I think that the believe in the existence of a god-like being is wrong. What I believe to be wrong is the believe in the intervention of such a being.
Let's say there is a god that doesn't intervene in the universe. We can not observe the god itself. We can not observe the god doing anything. We can not observe the effects of anything the god does. The god actually has no effect on the universe.
That means that god doesn't exist! The definition of something that does not exist is something which has no observable effect on the universe.
If I had a dollar for every time I've explained this...
Also, what is wrong with preaching? I see nothing wrong with preaching. Nobody is refusing to vote for their politician of choice, yet all politicians do is preach. Nobody is refusing to buy their favorite products, but the companies that make those products are constantly preaching how great those products are. GeekNights constantly preaches about awesome geeky things like video games, books, etc.
Lack of evidence doesn't disprove something. Only evidence of something contradicting disproves something.
HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES DO I HAVE TO EXPLAIN THE SAME FUCKING THING? SERIOUSLY!
You know what. I'm not even going to explain it again. Learn to fucking read.
I could be wrong, but I think he's looking for the step that goes between
We can not observe the effects of anything the god does.
and
The god actually has no effect on the universe.
that connects the two, and maybe also the step between
The god actually has no effect on the universe.
and
That means that god doesn't exist!
.
I mean, you did say
The definition of something that does not exist is something which has no observable effect on the universe.
, but I can see where confusion might come up, since the dictionary defines existence as
2 a: the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence [the existence of other worlds] b: the manner of being that is common to every mode of being c: being with respect to a limiting condition or under a particular aspect link
which doesn't quite sound like what you said. If you could perhaps link to where you had cleared this up in the past, I'm sure that he'd appreciate it...
Existing basically means just being alive and having an effect.
The difference here is that I believe existence is something subjective to a person. Bob from Tacoma Washington can very well be alive or not. However, I never heard of him. He had no effect that I was able to observe. I can't judge if he is exists not. For me there is the possibility of a mirror universe to ours that nobody from out universe has ever visited.
Scott on the other hand takes everything everybody has every experienced and rules out anything else. For him, the mentioned mirror universe is not able to exist.
The difference here is that I believe existence is something subjective to a person. Bob from Tacoma Washington can very well be alive or not.
No, but we have evidence he existed. We would have receipts from when he went shopping, bills he paid, people he worked with and talked to, objects he created, finger prints, left over DNA samples from hair and blood. All of these things point to the existence of Bob from Tacoma Washington, even if we never met Bob.
For me there is the possibility of a mirror universe to ours that nobody from out universe has ever visited.
There is a possibility for anything, doesn't mean it's likely.
Existing basically means just being alive and having an effect.
Andrew, did you read my full post or did you just take out random things. Receipts, bills or whatever, that is all information Scott's definition would take into account. I never saw those things and until I do I can't judge whether Bob exists or not. Also we are not discussing the the likelihood of something but only the binary question of possible or not.
Receipts, bills or whatever, that is all information Scott's definition would take into account. I never saw those things and until I do I can't judge whether Bob exists or not.
No, but it's possible to find out. We must assume that something does not exist until we have positive evidence in favor of it's existence. Therefore we cannot act on the possibility that it exists without a reason to. Also, it's not unreasonable to assume that a man named Bob lived in Tacoma, Washington. It's highly probable in fact given the number of guys named Bob who live in all the other states.
Also we are not discussing the the likelihood of something but only the binary question of possible or not.
Likelihood is what it's all about. We can never be 100% sure that something exists or not, but we can be 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999% sure that it does. We must assume that Object A does not exist until it's more unlikely, given the evidence, that it doesn't exist.
Existing basically means just being alive and having an effect.
The difference here is that I believe existence is something subjective to a person. Bob from Tacoma Washington can very well be alive or not. However, I never heard of him. He had no effect that I was able to observe. I can't judge if he is exists not. For me there is the possibility of a mirror universe to ours that nobody from out universe has ever visited.
Scott on the other hand takes everything everybody has every experienced and rules out anything else. For him, the mentioned mirror universe is not able to exist.
