Argument for God
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-04-2013, 09:13 PM
RE: Argument for God
(03-04-2013 09:04 PM)Logisch Wrote:  If sponges are an organism... and organisms evolved... HOW COME THEY DIDN'T EVOLVE INTO MORE ADVANCED CLEANING DEVICES?
Checkmate atheists!


THEY DID!!!

[Image: pg-4907_1z.jpg]

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like bbeljefe's post
03-04-2013, 11:48 PM
 
RE: Argument for God
(03-04-2013 11:55 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  [quote='Phaedrus' pid='282017' dateline='1365001450']

Egor is conflating the concept of a thing and the thing itself. It's an equivocation fallacy.

He actually hasn't made this equivocation yet. You and others are just assuming that's where he is going.

[/quote]

Well said, Mr. Blome.

(03-04-2013 07:04 AM)LostLocke Wrote:  [quote='Egor' pid='281872' dateline='1364969417']

Fine, what is an example of something that exists?

This apple in my hand exists.[/quote]

Good. We can go with the apple. That’s a good one.

’not sure who said this’ Wrote:You're the one asking me if a thing can exist, so you need to define what you mean by thing first.
But just for the sake of argument, I'll say a thing is a physical object.

That’s fine, we can leave “concepts” out of the equation for now. We’ll just go with the apple.

(03-04-2013 07:11 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  In this thought game the only "things" that do not "exist" are those things that do not or have not existed physically OR concepts that have not been thought of. An unknown problem occurs when you, as an individual, haven't thought of Mt. Everest being made of ice cream and gum drops but Aseptic Skeptic has. You don't know it exists as a concept but according to this definition it already does.

Ah, but as soon as I am aware of it, it exists as a concept. Until then I never even would have considered it. But it may be very important later on that if I am not conceiving it, it doesn’t exist—as a concept. So, we’ll hold off on that for now, if you don’t mind.

Quote:Take it further, you have a concept of a god. In your definition it exists. I have a concept of god not existing. Do they cancel each other out or do both "things" exist/not exist simultaneously?

Well, no, you can’t conceive of a thing not existing as a concept—that’s a contradiction. The one thing clear-thinking atheists and theists agree on is that God exists as a concept. It’s kind of hard to be an atheist and not concede that point.

(03-04-2013 08:25 AM)devilsadvoc8 Wrote:  At the risk of being off-topic, Egor-

Not a problem, because I wouldn’t have addressed you “on topic.” You started with an insult—typical.

But off topic, I will address you as an aside only because it’s something I want to talk about:

Quote:When you talk to god have you ever asked him why he has chosen you and only you to be his new messenger? Have you tried to suggest to him that perhaps on a planet of multiple billions that maybe more than one messenger may be more efficient. Shit, maybe one per continent would be a vast improvement.

More than that, I’ve asked Him why me at all, because my sins are as heavy as lead. You atheists will never understand those feelings of remorse and regret. And I’m a terrible example of Christ, which only adds to the guilt of my life. And while I can’t talk about specifics, He actually has to miraculously protect me from myself just to use me in the first place. It’s ridiculous. But here’s what He says:

“I raised you up for this. I made you for this. You will do it, or I will kill you. Of all people— you most cannot justify your existence in this world, and I will not leave you in it if you sever our tie. There is no turning back Edward Jerome.”

Then He brings part of a song to mind and it’s so loud, I can’t get it out. I actually have to buy it from Amazon: “Breathe” By Anna Nalick:

Cuz you can’t jump the track
We’re like cars on a cable
And life’s like an hourglass glued to the table
No one can find the rewind button now.
Sing it if you understand.

That’s a prophecy. And that’s my answer. If I were to speculate, I would guess there’s no one else at this time in this generation of humankind.

(03-04-2013 08:51 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  [quote='Egor' pid='281872' dateline='1364969417']

Really? So are you saying that only observed things exist?

