidence" and I keep answering the same thing, so I just directed him to the source that I learnt my divine knowledge from.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hydra009 on January 09, 2020, 01:17:46 AM
Quote from: od19g6 on January 09, 2020, 01:10:27 AM
You're right, I'm not here to try and convince and convert no one
You're not even good at lying.  That's your only goal, which is - on reflection - actually quite sad.

QuoteI just directed him to the source that I learnt my divine knowledge from.
Oh, did you meet either your god or your prophet?  Or where you just indoctrinated by some cult and took those words as gospel?

Well, I have news for you.  You and your fellow believers are dark-side intergalactic encyclopedia salesmen, but unfortunately, the home office hasn't been quite upfront with you.  Did you know, they need people to worship their god to gain power?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: trdsf on January 09, 2020, 03:13:52 AM
Quote from: od19g6 on January 09, 2020, 01:10:27 AM
I said that because since I keep getting, "I want physical evidence, I want physical evidence" and I keep answering the same thing, so I just directed him to the source that I learnt my divine knowledge from.
That's because if you want to be taken seriously by rationalists, you need to provide physical evidence.  Mystical claims are not going to be taken very seriously by people who try to live a rational life, and your answers so far are not actually answers.  You have either provided a meaningless list of words, or have tried to dodge your responsibility to provide proof for your claims.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: SGOS on January 09, 2020, 03:33:25 AM
A person in a painting doesn't have the ability to believe or imagine anything.  He's just a mixture of inert paint textures.  It's like your god.  It's just you giving it arbitrary qualities like comprehension of time and space.  Like your god, there is no evidence that it can perform miracles, but unlike your god it does exist, and you don't have to invent different dimensions for it to exist in so that it can speak to mankind through donkie talkies.  If you would only stop and think, you would realize you are thinking like a two year old.  Blessed are those who cannot think, for they believe in God, and they come warning the rest of us of his mighty power.  They are befuddled that we won't take them seriously.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 09, 2020, 06:04:22 AM
Quote from: SGOS on January 09, 2020, 03:33:25 AM
A person in a painting doesn't have the ability to believe or imagine anything.  He's just a mixture of inert paint textures.  It's like your god.  It's just you giving it arbitrary qualities like comprehension of time and space.  Like your god, there is no evidence that it can perform miracles, but unlike your god it does exist, and you don't have to invent different dimensions for it to exist in so that it can speak to mankind through donkie talkies.  If you would only stop and think, you would realize you are thinking like a two year old.  Blessed are those who cannot think, for they believe in God, and they come warning the rest of us of his mighty power.  They are befuddled that we won't take them seriously.

A human being is a mixture of particularly stupid atoms ;-)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on January 09, 2020, 09:40:55 AM
Quote from: Baruch on January 09, 2020, 06:04:22 AM
A human being is a mixture of particularly stupid atoms ;-)
It is interesting how you keep projecting you onto the rest of humanity.  You are simply just another theist and all of them are simply befuddled. 
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 09, 2020, 10:27:40 AM
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 09, 2020, 09:40:55 AM
It is interesting how you keep projecting you onto the rest of humanity.  You are simply just another theist and all of them are simply befuddled.

I am Everyman.  All of you, are me, when I don't get enough sleep.

All you have is innuendo.  Same as every ideologue.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Sal1981 on January 09, 2020, 10:32:21 AM


Quote from: Baruch on January 09, 2020, 10:27:40 AM
I am Everyman.  All of you, are me, when I don't get enough sleep.

All you have is innuendo.  Same as every ideologue.

You sound like a solipsist.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on January 09, 2020, 11:58:55 AM
Quote from: Baruch on January 09, 2020, 10:27:40 AM
I am Everyman.  All of you, are me, when I don't get enough sleep.

All you have is innuendo.  Same as every ideologue.
You are clearly NOT Everyman (or even everyman); you are actually Jeremy, the Nowhere Man.  Worse, you are the Negative Man part of the Nowhere Man who finds no pleasure or positive aspect to anything or anyone.  And you, unlike Jeremy, are not even able to fix anything, much less a propeller.  Nobody on this board is you.  You stand for nothing except totally negativity.  Your blatherings are meaningless for you have no there there.  You don't even have innuendo for you care nothing about anything.  You generalize everything to the point of meaninglessness.  You simply blather on and on........................
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 09, 2020, 08:21:48 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 09, 2020, 11:58:55 AM
You are clearly NOT Everyman (or even everyman); you are actually Jeremy, the Nowhere Man.  Worse, you are the Negative Man part of the Nowhere Man who finds no pleasure or positive aspect to anything or anyone.  And you, unlike Jeremy, are not even able to fix anything, much less a propeller.  Nobody on this board is you.  You stand for nothing except totally negativity.  Your blatherings are meaningless for you have no there there.  You don't even have innuendo for you care nothing about anything.  You generalize everything to the point of meaninglessness.  You simply blather on and on........................

