Support NeoGAF

[DCKing]

Yeah. You're attempting to answer an imaginary question I never asked. My point was mainly about why it is not a good argument. I will still respond to your post though.

I'm sorry, these damned message boards always seem to persuade me to add stuff to the discussion!

Okay you seem to be talking about the singularity here where all known laws of physics break down.

No that's not it. Singularities are features of time and space that emerge in the Universe as it exists today. Although the beginning of the Universe shares physical similarities, it is not an actual singularity. If it were, we wouldn't exist.

I'm not really sure what point you're making. It breaks down because physics cannot deal with infinity. In a finite universe where space and time exist, there is always change. In nature everything is growing and dying; there is creation and destruction; everything is changing and evolving. There is constant action and reaction.

You're talking about the Universe as we know it as some natural state, which is not something you can do in the context of its origin. Action and reaction are not what you think either when outside of classical Newtonian mechanics. The point is that although action reaction is important, it's not all-encompassing even in this Universe, let alone in states outside/before/after it.

The problem with causality is, it is very hard to avoid dealing with infinity. If there was nothing before the big bang, then the reality of nothing is beginningless and without time. One can assume then that it is not subject to change. Change requires space and time. To state there is change, is to state that there can be an end to infinity. That infinity has limits.

This discussion is highly speculative and actually opposed to well tested spontaneous creation of quantum particles.

Well, It would be beyond comprehension so I can't give it attributes. The reasoning behind it is based on the nature of infinity itself. If god exists, and is therefore infinite, then nothing can exist outside of him. There cannot exist an outside agent (matter, energy, etc) as then god would not be absolute. In the same way, you can't say he created the universe with a part of himself because you cannot subtract or divide from him. There is another way we know of in which we create: we create mentally.

There is no evidence that there is an actual entity that is infinite outside of a mathematical entity that is infinite. Even so, if there is truly an infinite entity in the way you describe it, it is by no means similar to what theists often describe as a god. You're describing god as if it is some physical law. That's an interesting theory, but how is that even remotely physical as a supernatural agent? You're describing a natural entity.

I often wonder if all the people who love to trot out the corpse of William of Ockham in these debates even know that he was a theist? Not that him being a theist is proof of anything, I just find it ironic that his principle is used so frequently when he himself said that the razor is useless when discussing the existence of god.

Smart ideas do not lose value for me when stated by someone whose other opinions I don't recognize. He made a contribution to philosophy by stating it. He was wrong about god being beyond reason though.

If god is some natural entity in some realm beyond our 'puny' logic (this horrible submission involved in religion is a whole other topic to delve in to) then sure, he could exist. But his involvement in our reality would leave behind evidence, of which we have none.

This is the point at which the atheist<>theist debate becomes a discussion of opinion because this esoteric 'beyond nature' discussion has no possible hope of ever having facts to back anything up.

 

[leadbelly]

that's the funny thing about accepting faith, miracles, purely subjective experiences, and "I feel it in my heart", as a valid form of evidence: when someone proposes an alternate explanation coming from those same concepts, it's pretty difficult for you to say they're "incorrect".

"wrong" and "incorrect" makes sense with regards to some agreed upon baseline...but if that baseline is faith-based, there's no way to ever resolve that. So the liberal religious believer can try to say the conservatives are "wrong" for their beliefs, but it's not like they have any reason for doing so (unless the baseline they use is secular and reality-based...which means they're no longer doing the "religion" thing anymore)

Well, exactly. Interpretation is key.

I for instance am interested in spiritual concepts, but I don't necessarily state any view is correct. I at the same time do not disregard science or evolution. My main interest with spirituality stems from me not fully coming terms with permanence of non-existence.

 

[Choke on the Magic]

They love god.

They don't pretend to know god anymore than you do.

Why don't their messages match up to what GA is saying?

 

[Count Dookkake]

Why don't their messages match up to what GA is saying?

The lord works in mysterious ways or something.

 

[Kinitari]

How does a world filled with order and reason derive from complete nonreason and nonintelligence? The fact that the universe can even be studied indicates there are laws and there is a sense of order and that there are repeated patterns that exist all throughout. How did this come from complete randomness?

This assumes that patters and order are like... a product of intelligence. Intelligence is just the ability to perceive and understand that natural pattern and order.

 

[jaxword]

Ah hahahaha. That's a blast.

Your choice.

