Author Topic: Probabilities of God's existence debate  (Read 54474 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #725 on: March 31, 2014, 07:24:49 PM »

A) If we were happy all the time, the value of happiness would wear out. We would have to invent a new name for a new good feeling and then aim for that.

B. Happiness sucks as a goal, but it works fine as a byproduct. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

I totally agree with you. If we were happy all the time, it would be pointless to seek happiness. As a goal, it sucks, but it is the goal nevertheless. Could you tell me one thing (or more if you want) you do without the purpose of a reward in a form of happiness? Something that you know doesn't make you happy and you know that it will never bring you happiness in any kind of form.
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #726 on: March 31, 2014, 08:07:35 PM »
Come on, Lukvance. You are implying that you believe everything is real.
If real = exist (some people would want to discuss that fact too) Not everything is real, just the things you can name and give a description of. (I introduced myself in this discussion with my definition of what is real a loong time ago, no need to be surprise now) I agree it does not leave much room for the unreal but hey, it's my definition and I challenge anyone to prove me wrong :) (Maybe on another post?)

Quote
Anything anyone can imagine or dream up is true in the real world. Fictional movies, fairy tales, all real. A guy in a blue leotard can really stop a speeding train with his super-strength.  Mr. Spock is really doing battle with Klingons in space, genies are really popping out of bottles and granting wishes, green-skinned witches are riding brooms and attacking farm girls. Gigantic bunnies really do bring painted eggs and candy to children.  I don't think that is what you mean. (I hope that is not what you mean.)

But of course people can be influenced by things that don't actually exist, including gods. [...]

None of these things exists, even though people are influenced by them all the time.
[...]
Children are afraid to go to sleep in a dark room because they think there are monsters under the bed. Are monsters real? Do you actually think there are real monsters under every scared child's bed? Are you 5 years old?

Lots of people report that they have been abducted and experimented on by alien beings. So many, in fact, that we should be able to see satellite images of people being beamed up out of their beds every night all over the world. At least you would think someone would have caught an abduction or an alien on their cell phone by now. Are alien visitors real? Do you think aliens from other planets are here on earth kidnapping people every night?

I have lived in different countries and have seen a lot of people doing things based on magic, spirits and so forth that are not real, or at least show no evidence of being real. You sound like you are willing to believe in anything someone says is true.

BTW Have you sent your bank account info to Nigeria yet? There is a prince who needs your help. (If you got an email from the prince asking you for money, would do you think he is real?)
You seem to think that it was My definition of what is real. It was not.
The prince is real, in a way that if he wasn't I wouldn't get bothered by him. Even if it's a lie.
Are ghosts real? Yes
Do you think every house has a ghost in it? Depends on the definition you give to ghost.
Are alien visitors real? Yes
Do you think aliens from other planets are here on earth kidnapping people every night? No
Are monsters real? Yes
Do you actually think there are real monsters under every scared child's bed? No (depends also on the definition you give of monsters)
Are you 5 years old? No
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #727 on: March 31, 2014, 08:09:42 PM »
Just out of interest Lukvance, do you think these fake gods are demons?
No.
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #728 on: March 31, 2014, 08:25:00 PM »
Lukvance, why would a loving, caring god allow fake gods to trick people in his name, with eternal life, salvation, heaven and hell at stake? Think about this carefully.
God allows because God want you to be free. Free to chose to create your own gods, trick people and do all this "evil" (even eat the forbidden fruit). I don't believe the people who believe in other gods won't be welcomed in heaven.

Quote
Would any loving parent allow criminals to come into their house disguised as the real parents, and let them abuse their kids?
Of course not. But what if the criminal was also his child? I'm not so sure...I guess it depends on their relation and the type of parents.

Quote
What possible reason could there be for such a lapse in loving, caring protection believers claim for their god?
What do you think of : "Freedom of choice"?

