Logic vs. Theism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-03-2017, 07:14 PM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(22-03-2017 04:50 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(22-03-2017 04:36 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  You said:


It is not perfectly defined with mathematics, and if it is "defined" with mathematics, then that is proscriptive, not descriptive.
I already said I had misspoken there.

All readily observable existence can be perfectly described mathematically. If that isn't the same as it being mathematically definable then I misspoke.

peace

faith in selfless unity for good

All readily observable existence can be perfectly described mathematically?

That's a falsifiable statement, again, we are dealing with OBSERVABLE discrepancies between what we mathematically predict and what we observe. (Dark matter and energy) Since that is one of your so-called reasons for the existence of an alleged creator, I can accept that and say that it is false, your reason for belief has been falsified.

Very good, I'm glad we can agree that even your own points of belief can be used to falsify the idea of a creator.

BTW-Even if I accept this creator hypothesis, then what? Can you make any positive and falsifiable claims as to the specific characteristics of this alleged creator?

How about this claim- if a creator does exist, it does not influence the universe in any way, it set forth the laws with which the universe operates and does not influence it in any way.

It does not care or even know who you are and will not influence your life in any way. It will be indistinguishable from a deity that is simply non-existent.

The evidence for this is: The universe is not designed with humans as the focus or the reason for the universe, there is no evidence for a reason for the universe.

This is reflected in our minuscule place in the universe and our minuscule place in the history of Earth, we are only one of multiple species of humans that have existed on this planet, the neanderthals contemplated their existence even before humans did, yet they went extinct.

Humans do not have a special seat at the table of creation.

[Image: you-are-here_2.png]

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
22-03-2017, 07:39 PM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(22-03-2017 06:47 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(22-03-2017 04:25 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  They don't equate to evidence of a cause to existence or order?
Maybe not to someone blinded by their own animosity and motives.

Let me explain something to you since I must have failed earlier. The coin toss is not based on chance at all. It is based on variables. The side it rests on before the toss- variable, force- variable, trajectory- variable, wind- variable, surroundings- variable. What else affects it? Gravity- constant, density of surface coin strikes- variable. Yeah....Uhm....not random, not chance, not coincidence.

Try again.

Who said math dictated the world!?
A wasn't making a plea to statistical anything. So a mathematician wouldn't agree with me that all readily observable existence is too perfectly described with mathematics? You are way over your head little buddy.

If GOD was real the evidence would be overwhelming based on what claims made by what religion? Citation needed.

I have to stretch no thing whatsoever. The proof of GOD is literally within everything to me personally. I just hastily noted a few points that I know to be undeniable. While they don't prove anything; to deny that they insinuate a cause to existence and an observable order, and that these things don't also lean towards intelligent design is intellectual dishonesty to me but, well....OK.

peace

faith in selfless unity for good

More stolen concepts and now character attacks. If we don't agree with you it's because we're blind is it? It's not because your assertions are fallacious. That couldn't be it, no.

If my assertions are full of holes then display the holes for all to see.

If you think there is no cause for all of known existence then you have a problem; yes. Is the big bang not a cause even if only a theory?

faith in selfless unity for good
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2017, 07:43 PM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(22-03-2017 07:39 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(22-03-2017 06:47 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  More stolen concepts and now character attacks. If we don't agree with you it's because we're blind is it? It's not because your assertions are fallacious. That couldn't be it, no.

If my assertions are full of holes then display the holes for all to see.

If you think there is no cause for all of known existence then you have a problem; yes. Is the big bang not a cause even if only a theory?

faith in selfless unity for good

...... You are ignoring all the holes that have been pointed out...

(Covers your eyes) I don't see what you're talking about.

...... Yea..... we know what you're doing dude.