Your jealousy is cute ;-)  Why don't call me baby Hitler while you are at it?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 09, 2020, 08:25:07 PM
Quote from: Sal1981 on January 09, 2020, 10:32:21 AM

You sound like a solipsist.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

You are an individual same as me.  Not part of the Hive Mind.  I am a demi-god, not G-d.  And my status is democratic, because it isn't based on my individuality, but my common humanity.  Most people distinguish themselves on the basis of their individuality (solipsist) or their tribal membership (collectivist).
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 09, 2020, 08:26:08 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 09, 2020, 09:40:55 AM
It is interesting how you keep projecting you onto the rest of humanity.  You are simply just another theist and all of them are simply befuddled.

You have never bothered to listen, except when I agree with you ;-)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on January 09, 2020, 08:57:07 PM
Quote from: Baruch on January 09, 2020, 08:21:48 PM
Your jealousy is cute ;-)  Why don't call me baby Hitler while you are at it?
Don't flatter yourself.  There is nothing about you that turns me green.  At one time, I was deeply impressed by your intellectual power and insight.  Not now.  You may still have it, but you don't use it.  You are a put-down artist; you simply  put down everything and everyone.  Don't think Hitler was a Nowhere Man, but you are; I think you need to change your name from Baruch to Jeremy.  You are simply an old bitter man who makes bitter comments about everything and everyone.  Posts like these do make me sad--once upon a time I looked up to you and your intellect and insight.  What makes me sad is the realization that that was a sham.  It turns out you are simply a bitter, bitter old man --in order for that to be, you must have suffered a great hurt or a series of them.  Too bad, for you destroyed a 'you' that had a touch of brilliance.  Now, you are just a sad, bitter old Jeremy of a Nowhere Man.  For me, that is depressing. 
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on January 09, 2020, 09:15:47 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 09, 2020, 08:57:07 PM
Don't flatter yourself.  There is nothing about you that turns me green.  At one time, I was deeply impressed by your intellectual power and insight.  Not now.  You may still have it, but you don't use it.  You are a put-down artist; you simply  put down everything and everyone.  Don't think Hitler was a Nowhere Man, but you are; I think you need to change your name from Baruch to Jeremy.  You are simply an old bitter man who makes bitter comments about everything and everyone.  Posts like these do make me sad--once upon a time I looked up to you and your intellect and insight.  What makes me sad is the realization that that was a sham.  It turns out you are simply a bitter, bitter old man --in order for that to be, you must have suffered a great hurt or a series of them.  Too bad, for you destroyed a 'you' that had a touch of brilliance.  Now, you are just a sad, bitter old Jeremy of a Nowhere Man.  For me, that is depressing.

Sigh.  I am not the droid you were looking for.  Maybe Count Duku will take you.

Not so bitter, now I am retired and near my daughter.  But I won't take it back.  All men (people) are equal.  All humans are evil.  G-d is Satan.  We are children of G-d/spawn of Satan.  Tell me about Iraq, Iran etc and say I am not right.  America is the biggest terrorist of them all.  And it is your freedom of speech to virtue signal to your heart's content.  I don't think you are any more evil, than anyone else.  That would be flattering you ;-)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: SvZurich on February 08, 2020, 02:08:10 PM
Just checking in. Did any irrefutable evidence get presented while I was away? Are we proven to be more than stardust?

Maybe even more than stardust assembled to help the universe perceive itself?

Thinking no is the answer.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on February 08, 2020, 02:19:32 PM
We're still waiting for that definitive evidence we've been promised.

Glad to see you, SvZ!
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: SvZurich on February 08, 2020, 02:44:50 PM
Thank ya, Unbeliever!  Glad to see y'all still on here too!
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: SGOS on February 08, 2020, 03:28:14 PM
The purpose of this thread was a ruse designed to keep the believers babbling while we continue toward our goal of world domination.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on February 08, 2020, 03:35:14 PM
We haven't had nearly enough babblers lately. World domination has, subsequently, been postponed.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: SvZurich on February 08, 2020, 03:48:00 PM
And all store bought BBQ sauces now make babies taste worse!  It used to be that a store bought honey bbq sauce would enhance the natural juicy flavor of baby, but now that is no longer the taste.  Damn theists and their meddling annoyances.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on February 08, 2020, 03:48:51 PM
It's Obama's fault.


Oh, and Hillary's e-mails.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: SvZurich on February 08, 2020, 04:09:27 PM
If only the DNC would embrace Bernie Sanders.  Obama and Hillary hate him and are scared of him.  He's sunlight, disinfecting DC with his very presence. 

And Jewish... What if he's immaculately conceived!  Could Bernie be proof of an atheist messiah?  Enqueuing minds want to know.  I want to know!
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on February 09, 2020, 12:11:09 AM
Quote from: SvZurich on February 08, 2020, 04:09:27 PM
If only the DNC would embrace Bernie Sanders.  Obama and Hillary hate him and are scared of him.  He's sunlight, disinfecting DC with his very presence. 

And Jewish... What if he's immaculately conceived!  Could Bernie be proof of an atheist messiah?  Enqueuing minds want to know.  I want to know!

