Author Topic: Probabilities of God's existence debate  (Read 65931 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11688
  • Darwins +330/-38
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1160 on: May 20, 2014, 04:14:11 PM »
OMG you think I am a closet theist.   well that proves that you can be wrong! I guess you might need to reevaluate your reasoning ability.

When an "atheist" says something like:
"Well, the non-existence of god is just slightly less ridiculous than his existence.", it sets off alarms in my head.
First of all, the non-existence of a being that can't exist is infinitely less ridiculous than its existence. Second, only theists refer to their respective gods as "he". Atheists do this only when they're referring to any specific deity (which all tend to be male). Third, there's not one argument for the existence of a god. You keep claiming there is, but without presenting it.

I may on occasion call myself an atheist but, I have said many times before I am mostly an agnostic leaning toward atheist.  I do not know the answers

Agnostic what? A "pure" agnostic is impossible for anyone with the capacity to understand and create concepts. You're at least smart enough to type, so you're not included in that category.
Gnosticism refers to knowledge. Theism refers to belief. It'd be like you asking me what brand my car was and me replying with "My car is red.". It's nonsensical.

I almost certainly think that the bibles I have read are wrong.  Bibles being the root of almost all knowledge of god I think that is pretty dang good proof that there is no god.  But I do reserve some fraction of my belief for the possibility of a god.

Another thing: atheists know atheism isn't a belief. It's a lack of belief.

PS What facts did I pull out of my ass?

The fact that there are arguments for the existence of a god. The fact that you think that just because you can't understand something, it can't be true.[1] Then there's this:
Religous folks have an answer, they were told by the creator by people in an oral tradition that the universe was whipped up by god.  those tales though outlandish seem little more outlandish than one day there was nothing then there was enough energy to create a trillion X trillion X quadrillion ^1,000,000 tons of mass 
No clue as to where you got the number from. Surprisingly enough, it's smaller than (slightly over half of) the estimated number of atoms in the Universe.

Also, you edited your post after I replied, so I didn't catch these... *cough* pieces of "evidence". Allow me to debunk them.

But proof of god to the religious might include

1) the universe

The existence of our universe is proof of nothing other than the existence of our universe.

2) Second 3rd hand eyewittness accounts from a flawed and adulterated text.

Perfectly reliable. Especially given that nobody witnessed anything they say they did.

3) Life!!!  Can abiogenesis reasonably generate a DNA strand so complex as to make the most rudimentary form of life.

Um... Yes. I posted something on this forum (that I found on another forum) a while back about metabolism arising without cells. Then there's the fact that RNA was synthesized in a lab by basically throwing all the necessary components for its existence into a petri dish and providing heat. Put the two together and you get... life.

Under what conditions can:
----a) a dna strand complex enough to self replicate a cell wall?

A cellular wall is more recent than life itself, so this is moot, given your main question in "evidence" #3. Also, DNA does not replicate the cell wall.

----b) a dna strand complex enough to produce energy from food?

See the part about the post about metabolism arising without cells. Also, again, DNA does not produce energy from food.

----c) a dna strand complex enough to replicate the above. 

DNA does not replicate the above.

-------i) I know that the universe is 24 billion light years in diameter and that is a huge petri dish but from what I understand of cellular
---------biology that is beyond the odds of finding a fully functional macintosh laptop with os 10 naturally occurring on a network on a
---------planet that never had life.

It's actually approximately 93 billion light years, with over 300 billion galaxies, each with billions of planets. Even if the odds of life arising by random chance were 10-10%, that there were only 1 billion planets per galaxy, and that only 0.1% of those planets were inhabitable, that adds up to an expected 30 million planets with life.
Nice try with the new spin on the "tornado through the junkyard" strawman, though... Nah, just kidding. That "argument" sucks.

4) Love

An emotion that can be manufactured, controlled, and eliminated through manipulation of the brain. Yup. Perfect evidence. What about lust? Or murderous rage? Definitely evidence of a god as well.

5) Sentient matter.

So... life? I've already debunked this.