I'm saying that only things that that have been directly or indirectly observed can be said to exist. (Similarly, we can observe non-existence if we do it right; I can observe that no apple exists in my hand at this moment, for example.)

Okay. Remember you said it.

(03-04-2013 09:21 AM)Joh Wrote:  Are things either real or not real?

Is this world an either or world?

No. In quantum mechanics there is sort of an in-between. Electrons for example can be waves and particles at the same time. You can describe their location as probability waves. So It can be true and false at the same time that they are at location x. Look at the double slit experiment for instance. As soon as you observe electrons, their wave functions collapse and they become particles with a distinct location. This is the physics of the very small. Where quantum mechanics theoretically goes macro is for instance is the thought experiment of Schrödingers cat. You imagine a cat being placed in a box with a container of poison. The container with poison opens when a radioactive substance decays. It does so with a certain probability per time period. So after a certain time period from the outside the cat is both dead and alive at the same time. Only after opening the box the cat is dead or is alive.

Now if you apply this idea to the concept of a god:

God defined as something unobservable is not being observed and never will be, can be considered as true and false at the same time. However! It will always stay an in-between and never turn true or false! Electrons can be observed. Cats can be observed. The wave functions collapse and become distinct when they are being observed.

So all concepts that cannot be falsified, cannot be true!

They also cannot be false. But the same thing applies to any unprovable/unfalsifiable concept you can name. An anti-god for instance that cancels out a god. Sorry, stupid idea, but i needed a stupid example Wink

Thanks for the primer.

(03-04-2013 09:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  And electrons are not particles and/or waves, they are what they are and exhibit properties like particles and like waves.

Right…in my opinion. Also, In my opinion, the closer you get to the Fundamental Monistic Consciousness, the stranger things begin to seem. If we were to get closer, we eventually wouldn’t be able to tell what was in our mind and what is outside of our mind. But that’s what scientists will discover in the future. For now, we have an argument to pursue.

(03-04-2013 09:50 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  ... Egor, I think the fact that we started serious arguments with EACH OTHER over whether existence is a binary state, when that was just the first leading question you asked, suggests that a Socratic approach will get derailed before it bears fruit.
Nah, I’ll filter out the noise.

As it stands, we agree that at least physical objects actually exist, and we picked an apple as an example of an object.

Concepts exist as well, but that’s a different path to God that I’m not taking here. The apple is good.
Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2013, 11:55 PM
 
RE: Argument for God
(03-04-2013 11:55 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  [quote='Phaedrus' pid='282017' dateline='1365001450']

Egor is conflating the concept of a thing and the thing itself. It's an equivocation fallacy.

He actually hasn't made this equivocation yet. You and others are just assuming that's where he is going.

[/quote]

Well said, Mr. Blome.

(03-04-2013 07:04 AM)LostLocke Wrote:  [quote='Egor' pid='281872' dateline='1364969417']

Fine, what is an example of something that exists?

This apple in my hand exists.[/quote]

Good. We can go with the apple. That’s a good one.

’not sure who said this’ Wrote:You're the one asking me if a thing can exist, so you need to define what you mean by thing first.
But just for the sake of argument, I'll say a thing is a physical object.

That’s fine, we can leave “concepts” out of the equation for now. We’ll just go with the apple.

(03-04-2013 07:11 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  In this thought game the only "things" that do not "exist" are those things that do not or have not existed physically OR concepts that have not been thought of. An unknown problem occurs when you, as an individual, haven't thought of Mt. Everest being made of ice cream and gum drops but Aseptic Skeptic has. You don't know it exists as a concept but according to this definition it already does.

Ah, but as soon as I am aware of it, it exists as a concept. Until then I never even would have considered it. But it may be very important later on that if I am not conceiving it, it doesn’t exist—as a concept. So, we’ll hold off on that for now, if you don’t mind.