Ironic this is posted in the "religion" section.  People into politics are "true believers".
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: SvZurich on February 09, 2020, 02:17:19 AM
Quote from: Baruch on February 09, 2020, 12:11:09 AM
Ironic this is posted in the "religion" section.  People into politics are "true believers".
Sadly true.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: SvZurich on February 10, 2020, 03:30:24 PM
It has been a whole day since I last checked here. Has the proof been revealed yet? I feel I already know that the answer is no...

Still waiting.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on February 10, 2020, 03:37:13 PM
I hope you're not holding your breath!  LOL
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: SvZurich on February 10, 2020, 03:56:43 PM
I was, but when I start thinking about turning blue, I stop.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on February 10, 2020, 04:02:13 PM
Now QI is talking about the "breatharian diet"!  LOL
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on February 10, 2020, 04:04:03 PM
https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/please-do-not-attempt-the-breatharian-diet-you-need-food-to-live/
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: SvZurich on February 10, 2020, 04:19:01 PM
They should give her the opportunity to practice what she preaches and prove her claim. Lock her up without food and drink in a high humidity environment. I understand we still have such places in Cuba. She'd love to visit and broadcast from there!
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on February 10, 2020, 09:10:22 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 10, 2020, 04:02:13 PM
Now QI is talking about the "breatharian diet"!  LOL

"It is rumored that the Dragon Warrior can live a year on the dew off a single ginkgo leaf" - Tigress, Kung Fu Panda I.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: SvZurich on February 10, 2020, 09:13:22 PM
Quote from: Baruch on February 10, 2020, 09:10:22 PM
"It is rumored that the Dragon Warrior can live a year on the dew off a single ginkgo leaf" - Tigress, Kung Fu Panda I.

Meanwhile I've been playing through the Dragon Quest/Warrior games.  Currently stuck on the final boss before the postgame content.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on February 10, 2020, 11:08:45 PM
Quote from: SvZurich on February 10, 2020, 09:13:22 PM
Meanwhile I've been playing through the Dragon Quest/Warrior games.  Currently stuck on the final boss before the postgame content.

Do you defeat your opponents with your all powerful gut?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: SvZurich on February 10, 2020, 11:16:56 PM
I finally defeated Corvus with my T&A.  :)

As for my gut, I am currently filling it with chips and Pace Picante Hot.  Thank you for asking.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on February 12, 2020, 03:02:49 PM
"France Quietly Reintroducing The Crime Of Blasphemy" ... this is to limit the urge by the Religion of Peace engaging in terrorism in France.  This must imply that France acknowledges that Allah is the one true god ;-)
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Gregory on March 16, 2020, 02:36:29 AM
Quote from: Baruch on February 12, 2020, 03:02:49 PM
"France Quietly Reintroducing The Crime Of Blasphemy" ... this is to limit the urge by the Religion of Peace engaging in terrorism in France.  This must imply that France acknowledges that Allah is the one true god ;-)

If France is anything like America, the land of free speech, it's never been off the books.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on March 16, 2020, 06:17:42 AM
Quote from: Gregory on March 16, 2020, 02:36:29 AM
If France is anything like America, the land of free speech, it's never been off the books.

France is its own thing.  France and Germany restrict free speech legally.  In America free speech is restricted informally.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Gregory on March 16, 2020, 09:33:30 PM
Whatever you reckon there, sport.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on March 17, 2020, 08:38:20 AM
Quote from: Gregory on March 16, 2020, 09:33:30 PM
Whatever you reckon there, sport.

I do reckon.  For many decades now.  But it is better to find someone smarter than myself, listen to what they have to say, and then draw my own conclusions ;-)  With the Internet (or a library) I have access to millions of people smarter than myself.

For example I have been studying the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, in a volume with wonderful commentary in English.  Book II verse V ... the commentary there gave me additional insight into Jesus' incarnation (as a mystical idea).  You never know what you will find, unless you look.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Gregory on March 17, 2020, 09:18:23 PM
The Bible has not one word to say about knowledge.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on March 17, 2020, 10:26:36 PM
Quote from: Gregory on March 17, 2020, 09:18:23 PM
The Bible has not one word to say about knowledge.

Depends on what the meaning of "is" is - Bill Clinton
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Newtonian on March 21, 2020, 11:34:58 AM
Quote from: Gregory on March 17, 2020, 09:18:23 PM
The Bible has not one word to say about knowledge.

Yes it does - depending on translation.  For example:

John 17:3
This means everlasting life,+ their taking in knowledge+ of you,* the only true God,+ and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.+

NW  ref. footnote"

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/fn/r1/lp-e/1001060046/141

Or, “their knowing you.” Gr., hiʹna gi·noʹsko·si se.

The word "knowledge" is found 172 times in the King James Version of the Bible (KJV)

Romans 1:20 shows that the study of the "things made" will reveal much about God's qualities.   Note that the study of things made involves all branches of scientific study.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 (KJV) "Prove all things."
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: trdsf on March 21, 2020, 01:29:17 PM
Certainly the study of "all things" has revealed a physical reality that at no point requires appeal to a divinity to make it work.  And if you are exhorted to 'prove all things', then you have an obligation to understand the nature of proof.  It requires independent demonstration, not faith and waving an ancient book around.