I find all of these things to be beyond my reasoning but I do not find my ignorance compelling enough for me to believe that there has to be a god.  But the alternative is so complex that I find the two on the same level of ridiculous. 

It's amazing that, when it suits your claim, your ignorance isn't "compelling enough" for you to believe in a god.
And we're back to the argument from personal incredulity. This may surprise you, but the fact that you can't understand something isn't evidence that it's ridiculous or that it can't be real. It's just proof that you can't understand it.
 1. Arrogant much?
My names are many, yet I am One.
-Orion, Son of Fire, Sol Invictus.

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1161 on: May 20, 2014, 04:40:50 PM »
Can we prove that Math isn't just a product of our imagination? (like love)
Has it actually been established that 'love' is not a product of our imagination?
No it hasn't.

Quote
one merely need to assume that an external, shared objective reality exists.
Like the reality where the sun and the table exist?
Quote
Under that assumption, then quantifiable relations exist by default (even if it is just '1' - shared external objective reality), independently of sentient minds. I would still be remiss to call that 'proof' of math.
I tried to translate that in french. Still don't get it :(
I think that it's hard to imagine something that would exist out of our mind and that our 5 primary sense wouldn't be able to detect.
2 physical beings are easy to prove. Just "throw" one at the other and there should be interaction. I love these kind of question they make my head spin.

Quote
That really isn't the purpose of the thread.  I'm pretty sure that "Does the concept of god exist" is a question no one really bothers to ask.  Because we pretty much assume that everyone's answer is 'yes'.  If that really has been your purpose, then you may as well have started a topic of discussion on the question of "Is 'run' a word in the English language".  It's a valid question, but an idiotic topic of conversation.
What about "Does God have an effect in your life?" I proved that too.

Quote
What would your response be regarding the question of god having a physical existence?

Beside Jesus, God does not have a physical existence. Why? one might ask. Because everything with physical existence will one day decay.
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1162 on: May 20, 2014, 04:49:43 PM »
Lukvance: Your behaviour has been appalling. You have been provocative beyond what I ever expected.
I'm truly sorry If I offended any of you. It wasn't my goal at all.
You're worth more than my time

Offline jdawg70

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2670
  • Darwins +505/-9
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1163 on: May 21, 2014, 09:20:21 AM »
Can we prove that Math isn't just a product of our imagination? (like love)
Has it actually been established that 'love' is not a product of our imagination?
No it hasn't.
So, just a tip here.
This is the way I read the question "Can we prove that Math isn't just a product of our imagination? (like love)":
Can we prove that math is more than just a product of our imagination, in the same way we can prove that love is more than just a product of our imagination.

Which apparently was not the question you were actually asking.  I think you meant:
Can we prove that math is more than just a product of our imagination, and does that proof/lack of proof apply to love as well?

Basically, your use of parenthesis confused your point.

Quote
Quote
one merely need to assume that an external, shared objective reality exists.
Like the reality where the sun and the table exist?
Yeah pretty much.

Quote
Quote
Under that assumption, then quantifiable relations exist by default (even if it is just '1' - shared external objective reality), independently of sentient minds. I would still be remiss to call that 'proof' of math.
I tried to translate that in french. Still don't get it :(
I think that it's hard to imagine something that would exist out of our mind and that our 5 primary sense wouldn't be able to detect.
2 physical beings are easy to prove. Just "throw" one at the other and there should be interaction. I love these kind of question they make my head spin.
Don't worry - I'm not all that sure it's important to understand what I said.  I didn't really provide any useful, additional information for you in this case.

Quote
Quote
That really isn't the purpose of the thread.  I'm pretty sure that "Does the concept of god exist" is a question no one really bothers to ask.  Because we pretty much assume that everyone's answer is 'yes'.  If that really has been your purpose, then you may as well have started a topic of discussion on the question of "Is 'run' a word in the English language".  It's a valid question, but an idiotic topic of conversation.
What about "Does God have an effect in your life?" I proved that too.
You've established that something has some effects on your life.  You've merely claimed that the label 'god' is the causal agent.  At best you can say that you've established that some anthropomorphic model of reality that you slap the label 'god' on has caused you to view the world in a certain way, and that view of the world has informed your decisions and actions.  But you are still a long, long way away from establishing that this 'god' is a sentient entity independent of your imagination.