Edit^ The big bang is the best known theory we have going, in no way does it require a god to work. Even if it turns out to be wrong, all the evidence points in that general direction, its unlikely to be very far off. No god needed. Also, the big bang isn't necessarily "the beginning" its at best "the beginning as we know it" there is a separate thread on what was before the big bang, but seeing as such speculation at this stage is beyond pointless I've ignored it. We would have no way of knowing what was before at this stage. Random guessing is your thing, not mine.

DLJ Wrote:And, yes, the principle of freedom of expression works both ways... if someone starts shit, better shit is the best counter-argument.
Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2017, 08:07 PM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(22-03-2017 06:57 PM)Gwaithmir Wrote:  
(22-03-2017 04:25 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  They don't equate to evidence of a cause to existence or order?
Maybe not to someone blinded by their own animosity and motives.

Let me explain something to you since I must have failed earlier. The coin toss is not based on chance at all. It is based on variables. The side it rests on before the toss- variable, force- variable, trajectory- variable, wind- variable, surroundings- variable. What else affects it? Gravity- constant, density of surface coin strikes- variable. Yeah....Uhm....not random, not chance, not coincidence.

Try again.

Who said math dictated the world!?
A wasn't making a plea to statistical anything. So a mathematician wouldn't agree with me that all readily observable existence is too perfectly described with mathematics? You are way over your head little buddy.

If GOD was real the evidence would be overwhelming based on what claims made by what religion? Citation needed.

I have to stretch no thing whatsoever. The proof of GOD is literally within everything to me personally. I just hastily noted a few points that I know to be undeniable. While they don't prove anything; to deny that they insinuate a cause to existence and an observable order, and that these things don't also lean towards intelligent design is intellectual dishonesty to me but, well....OK.

peace

faith in selfless unity for good

> So, how do YOU define God? Describe his attributes. Do you believe that God is Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnibenevolent? Consider
Yes I do. Though I do not deny the freedom of man to bring terrible things upon themselves, nor do I believe this life is to be clung to or blissful/ painless, though it is still a grand magnificent gift.

It is so very difficult to describe GOD. I will try. It would be reasonable to start at my personal experience so I would say benevolent, merciful, all powerful, omniscient, edifying, just, all encompassing, subtle, and profound.

I believe the selfless conscience to be intricately tied to the spirit of life and GOD. I believe that same essence to be in all creation, formation, or existence, more so in animate objects rather than those seemingly lifeless ones, and perhaps more so in more complex life than in simple organisms. I believe that energy cannot be destroyed and that similarly we or rather that same spirit or essence of life does not extinguish at death exactly, but will eventually return to its source.(This is not a conventional belief in heaven or hell.) Everything being formed at least partially of the essence of GOD is all potentially connected to GOD and everything else. What can be known of GOD can be known through the understanding of unmolested sacred texts and the negation of wants of self and/or some significant fall and need of help, which was in my case due to extensive retrospect and introspection. I'm sorry; rambling.

Words do not do justice to GOD in describing it. I literally cannot express it in its fullness.

If you ask a detail I can try and go into it that way.

I do apologise.

peace

faith in selfless unity for good
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2017, 08:18 PM (This post was last modified: 22-03-2017 08:23 PM by JesseB.)
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(22-03-2017 08:07 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(22-03-2017 06:57 PM)Gwaithmir Wrote:  > So, how do YOU define God? Describe his attributes. Do you believe that God is Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnibenevolent? Consider
Yes I do. Though I do not deny the freedom of man to bring terrible things upon themselves, nor do I believe this life is to be clung to or blissful/ painless, though it is still a grand magnificent gift.

It is so very difficult to describe GOD. I will try. It would be reasonable to start at my personal experience so I would say benevolent, merciful, all powerful, omniscient, edifying, just, all encompassing, subtle, and profound.