Quote:Take it further, you have a concept of a god. In your definition it exists. I have a concept of god not existing. Do they cancel each other out or do both "things" exist/not exist simultaneously?

Well, no, you can’t conceive of a thing not existing as a concept—that’s a contradiction. The one thing clear-thinking atheists and theists agree on is that God exists as a concept. It’s kind of hard to be an atheist and not concede that point.

(03-04-2013 08:25 AM)devilsadvoc8 Wrote:  At the risk of being off-topic, Egor-

Not a problem, because I wouldn’t have addressed you “on topic.” You started with an insult—typical.

But off topic, I will address you as an aside only because it’s something I want to talk about:

Quote:When you talk to god have you ever asked him why he has chosen you and only you to be his new messenger? Have you tried to suggest to him that perhaps on a planet of multiple billions that maybe more than one messenger may be more efficient. Shit, maybe one per continent would be a vast improvement.

More than that, I’ve asked Him why me at all, because my sins are as heavy as lead. You atheists will never understand those feelings of remorse and regret. And I’m a terrible example of Christ, which only adds to the guilt of my life. And while I can’t talk about specifics, He actually has to miraculously protect me from myself just to use me in the first place. It’s ridiculous. But here’s what He says:

“I raised you up for this. I made you for this. You will do it, or I will kill you. Of all people— you most cannot justify your existence in this world, and I will not leave you in it if you sever our tie. There is no turning back Edward Jerome.”

Then He brings part of a song to mind and it’s so loud, I can’t get it out. I actually have to buy it from Amazon: “Breathe” By Anna Nalick:

Cuz you can’t jump the track
We’re like cars on a cable
And life’s like an hourglass glued to the table
No one can find the rewind button now.
Sing it if you understand.




That’s a prophecy. And that’s my answer. If I were to speculate, I would guess there’s no one else at this time in this generation of humankind.

(03-04-2013 08:51 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  [quote='Egor' pid='281872' dateline='1364969417']

Really? So are you saying that only observed things exist?

I'm saying that only things that that have been directly or indirectly observed can be said to exist. (Similarly, we can observe non-existence if we do it right; I can observe that no apple exists in my hand at this moment, for example.)

Okay. Remember you said it.

(03-04-2013 09:21 AM)Joh Wrote:  Are things either real or not real?

Is this world an either or world?

No. In quantum mechanics there is sort of an in-between. Electrons for example can be waves and particles at the same time. You can describe their location as probability waves. So It can be true and false at the same time that they are at location x. Look at the double slit experiment for instance. As soon as you observe electrons, their wave functions collapse and they become particles with a distinct location. This is the physics of the very small. Where quantum mechanics theoretically goes macro is for instance is the thought experiment of Schrödingers cat. You imagine a cat being placed in a box with a container of poison. The container with poison opens when a radioactive substance decays. It does so with a certain probability per time period. So after a certain time period from the outside the cat is both dead and alive at the same time. Only after opening the box the cat is dead or is alive.

Now if you apply this idea to the concept of a god:

God defined as something unobservable is not being observed and never will be, can be considered as true and false at the same time. However! It will always stay an in-between and never turn true or false! Electrons can be observed. Cats can be observed. The wave functions collapse and become distinct when they are being observed.

So all concepts that cannot be falsified, cannot be true!

They also cannot be false. But the same thing applies to any unprovable/unfalsifiable concept you can name. An anti-god for instance that cancels out a god. Sorry, stupid idea, but i needed a stupid example Wink

Thanks for the primer.

(03-04-2013 09:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  And electrons are not particles and/or waves, they are what they are and exhibit properties like particles and like waves.

Right…in my opinion. Also, In my opinion, the closer you get to the Fundamental Monistic Consciousness, the stranger things begin to seem. If we were to get closer, we eventually wouldn’t be able to tell what was in our mind and what is outside of our mind. But that’s what scientists will discover in the future. For now, we have an argument to pursue.