Quote
Quote
What would your response be regarding the question of god having a physical existence?

Beside Jesus, God does not have a physical existence. Why? one might ask. Because everything with physical existence will one day decay.
Will Jesus decay then?
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3131
  • Darwins +299/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1164 on: May 21, 2014, 12:47:27 PM »
Will Jesus decay then?

What's the half-life of Jesusium?  (And does it break down into other religious elements like Islamium, Lutherium, Bahaiium, et al.?)  ;)
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11688
  • Darwins +330/-38
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1165 on: May 21, 2014, 12:49:15 PM »
Will Jesus decay then?

What's the half-life of Jesusium?  (And does it break down into other religious elements like Islamium, Lutherium, Bahaiium, et al.?)  ;)

Half-life is probably a few thousand years. Do note that Jesusium is, in itself, product of the decay of another, older, religious element.
My names are many, yet I am One.
-Orion, Son of Fire, Sol Invictus.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 7631
  • Darwins +1058/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1166 on: May 21, 2014, 03:47:42 PM »
Will Jesus decay then?

What's the half-life of Jesusium?  (And does it break down into other religious elements like Islamium, Lutherium, Bahaiium, et al.?)  ;)

Half-life is probably a few thousand years. Do note that Jesusium is, in itself, product of the decay of another, older, religious element.

Judaisium.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11688
  • Darwins +330/-38
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1167 on: May 21, 2014, 04:05:44 PM »
Judaisium.

Yes, but all religions came from the same element. Bullshitium.
My names are many, yet I am One.
-Orion, Son of Fire, Sol Invictus.

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1168 on: May 21, 2014, 04:39:40 PM »
You've established that something has some effects on your life.  You've merely claimed that the label 'god' is the causal agent.  At best you can say that you've established that some anthropomorphic model of reality that you slap the label 'god' on has caused you to view the world in a certain way, and that view of the world has informed your decisions and actions.  But you are still a long, long way away from establishing that this 'god' is a sentient entity independent of your imagination.
I am not the only one slapping the label. The whole word is slapping the label God on that model. You can slap another name if you want to, it still God that saved me and all those millions of people around the word each year.
I think it would be cool to precise the type of exist whenever someone ask a "does God exist" question.

Quote
Will Jesus decay then?
Other. He was a baby then a boy then a man. He was decaying. But he resurrected with a different body, he does not decay anymore.
You're worth more than my time

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 7631
  • Darwins +1058/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1169 on: May 21, 2014, 11:52:20 PM »
But if you ask ten people from different monotheistic religions they mean by "god", you will get ten different answers. That is why there are different religions. Add in the many polytheists like Hindus, Shintoists, Vodun participants and Santeros. They do not all have the same idea of what a god is. Do you think that Papa Legba mounts you and rides you during the night in your dreams? Probably not. But people who practice Vodun do think that.

Many black people I know say Jesus is the same as god--they thank Jesus for everything and say Jesus is lord. But is Jesus the same as god or not? People have killed each other over whether Jesus was 1) all god, 2) all man, 3) a creation of god, 4) eternally existing, or 5) both god and man in some configuration. There were times and places when the wrong answer to "Halt and tell me: what is the nature of Jesus?" got you a sword put through you.

The Catholic Church came up with a definition of god that confuses people to this day, and millions of Christians do not agree with the Catholics.

So, it is wrong to say that  "The whole word is slapping the label God on that model." No, they are not. 
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline jdawg70

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2670
  • Darwins +505/-9
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1170 on: May 22, 2014, 08:10:05 AM »
I am not the only one slapping the label. The whole word is slapping the label God on that model. You can slap another name if you want to, it still God that saved me and all those millions of people around the word each year.
I think it would be cool to precise the type of exist whenever someone ask a "does God exist" question.
They aren't slapping the label god on your model (you know, the one that exists in your noggin) though.  They are slapping the label god on their model (you know, the one that exists in their noggin).