I believe the selfless conscience to be intricately tied to the spirit of life and GOD. I believe that same essence to be in all creation, formation, or existence, more so in animate objects rather than those seemingly lifeless ones, and perhaps more so in more complex life than in simple organisms. I believe that energy cannot be destroyed and that similarly we or rather that same spirit or essence of life does not extinguish at death exactly, but will eventually return to its source.(This is not a conventional belief in heaven or hell.) Everything being formed at least partially of the essence of GOD is all potentially connected to GOD and everything else. What can be known of GOD can be known through the understanding of unmolested sacred texts and the negation of wants of self and/or some significant fall and need of help, which was in my case due to extensive retrospect and introspection. I'm sorry; rambling.

Words do not do justice to GOD in describing it. I literally cannot express it in its fullness.

If you ask a detail I can try and go into it that way.

I do apologise.

peace

faith in selfless unity for good

....I like how he wrote GOD the way Christians love to scream the word at you every time they speak.

talk talk normal speaking voice GODDDDDUH normal speaking voice.......

I mean that's cool that you think that.... Trying to make others think that when its just something you imagine, an idea that you like, completely lacking any evidence really isn't so cool.

Look, the god you're describing isn't the same thing as the god of the bible. A deistic god I'm not gonna fuss over, can't be proven, can't be disproved, also has no bearing in reality so it might as well not exist. But if you start talking about the god of the bible (or pretty much any other religion) you're making solid claims that can be fucking disproved easily.

Einstein believed in Espinoza, his idea of a god is pretty much the same idea as you describe here. He was not a christian though. Funny innit?

DLJ Wrote:And, yes, the principle of freedom of expression works both ways... if someone starts shit, better shit is the best counter-argument.
Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like JesseB's post
22-03-2017, 08:22 PM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(22-03-2017 07:39 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(22-03-2017 06:47 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  More stolen concepts and now character attacks. If we don't agree with you it's because we're blind is it? It's not because your assertions are fallacious. That couldn't be it, no.

If my assertions are full of holes then display the holes for all to see.

If you think there is no cause for all of known existence then you have a problem; yes. Is the big bang not a cause even if only a theory?

faith in selfless unity for good

I already have. I've pointed out your use of stolen concepts. The fact that you have backtracked and are now talking about a cause for known existence where before you used existence as a whole (you did not qualify your original use of existence) tells me that you do recognize the problem and are trying to rescue your position. But you have not. Things which exist and which we don't know about, still exist regardless of our knowledge of them. It is perfectly fine to look for causes within the universe, but when you are talking about the universe itself as a whole you can't look for a cause without committing yourself to stolen concepts.

The Big Bang marks the expansion of the universe. For the universe to expand it had to exist. I define the concept universe to be the sum total of what exists. The cause of this expansion is the nature of what expanded. Just like it is the nature of water to form intricate structures when it freezes, the nature of atoms to bond with each other, the nature of fish to swim in water and breath under water, the nature of ice cream to melt on a hot day.

But this whole discussion of the Big Bang is irrelevant to the argument I made in the OP. That's the beauty of the argument I presented. It requires no special knowledge. The knowledge required is available o everyone at the level of perception, since we can all directly observe the relationship between ourselves as subject and the objects we are aware of. The truth of the primacy of existence is available to any conscious person.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like true scotsman's post
22-03-2017, 08:25 PM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(22-03-2017 08:22 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(22-03-2017 07:39 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  If my assertions are full of holes then display the holes for all to see.

If you think there is no cause for all of known existence then you have a problem; yes. Is the big bang not a cause even if only a theory?

faith in selfless unity for good

I already have. I've pointed out your use of stolen concepts. The fact that you have backtracked and are now talking about a cause for known existence where before you used existence as a whole (you did not qualify your original use of existence) tells me that you do recognize the problem and are trying to rescue your position. But you have not. Things which exist and which we don't know about, still exist regardless of our knowledge of them. It is perfectly fine to look for causes within the universe, but when you are talking about the universe itself as a whole you can't look for a cause without committing yourself to stolen concepts.

The Big Bang marks the expansion of the universe. For the universe to expand it had to exist. I define the concept universe to be the sum total of what exists. The cause of this expansion is the nature of what expanded. Just like it is the nature of water to form intricate structures when it freezes, the nature of atoms to bond with each other, the nature of fish to swim in water and breath under water, the nature of ice cream to melt on a hot day.