(disclaimer): As long as your choice also includes accepting him unconditionally as your god and saviour, relinquishing your capacity for reason at least as it pertains to god, and ideally follow a bunch of really crazy fucking shit that only makes sense within the echo chamber of men turned sheep.

Well, think of it like a Mob Boss.

You can CHOOSE to accept our "protection", or you can CHOOSE to be shot to death.

It's YOUR choice.

Technically, it's still a choice, even if the Mob Boss controls both outcomes.

 

[DCKing]

Two things if you do not mind me responding.

1. God loves you so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that if you believe in his Son you will not perish but have eternal life. This is God's heart toward you and every other person on the planet.

2. God doesn't want anyone to be separated from him when they die. God wants everyone to be saved. If you want to go to hell, then you can go to hell. That is your choice.

Although you don't mean these words in a bad way, let me give you a view that has come about that is relatively new on this:

What you're describing is an entity that knows and owns you do. His ownership of your everything doesn't even end after you die, because you will stay under his rule for eternity. Saying that there is an entity that does this is in fact saying to these people that they are the property a totalitarian heavenly leader forever. That may be a good thing for you, but it is the most horrible thing to others, including me. When you say something to such a person as if it is their reality or their hope it is in fact a cursing.

Please be more considerate of other people's feelings when preaching this.

 

[KtSlime]

There is a military funeral a block from my house today. Apparently westboro will be in attendance and I'm interested in checking it out. Anyone had any experience with these guys.

I hear that God likes them now more than he likes Game Analyst. Apparently GA has been spending more time on the Internet recently than cursing the gays.

GA, how do you know it is not you who is worshiping the false God, and they who are truly loved. I've never seen anyone obey the OT as well as they have, and with such zeal!

 

[hydragonwarrior]

This thread is basically over once Game Analyst starts posting in here. It means there will be two opposiing viewpoints from both sides of the theism/atheism argument that will never convince the other.

Still interesting to watch though.

 

[Kinitari]

Exactly my point. This idea frightens you. It threatens you. OH NOES! MAYBE I DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING!!! This idea is bothersome to the pompous and the arrogant. So what do you do? You deify your own logic and reason. You make them impervious and infallible. You close off your own thinking even as you claim otherwise.

So - your suggestion is to give every cockamaney suggestion, drummed up by any person in the world, a possibility of being 'truth' because the person asserts that this idea of his exists outside our ability to understand?

Do you understand why that is fundamentally the worst argument I have ever heard for anything in my entire life?

Here - a giant cock monster exists outside of space and time, and is constantly fighting every deity humanity has ever drummed up - as it is the true creator of the universe, and they are fighting him for his cock-throne. That stands on the exact same liklihood footing as there just being a god in this unknowable space

Maybe you'll say I'm applying too many specifics to this realm of unknowability - but this realm has the possibility to defy all logic, and it doesn't adhere to any of our laws and understandings.

Now - would a sane - not even logical, just sane person give my concept absolutely any legitimate thought?

This thread is basically over once Game Analyst starts posting in here. It means there will be two opposiing viewpoints from both sides of the theism/atheism argument that will never convince the other.

Still interesting to watch though.

Many posters on GAF have been convinced by these sorts of arguments that their belief system is not as logical as they once thought, and that has lead a lot of them to defect from whatever religion they believed. Who knows how many silent readers these threads have had an impact on.

 

[Des0lar]

Two things if you do not mind me responding.

1. God loves you so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that if you believe in his Son you will not perish but have eternal life. This is God's heart toward you and every other person on the planet.

2. God doesn't want anyone to be separated from him when they die. God wants everyone to be saved. If you want to go to hell, then you can go to hell. That is your choice.

If I don't want to go to heaven and want Valhalla instead, meeting Odin and Thor n stuff, can God do that?
I mean he's God and I am dead and that is my choice right? Serious question.

 

[Lionheart1337]

If I don't want to go to heaven and want Valhalla instead, meeting Odin and Thor n stuff, can God do that?
I mean he's God and I am dead and that is my choice right? Serious question.

God wants everyone to be saved yet in all his omnipotence he can't or does not want to save you from hell. Love him or burn.

 

[Satyamdas]

But you have. If you want to deny it go right ahead, just know that you're shitting yourself.