Have you ever had a conversation regarding god with a religious non-Christian?

Quote
Other. He was a baby then a boy then a man. He was decaying. But he resurrected with a different body, he does not decay anymore.
He resurrected into a different body?  A non-physical body?  Did he roam around Earth with this non-physical body?

Or are you talking sometime post-resurrection - like he got a new non-physical body during/after the ascension?
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1171 on: May 22, 2014, 11:23:17 AM »
So, it is wrong to say that  "The whole word is slapping the label God on that model." No, they are not. 
I'm sorry but they are. I agree with you, some difference exist between different gods. But they all have the same basic definition. The definition you find out when you look at god like a sentiment. Which in turn make him as real as Love, which in turn allows him to exist.
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1172 on: May 22, 2014, 11:33:27 AM »
They aren't slapping the label god on your model (you know, the one that exists in your noggin) though.  They are slapping the label god on their model (you know, the one that exists in their noggin).

Our bases are the same. Of course when I say "the whole world" I don't mean "every single being living on earth" but something along the line of "most of us"
Quote
Have you ever had a conversation regarding god with a religious non-Christian?

Yes
Quote
He resurrected into a different body?  A non-physical body?  Did he roam around Earth with this non-physical body?
Or are you talking sometime post-resurrection - like he got a new non-physical body during/after the ascension?
 
Paul believed that the newly resurrected body would be a heavenly body; immortal, glorified, powerful and pneumatic in contrast to an earthly body, which is mortal, dishonored, weak and psychic[1] I hope this answer your question.
 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_of_Jesus#Theological_significance
You're worth more than my time

Offline jdawg70

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2670
  • Darwins +505/-9
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1173 on: May 22, 2014, 11:45:04 AM »
They aren't slapping the label god on your model (you know, the one that exists in your noggin) though.  They are slapping the label god on their model (you know, the one that exists in their noggin).

Our bases are the same.
I assume that you mean the basis for slapping the label 'god' is the same.  I agree - the basis is your imagination.  Just like theist #2 over there uses the basis of his/her imagination.  The basis is not an actual, real god that exists independently of your mind, or theist #2's mind.  What you reference as 'god' is a different entity than what theist #2 references as 'god'.

Quote
Of course when I say "the whole world" I don't mean "every single being living on earth" but something along the line of "most of us"
I kind of assumed that already.

Quote
Quote
He resurrected into a different body?  A non-physical body?  Did he roam around Earth with this non-physical body?
Or are you talking sometime post-resurrection - like he got a new non-physical body during/after the ascension?
 
Paul believed that the newly resurrected body would be a heavenly body; immortal, glorified, powerful and pneumatic in contrast to an earthly body, which is mortal, dishonored, weak and psychic[1] I hope this answer your question.
 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_of_Jesus#Theological_significance
I'm struggling a bit with your answer, but I think you are saying that yes, after the resurrection, Jesus roamed the Earth with a non-physical body.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1174 on: May 22, 2014, 06:10:09 PM »
I assume that you mean the basis for slapping the label 'god' is the same.  I agree - the basis is your imagination.  Just like theist #2 over there uses the basis of his/her imagination.  The basis is not an actual, real god that exists independently of your mind, or theist #2's mind.  What you reference as 'god' is a different entity than what theist #2 references as 'god'.
Yes. like our definition of love. But we agree for the most parts. That's what I meant by "we agree on the basis"
Quote
I'm struggling a bit with your answer, but I think you are saying that yes, after the resurrection, Jesus roamed the Earth with a non-physical body.
Not quite. The body had both physical and divine attributes. Jesus ate and drink after the resurrection. He also proposed Thomas to touch him.
You're worth more than my time

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 7631
  • Darwins +1058/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1175 on: May 22, 2014, 09:38:45 PM »
So, it is wrong to say that  "The whole word is slapping the label God on that model." No, they are not. 
I'm sorry but they are. I agree with you, some difference exist between different gods. But they all have the same basic definition. The definition you find out when you look at god like a sentiment. Which in turn make him as real as Love, which in turn allows him to exist.

Gods are certainly as real as love, in the sense that they are both products of the human brain. But not all gods are caring and loving, as you claim yours is. Some specialize in tricking people and destroying things. So they cannot all be the same thing.[1]

Take the god Shiva, Hindu deity of death and destruction--same being as your god?

And Bacchus, god of hedonism, drinking and celebration-- same as your god?
 
Some people worship Satan as a god-- is Satan the same as your god?
 
The gods that Moses said people should not worship, like Baal--same as your god?
 
All the fertility goddesses like Esther, that celebrate pregnancy and sexuality, whose devotees had wild orgies in the fields-- same as your god?
 
Is Yemaya, goddess of the waters, and  Babalu Aye, god of disease and pestilence, both currently worshipped by millions of people in Brazil, Haiti and Cuba--same as your god?

I tried to believe that all gods were basically the same thing as I was transitioning from Christianity to new agey Buddhism. It should not matter what culture or language, god should still be the same, right?

Then I realized that the above was absurd. If people all over the world in all times were really tapping into some singular cosmic consciousness, why was it coming through in such radically different ways?  And why was it that the gods that made perfect sense to people in one place and time were seen as completely ridiculous in a different context?

If it was that bad at communicating, it was not a very powerful being, and certainly did not deserve any of my attention, let alone worship.
 1. If you really think all gods are the same, just try telling some Muslims that they might as well worship Eshu, African god of the crossroads, or Ganesha, the elephant-headed Hindu god--since they are all the same as Allah. :P
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1176 on: May 22, 2014, 11:15:13 PM »
So, it is wrong to say that  "The whole word is slapping the label God on that model." No, they are not. 
I'm sorry but they are. I agree with you, some difference exist between different gods. But they all have the same basic definition. The definition you find out when you look at god like a sentiment. Which in turn make him as real as Love, which in turn allows him to exist.

Gods are certainly as real as love, in the sense that they are both products of the human brain. But not all gods are caring and loving, as you claim yours is. Some specialize in tricking people and destroying things. So they cannot all be the same thing.[1]

Take the god Shiva, Hindu deity of death and destruction--same being as your god?

And Bacchus, god of hedonism, drinking and celebration-- same as your god?
 
Some people worship Satan as a god-- is Satan the same as your god?
 
The gods that Moses said people should not worship, like Baal--same as your god?
 
All the fertility goddesses like Esther, that celebrate pregnancy and sexuality, whose devotees had wild orgies in the fields-- same as your god?
 
Is Yemaya, goddess of the waters, and  Babalu Aye, god of disease and pestilence, both currently worshipped by millions of people in Brazil, Haiti and Cuba--same as your god?

I tried to believe that all gods were basically the same thing as I was transitioning from Christianity to new agey Buddhism. It should not matter what culture or language, god should still be the same, right?

Then I realized that the above was absurd. If people all over the world in all times were really tapping into some singular cosmic consciousness, why was it coming through in such radically different ways?  And why was it that the gods that made perfect sense to people in one place and time were seen as completely ridiculous in a different context?

If it was that bad at communicating, it was not a very powerful being, and certainly did not deserve any of my attention, let alone worship.
 1. If you really think all gods are the same, just try telling some Muslims that they might as well worship Eshu, African god of the crossroads, or Ganesha, the elephant-headed Hindu god--since they are all the same as Allah. :P
Do you even know of what model I am talking about? Or did you just read the phrase and went from that?
You're worth more than my time

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12872
  • Darwins +339/-35
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1177 on: May 22, 2014, 11:32:29 PM »
Do you even know of what model I am talking about? ...

You did say "all".  She even bolded it for you.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +202/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1178 on: May 23, 2014, 01:45:00 AM »
I assume that you mean the basis for slapping the label 'god' is the same.  I agree - the basis is your imagination.  Just like theist #2 over there uses the basis of his/her imagination.  The basis is not an actual, real god that exists independently of your mind, or theist #2's mind.  What you reference as 'god' is a different entity than what theist #2 references as 'god'.
Yes. like our definition of love. But we agree for the most parts. That's what I meant by "we agree on the basis"
Quote
I'm struggling a bit with your answer, but I think you are saying that yes, after the resurrection, Jesus roamed the Earth with a non-physical body.
Not quite. The body had both physical and divine attributes. Jesus ate and drink after the resurrection. He also proposed Thomas to touch him.

Your arguments suffer from the same problem as Anselms did. You cannot define something into actual independent existence. And you know damn-well that when people ask for demonstrable evidence of a God they do not mean "exists only in our minds" (i.e. - is imaginary). So once again, you are just being dishonest with your debate tactics. The context of the question, if you even for one second attempted honestly to understand it, is whether you can demonstrate independent existence of this thing called "God" of which you keep trying to talk about. What does the term "God" even refer to that we can point to as independently existing (that is, independent of human brains)? What does "spirit" mean? Can you actually demonstrate that there is some-thing "spiritual" or "divine" out there?

Pointing to mere human thoughts is not extraordinary evidence for an alleged invisible all-powerful "person" that created the universe.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1179 on: May 23, 2014, 02:40:59 AM »
Hello median, welcome back.
Before we can move on :
You attempted to equivocate on terms, shift the burden of proof, switch to red herring tactics, use false analogies, and assert argument from ignorance fallacies over and over again. ALL of those tactics are irrational, and your continued and perpetual attempts at using those tactics (in the face of the fact that they have been addressed) displays your epic dishonesty.
I get it. You feel the need to attack me personally. Now, Prove what you say about me or apologize.
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1180 on: May 23, 2014, 02:42:41 AM »
Do you even know of what model I am talking about? ...
You did say "all".  She even bolded it for you.
I was not addressing you. She can answer for herself (I think)
You're worth more than my time

Online Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1621
  • Darwins +122/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1181 on: May 23, 2014, 08:11:59 AM »
Not quite. The body had both physical and divine attributes. Jesus ate and drink after the resurrection. He also proposed Thomas to touch him.

I thought it was the same body. Didn't he invite thomas to finger his hole to prove it?[1]
 1. John 20:27

Offline jdawg70

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2670
  • Darwins +505/-9
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1182 on: May 23, 2014, 08:22:50 AM »
I assume that you mean the basis for slapping the label 'god' is the same.  I agree - the basis is your imagination.  Just like theist #2 over there uses the basis of his/her imagination.  The basis is not an actual, real god that exists independently of your mind, or theist #2's mind.  What you reference as 'god' is a different entity than what theist #2 references as 'god'.
Yes. like our definition of love. But we agree for the most parts. That's what I meant by "we agree on the basis"
That's...not really true.  nogodsforme provided some examples.  You are dismissing them.

Quote
Quote
I'm struggling a bit with your answer, but I think you are saying that yes, after the resurrection, Jesus roamed the Earth with a non-physical body.
Not quite. The body had both physical and divine attributes. Jesus ate and drink after the resurrection. He also proposed Thomas to touch him.
So it was a physical body imbued with divine qualities?  Or a divine body imbued with physical qualities?
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1183 on: May 23, 2014, 09:44:56 AM »
That's...not really true.  nogodsforme provided some examples.  You are dismissing them
Not you too! Grrr she's really good to destroy all the conversation flow I have with people.
You know how we can agree to slap the label love on many things? Even if we disagree on the details? You understand that concept?
Well, same thing with God. OK? We slap that label on many things, even if we disagree on the details.

Quote
So it was a physical body imbued with divine qualities?  Or a divine body imbued with physical qualities?
I don't know. How does this change anything?
You're worth more than my time

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 7631
  • Darwins +1058/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1184 on: May 23, 2014, 10:14:26 AM »
Lukvance, Can you address how everyone who uses the term "god" is referring to the same concept?