But this whole discussion of the Big Bang is irrelevant to the argument I made in the OP. That's the beauty of the argument I presented. It requires no special knowledge. The knowledge required is available o everyone at the level of perception, since we can all directly observe the relationship between ourselves as subject and the objects we are aware of. The truth of the primacy of existence is available to any conscious person.

Right. The clue is in you choosing to be named after the "no true Scotsman fallacy" lol

DLJ Wrote:And, yes, the principle of freedom of expression works both ways... if someone starts shit, better shit is the best counter-argument.
Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2017, 08:30 PM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(22-03-2017 07:14 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(22-03-2017 04:50 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  I already said I had misspoken there.

All readily observable existence can be perfectly described mathematically. If that isn't the same as it being mathematically definable then I misspoke.

peace

faith in selfless unity for good

All readily observable existence can be perfectly described mathematically?

That's a falsifiable statement, again, we are dealing with OBSERVABLE discrepancies between what we mathematically predict and what we observe. (Dark matter and energy) Since that is one of your so-called reasons for the existence of an alleged creator, I can accept that and say that it is false, your reason for belief has been falsified.

Very good, I'm glad we can agree that even your own points of belief can be used to falsify the idea of a creator.

BTW-Even if I accept this creator hypothesis, then what? Can you make any positive and falsifiable claims as to the specific characteristics of this alleged creator?

How about this claim- if a creator does exist, it does not influence the universe in any way, it set forth the laws with which the universe operates and does not influence it in any way.

It does not care or even know who you are and will not influence your life in any way. It will be indistinguishable from a deity that is simply non-existent.

The evidence for this is: The universe is not designed with humans as the focus or the reason for the universe, there is no evidence for a reason for the universe.

This is reflected in our minuscule place in the universe and our minuscule place in the history of Earth, we are only one of multiple species of humans that have existed on this planet, the neanderthals contemplated their existence even before humans did, yet they went extinct.

Humans do not have a special seat at the table of creation.

[Image: you-are-here_2.png]
Yay!

You are basing that off of equations that were formulated using inadequate telescopes. Nice try. I said readily observable. That doesn't apply to theories or things that weren't readily observable when formulations were made, which are found to be inaccurate only after superior observatory equipment is employed. Y'all think y'all are so slick. What's sad is the masses fall for stuff, be it from a proclaimed believer or a proclaimed atheist.

We do not agree on any false attempted point you fraudulently posed.

Your claim that the deistic view is correct is easily refuted by my personal experience of GOD that turned me from atheism. But still;

One to two trillion galaxies but we are the only observable advanced life!

Over a trillion galaxies, but so far only one Terraforma! Not unique at all....I agree.

Man has complete dominion over the earth to the point that we risk the viability of the future generations, but we aren't for any purpose nor have any significance.

So your uhm claim; why would a creator make a thing that they didn't care about?

If you made a baby would you care about it?

Does a child who stacks some blocks generally care if another knocks it down; at least while their attention is on it?

Do ants that build up a community care about that community? Do they defend it with all their being?

So again; why would a thing be made yet not cared about? [consider]


peace


faith in selfless unity for good
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2017, 09:01 PM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(22-03-2017 08:30 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(22-03-2017 07:14 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  All readily observable existence can be perfectly described mathematically?

That's a falsifiable statement, again, we are dealing with OBSERVABLE discrepancies between what we mathematically predict and what we observe. (Dark matter and energy) Since that is one of your so-called reasons for the existence of an alleged creator, I can accept that and say that it is false, your reason for belief has been falsified.

Very good, I'm glad we can agree that even your own points of belief can be used to falsify the idea of a creator.

BTW-Even if I accept this creator hypothesis, then what? Can you make any positive and falsifiable claims as to the specific characteristics of this alleged creator?

