U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-19-2013, 09:18 PM
 
3,448 posts, read 2,681,644 times
Reputation: 478

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
The case manifestly rests on the amount we know about the way the world wags which does not require a god. Nowhere. Not in a single instance. That makes materialism as a preferred theory the default and, while there is still a possibility for god -input to be found in the various gaps in our understanding there is not a good reason to give it credence. Not in cosmic origins, not in the origins of life, not in human mystical experiences.
The way the world wags is perfectly known to be without incidence in failure to reason...iow undeniable in the nature of engineering. 100% reliable.

So above idea not requiring a god would have a car rolling down a hill without ever being at the top and on and on, or whatever of many analogies . Who knows materialism may not be what it seems, an origin or god could be a strange form or other process in materialism which is not in the range of perception, but basically as it is the idea that things just poofed into existence with the depth of what is known can't be even near attention to the issue. There is simply nothing but reason for every happening known.

Leaving an open card suggesting well there might possibly be a god doesn't respond to the proposition ....

(So the real problem is the material platform needs to show some case or leverage from anything at all that is known which would give some consideration for making the position, that what we know logically in follow, would arrive at a godless form in conclusion. I could see some argument if the world was not in motion or similar but reason and the construction of the universe is what it is. Plus man didn't create anything, he just discovers and looks at it, thats it. Its not his science in the first place regardless. I'm only arguing suggestions, thats it.

Last edited by stargazzer; 05-19-2013 at 10:28 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-19-2013, 09:47 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,895 posts, read 31,793,503 times
Reputation: 12640
Is this a puzzle, or just your usual word salad? I can't make heads or tails out of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2013, 10:02 PM
 
3,448 posts, read 2,681,644 times
Reputation: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Is this a puzzle, or just your usual word salad? I can't make heads or tails out of it.
Then quote something like what most people do, even if its only a sentence or whatever so you can see if your point makes sense. ( plus I just changed a few things which assumed the conversation was being followed, for easier reading.

Last edited by stargazzer; 05-19-2013 at 10:12 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2013, 02:06 AM
 
3,637 posts, read 2,701,567 times
Reputation: 4300
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Please cite any argument I have made that is dishonest.
We do all the time - you just pretend to ignore it when we do. For example your "argument" where you define the existence of god to be "default" or "necessary" was dishonest. You are attempting to define yourself as being right by fiat.

Similarly the declaration that all the evidence for your position exists but is hidden in dark matter is dishonest. It is an attempt to divest yourself of the onus of proof by putting your alleged evidence beyond the reach of the observer of your positions.

Further your retreat into claiming your claims were "analogy" when they fall apart is suspect in the extreme. For example where you claimed nonsense about the vibrations in matter and were shown by several people versed in physics to be talking nonsense - you simply shifted to claiming you were engaged in analogy - but then went on to ignore people pointing out that an analogy to nonsense is without utility.

Hope none of this offends - but you did specifically request a citation here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
the usual suspects have predictably claimed confirmation bias.
Something so obvious is hardly "prediction". If you engage in blatant confirmation bias then it is hardly a surprise that people will quickly point this out. You yourself _admit openly_ to this confirmation bias often so I am not sure what your point even is here. You admit you personally had a feeling there was a god one day. You then admit you have spent decades trying to confirm this to yourself. How is this NOT confirmation bias?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2013, 03:27 AM
 
39,220 posts, read 10,895,806 times
Reputation: 5098
Quote:
Originally Posted by stargazzer View Post
The way the world wags is perfectly known to be without incidence in failure to reason...iow undeniable in the nature of engineering. 100% reliable.

So above idea not requiring a god would have a car rolling down a hill without ever being at the top and on and on, or whatever of many analogies . Who knows materialism may not be what it seems, an origin or god could be a strange form or other process in materialism which is not in the range of perception, but basically as it is the idea that things just poofed into existence with the depth of what is known can't be even near attention to the issue. There is simply nothing but reason for every happening known.

Leaving an open card suggesting well there might possibly be a god doesn't respond to the proposition ....