(03-04-2013 09:50 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  ... Egor, I think the fact that we started serious arguments with EACH OTHER over whether existence is a binary state, when that was just the first leading question you asked, suggests that a Socratic approach will get derailed before it bears fruit.
Nah, I’ll filter out the noise.

As it stands, we agree that at least physical objects actually exist, and we picked an apple as an example of an object.

Concepts exist as well, but that’s a different path to God that I’m not taking here. The apple is good.
Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2013, 11:56 PM
RE: Argument for God
Thus do you have . . . nothing.

--J.D.

Those who administer and moderate in order to exercise personal agenda merely feed into the negative stereotype of Atheism
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Doctor X's post
04-04-2013, 12:11 AM
 
RE: Argument for God
(03-04-2013 11:55 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  [quote='Phaedrus' pid='282017' dateline='1365001450']

Egor is conflating the concept of a thing and the thing itself. It's an equivocation fallacy.

He actually hasn't made this equivocation yet. You and others are just assuming that's where he is going.

[/quote]

Well said, Mr. Blome.

(03-04-2013 07:04 AM)LostLocke Wrote:  [quote='Egor' pid='281872' dateline='1364969417']

Fine, what is an example of something that exists?

This apple in my hand exists.[/quote]

Good. We can go with the apple. That’s a good one.

’not sure who said this’ Wrote:You're the one asking me if a thing can exist, so you need to define what you mean by thing first.
But just for the sake of argument, I'll say a thing is a physical object.

That’s fine, we can leave “concepts” out of the equation for now. We’ll just go with the apple.

(03-04-2013 07:11 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  In this thought game the only "things" that do not "exist" are those things that do not or have not existed physically OR concepts that have not been thought of. An unknown problem occurs when you, as an individual, haven't thought of Mt. Everest being made of ice cream and gum drops but Aseptic Skeptic has. You don't know it exists as a concept but according to this definition it already does.

Ah, but as soon as I am aware of it, it exists as a concept. Until then I never even would have considered it. But it may be very important later on that if I am not conceiving it, it doesn’t exist—as a concept. So, we’ll hold off on that for now, if you don’t mind.

Quote:Take it further, you have a concept of a god. In your definition it exists. I have a concept of god not existing. Do they cancel each other out or do both "things" exist/not exist simultaneously?

Well, no, you can’t conceive of a thing not existing as a concept—that’s a contradiction. The one thing clear-thinking atheists and theists agree on is that God exists as a concept. It’s kind of hard to be an atheist and not concede that point.

(03-04-2013 08:25 AM)devilsadvoc8 Wrote:  At the risk of being off-topic, Egor-

Not a problem, because I wouldn’t have addressed you “on topic.” You started with an insult—typical.

But off topic, I will address you as an aside only because it’s something I want to talk about:

Quote:When you talk to god have you ever asked him why he has chosen you and only you to be his new messenger? Have you tried to suggest to him that perhaps on a planet of multiple billions that maybe more than one messenger may be more efficient. Shit, maybe one per continent would be a vast improvement.

More than that, I’ve asked Him why me at all, because my sins are as heavy as lead. You atheists will never understand those feelings of remorse and regret. And I’m a terrible example of Christ, which only adds to the guilt of my life. And while I can’t talk about specifics, He actually has to miraculously protect me from myself just to use me in the first place. It’s ridiculous. But here’s what He says:

“I raised you up for this. I made you for this. You will do it, or I will kill you. Of all people— you most cannot justify your existence in this world, and I will not leave you in it if you sever our tie. There is no turning back Edward Jerome.”

Then He brings part of a song to mind and it’s so loud, I can’t get it out. I actually have to buy it from Amazon: “Breathe” By Anna Nalick:

Cuz you can’t jump the track
We’re like cars on a cable
And life’s like an hourglass glued to the table
No one can find the rewind button now.
Sing it if you understand.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAlWxZK-ps4

That’s a prophecy. And that’s my answer. If I were to speculate, I would guess there’s no one else at this time in this generation of humankind.