Because that is what you clearly stated. I listed numerous examples of different concepts of gods that people have, and asked you if they were the same as the god you believe in.

a) If they are not the same, all you have to do is say, "No, those are not the same as the god I believe in." and explain how they are different.

b) If they are the same, all you have to do is say, "Yes, those are the same as the god I believe in." and explain how they are the same.

When you come back (as I expect you will)  with some oblique response that muddies the issue and will take longer to write than either a) or b) above, we will know it is you up to your usual tactic. You do not want to state anything clearly, and we are suspecting that you have not thought much about what you believe.

You certainly do not appear to think much about what you post. Fast is not always good. You sound like you are about 17.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline jdawg70

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2670
  • Darwins +505/-9
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1185 on: May 23, 2014, 10:24:14 AM »
That's...not really true.  nogodsforme provided some examples.  You are dismissing them
Not you too! Grrr she's really good to destroy all the conversation flow I have with people.
You know how we can agree to slap the label love on many things? Even if we disagree on the details? You understand that concept?
Well, same thing with God. OK? We slap that label on many things, even if we disagree on the details.
Yes.  Many different things.  Which is to say, you are slapping the label on one 'thing' and someone else is slapping the label on another, different 'thing'.  Even if those different 'things' have some similar characteristics.

I get that.  I've understood that point for a long time now.  I really, really don't think that you understand that point.

Quote
Quote
So it was a physical body imbued with divine qualities?  Or a divine body imbued with physical qualities?
I don't know. How does this change anything?
It doesn't change anything really.  It was more of a curiosity than anything else.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline epidemic

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1268
  • Darwins +77/-23
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1186 on: May 23, 2014, 11:11:42 AM »
That's...not really true.  nogodsforme provided some examples.  You are dismissing them
Not you too! Grrr she's really good to destroy all the conversation flow I have with people.
You know how we can agree to slap the label love on many things? Even if we disagree on the details? You understand that concept?
Well, same thing with God. OK? We slap that label on many things, even if we disagree on the details.
[/quote]

What things don't you agree on ?  The Bible vs Koran?  I thought I had proved that your bible ultimately is the basis for your belief?  Even if you Ala Carte it all to hell with out that book the entire basis for your religion is gone. 

Mentally try to eliminate all bible, and teachings of people that were ultimately rooted in the bible.  Now what do you have left to describe god?

Absent those pages and their effects on you and the people around you there is no evidence of god? 


Now everyone claims devine intervention in their books at the root of their religion of choice.  The Koran is either the words of a liar or the devinely inspired words of god.  I don't think you can include their belief in with your belief in god.  One or the other religion is rooted in a lie.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2014, 12:16:03 PM by epidemic »

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1187 on: May 23, 2014, 12:50:11 PM »
Lukvance, Can you address how everyone who uses the term "god" is referring to the same concept?

Because that is what you clearly stated. I listed numerous examples of different concepts of gods that people have, and asked you if they were the same as the god you believe in.

a) If they are not the same, all you have to do is say, "No, those are not the same as the god I believe in." and explain how they are different.

b) If they are the same, all you have to do is say, "Yes, those are the same as the god I believe in." and explain how they are the same.

When you come back (as I expect you will)  with some oblique response that muddies the issue and will take longer to write than either a) or b) above, we will know it is you up to your usual tactic. You do not want to state anything clearly, and we are suspecting that you have not thought much about what you believe.

You certainly do not appear to think much about what you post. Fast is not always good. You sound like you are about 17.
You know how we can agree to slap the label love on many things? Even if we disagree on the details? You understand that concept?
Well, same thing with God. OK? We slap that label on many things, even if we disagree on the details.
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1188 on: May 23, 2014, 12:52:48 PM »
I get that.  I've understood that point for a long time now.  I really, really don't think that you understand that point.
Good. But you (more nogodsforme than you) keep bringing it up. Like if you did not understand. Why? What make you doubt my understanding of that?
You're worth more than my time