As ancient books go, I prefer Euclid's Elements -- those proofs are both rigorous and independently verifiable, and don't require faith.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: aitm on March 21, 2020, 01:30:26 PM
Quote from: Newtonian on March 21, 2020, 11:34:58 AM
Yes it does - depending on translation. 
And there you have it. In other words...make up shit instead of what it really says.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: trdsf on March 21, 2020, 02:28:13 PM
Quote from: Newtonian on March 21, 2020, 11:34:58 AM
Yes it does - depending on translation.
Well, then, let's have the originals.

Oh, right.  Those don't exist.  Only translations of translations of copies of copies of copies.  There are no complete texts that pre-date ca. 200-300 CE, which means they're at best copies of copies with no way to verify their accuracy -- or that the originals were written two or three centuries after the alleged "events".
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Newtonian on March 21, 2020, 05:50:33 PM
Quote from: trdsf on March 21, 2020, 01:29:17 PM
Certainly the study of "all things" has revealed a physical reality that at no point requires appeal to a divinity to make it work.  And if you are exhorted to 'prove all things', then you have an obligation to understand the nature of proof.  It requires independent demonstration, not faith and waving an ancient book around.

As ancient books go, I prefer Euclid's Elements -- those proofs are both rigorous and independently verifiable, and don't require faith.

Agreed.   However, some popular scientific beliefs require blind faith - such as at the Big Bang our universe was created from nothing.   This violates both the law of conservation of matter and energy  as well as the scientific principle of cause and effect.  Yet many scientists believe this - I don't btw. 

The Divine Name Jehovah has the Hebrew verb for "to be" in the causative sense - thus a primary definition of this name is "He causes to be"   Clearly this is in harmony with the principle of cause and effect but specifies that rather than an infinite number of past causes and effects back for infinite past time, there is a First Cause.

The blind faith of some scientists stops them from researching the cause of the origin of our universe.

Btw - some scientists believe in an infinite number of universes - also on blind faith.

You are touching on another many faceted subject - Intelligent design vs. blind chance.   For example how our universe and planet are fine tuned for the existence of life - notably life on the surface of the earth. This involves precise scientific measurements such as the strength of the 4 primary forces of physics.  I think this subject deserve a separate thread -  but in which forum section of this forum?

On your last point - how did the elements come to exist?   Besides hydrogen and lithium, don't they require supernovas?

But how did stars come to exist?   Didn't they require a fine tuned expansion rate of our universe?   See Isaiah 40:22,26.

And don't the laws governing our universe (Job 38:33) require a lawgiver?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on March 21, 2020, 06:11:22 PM
Quote from: trdsf on March 21, 2020, 01:29:17 PM
Certainly the study of "all things" has revealed a physical reality that at no point requires appeal to a divinity to make it work.  And if you are exhorted to 'prove all things', then you have an obligation to understand the nature of proof.  It requires independent demonstration, not faith and waving an ancient book around.

As ancient books go, I prefer Euclid's Elements -- those proofs are both rigorous and independently verifiable, and don't require faith.

Not religious faith.  Being convinced of the axioms (which were amazingly good considering ...).  Hence Plato's attempt to extend that to all human knowledge (and failing).  There were small defects in Euclid that weren't corrected until after 1800 CE.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: aitm on March 21, 2020, 09:00:30 PM
Quote from: Newtonian on March 21, 2020, 05:50:33 PM

The Divine Name Jehovah has the Hebrew verb for "to be" in the causative sense - thus a primary definition of this name is "He causes to be"   
The name Thomas also means twin. But yet...I am not. You must be a complete nut job to think your idiocy has any weight.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on March 21, 2020, 09:12:17 PM
Quote from: aitm on March 21, 2020, 09:00:30 PM
The name Thomas also means twin. But yet...I am not. You must be a complete nut job to think your idiocy has any weight.

Twinning is a divine conception (twins were regarded as prodigies in paganism).  Helen vs Clytemnestra.  Castor vs Pollux.  The idea of being a human-divine pairing was popular religious drama in Harran in pagan and later Christian times.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: aitm on March 21, 2020, 09:16:09 PM
Then....I am a god. All hail me.

Send me 150.00 bucks and I will put in a good word to me.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on March 21, 2020, 09:29:23 PM
Quote from: aitm on March 21, 2020, 09:16:09 PM
Then....I am a god. All hail me.

Send me 150.00 bucks and I will put in a good word to me.

I do, we are all demi-gods (though not per Harran religious drama).  You owe me 200 tetradrachms of Antioch (you could pawn that Holy Handgrenade of Antioch).  Can't even kill a bunny rabbit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM9Bynjh2Lk
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: aitm on March 22, 2020, 09:50:53 AM
Monty was the best.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: trdsf on March 22, 2020, 07:25:56 PM
Quote from: Newtonian on March 21, 2020, 05:50:33 PM
Agreed.   However, some popular scientific beliefs require blind faith - such as at the Big Bang our universe was created from nothing.   This violates both the law of conservation of matter and energy  as well as the scientific principle of cause and effect.  Yet many scientists believe this - I don't btw.
Then you're wrong.  The Big Bang is an OBSERVATION, not a faith-based position.  And it didn't come from nothing.  Fact is, we don't know what triggered the Big Bang -- science does not have the blind arrogance to assert facts, it states observations.  What triggered the Big Bang is an active area of research.

Also, there's no such thing as the nothing you pretend the Big Bang came out of.  There are always quantum fluctuations, even in a spaceless space.  You can't have nothing -- the Uncertainty Principle is clear on that.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hydra009 on March 22, 2020, 07:46:26 PM
Quote from: Newtonian on March 21, 2020, 05:50:33 PMIntelligent design
Uggh.  Now there's a blast from the past, a winning idea with a (literally) cult following.  Cdesign proponentsists, I believe was the second draft.  There was a guy here who called it "Intelligent God" which was just a tad too on the nose.

How'd that movement work out?  It's funny how a country smothered in religiosity and frequently controlled by right-wing loons that a "sneaky" (but not so sneaky that its dullard proponents couldn't figure it out) ideology like that failed so badly that the term itself is like a period piece.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on March 22, 2020, 07:52:59 PM
Quote from: trdsf on March 22, 2020, 07:25:56 PM
Then you're wrong.  The Big Bang is an OBSERVATION, not a faith-based position.  And it didn't come from nothing.  Fact is, we don't know what triggered the Big Bang -- science does not have the blind arrogance to assert facts, it states observations.  What triggered the Big Bang is an active area of research.

Also, there's no such thing as the nothing you pretend the Big Bang came out of.  There are always quantum fluctuations, even in a spaceless space.  You can't have nothing -- the Uncertainty Principle is clear on that.

Literally ... a geometric point by itself is an exact position, which would contain a totally unknown momentum/mass.  Only an inexact position, however small, can have a inexact momentum/mass.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: trdsf on March 22, 2020, 08:01:21 PM
Quote from: Newtonian on March 21, 2020, 05:50:33 PM
You are touching on another many faceted subject - Intelligent design vs. blind chance.   For example how our universe and planet are fine tuned for the existence of life - notably life on the surface of the earth. This involves precise scientific measurements such as the strength of the 4 primary forces of physics.  I think this subject deserve a separate thread -  but in which forum section of this forum?

On your last point - how did the elements come to exist?   Besides hydrogen and lithium, don't they require supernovas?

But how did stars come to exist?   Didn't they require a fine tuned expansion rate of our universe?   See Isaiah 40:22,26.

And don't the laws governing our universe (Job 38:33) require a lawgiver?
The universe is NOT fine-tuned for the existence of life.  Life fits the laws that exist, and if the laws were otherwise, then life would be different.  Or impossible.

We are not *implicit* in the universe.  We are merely *possible* in the universe.  You have the unspeakable arrogance to think that this is all about us.  It's not.  The universe is not here for our benefit.  We're just one possible arrangement of molecules and systems within it, and we *are* an accident of all the events leading up to now.

Hydrogen *and helium* and trace amounts of lithium came from Big Bang nucleogenesis.  Everything else came from supernovae.  They didn't require so-called "fine tuning" either.  They are merely possible under the laws this universe operates on.

Saying laws require a lawgiver is wordplay.  The "laws" are how the universe operates.  They're not like laws on drinking ages or when you can get a driver's license.  They're implicit in existence and require only existence, not a "lawgiver" whose existence is both unprovable and unnecessary.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hydra009 on March 22, 2020, 08:43:12 PM
Quote from: trdsf on March 22, 2020, 08:01:21 PMLife fits the laws that exist, and if the laws were otherwise, then life would be different.  Or impossible.
And of course, any universes without life tend to not have anyone around to wonder about it.

Imagine playing blackjack and automatically folding if your starting hand is less than 20.  Then remarking at the "miracle" that your current hand is a pair of kings.  What are the odds!
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Gregory on April 02, 2020, 02:26:56 PM
Whatever.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Gregory on April 02, 2020, 02:30:48 PM
God is not the answer.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on April 02, 2020, 02:54:23 PM
Quote from: Gregory on April 02, 2020, 02:30:48 PM
God is not the answer.

Ah, but what is the question? - Deep Thought
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Gregory on April 02, 2020, 03:26:08 PM
The question is irrelevant, for the answer is always FOO WASN'T HERE.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on April 02, 2020, 07:41:20 PM
Quote from: Gregory on April 02, 2020, 03:26:08 PM
The question is irrelevant, for the answer is always FOO WASN'T HERE.

No, the answer is always "42".
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on April 02, 2020, 08:57:43 PM
Quote from: Baruch on April 02, 2020, 07:41:20 PM
No, the answer is always "42".
Jackie Robinson would be pleased
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Paolo on May 08, 2020, 04:46:59 AM
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 22, 2020, 08:43:12 PM
And of course, any universes without life tend to not have anyone around to wonder about it.