(03-04-2013 08:51 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  [quote='Egor' pid='281872' dateline='1364969417']

Really? So are you saying that only observed things exist?

I'm saying that only things that that have been directly or indirectly observed can be said to exist. (Similarly, we can observe non-existence if we do it right; I can observe that no apple exists in my hand at this moment, for example.)

Okay. Remember you said it.

(03-04-2013 09:21 AM)Joh Wrote:  Are things either real or not real?

Is this world an either or world?

No. In quantum mechanics there is sort of an in-between. Electrons for example can be waves and particles at the same time. You can describe their location as probability waves. So It can be true and false at the same time that they are at location x. Look at the double slit experiment for instance. As soon as you observe electrons, their wave functions collapse and they become particles with a distinct location. This is the physics of the very small. Where quantum mechanics theoretically goes macro is for instance is the thought experiment of Schrödingers cat. You imagine a cat being placed in a box with a container of poison. The container with poison opens when a radioactive substance decays. It does so with a certain probability per time period. So after a certain time period from the outside the cat is both dead and alive at the same time. Only after opening the box the cat is dead or is alive.

Now if you apply this idea to the concept of a god:

God defined as something unobservable is not being observed and never will be, can be considered as true and false at the same time. However! It will always stay an in-between and never turn true or false! Electrons can be observed. Cats can be observed. The wave functions collapse and become distinct when they are being observed.

So all concepts that cannot be falsified, cannot be true!

They also cannot be false. But the same thing applies to any unprovable/unfalsifiable concept you can name. An anti-god for instance that cancels out a god. Sorry, stupid idea, but i needed a stupid example Wink

Thanks for the primer.

(03-04-2013 09:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  And electrons are not particles and/or waves, they are what they are and exhibit properties like particles and like waves.

Right…in my opinion. Also, In my opinion, the closer you get to the Fundamental Monistic Consciousness, the stranger things begin to seem. If we were to get closer, we eventually wouldn’t be able to tell what was in our mind and what is outside of our mind. But that’s what scientists will discover in the future. For now, we have an argument to pursue.

(03-04-2013 09:50 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  ... Egor, I think the fact that we started serious arguments with EACH OTHER over whether existence is a binary state, when that was just the first leading question you asked, suggests that a Socratic approach will get derailed before it bears fruit.
Nah, I’ll filter out the noise.

As it stands, we agree that at least physical objects actually exist, and we picked an apple as an example of an object.

Concepts exist as well, but that’s a different path to God that I’m not taking here. The apple is good.
Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 12:12 AM
 
RE: Argument for God
Okay, I think I get it. The mods have gone in and shortened the characters I can post in a response. I suppose that's one way to win a theological argument.

The continuation of this discussion, if you want my input anyway, will be in my forum.
Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 12:12 AM
RE: Argument for God
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 12:25 AM
RE: Argument for God
(04-04-2013 12:12 AM)Egor Wrote:  Okay, I think I get it. The mods have gone in and shortened the characters I can post in a response. I suppose that's one way to win a theological argument.

The continuation of this discussion, if you want my input anyway, will be in my forum.

mmmbuhbye


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 12:28 AM
RE: Argument for God
(04-04-2013 12:12 AM)Egor Wrote:  Okay, I think I get it. The mods have gone in and shortened the characters I can post in a response. I suppose that's one way to win a theological argument.

The continuation of this discussion, if you want my input anyway, will be in my forum.

I think it is an effect of copying your post from a word document.

Try quoting one of your posts that don't show up and see if it shows up
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Heywood Jahblome's post
04-04-2013, 12:29 AM (This post was last modified: 04-04-2013 06:36 PM by Doctor X.)
RE: Argument for God
******

Those who administer and moderate in order to exercise personal agenda merely feed into the negative stereotype of Atheism
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Doctor X's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: