quote:

Originally posted by Lews I've never understood why anyone ever tries to prove or disprove the existence of God these days. I figured after Descartes' embarrassing attempt (I feel bad for the guy, he tried so hard) people would have given it up. I had a logic professor try year and it was just bad. Needless to say I'm thinking about retaking the class (from someone else) as I didn't fucking learn much.

I've never understood it, either. It seems like there's too many unknowable factors that have to be known in order for either case to be made. What most discussions descend to is pointing out the inconsistencies in arguments (or the Bible) from either side. Personally, I'd love to take a class in logic.






I just Kant afford it, right now.

___________________

Now with extra singles!
my old stuff, not quite up to snuff - but I still dig it - UPDATED 9/23/2012

1:

Therefore, God exists.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by OrangestO This isn't about physics, this is about waves.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Indeed, the gospels do speak of great crowds; however, crowd is a relative term

Well, it also only says approximately the number of people who should have listened to his lectures. Thousands of people were at the time a very large number - especially for something as unproductive as listening to a teacher. People were busy surviving.

I do not really understand your explanation here.

quote:

What? It's not circular logic.

Yes. You say he is a legend - you have no arguments for that, but a legend means a story based on reality. The fact that you assume he is a legend, is an assumption that his story is based on reality.
1: Jesus is based on reality (a legend) because one calls him a legend.
2: One calls Jesus a legend, because it is assumes he is based on reality.
- It's circular, unless there are other reasons to call it a legend - and there isn't.

quote:

Of course it is... if something is probable then it is reasonable to believe it.

It's right there, you're wrong. A belief is an idea which is assumed to be true, not one which is assumed to be likely. It is not rational to believe in something because it is likely. It is rational to consider it likely.

For example. I think it is likely that there is life somewhere in space. The incredible amount of space means that it would be very strange if Earth was the only place where life had evolved. But I do not believe in extraterrestrial life. That would mean that I held it as true that it existed - and that is irrational. There is a difference.

You may consider it is likely that Jesus existed. But believing in him, even just as a human, is irrational without evidence.

Last edited by Znack on Apr-27-2011 at 08:24

quote:

Originally posted by Spam I love it when turn on your thinking cap, my dictionary hasn't seen this much action since the last spelling test I cheated on.

yeah, i wish people annoyed hal more often. he's an absolute pleasure to read.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Znack It's right there, you're wrong. A belief is an idea which is assumed to be true, not one which is assumed to be likely. It is not rational to believe in something because it is likely. It is rational to consider it likely.

I think your weakness in English is working against you here. If something is probable then there is suffcient evidence to establish a presumption that it is true. If something is presumed to be true then it is rational to proceed on that presumption, which is to say believe it to be true. Of course if the evidence changes then one should change their evaluation of the probability and subsequently their belief. I'm not sure why you're arguing this point. If probability is not the test for whether or not something should be believed then we need to throw out our legal systems, most scientific theories, nearly all philisophical systems, and just about the sum total of human knowledge, as nearly everything relies on a presumption of truth at some point that is based on probability.


Are you that small minded that you honestly cannot fathom that something can be true without first hand observation of direct physical evidence? If that is the case how can you believe anything? You've not actually seen Neptune with your own eyes or otherwise directly observed it... I certainly haven't... by your thinking it would be irrational for either of us to believe it exists. As Hal mentioned earlier "didn't see it; didn't happen."

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

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN yeah, i wish people annoyed hal more often. he's an absolute pleasure to read.

I disagree... everytime he busts out elegant arguments it takes away from my appreciation of his photobucket posts because I'm forced to consider the deeper meaning of "vagina face" and similar images.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

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?

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

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.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down