How about this claim- if a creator does exist, it does not influence the universe in any way, it set forth the laws with which the universe operates and does not influence it in any way.

It does not care or even know who you are and will not influence your life in any way. It will be indistinguishable from a deity that is simply non-existent.

The evidence for this is: The universe is not designed with humans as the focus or the reason for the universe, there is no evidence for a reason for the universe.

This is reflected in our minuscule place in the universe and our minuscule place in the history of Earth, we are only one of multiple species of humans that have existed on this planet, the neanderthals contemplated their existence even before humans did, yet they went extinct.

Humans do not have a special seat at the table of creation.

[Image: you-are-here_2.png]
Yay!

You are basing that off of equations that were formulated using inadequate telescopes. Nice try. I said readily observable. That doesn't apply to theories or things that weren't readily observable when formulations were made, which are found to be inaccurate only after superior observatory equipment is employed. Y'all think y'all are so slick. What's sad is the masses fall for stuff, be it from a proclaimed believer or a proclaimed atheist.

We do not agree on any false attempted point you fraudulently posed.

Your claim that the deistic view is correct is easily refuted by my personal experience of GOD that turned me from atheism. But still;

One to two trillion galaxies but we are the only observable advanced life!

Over a trillion galaxies, but so far only one Terraforma! Not unique at all....I agree.

Man has complete dominion over the earth to the point that we risk the viability of the future generations, but we aren't for any purpose nor have any significance.

So your uhm claim; why would a creator make a thing that they didn't care about?

If you made a baby would you care about it?

Does a child who stacks some blocks generally care if another knocks it down; at least while their attention is on it?

Do ants that build up a community care about that community? Do they defend it with all their being?

So again; why would a thing be made yet not cared about? [consider]


peace


faith in selfless unity for good

You can take your evidence and shove it up your ass, no one with a brain would buy your personal experience. Claiming to have been an Atheist isn't lending you credibility.

Man brings suffering on himself? Not according to your god.




ugh... you're other points have been debunked in front of you several times and you are just too thick to acknowledge it. Unlike you, I hate repeating myself.

DLJ Wrote:And, yes, the principle of freedom of expression works both ways... if someone starts shit, better shit is the best counter-argument.
Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like JesseB's post
22-03-2017, 09:07 PM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(22-03-2017 09:01 PM)JesseB Wrote:  
(22-03-2017 08:30 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Yay!

You are basing that off of equations that were formulated using inadequate telescopes. Nice try. I said readily observable. That doesn't apply to theories or things that weren't readily observable when formulations were made, which are found to be inaccurate only after superior observatory equipment is employed. Y'all think y'all are so slick. What's sad is the masses fall for stuff, be it from a proclaimed believer or a proclaimed atheist.

We do not agree on any false attempted point you fraudulently posed.

Your claim that the deistic view is correct is easily refuted by my personal experience of GOD that turned me from atheism. But still;

One to two trillion galaxies but we are the only observable advanced life!

Over a trillion galaxies, but so far only one Terraforma! Not unique at all....I agree.

Man has complete dominion over the earth to the point that we risk the viability of the future generations, but we aren't for any purpose nor have any significance.

So your uhm claim; why would a creator make a thing that they didn't care about?

If you made a baby would you care about it?

Does a child who stacks some blocks generally care if another knocks it down; at least while their attention is on it?

Do ants that build up a community care about that community? Do they defend it with all their being?

So again; why would a thing be made yet not cared about? [consider]


peace


faith in selfless unity for good

You can take your evidence and shove it up your ass, no one with a brain would buy your personal experience. Claiming to have been an Atheist isn't lending you credibility.

Man brings suffering on himself? Not according to your god.




ugh... you're other points have been debunked in front of you several times and you are just too thick to acknowledge it. Unlike you, I hate repeating myself.
Not gonna be watching any vids. And don't worry about the whole wasting your time thing; I'm right their with yah buddy.

peace

faith in selfless unity for good
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: