TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- God
Pages (25): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 »

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Perhaps you should explore why it might be a bad thing. I refuse to accept any argument that refers to the 'progression of our species' because that is a disgustingly arrogant notion typically put forward by people who suppose the autocracy of mankind in their sole - yet mistaken - power. See: Nou.

What? That entire paragraph is word salad.
The sentence "typically put forward by people who suppose the autocracy of mankind in their sole - yet mistaken - power. See: Nou." is not even syntactically correct. Sorry, but I simply am unable to guess what you're trying to say.

quote:

I am well aware of its red-herring status...

That wasn't the point. You claimed that I by calling it an appeal to authority, admitted the authority in the source. That is wrong.

quote:

It seems a rather convenient portion of recorded science is only concerned with 'being right' when it suits its agenda;

Science? No. Scientists? Yes, some. There will always be scientists who are only looking to become famous, make money or sabotage the work of others, by falsifying the research results. That is however not a problem for science as a whole since science is self-correcting. Perhaps the most important part of the scientific method is peer review - that other scientists test out the same results and look for errors.

quote:

is not a great deal of the entire scientific method being completely wrong

Nah. The scientific method is: Investigate, repeat, try to refute. No problem there.

quote:

Is it only "science" when it's correct, or more specifically, conducive to observable documentation one bestows a great deal of faith in the veracity of, given supposed peer-review?

Again. I can only guess. What do you mean?

quote:

Likewise.

Okay, so when you - out of the blue and without appeal - mentions that I must "recognize" that many theoretical physicists are spiritual, then that wasn't an appeal to authority? It was not an allusion to an argument for justification of faith when scientists in the field believe in something?

Fair enough - what was the point of mentioning it then?

quote:

the datum they are inclined to formulate with is wrought with the chaotic behaviour of subatomics and celestial contradictions

Again word salad. What are you imagining that would mean?

quote:

The very nature of their occupations practically demands a philosophy of sorts that must accommodate for a unifying force to give reason to the completely scientific observations that give rise to their theorems.

A very complicated way of saying it, but it sounds a little like you are saying, the fact that they are able to produce scientific observations is evidence of the existence of a supernatural force? If so, how?

quote:

I am saying that as one shapes their understandings of the cosmos and its interplay upon mankind, it is practically unavoidable to surmise that there is an order to things.

What has order to do with anything? Order is a human concept - an expression of textures and patterns we see in things regardless of how they arose. Crystals, for example are very "orderly" in their structure from a human perspective, but would that mean a supernatural force makes each crystal?

Order can also be uniformity and uniformity is the basis of Big Bang - namely a singularity

quote:

but might there be a being or a force that dictates this universal texture?

Yes, there could be. It is also possible that the universe was formed by a giant space hamster fart. Anything is possible when you have no evidence - but it's not a reason to believe.

quote:

No, it is not exactly the same. It is not the same at all.

Yes it is. To call an object by another name does not change the object's properties. If I called a bike God, it would not prove God's existence. The fact that Einstein called the natural laws God has similar result and it will not alter the fact that natural laws are just natural, impersonal and non-thinking - whatever you call them.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard If something is probable then there is suffcient evidence to establish a presumption that it is true.

Wrong. With a certain high degree of probability, then yes, but not because of probability in and of itself only.
If I throw a normal dice, there is 83% probability that it will not be a 6. But it is still irrational to believe that it will not be a 6 because it could very well be a 6 - 1 out 6 times. You might think it is most likely it will not be a 6 - but that is still not the same.

quote:

If probability is not the test for whether or not something should be believed then we need to throw out our legal systems

Nope. None of the mentioned, and certainly not the legal system, is based on binary probability alone. Very, very high probability - is the basis. it is called practical knowledge.
If you really believe that our legal system would convict a person if there was a 51% probability that he had committed a crime, then I dont know what to say.

Remember, you haven't established the degree of probability of a teacher named Yeshu in the year ~ 30 , and you cant, because we have not enough knowledge to calculate it accurately.

To use the same example as before, it is exactly the same, as if I asked you: Does a family live in Wellton Town with two children named Johnson?

- You can obtain the information we have. How many percent of the population is called Johnson, how common is it to have two children, how many people live in Wellton Town etc.
But no matter how good an estimate you arrive at, both answers "yes"and"no" are going to be irrational, because you do not know (unless of course you know a family named Johnson there - but think hypothetically) The only correct answer is "I do not know - but I find it readily likely / unlikely".

quote:

Are you that small minded that you honestly cannot fathom that something can be true without first hand observation of direct physical evidence?

No. Where do you have that -out-of-the-blue idea from? Establish a high degree of probability, and I will believe it - provisional, until further evidence emerges.
The border of how much probability it takes to validate a belief is, of course, diffuse, and it will also depend on one's precise definition of the word "belief" - but regardless, it requires more than statistical probability. It requires reasonable probability.

quote:

You have now provided sufficient evidence for one to reasonably conclude that you are far too idiotic to engage in further discussion with.

- But well, since you are unable to defend your opinion without attacking my person with childlike smearing, I have no choice but to assume you can not defend it.

By your calculations, would you say it's likely that any of us exist?

quote:

Originally posted by Znack Wrong. With a certain high degree of probability, then yes, but not because of probability in and of itself only.

We aren't talking probability in terms of odds here... we're talking about something being probable; meaning very likely. If it is very likely then it is reasonable to proceed on the presumption that it is tue.

quote:

Nope. None of the mentioned, and certainly not the legal system

Civil law is entirely based on the balance of probabilities (is it more likely then not); criminal law requires a higher probability but the test is still "probable." All areas of scientific inquiry rely on assumptions being true; assumption being unproven but probable.

quote:

Remember, you haven't established the degree of probability of a teacher named Yeshu in the year ~ 30 , and you cant, because we have not enough knowledge to calculate it accurately.

we don't need to calculate odds here... on balance it is probable. It doesn't matter if that's 90:1 or 2:1; it is highly likely, probable, meaning that the possibility that it is not true is lesser then the possibility that it is; subsequently, it is reasonable to proceed on the presumption that it is true. As I stated earlier; you would be hard pressed to find many scholars that would hold the contention that it is improbable that a historical Jesus existed.

quote:

- But well, since you are unable to defend your opinion without attacking my person with childlike smearing, I have no choice but to assume you can not defend it.

I am perfectly capable, in fact, I have done so. You, on the other hand, are simply incapable of accepting you have lost the point or; alternatively, are incapable of rational discussion. I have not attacked you; rather, I have shared my conclusions regarding your relative level of idiocy... granted, I can't actually calculate the odds that you are an idiot; however, I think everyone reading this thread has reached the same conclusion.... it's probable that you are; subsequently, we will proceed on the presumtion that you are.

It maybe a bit harsh to call the guy/girl an idiot. While his/her points aren't making very much sense, it does kind of seem like there is a possible language barrier involved. That being said, they may just be an idiot.

It is a possibility, although I can't quantify the exact probability that they're an idiot, I would say it is somewhere between somewhat likely, and moderately likely.

quote:

Originally posted by clay they may be an idiot?

I'd say it's probable; though I can't calculate an exact number.

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 It is a probability, although I can't quantify the exact probability that they're an idiot, I would say it is somewhere between somewhat likely, and moderately likely.

fixed.

Re: God

quote:

Originally posted by chlola Do you believe in God? If so... please explain to me why he lets a 17 year old boy with a heart of gold, die of liver failure the day before his senior prom ....

His memorial is this Saturday.
A year from his death... I still don't get it.

Re: Re: God

quote:

Originally posted by chlola His memorial is this Saturday. A year from his death... I still don't get it.

His body made him die, not god.

Re: Re: Re: God

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 His body made him die, not god.

Are you still convinced I gave your PI to Jay?

Re: Re: Re: God

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 His body made him die, not god.

But WHY?
And fyi: You are cool as fuck, no matter what these sick bastards say.

Re: Re: Re: Re: God

quote:

Originally posted by chlola But WHY? And fyi: You are cool as fuck, no matter what these sick bastards say.

Yeah, because accusing someone of something they didn't do, which occurred because your own incompetence makes you "cool as fuck".

Re: Re: Re: Re: God

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker Are you still convinced I gave your PI to Jay?

It doesn't matter if I'm convinced or not, as I've let it go. I suggest you do the same.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: God

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 It doesn't matter if I'm convinced or not, as I've let it go. I suggest you do the same.

No. You don't get off so easily for that. What a fucking bullshit answer. That's the sort of answer which indicates that there's something seriously wrong with you and being that there's something seriously wrong with you, I'm going to endeavor to find out what it is and skull fuck you with it!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: God

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker Yeah, because accusing someone of something they didn't do, which occurred because your own incompetence makes you "cool as fuck".

Go suck Jenny's cock already.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: God

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker No. You don't get off so easily for that. What a fucking bullshit answer. That's the sort of answer which indicates that there's something seriously wrong with you and being that there's something seriously wrong with you, I'm going to endeavor to find out what it is and skull fuck you with it!

Get off so easy? I don't care man. If you wanna keep trying to get a rouse out of me with your little passive aggressive insults spread around different threads, be my guest. This time I really don't care. If you're looking for an apology, you're not going to get it. If that upsets you then there's nothing I can really do about that.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: God

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 Get off so easy? I don't care man. If you wanna keep trying to get a rouse out of me with your little passive aggressive insults spread around different threads, be my guest. This time I really don't care. If you're looking for an apology, you're not going to get it. If that upsets you then there's nothing I can really do about that.

You, calling me passive-aggressive. That's fucking ironic.

Passive-aggressive perfectly describes the strategy you've taken and the insincere apology you offered. You're a fucking coward.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: God

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker You, calling me passive-aggressive. That's fucking ironic. Passive-aggressive perfectly describes the strategy you've taken and the insincere apology you offered. You're a fucking coward.

Does not compute. I meant every word I said. If I'm a coward for not wanting any drama and trying to just leave you be, then so be it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: God

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 Does not compute. I meant every word I said. If I'm a coward for not wanting any drama and trying to just leave you be, then so be it.

Jesus loves you srussel.







And he doesn't want you to live a lie because of your epic cowardice.

ok

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard We aren't talking probability in terms of odds here... we're talking about something being probable; meaning very likely.

No, this is where, we go past each other. We're talking specifically about the statistical odds.

All you have shown regarding Jesus's existence as a human being, is that there is a relatively high statistical probability that a person named Yeshu who also was a teacher, existed in Palestine shortly after the year 0. thats not trustworthy, it is purely odds.

I admit, probability is an ambiguous word in this context, but if that is where the misunderstanding lies, everything else is then resolved?

quote:

it is highly likely, probable, meaning that the possibility that it is not true is lesser then the possibility that it is; subsequently, it is reasonable to proceed on the presumption that it is true.

And now you are calculating in low statistical odds again. Suddenly, you pull everything else back, and says 51% probability is enough to believe.

Again again again: no. Fact that something is a bit more likely than the opposite is not a reason to believe something, Belief is to believe it's true, not that it's likely.

quote:

As I stated earlier; you would be hard pressed to find many scholars that would hold the contention that it is improbable that a historical Jesus existed.

Again an appeal to authority used. What scientists are believing is completely irrelevant, it's research that matters - and there is no evidence or research results, if you like, to suggest the existence of Jesus.
Furthermore you actually find more and more scientists who doubt that he ever lived. There's just an ancient cultural relic to go on.

quote:

I am perfectly capable, in fact, I have done so.

Really? Could you repeat your convincing argument, since I must have missed it?

quote:

I have not attacked you; rather, I have shared my conclusions regarding your relative level of idiocy...

Are you going after the price for most contradictory sentence? That was an attack. Seriously, what do you think a personal attack is, if its not to say "you are an idiot"?

Learn when to give up, big shooter. You already lost.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.