I`m glad it's somehow you that's exception to the hubris and ego of the world. You, in the most unoriginal fashion conjured this idea that god is out of our reach, and in that same breath pondered our capacity for understanding god. Only you can understand that this un-understandable being isn't understandable. "My final ace in the hole : All that logic and stuff that we use to understand things? GOD IS IMMUNE TO IT. I win!" I refuse to believe that you are that blind that you cannot see the blatant hypocrisy in that.

You are fucking delusional. There's nothing special about having a degree of humility and resisting the temptation to think you know it all.

What is it with you people and this "Winning" shit? That's your fucking problem, you think this is about winning and losing. I don't give a shit about that. All I care about is keeping an open mind and not letting my ego fool me into thinking I've got it all figured it all out, or that everything must conform to my logic. For people that love to drone on and on about being rational and freethinkers and all that bullshit, you are pretty easily shown to be the exact opposite. You are just as dogmatic and narrow minded as the religious people you claim to be opposed to.

 

[Kinitari]

You are fucking delusional. There's nothing special about having a degree of humility and resisting the temptation to think you know it all.

What is it with you people and this "Winning" shit? That's your fucking problem, you think this is about winning and losing. I don't give a shit about that. All I care about is keeping an open mind and not letting my ego fool me into thinking I've got it all figured it all out, or that everything must conform to my logic. For people that love to drone on and on about being rational and freethinkers and all that bullshit, you are pretty easily shown to be the exact opposite. You are just as dogmatic and narrow minded as the religious people you claim to be opposed to.

How do you feel about my cock-deity theory? As equally likely as a regular deity, and should be given the same amount of consideration - no? My point is to highlight how absolutely unnecessary such 'open mindedness' is. There is such a thing as having too open a mind. Such people are referred to as being gullible. You NEED to be able to reject ideas and concepts presented to you, or else you will no longer be able to function. And I think everyone can agree that the point where everyone should start rejecting ideas is when the ideas are absolutely and completely outside our realm of understanding, and they are utterly and completely baseless. That's a pretty reasonable line to draw.

 

[soul creator]

you're not really saying "hey guys, you should generally be humble"

What you are doing (though apparently don't realize) is saying "any old explanation someone makes up out of thin air should be taken seriously, or else you're being close-minded!"

 

[Dude Abides]

Well, you're sort of taking 'contact' literally in that sense. Like it means god was there, so if his back was turned, that means he is still there. Moses talks to god in the form of a burning bush, yet he doesn't actually talk to god. He talks to the angel of the lord who manifests in the form of a burning bush. In other words it is a level of truth, a level of understanding that is communicated to moses, and not the absolute truth.

When it says moses was speaking to god face to face it is talking about the Shekinah. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shekhinah

It is the context in which LORD is used.

Yes, the divine presence. Not an intermediary. This is a tangent to the problem with Satymandas's argument.

 

[David Incorporated Esq.]

Satyamdas you've convinced me. I'm now going to be more open-minded to ideas outside my normal realm of acceptance.

As such, I see great promise in Kinitari's suggestion. May the great cock bless us with its pan-galactic pre-ejaculate.

 

[Raist]

2. God doesn't want anyone to be separated from him when they die. God wants everyone to be saved. If you want to go to hell, then you can go to hell.

Then how about he drops the whole "original sin" stuff he made up himself.

 

[DCKing]

You are fucking delusional. There's nothing special about having a degree of humility and resisting the temptation to think you know it all.

Nobody arguing against you is making a claim that they know all. What you're saying is that god cannot be known because he's outside of our 'understanding' or 'logic', whatever that means. That is contrary to everything that is attributed to a god. Even a deist god messes with reality now and then, which would be knowable to us.

Besides, if god cannot be known, there are still the unknowable spider cockmonsters, invisible pink unicorns, orbiting teapots, Wotan, Santa Claus, leprechauns which I just made up in my head and defined as unknowable. They are very much similar to the god you're talking about, so do you want to talk about those as well?

 

[Satyamdas]

So - your suggestion is to give every cockamaney suggestion, drummed up by any person in the world, a possibility of being 'truth' because the person asserts that this idea of his exists outside our ability to understand?

When did I say I give every suggestion equal weight? Why do you go from "there may exist something beyond my logical understanding" to "HURRRRRAUFHJASGFHJGJEGF COCK MONSTER"?

It's because you have a tiny imagination and are not very bright, AND you are feebly trying to ridicule. Do you think quantum theorists, advanced mathematicians, theoretical physicists, never consider that reality may contain elements or be composed by something which exceeds our ability to fully grasp it? When they try to think outside the box, do you think they entertain shit as stupid as a cock-monster, or every inane thing they hear?

Maybe you'll say I'm applying too many specifics to this realm of unknowability - but this realm has the possibility to defy all logic, and it doesn't adhere to any of our laws and understandings.

Now - would a sane - not even logical, just sane person give my concept absolutely any legitimate thought?

No, I'll say that you think you are being clever but all you are really doing is highlighting how banal and limited your thinking is. If that is the best you can do then please don't waste my time. You're a joke.

 

[cutmeamango]

You are fucking delusional. There's nothing special about having a degree of humility and resisting the temptation to think you know it all.

What is it with you people and this "Winning" shit? That's your fucking problem, you think this is about winning and losing. I don't give a shit about that. All I care about is keeping an open mind and not letting my ego fool me into thinking I've got it all figured it all out, or that everything must conform to my logic. For people that love to drone on and on about being rational and freethinkers and all that bullshit, you are pretty easily shown to be the exact opposite. You are just as dogmatic and narrow minded as the religious people you claim to be opposed to.

Critical thinking = You don't convince me.
Logic = Bad analogies.
Reason = It doesn't make sense to me.

 

[likeGdid]

While you guys are on the topic of open-mindedness, I personally like this video on it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

Thought it might be appreciated

 

[Dude Abides]

Personal insults are valid arguments in the realm beyond human understanding. If you weren't so feeble-minded you'd understand that Kinitari.

 

[leadbelly]

No that's not it. Singularities are features of time and space that emerge in the Universe as it exists today. Although the beginning of the Universe shares physical similarities, it is not an actual singularity. If it were, we wouldn't exist.

The way I understand it, it is not literal it is purely mathematical. The point in which no measurement can be made.

a point where a measured variable reaches unmeasurable or infinite value
4. (mathematics) the value or range of values of a function for which a derivative does not exist
5. (physics) a point or region in spacetime in which gravitational forces cause matter to have an infinite density; associated with Black Holes

You're talking about the Universe as we know it as some natural state, which is not something you can do in the context of its origin. Action and reaction are not what you think either when outside of classical Newtonian mechanics. The point is that although action reaction is important, it's not all-encompassing even in this Universe, let alone in states outside/before/after it.

Yes, the issue is not one of whether it needs action and reaction to take place, it is more about a state which is beginningless and without spacetime. There is no point in time for beginning to take place. no point of reference. If you ask the question how long did it take before the universe was created, well, it was infinite amount of time. In other words it would contradict the very nature of infinity.

This discussion is highly speculative and actually opposed to well tested spontaneous creation of quantum particles.

I am aware of this, and the idea that there is energy in nothing. It was why I said 'absolutely' nothing. Again it is from the angle of infinity as opposed to whether it is possible for something to appear spontaneously out of nothing. However, this idea is not fully understood. It goes against everything else observe, and doesn't tell us why such a thing may occur. In fact we have never really observed it, only the effects of it.

There is no evidence that there is an actual entity that is infinite outside of a mathematical entity that is infinite. Even so, if there is truly an infinite entity in the way you describe it, it is by no means similar to what theists often describe as a god. You're describing god as if it is some physical law. That's an interesting theory, but how is that even remotely physical as a supernatural agent? You're describing a natural entity.

It is a hypothetical exercise on my part. Is physical really the correct way to describe it? It would have no form as there would be nothing to contain it. It would transcend any form. It would be abstract rather than physical.

 

[Kinitari]

When did I say I give every suggestion equal weight? Why do you go from "there may exist something beyond my logical understanding" to "HURRRRRAUFHJASGFHJGJEGF COCK MONSTER"?

It's because you have a tiny imagination and are not very bright, AND you are feebly trying to ridicule. Do you think quantum theorists, advanced mathematicians, theoretical physicists, never consider that reality may contain elements or be composed by something which exceeds our ability to fully grasp it? When they try to think outside the box, do you think they entertain shit as stupid as a cock-monster, or every inane thing they hear?

Your argument specifically asks us to open up to the possibility that there are things outside of our realm of knowing - you ridicule atheists who feel as though they shouldn't and say they are on equal footing with theists. You specifically point to the idea of a god, not just the realm of the unknowable - as being something worth consideration.

And most importantly, you didn't address my point. Answer my question - if your argument is that things that reside outside our reality or our realm of understanding should be given weight - for example God, which you claim (or, sorry not you, other theists you are arguing for, claim) exists in this space, why is my cock monster - why is any deity or any ridiculous idea ever not given the same weight? Please tell us, or just me, why a God is different?

No, I'll say that you think you are being clever but all you are really doing is highlighting how banal and limited your thinking is. If that is the best you can do then please don't waste my time. You're a joke.

Clever? Oh god no - I am trying the highlight to inanity of your position by giving you your argument regurgitated back to you even more inane - I am being the opposite of clever. Thanks for thinking I'm funny though, I try.


Edit: Specifically, this quote is fascinating to me

No. If god exists then he is beyond your puny logic. He would be logical, illogical, and neither simultaneously.

Look at all these characteristics you apply to something you have no knowledge of. My cock monster doesn't seem so crazy now, does it?

 

[DCKing]

The way I understand it, it is not literal it is purely mathematical. The point in which no measurement can be made.

It's definitely a mathematical concept, but it's only made reality (probably) by the properties of our universe. That's what I meant. The beginning of the Universe was not a singularity as by definition it would not have changed from being a singularity.

I am aware of this, and the idea that there is energy in nothing. It was why I said 'absolutely' nothing. Again it is from the angle of infinity as opposed to whether it is possible for something to appear spontaneously out of nothing. However, this idea is not fully understood. It goes against everything else observe, and doesn't tell us why such a thing may occur. In fact we have never really observed it, only the effects of it.

Fair enough. What you're likely misunderstanding here however is that energy does not need to be present. Particles are created so that their total energy is still zero, meaning no energy is required. In fact, there is good evidence from observation that all the sum of all energy in the Universe is 0 - which means there was no energy required to make it all happen. Energy could be described as 'distance from nothing' in this case, meaning that everything that exists is just expressed as a different manifestation of nothing.

 

[JGS]

And most importantly, you didn't address my point. Answer my question - if your argument is that things that reside our reality or our realm of understanding should be given weight - thus God, which you claim (or, sorry not you, other theists you are arguing for, claim) why is my cock monster - why is any deity or any ridiculous idea ever not given the same weight? Please tell us, or just me, why a God is different?

This seems to presume that society weighting has no value whatsoever which is odd considering that society is what adds values to unproven scientific theories. We accept secular notions for how life got here, for example, solely based on value rather than validity.

The other notions may have weight for the individual. After all, it doesn't matter until the deity in question requires harm to others or until someone wants to stick their nose in it for no reason at all. However, societies view of belief has tremendous value whether the belief is right or wrong. Again, all one has to do is look at how quickly and easily life without God is accepted, not to mention some more valid notions such as evolution were accepted.

 

[Satyamdas]

Your argument specifically asks us to open up to the possibility that there are things outside of our realm of knowing - you ridicule atheists who feel as though they shouldn't and say they are on equal footing with theists. You specifically point to the idea of a god, not just the realm of the unknowable - as being something worth consideration.

Wrong. I don't give two shits about what you are open to or not. If you've got it all figured out then happy trails, partner.

And most importantly, you didn't address my point. Answer my question - if your argument is that things that reside our reality or our realm of understanding should be given weight - thus God, which you claim (or, sorry not you, other theists you are arguing for, claim) why is my cock monster - why is any deity or any ridiculous idea ever not given the same weight? Please tell us, or just me, why a God is different?

Any idea or concept should be judged on its merits. I've read about dozens of gods, and some I find more plausible than others. If you presented some compelling argument for the existence of your cock monster, I'd consider it accordingly. But you don't have one. I know that you are trying to ridicule so I can safely dismiss anything you have to say about it.

Clever? Oh god no - I am trying to highlight to inanity of your position by giving you your argument regurgitated back to you even more inane - I am being the opposite of clever. Thanks for thinking I'm funny though, I try.

Right, because it never dawned on me that having an open mind means that I have to be open to every stupid thing I hear, ever. Thank you for this wonderful insight.

 

[Kinitari]

This seems to presume that society weighting has no value whatsoever which is odd considering that society is what adds values to unproven scientific theories. We accept secular notions for how life got here, for example, solely based on value rather than validity.

No, society doesn't give scientific theories weight - and secular theories like abiogenesis, or the big bang theory - which I think is where you are coming from are:

A - not 'accepted' in the same manner of speak as you are using.
B - they are not soley based on value - they are based on a lot of our understandings of the natural world, on experimentation, and a methodology that has consistently proved to improve our understanding of the known universe. That's not the same as just 'value'.

The other notions may have weight for the individual. After all, it doesn't matter until the deity in question requires harm to others or until someone wants to stick their nose in it for no reason at all. However, societies view of belief has tremendous value whether the belief is right or wrong. Again, all one has to do is look at how quickly and easily life without God is accepted, not to mention some more valid notions such as evolution were accepted.

You're appealing to population. Which is a logical fallacy. Everyone thinking something doesn't give it value or validity.

 

[leadbelly]

It's definitely a mathematical concept, but it's only made reality (probably) by the properties of our universe. That's what I meant. The beginning of the Universe was not a singularity as by definition it would not have changed from being a singularity.
Fair enough. What you're likely misunderstanding here however is that energy does not need to be present. Particles are created so that their total energy is still zero, meaning no energy is required. In fact, there is good evidence from observation that all the sum of all energy in the Universe is 0 - which means there was no energy required to make it all happen. Energy could be described as 'distance from nothing' in this case, meaning that everything that exists is just expressed as a different manifestation of nothing.

They describe it as energy in some sense. Particles are produced by positive energy, it just so happens that the positive energy is exactly balanced by negative gravitational energy which gives us the figure of zero.

 

[Kinitari]

Wrong. I don't give two shits about what you are open to or not. If you've got it all figured out then happy trails, partner.


Any idea or concept should be judged on its merits. I've read about dozens of gods, and some I find more plausible than others. If you presented some compelling argument for the existence of your cock monster, I'd consider it accordingly. But you don't have one. I know that you are trying to ridicule so I can safely dismiss anything you have to say about it.


Right, because it never dawned on me that having an open mind means that I have to be open to every stupid thing I hear, ever. Thank you for this wonderful insight.

So what you're saying is, the difference between my cock monster or any old silly idea, and those many religions you've looked into - or rather, the deities that reign over them - is that you've looked into them and you feel they personally have some validity?

How about this for an argument. Have you never looked down at your man-parts and been impressed by it's wonderment? It's beauty? It's elegance and grace and thought to yourself "This can't just be a happy accident, this is designed by something greater" - made in it's own image, I'll say.

Again, I'm being facetious - but if you can give me a single religious claim pointing to the probability of it's respective deity that has a smidge more validity than what I just said, I'll eat my hat. Mind you it's an ethereal hat, but I'll still eat it.

 

[Satyamdas]

So what you're saying is, the difference between my cock monster or any old silly idea, and those many religions you've looked into - or rather, the deities that reign over them - is that you've looked into them and you feel they personally have some validity?

The difference is, the books I have read at least have some semblance of cogency to them, as opposed to your witless nonsense.

How about this for an argument. Have you never looked down at your man-parts and been impressed by it's wonderment? It's beauty? It's elegance and grace and thought to yourself "This can't just be a happy accident, this is designed by something greater" - made in it's own image, I'll say.

Look, I'm really happy that you have a cock fetish, but I'm not interested in indulging it. I'm sorry.

Again, I'm being facetious - but if you can give me a single religious claim that has a smidge more validity than what I just said, I'll eat my hat. Mind you it's an ethereal hat, but I'll still eat it.

I don't throw pearls to swine.

 

[DCKing]

Right, because it never dawned on me that having an open mind means that I have to be open to every stupid thing I hear, ever. Thank you for this wonderful insight.

Come on dude, if you bothered to actually really read all of our posts then you'd see that we are open to that position but that it is:
- ridiculous to think about because apart from an unknowable God there could be gazillion other unknowable things. It is also unknowable to whether there's a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.
- meaningless to talk about, because being unknowable there is no way we could have meaningful discussion about, and no way that an entity like that could even have any action on our 'realm' without becoming knowable.

But if you want me to say that I'm open to it being reality, then yeah, I'm open to it being reality. I cannot prove negatives.

 

[Christine]

Do you think quantum theorists, advanced mathematicians, theoretical physicists, never consider that reality may contain elements or be composed by something which exceeds our ability to fully grasp it?

Not in the pursuit of mathematics or physics, no. They may certainly chase after explanations that evade our current understanding, but the speculation that elements of reality are inherently unknowable is directly antithetical to their method of inquiry.

When they try to think outside the box, do you think they entertain shit as stupid as a cock-monster, or every inane thing they hear?

In this context, how are your speculations not "every inane thing"?

 

[Kinitari]

The difference is, the books I have read at least have some semblance of cogency to them, as opposed to your witless nonsense.

Ah so trying to sound intellectual would have gotten me more points? I see, I see.

Look, I'm really happy that you have a cock fetish, but I'm not interested in indulging it. I'm sorry.

I'm really just mostly obsessed with my own, what ya gonna do.

I don't throw pearls to swine.

This actually made me laugh out loud bro. Amazing.

 

[Satyamdas]

Come on dude, if you bothered to actually really read all of our posts then you'd see that we are open to that position but that it is:
- ridiculous to think about because apart from an unknowable God there could be gazillion other unknowable things. It is also unknowable to whether there's a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.
- meaningless to talk about, because being unknowable there is no way we could have meaningful discussion about, and no way that an entity like that could even have any action on our 'realm' without becoming knowable.

But if you want me to say that I'm open to it being reality, then yeah, I'm open to it being reality. I cannot prove negatives.

Right, that's why there is a theist/atheist thread on GAF popping up every 4.8 seconds. Because it's just so meaningless to talk about. Right. The idea of god is never on your mind. Right. It's all those damn theists forcing you to think and talk about god all the time. Right. Fucking spare me.

 

[DCKing]

They describe it as energy in some sense. Particles are produced by positive energy, it just so happens that the positive energy is exactly balanced by negative gravitational energy which gives us the figure of zero.

Yeah, it's not known where the concept of energy comes from. Maybe it doesn't come from anywhere. But that's a very esoteric discussion

 

[cutmeamango]

Fair enough. What you're likely misunderstanding here however is that energy does not need to be present. Particles are created so that their total energy is still zero, meaning no energy is required. In fact, there is good evidence from observation that all the sum of all energy in the Universe is 0 - which means there was no energy required to make it all happen. Energy could be described as 'distance from nothing' in this case, meaning that everything that exists is just expressed as a different manifestation of nothing.

That's not general relativity. Nor works with infinite sets in mathematics. That would break thermodynamics too.

 

[DCKing]

Right, that's why there is a theist/atheist thread on GAF popping up every 4.8 seconds. Because it's just so meaningless to talk about. Right. The idea of god is never on your mind. Right. It's all those damn theists forcing you to think and talk about god all the time. Right. Fucking spare me.

You know very well that the problems of theism do not include a difference of opinion in the esoteric discussion of the likelihood of a deistic entity outside of our reality.

 

[JGS]

No, society doesn't give scientific theories weight - and secular theories like abiogenesis, or the big bang theory - which I think is where you are coming from are:

A - not 'accepted' in the same manner of speak as you are using.
B - they are not soley based on value - they are based on a lot of our understandings of the natural world, on experimentation, and a methodology that has consistently proved to improve our understanding of the known universe. That's not the same as just 'value'.

It's certainly true that they don't have the ability to give weight to things that are proven. They have the ability to accept them quickly though which was the case with evolution (to an extent). However, they are the only reason things are given weight that aren't which is why society can dismiss some things as wacky and not others despite you thinking that it may all be wacky.

You're the one making the distinction because you believe your views as valid, not that they actually are. There is no methodology in place that proves how life begins on its own. There is also no methodology in place to helps prove that belief &/or faith is some kind of irrational response in life. Thus society overall rejects those notions until a better one comes along. This is why Thor & Zeus, are of no consequence now outside of movies and comic books.

God, on the other hand, ain't going anywhere for several centuries and that's assuming you are actually right. As a wacky believer, I say you're wrong and you can't do anything about that except ignore it.

You're appealing to population. Which is a logical fallacy. Everyone thinking something doesn't give it value or validity.

It's not any more of a fallacy than suggesting that a small population that concentrate their efforts on scientific advancement (& their followers) are the ones that have the likely answer for something science lack the ability to prove.

As I already mentioned, acceptance is not based on right or wrong so there's no fallacy anyway unless you care to debate how many people actually hold an opinion about something. This is why, until proven otherwise, Allah, Buddha, Jewish God, & other religions still hold weight in terms of value in society.

 

[KHarvey16]

Any idea or concept should be judged on its merits. I've read about dozens of gods, and some I find more plausible than others.