Imagine playing blackjack and automatically folding if your starting hand is less than 20.  Then remarking at the "miracle" that your current hand is a pair of kings.  What are the odds!

Is this atheistic or theistic? I can't even tell at this point.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on May 08, 2020, 05:41:22 PM
Just an observation on method. Using obvious truths that anyone can check, is empirically or mathematically reliable.  Arguing over the details of the Big Bang is not.  The deeper aspects of math, won't be intelligible to most people.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Unbeliever on May 09, 2020, 02:22:06 PM
The deeper aspects of math won't even be intelligible to most mathematicians.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hydra009 on May 09, 2020, 04:04:37 PM
Quote from: Paolo on May 08, 2020, 04:46:59 AM
Is this atheistic or theistic? I can't even tell at this point.
The scare quotes around "miracle" are a bit of a tell
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on May 09, 2020, 05:04:40 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 09, 2020, 02:22:06 PM
The deeper aspects of math won't even be intelligible to most mathematicians.

Shh ... the AMA (American Mathematical Association) will excommunicate you if they hear you said this! ;-)

https://www.earthlymission.com/the-mathematics-trench/

Notice Cthulhu is at the bottom!
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Baruch on May 09, 2020, 05:05:40 PM
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 09, 2020, 04:04:37 PM
The scare quotes around "miracle" are a bit of a tell

Real priests gamble with loaded dice.  Snake eyes every time! ;-)

G-d plays with loaded dice - contrary to Einstein ... which pretty much nullifies all the pseudo-intellectual basis for atheism
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: OrangeDon on April 13, 2021, 01:11:53 PM
Evidence?  You mean -- sunsets, flowers, and babies being born isn't enough?  :D
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on April 13, 2021, 02:24:01 PM
Quote from: OrangeDon on April 13, 2021, 01:11:53 PM
Evidence?  You mean -- sunsets, flowers, and babies being born isn't enough?  :D
Don, one of my minor hobbies is doing Jesus research.  I have a degree in history and taught it for 38ish years and so I tend to like most history topics.  Anyway, I have done enough studying to convince myself that Jesus did not actually exist and that he is a mashup of many different avatars of that time period.  What ended up being the final compelling element of the 'history' of Jesus is that not a single writer wrote about the guy during his proposed lifespan.  If Jesus existed Philo would have wrote about him!  BTW, Richard Carrier is one of my favorite writers on the subject.  Anyway, Don, what are your thoughts on that subject?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: aitm on April 13, 2021, 06:31:38 PM
Quote from: OrangeDon on April 13, 2021, 01:11:53 PM
Evidence?  You mean -- sunsets, flowers, and babies being born isn't enough?  :D
I got your sarcasm.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: OrangeDon on April 20, 2021, 11:05:13 AM
Mike CL:  Anyway, Don, what are your thoughts on that subject?
100% Agreement.  You are correct that there wasn't one writer, historian, official scribe, known author...NOBODY contemporary to the time that the mythical Jesus would have lived, ever wrote one word about him.  Not one.  Only the other mythical people (NT gospels) and those are already highly suspect and often inconsistent.  But what can you expect when they didn't actually record anything in written form until at least three decades would have passed after Christ's alleged death.  I can't give you accurate, word for word information about a TV show that I watched yesterday.  I can only imagine how bad my recall would be about "Jesus said....THIS" some 3 or more decades later!  I mean, Matthew and Luke totally screwed up recounting the birth of Christ -- each tying it to an event, one claiming Christ was born before 4 BCE (for Herod to be king of Israel, because Herod died 4 BCE; see Matthew 2:1) and one claiming that he was born after 6AD (when Quirinius was governor of Syria; see Luke 2:1-7).  So much for the inerrant word of god... that is a one-decade, mutually exclusive gap.  So, yeah, it really is utter nonsense.  Hence, my sarcasm about the believers today who claim that beautiful sunsets, babies being born, lovely, pretty flowers, etc, are "all the proof you need that god is real and he created all of this."  Completely void of any common sense and the ability for critical thinking.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on April 20, 2021, 12:01:07 PM
Quote from: OrangeDon on April 20, 2021, 11:05:13 AM
Mike CL:  Anyway, Don, what are your thoughts on that subject?
100% Agreement.  You are correct that there wasn't one writer, historian, official scribe, known author...NOBODY contemporary to the time that the mythical Jesus would have lived, ever wrote one word about him.  Not one.  Only the other mythical people (NT gospels) and those are already highly suspect and often inconsistent.  But what can you expect when they didn't actually record anything in written form until at least three decades would have passed after Christ's alleged death.  I can't give you accurate, word for word information about a TV show that I watched yesterday.  I can only imagine how bad my recall would be about "Jesus said....THIS" some 3 or more decades later!  I mean, Matthew and Luke totally screwed up recounting the birth of Christ -- each tying it to an event, one claiming Christ was born before 4 BCE (for Herod to be king of Israel, because Herod died 4 BCE; see Matthew 2:1) and one claiming that he was born after 6AD (when Quirinius was governor of Syria; see Luke 2:1-7).  So much for the inerrant word of god... that is a one-decade, mutually exclusive gap.  So, yeah, it really is utter nonsense.  Hence, my sarcasm about the believers today who claim that beautiful sunsets, babies being born, lovely, pretty flowers, etc, are "all the proof you need that god is real and he created all of this."  Completely void of any common sense and the ability for critical thinking.
One of the first things I noticed about Jesus and the bible were the inconstancies in the Jesus story.  I read many, many christian 'scholars' explain it away by saying that it was recalled decades (or longer) after his death.  So, of course, there would be inconstancies; that is to be expected.  But that the story was more or less, true.  My thought was that if a creator god kept screwing up his creation (a perfect creation that he kept getting wrong) and had to make attempt after attempt to right his wrongs, (for example, the garden of eden, Noah and the flood, the tower of babble, etc.), and those also failed.  These tales have all the ear marks of myth and legend--and that god is simply a human construct.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: irontiger on July 22, 2021, 11:12:05 PM
This is quite amusing.  In order to confirm existence an atheist first wants evidence.  However, whatever exist that is beyond our capabilities to sense and perceive will exist.  Therefore without evidence it can not be confirmed what does exist does not exist
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on July 22, 2021, 11:29:56 PM
Quote from: irontiger on July 22, 2021, 11:12:05 PM
This is quite amusing.  In order to confirm existence an atheist first wants evidence.  However, whatever exist that is beyond our capabilities to sense and perceive will exist.  Therefore without evidence it can not be confirmed what does exist does not exist
Well, papertiger, it would be nice if you could string together a couple of cogent thoughts together.  Oh, I forgot.  You're a theist so that is just not possible.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Blackleaf on July 22, 2021, 11:59:49 PM
Quote from: irontiger on July 22, 2021, 11:12:05 PM
This is quite amusing.  In order to confirm existence an atheist first wants evidence.  However, whatever exist that is beyond our capabilities to sense and perceive will exist.  Therefore without evidence it can not be confirmed what does exist does not exist

Good point. So the sensible thing would be NOT to assume we know the unknowable or make blind guesses on faith, huh?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: SGOS on July 23, 2021, 07:36:00 AM
Quote from: irontiger on July 22, 2021, 11:12:05 PM
Therefore without evidence it can not be confirmed what does exist does not exist
Nor can it be confirmed that what does not exist, actually exists.  See?!   We are both in the same boat.  Neither one of us knows if god exists, but you use lack of confirmation as a reason to believe he does exist, while I use lack of confirmation as the explanation for why I remain neutral about what I can't know.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Shiranu on July 23, 2021, 05:34:36 PM
Quote from: irontiger on July 22, 2021, 11:12:05 PM
This is quite amusing.  In order to confirm existence an atheist first wants evidence.  However, whatever exist that is beyond our capabilities to sense and perceive will exist.  Therefore without evidence it can not be confirmed what does exist does not exist

This is true, however in cases where we don't have direct evidence of something's existence we can still observe the universe around "it" to examine if the unobservable has observable effects on what is around it. We also can use the laws of nature, logic and philosophy to determine the probability of it's existence.

I am going to assume you come from an Abrahamic tradition, so I will word it this way; I am not 100% sure God doesn't exist, but given the lack of any evidence, the lack of any evidence of him effecting the universe, and the fact that his existence would inherently be a logical fallacy, the odds are so astronomically low of Him being real that I live my life in a way that assumes he doesn't exist.

I "could" win the lottery by having a ticket fall out of an airplane storage bay, caught in the mouth of raven who lands on my shoulder and flies away quoting Edgar Allan Poe after placing it in my hand... but I'm not going to live in a way that presumes that is what is going to happen.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: irontiger on July 23, 2021, 05:41:50 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 22, 2021, 11:29:56 PM
Well, papertiger, it would be nice if you could string together a couple of cogent thoughts together.  Oh, I forgot.  You're a theist so that is just not possible.

Speaking about cogent thought, your signature needs improvement, written like a bumbling atheist.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

What is evil ?  What is there to prevent ?

Then he is not omnipotent,

How did you confirm this ?

Is he able but not willing?

Willing to do what ?

Then whence cometh evil?

Again what is evil ?

Is he neither able or willing?

Again able or willing to do what ?

Then why call him god?

Who are you referring to ?  What are the attributes of it ?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: trdsf on July 23, 2021, 06:17:52 PM
Quote from: irontiger on July 23, 2021, 05:41:50 PM
Speaking about cogent thought, your signature needs improvement, written like a bumbling atheist.
Ah yes, it's always good to start off with trolling.  Do you want to be taken seriously, or are you just dicking around until you break the rules enough to be banned?

Quote from: irontiger on July 23, 2021, 05:41:50 PM
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
What is evil ?  What is there to prevent ?
Not actually relevant, but if you insist, I suggest 'evil' is 'something deleterious to human existence, either individually or as a group', as a placeholder definition.  No definite act needs to be specified because that is an irrelevant tangent.  Every human being can think of some act they consider evil, and it actually doesn't matter what the specific act is.

Quote from: irontiger on July 23, 2021, 05:41:50 PM
Then he is not omnipotent,
How did you confirm this ?
It's inherent of the definition of omnipotence.  If an action is not self-contradictory or logically impossible, then the inability to do an act means that the entity is not omnipotent.  It's just plain English.

As for the rest of your comment, you know perfectly well what the subject of conversation is and comments like "willing or able to do what" can only be interpreted as deliberate trolling, or unspeakable stupidity.

Do try harder, thanks.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on July 23, 2021, 07:22:49 PM
Quote from: irontiger on July 23, 2021, 05:41:50 PM
Speaking about cogent thought, your signature needs improvement, written like a bumbling atheist.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

What is evil ?  What is there to prevent ?

Then he is not omnipotent,

How did you confirm this ?

Is he able but not willing?

Willing to do what ?

Then whence cometh evil?

Again what is evil ?

Is he neither able or willing?

Again able or willing to do what ?

Then why call him god?

Who are you referring to ?  What are the attributes of it ?
Take it up with Epicurus--I copied it from him.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on July 23, 2021, 07:25:32 PM
Okay, iron, are you here to hold actual conversations or to simply troll.  I'll be glad to discuss my views if you are willing to do the same.  If you are serious, why not follow the rules and go to the intro page and intro yourself.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: LostLocke on July 24, 2021, 09:55:03 PM
Quote from: irontiger on July 22, 2021, 11:12:05 PM
However, whatever exist that is beyond our capabilities to sense and perceive will exist.
So you're a polytheist then? By this definition it means ALL gods must exist.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Cassia on July 25, 2021, 11:12:48 AM
I will post all the evidence for any gods between the two parallel lines below:
_____________________________________



______________________________________

OK, that was easy.

Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: aitm on July 25, 2021, 12:26:03 PM
I can tell ole tiger is a so called christian. Not enough intelligence to recognize the writings of Epicurus. Probably studied with coloring books.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hydra009 on July 26, 2021, 11:33:11 PM
Quote from: irontiger on July 22, 2021, 11:12:05 PMThis is quite amusing.  In order to confirm existence an atheist first wants evidence.  However, whatever exist that is beyond our capabilities to sense and perceive will exist.  Therefore without evidence it can not be confirmed what does exist does not exist
If this "evidence" is beyond our senses, then how can you (or anyone) claim that it exists?

And don't you find it strange that this god stuff is taken as a given (this is apparently a *serious* theological argument) - merely assumed to be true?  Isn't that rather telling that no such evidence is either accessible or in existence?
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Shiranu on July 27, 2021, 09:28:25 AM
QuoteHow did you confirm this ?

Again, both from my post and trdsf said, logic; it's a field of study that has been around for at least 2400 years in the West (and most certainly predated Plato) and god knows how long in India where the field developed separately from the Greeks, so it's not some new-fangled post-modern conspiracy either.

If you are arguing the existence of the Abrahamic God, then you are arguing for something that simply cannot exist because there are so many contradictions and logical fallacies in his depiction.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hydra009 on July 27, 2021, 09:57:25 AM
Quote from: irontiger on July 23, 2021, 05:41:50 PMThen he is not omnipotent,

How did you confirm this ?
Something something iron chariots.  LOL
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: SGOS on July 29, 2021, 08:13:28 AM
It's odd that chariots play such a big role in Christianity, or maybe I've seen too many Cecil B. DiMille movies when I was little.  I suppose chariots back then were like Corvettes and Porshes.  When Jesus returns, I doubt that he will come back in a Ford Focus.  He will most likely arrive at the stadium in a limo, escorted by body guards as he makes his way to the speakers platform where he will make an urgent plea for donations.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: aitm on July 29, 2021, 08:06:24 PM
Quote from: SGOS on July 29, 2021, 08:13:28 AM
It's odd that chariots play such a big role in Christianity, or maybe I've seen too many Cecil B. DiMille movies when I was little.  I suppose chariots back then were like Corvettes and Porshes.  When Jesus returns, I doubt that he will come back in a Ford Focus.  He will most likely arrive at the stadium in a limo, escorted by body guards as he makes his way to the speakers platform where he will make an urgent plea for donations.
Tut tut….one will have to pay admission for such an event…..and no doubt, there will be no republicans at it.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: trdsf on August 02, 2021, 01:06:59 AM
Did the ferrous kitty bugger off? Apparently iron tigers are no match for iron chariots...
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Hydra009 on August 06, 2021, 08:39:23 PM
https://v.redd.it/7vhayb0oynf71

Well, I'm convinced.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Blackleaf on August 06, 2021, 09:59:24 PM
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 06, 2021, 08:39:23 PM
https://v.redd.it/7vhayb0oynf71

Well, I'm convinced.

This...has to be a joke.
Title: Re: Present Evidence Here II
Post by: Mike Cl on August 06, 2021, 10:05:15 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 06, 2021, 09:59:24 PM
This...has to be a joke.
Considering this was a video of all christians, of course it is a joke.  Only none of them realize it.  All that they believe is a joke.