(So the real problem is the material platform needs to show some case or leverage from anything at all that is known which would give some consideration for making the position, that what we know logically in follow, would arrive at a godless form in conclusion. I could see some argument if the world was not in motion or similar but reason and the construction of the universe is what it is. Plus man didn't create anything, he just discovers and looks at it, thats it. Its not his science in the first place regardless. I'm only arguing suggestions, thats it.
The problem with analogies is that they generally put into understandable everyday similar scenarios (1) concepts that are otherwise too difficult to comprehend easily. In this case the car rolling downhill has to have someone put it there. For packages of nothing to hold position relative to one another using a power -potential that is always there - or some similar something from nothing scenario does not.

Like abiogenesis, we do not know how it started, but we can make suggestions. This means that we are not totally at a loss to suggest goddless origins for cosmos or life.

This means that we are not obliged to give any credence to the demand that 'Goddunnit' be the only possible answer, and 'we don't know' is not a way of saying 'it must be God'.

(1) it is an axiom of mine that analogies are used to clarify or explain something that is otherwise proven - If they are being used to try to prove or disprove something else that is NOT known one way or another, then it should be exact and watertight parallel. Your car at the top of a hill is not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2013, 06:00 AM
 
5,462 posts, read 5,942,522 times
Reputation: 1804
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
You wound me with this accusation of dishonesty, Arequipa. Please cite any argument I have made that is dishonest.
Just a few posts up :

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
You never seem to ask who, what or where the "YOU" (who is "doing the observing, evaluating, experiencing") resides within the material universe YOU are observing and experiencing.
Making up nonsense and attributing it to other people as a distraction isn't exactly the hallmark of an honest approach.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2013, 06:15 AM
 
39,220 posts, read 10,895,806 times
Reputation: 5098
"no one has in any way shown my Synthesis to be worthless . . . though the same disingenuous culprits repeatedly try to claim that it is." Mystic says.

I have to remind that after reading it I pointed out that it was so full of supposition, speculations and Ifs that it was an ingenious hypothesis but no more than than. There was not a scrap pf sound evidence for it and we eventually worried out that it was an attempt to stick various bits of science (the more woo the better - eg. dark matter = God) onto a Faith -based interpretation of a personal experience.

Now, I never saw the person bussed in to discredit your theory (is this Mysticspeak for 'evaluate the synthesis'?) and i should like to see it. Ah. I do recall that our Ex -Mormon. can't think of the name, had a look and pretty much said what I did - that it was highly speculative.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2013, 06:35 AM
 
2,826 posts, read 1,868,402 times
Reputation: 996
I would defend the opposite. I once created a logical framework for the existence of some sort of God (specifics didn't actually matter). It went something like this (based roughly on the "evil genius/demon" theory found on wikipedia).

Suppose someone is trying to convince you that the universe exists. You're stuck in one of those Matrix like machines while being shown massive images of flowers and trees and the like. And, outside this you're dreaming while standing on pure whiteness. With me so far?

Now, while you could possibly prove that world does not exist and probably the one you're sleeping in all the way through infinite regression, someone is fooling you. That someone might be God, yourself (and there is a case for believing godhood is inside everyone for this very reason), some rational scientific creation device, or something freakish like Cthulhu, that isn't the real issue. The fact is, the deception (what we call "reality", even if it's not real this doesn't change the argument) exists as evidence of the deceiver (what we call a "creator" or "God" or "whatever"). Or in simple terms, a clay pot cannot be made without you (or someone else) to gather the clay, mold it, and fire the kiln. Even if you automate it with a machine, someone had to build the machine.

And that, would be my logical proof for theism.

Which people tend to ignore rather than try to disprove, since it needs serious thought to pick apart something than it is actively assert that something cannot exist (Unicorns? We've never found them, but that's hardly a disproof, and the fact that cultures from Asia to Europe have their versions makes a decent case for an extinct unicorn-like being), whereas to prove something might exist requires only a bit of evidence. And that's okay too.

Last edited by bulmabriefs144; 05-20-2013 at 06:52 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2013, 08:06 AM
 
39,220 posts, read 10,895,806 times
Reputation: 5098
"And that, would be my logical proof for theism."

Would it? It seems to me to do no more than add one more far -fetched sci -fi scenario to a huge list of undisprovable possibilities, any one of which could be true and belief in any one of which to the exclusion of others, let alone as fact where there is no evidence is illogical. Occams razor - one of the handy tools of the logical toolkit is specifically designed to plane off such excrescences.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2013, 08:16 AM
 
3,448 posts, read 2,681,644 times
Reputation: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
The problem with analogies is that they generally put into understandable everyday similar scenarios (1) concepts that are otherwise too difficult to comprehend easily. In this case the car rolling downhill has to have someone put it there. For packages of nothing to hold position relative to one another using a power -potential that is always there - or some similar something from nothing scenario does not.

Like abiogenesis, we do not know how it started, but we can make suggestions. This means that we are not totally at a loss to suggest goddless origins for cosmos or life.

This means that we are not obliged to give any credence to the demand that 'Goddunnit' be the only possible answer, and 'we don't know' is not a way of saying 'it must be God'.

(1) it is an axiom of mine that analogies are used to clarify or explain something that is otherwise proven - If they are being used to try to prove or disprove something else that is NOT known one way or another, then it should be exact and watertight parallel. Your car at the top of a hill is not.


If an analogy of a car rolling down the hill is of no use, then I'm not so sure an expanding universe is of any attention.

The idea's of nothingness are clearly words that science use's to explain nothing that can be grasped with a protractor in the usual firm way. Ignoring all including the necessary development or existence of energy for the BB or whatever it is < can if so inclined save the complaint with the car rolling down a hill ...If nothingness is argued in its true way, then some force is needed to engage something other then nothingness.

As soon as nothingness can be considered, it is illogical for nothingness to be, reason being something is required in contrast to make the distinction. So here it would appear that nothingness is an impossibility and outside of the conversation. There could not have ever been nothingness in the full meaning of the word. Its impossible. Existence happened or came to be. No matter what something caused motion and the force's to express themselves in thier manner.

I don't see how relatively speaking in what can be perceived this cannot be a given fair known that can be put to the side in the exploration where getting what is known down is a smart and popular approach. So this needs to be either tossed or brought in for what its worth, relative to the worth and value in 'anything' in the research. IOW...without a starting point there again is no argument for 'anyone and a waste of time.

Expert member Riflerman explained the functioning of albio. And it happened naturally in the evolution of matter under the circumstance's. The process is absolutely compatible with the setting. Albio follows in keeping with the setting...So there is no mystery here. If man likes he can take all these so called mystery's and bundle them for a deal....put all in the man in the moon ...and ask him whats up and why he bumped into the earth getting the ball rolling in its slanted style. The universe is what it is and has or had a 100% chance of creating life, we know this because it did.

Whats happened is pick and choose from idea's and simple reducing. There is nothing known in the nature of creation -that supports a finding of a godless reality. And nothing but suggestions in the nature of creation which supports a god of some form. Of all of man's attempts to get at things, this core idea and focus in a "root value" would be the easiest to forward in what I think could be classified as a reasonable and fitting approximation. Extensions and expression of root value is what the universe does all the way back to the BB. There is nothing but equals this signs, all over the place allowing the thing to work. Everything suggests in physicality, its an expanding unification of two, process.

Taking it one step further into the world of everlasting human consciousness enjoying himself in heaven with all his maidens and so on...well thats gotta be another topic and I think its import to sharply distinguish in the thinking, iow that would be another topic and more difficult because it becomes more defined in an unknown which has been already granted some assumption in order to entertain the question. The more something is seeded with a suggestion, the further it risks distancing itself from the authenticity of whatever expression of boundary. I'm sure statistic's has figured this out seeding systems.

Last edited by stargazzer; 05-20-2013 at 09:31 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top