They might seem plausible to you but in reality are not actually plausible. Their implausibility is beyond your understanding. Therefore, your judgment is meaningless and silly you egotistical know it all.

 

[DCKing]

That's not general relativity. Nor works with infinite sets in mathematics. That would break thermodynamics too.

What, how? Mathematics I get, but mathematical concepts do not have to have a relation with reality.

 

[KtSlime]

Ah so trying to sound intellectual would have gotten me more points? I see, I see.


I'm really just mostly obsessed with my own, what ya gonna do.


This actually made me laugh out loud bro. Amazing.

You left out a crucial step in this creation. For Satyamdas to take it seriously it needs to be written down in a leather bound book for a couple of generations. Then it will have merits as a possible belief system.

jaxword: JGS sometimes lies, it's to be expected. I figured he would ignore it the second it was pointed out.

 

[jaxword]

Notice that when the claim of "Most Christians are in favor of gay marriage" was challenged and proof was asked for, it was deliberately ignored.

Poor form, because that pretty much says it was a made up lie.

 

[Kinitari]

You're the one making the distinction because you believe your views as valid, not that they actually are. There is no methodology in place that proves how life begins on its own. There is also no methodology in place to helps prove that belief &/or faith is some kind of irrational response in life. Thus society overall rejects those notions until a better one comes along. This is why Thor & Zeus, are of no consequence now outside of movies and comic books.

Close, I believe my thought process is more valid. And rather than hit you with the scientific progression we've made in the realm of understanding abiogenesis, for example - let me just say this:

You assume that I have a strong belief in abiogenesis, or that I give it a whole lot of thought. I don't - I think given the evidence and work and yes, the consensus of the scientific community, it is the most valid argument given. If one is presented that holds a better argument - one that appeals to our ability to reason, and utilizes the tools we currently use to understand our natural world - than yeah - I'll give that theory more validity. I am a lot more fluid than people give me credit for.

God, on the other hand, ain't going anywhere for several centuries and that's assuming you are actually right. As a wacky believer, I say you're wrong and you can't do anything about that except ignore it.It's not any more of a fallacy than suggesting that a small population that concentrate their efforts on scientific advancement (& their followers) are the ones that have the likely answer for something science lack the ability to prove.

No, I can do more than ignore it - I argue against it, all the time - I've discussed with many a people on the board, in real life, and in PMs the validity of God and what believing in one means. Some people have been convinced that my position is one that they also want to hold. So... I am doing something about it?

As I already mentioned, acceptance is not based on right or wrong so there's no fallacy anyway unless you care to debate how many people actually hold an opinion about something. This is why, until proven otherwise, Allah, Buddha, Jewish God, & other religions still hold weight in terms of value in society.

You're saying population acceptance gives the idea validity - that is the exact definition of the appeal ad populum logical fallacy.

 

[Satyamdas]

In this context, how are your speculations not "every inane thing"?

We judge inanity against our own logic. My logic tells me that someone positing a cock monster that he just made up is inane and not worth consideration.

My speculations may very well be inane to another person. But seeing as how I'm not trying to convince myself or anyone else that my speculations are accurate, I don't see why I should regard them as being equal to a cock monster.

 

[Kinitari]

We judge inanity against our own logic. My logic tells me that someone positing a cock monster that he just made up is inane and not worth consideration.

My speculations may very well be inane to another person. But seeing as how I'm not trying to convince myself or anyone else that my speculations are accurate, I don't see why I should regard them as being equal to a cock monster.

You're trying to convince them that your speculation deserves merit, that it should not be dismissed out of hand because it cannot be proven or disproven. I just want my cock monster to be treated the same.

 

[KHarvey16]

We judge inanity against our own logic. My logic tells me that someone positing a cock monster that he just made up is inane and not worth consideration.

My speculations may very well be inane to another person. But seeing as how I'm not trying to convince myself or anyone else that my speculations are accurate, I don't see why I should regard them as being equal to a cock monster.

The cock monster exists beyond your logic, mortal.

 

[DCKing]

But seeing as how I'm not trying to convince myself or anyone else that my speculations are accurate

It's good you say that, because I thought the personal attacks you made on people suggested you were desperate for doing just that. Talk about the wrong impression.

 

[KHarvey16]

It's good you say that, because I thought the personal attacks you made on people suggested you were desperate for doing just that. Talk about the wrong impression.

His motivations exist outside of our comprehension.