Mmmm, I think it's the difference between "false until proven true" and "unknown until proven known". I'm sure there's an official term for it.
Receipts, bills or whatever, that is all information Scott's definition would take into account. I never saw those things and until I do I can't judge whether Bob exists or not.
No, but it's possible to find out. We must assume that something does not exist until we have positive evidence in favor of it's existence. Therefore we cannot act on the possibility that it exists without a reason to. Also, it's not unreasonable to assume that a man named Bob lived in Tacoma, Washington. It's highly probable in fact given the number of guys named Bob who live in all the other states.
If we must assume that something does not exist until we have positive evidence in favor of its existence, does it follow that we must also assume that something does exist until we have positive evidence in favor of its nonexistence?
If we must assume that something does not exist until we have positive evidence in favor of its existence, does it follow that we must also assume that something does exist until we have positive evidence in favor of its nonexistence?
If we assumed everything existed without evidence, there would be stuck proving everything wrong before we got any productive work done. We would spend our time debunking moving goal posts instead of actually figuring out how the world works.
See, the real issue is simply that, in the entire history of this forum, no one has ever even once made a lucid argument in favor of religion. Not one. I don't think any of you understand the argument at all and, judging by the last several posts, have the capacity to understand the argument. You ignore any point you can't refute, and do not actually refute the ones you think you can. Most of the arguments you've made in this thread have been little more than gibberish, arguments that were cast aside hundreds of years ago in the face of logic, reason, and the advance of science.
If you want to discuss religion, at least try to make an actual argument. If you think you have, I'd suggest you look over what you've posted in the past and really try to think about it.
Since the lot of you refuse to actually argue, this thread is done.
The entire basis of the argument is "We don't know, so it must be god", when the truth of the matter is we know a hell of a lot, and what we haven't figured out yet certainly isn't an omniscient, omnipresent being.
Did you listen to me at all? I'm not arguing that! And atheism is a belief in no god. Without belief, there would be no will, and no point. Even if you're 99% sure, you still must believe the remaining 1%. But semantics.
Yet again, your ignorance of science shines brightly. Science is 100% objective. Modern scientific experimental methods take into account the flaws in the five human senses. This is why we have double blind tests, and why we have controlled randomized clinical studies. They allow us to account for the subjectivity of human perception. Take this for example.
I understand that, but we still must interpret those studies with a degree of human perception. In fact, my dad works for those very same clinical trials. He's a manager though, and he must go through the same level of human interpretation. You just interpreted my words, which are 100% objective, and spun them into something else. Science is 100% objective, but we are always subjective in our interpretation of that science. blockquote>Posted By:AprecheInfinity, it really seems like your major problem is that you just don't know the first thing about science. Thus, you are arguing against something you do not understand. Your argue against what you think science is, and we constantly have to correct you. Basically, you've unintentionally created and destroyed a gigantic straw man. I understand science. Science is what we as humans have figured out through use of the scientific method (a process to remove human interaction and to justify all results by following the same process). You make a hypothesis to answer a question and your results support or do not support your hypothesis. With enough support, a hypothesis becomes a theory. Science is also replicatable and repeatedly testable to produce similar results.
I agree that something must have some sort of impact on reality to effectively "exist". I agree that evolution is, as far as we know, accurate science. I refuse to believe we are simply the product of emergent behavior. That's why I believe in something like that. I refuse to believe that I am just a machine. Whether I'm right or wrong, my refusal is all that counts. What's the point in living if I'm just a machine other than so other "machines" can continue living?
I agree that something must have some sort of impact on reality to effectively "exist".
No impact has ever been verifiably recorded by any "supernatural" force, be it a god, a ghost, or whatever, in the entire history of mankind.
I refuse to believe we are simply the product of emergent behavior. That's why I believe in something like that. I refuse to believe that I am just a machine. Whether I'm right or wrong, my refusal is all that counts.
That is one of the worst fallacies of logic one can have: to argue from the position that your desire for a particular truth somehow makes that truth more likely. It's a terrible argument. You've declared your answer without evidence or backing of any kind, and furthermore in the face of contradictory evidence.
A rational person does not "refuse" to believe in something just because it displeases them, or it hurts their sensibilities, or it's depressing. However the world is is the way it is, and you, as a member of said world, have to accept that. So what if you're just the emergent behavior of a complex system? You're still you, right? Don't ascribe meaning when there is none, make meaning where it should be.
See, the real issue is simply that, in the entire history of this forum, no one has ever even once made a lucid argument in favor of religion. Not one. I don't think any of you understand the argument at all and, judging by the last several posts, have the capacity to understand the argument. You ignore any point you can't refute, and do not actually refute the ones you think you can. Most of the arguments you've made in this thread have been little more than gibberish, arguments that were cast aside hundreds of years ago in the face of logic, reason, and the advance of science.
If you want to discuss religion, at least try to make an actual argument. If you think you have, I'd suggest you look over what you've posted in the past and really try to think about it.
Since the lot of you refuse to actually argue, this thread is done.
Comments
That means that god doesn't exist! The definition of something that does not exist is something which has no observable effect on the universe.
If I had a dollar for every time I've explained this...
Also, what is wrong with preaching? I see nothing wrong with preaching. Nobody is refusing to vote for their politician of choice, yet all politicians do is preach. Nobody is refusing to buy their favorite products, but the companies that make those products are constantly preaching how great those products are. GeekNights constantly preaches about awesome geeky things like video games, books, etc.
Preaching is only a problem if you preach lies.
You know what. I'm not even going to explain it again. Learn to fucking read.
I mean, you did say , but I can see where confusion might come up, since the dictionary defines existence as which doesn't quite sound like what you said. If you could perhaps link to where you had cleared this up in the past, I'm sure that he'd appreciate it...
The difference here is that I believe existence is something subjective to a person. Bob from Tacoma Washington can very well be alive or not. However, I never heard of him. He had no effect that I was able to observe. I can't judge if he is exists not. For me there is the possibility of a mirror universe to ours that nobody from out universe has ever visited.
Scott on the other hand takes everything everybody has every experienced and rules out anything else. For him, the mentioned mirror universe is not able to exist.
If you want to discuss religion, at least try to make an actual argument. If you think you have, I'd suggest you look over what you've posted in the past and really try to think about it.
Since the lot of you refuse to actually argue, this thread is done.
blockquote>Posted By:AprecheInfinity, it really seems like your major problem is that you just don't know the first thing about science. Thus, you are arguing against something you do not understand. Your argue against what you think science is, and we constantly have to correct you. Basically, you've unintentionally created and destroyed a gigantic straw man. I understand science. Science is what we as humans have figured out through use of the scientific method (a process to remove human interaction and to justify all results by following the same process). You make a hypothesis to answer a question and your results support or do not support your hypothesis. With enough support, a hypothesis becomes a theory. Science is also replicatable and repeatedly testable to produce similar results.
I agree that something must have some sort of impact on reality to effectively "exist".
I agree that evolution is, as far as we know, accurate science.
I refuse to believe we are simply the product of emergent behavior. That's why I believe in something like that. I refuse to believe that I am just a machine. Whether I'm right or wrong, my refusal is all that counts. What's the point in living if I'm just a machine other than so other "machines" can continue living?
A rational person does not "refuse" to believe in something just because it displeases them, or it hurts their sensibilities, or it's depressing. However the world is is the way it is, and you, as a member of said world, have to accept that. So what if you're just the emergent behavior of a complex system? You're still you, right? Don't ascribe meaning when there is none, make meaning where it should be.
See, the real issue is simply that, in the entire history of this forum, no one has ever even once made a lucid argument in favor of religion. Not one. I don't think any of you understand the argument at all and, judging by the last several posts, have the capacity to understand the argument. You ignore any point you can't refute, and do not actually refute the ones you think you can. Most of the arguments you've made in this thread have been little more than gibberish, arguments that were cast aside hundreds of years ago in the face of logic, reason, and the advance of science.
If you want to discuss religion, at least try to make an actual argument. If you think you have, I'd suggest you look over what you've posted in the past and really try to think about it.
Since the lot of you refuse to actually argue, this thread is done.