Quote
What is sad and a bit scary is that you think this stuff is not only true, but somehow laudable and admirable behavior.
Oh! Even if Adam and Eve are real/they exist, but "only" as a story not as history. Same goes for the whole Genesis Book...or the rest of the Bible (safe the Gospels)
I was scolded before about assuming something about someone...I hope that works both ways.
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #729 on: March 31, 2014, 08:31:47 PM »
Why am I more moral than your god? Shouldn't it be the other way around?
I understand how you could think to be more moral. I thought It too once.
But imposing yourself to other isn't that what "bad" people do? (cf : I wouldn't allow them to kill each other in my name, I wouldn't let them doubt my existence, I wouldn't allow a situation where my doubters would suffer for an eternity [...] everyone would know the whole story and understand both my motivations and why the kids were there [...] If I were your god, no one would doubt you [...] I'd effect them the same way)
You're worth more than my time

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6620
  • Darwins +791/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #730 on: March 31, 2014, 08:32:58 PM »
Things I do that don’t make me happy?

I hate cooking, but I have to eat. I dislike driving, but I do it. Trips to the doctor are unpleasant, even though I’m healthy. Maybe I just have a thing about coughing, I don’t know. I dislike paying my bills, and having to keep my house cooler than I’d like in the winter because of the high price of energy makes it even worse. I don’t like shoveling snow, but where I live, it is a necessity in the winter. And I’m not happy when I’m done because the weather forecast usually says that more is on the way. I hate television, but when I visit my friends, most of them have a TV going in the background all the time.

I disliked paying child support for 18 years to a woman who lied to me to get pregnant, and who admitted ten years later that all she wanted was a baby, not a husband. Yet I paid her 3x what I was required to pay based on my income because it was the right thing to do. Still didn’t make me happy. Especially when I found out that her pleas for more money were lies too. She had plenty.

I would be happy if I had the $120,000 I didn’t need to pay her, but that’s just me.

I don’t do stuff for happiness. I’m not motivated by happiness. Of course I am happy sometimes, but like I said, that is a byproduct of other things, not a goal.

Now contented? Yep. I'm generally contented. I’m not depressed, I’m not needy, I’m not worried about how I’m going to survive, I’m not worried about dying. But happy? Not usually.

But you’ll be happy to know that when I am, I enjoy it. Albeit briefly.

And your question about love. Love is real to humans, although we often muck it up big time with other emotional stuff, but it is not a thing. It doesn't have arms and legs, or mineral content. It isn't detectable by the Large Hadron Collider, microscopes or voltage meters. It is a human interpretation of some of our feelings. Feelings that are the byproduct of synapses and nerve paths and the activity in various specialized areas of the brain. It is really really nice. But it is only real in the sense that we humans have agreed to label those feelings as love. It is feedback, not factual like Salem being the capital of Oregon. I've no doubt that many people label some things as love that you would disagree with, and that you label some things as love that they would disagree with.

It isn't real enough to base an entire philosophy on. Or worse yet, religious excuses.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6620
  • Darwins +791/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #731 on: March 31, 2014, 08:35:41 PM »
Why am I more moral than your god? Shouldn't it be the other way around?
I understand how you could think to be more moral. I thought It too once.
But imposing yourself to other isn't that what "bad" people do? (cf : I wouldn't allow them to kill each other in my name, I wouldn't let them doubt my existence, I wouldn't allow a situation where my doubters would suffer for an eternity [...] everyone would know the whole story and understand both my motivations and why the kids were there [...] If I were your god, no one would doubt you [...] I'd effect them the same way)

Being honest, open and effective would be an imposition? While allowing a child to be murdered by a heinous individual is not? Allowing wars to be fought in your name is not? Perpetuating ignorance in the masses is not?

Methinks you are unclear on a few concepts. I suggest you rethink your response. Try something else. Please. You're making it too easy.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #732 on: March 31, 2014, 08:37:34 PM »
Most people are more moral than the god described in the bible, thanks be to Thor. When human leaders abuse their power like Jehovah, we do not worship their memory. We do not tell people to try to be like them. We call them "Mad King so and so" or "Bloody Queen bladiblah". We call them evil bastard dictators. If we don't overthrow or assassinate them, it is out of fear, not out of respect or love. We curse them behind their backs, and spit when we say their names.
[...] not so much when done by members of their own faith like the pilgrims, the Inquisition, the Crusaders or the Conquistadores[/nb] is perfectly okay-- if you are god...
Does it still apply if the Bible is like "harry potter"? A story using everyday things (like table chairs and humans and such).

Ps : Sorry I didn't want it to be a long post so I cut your quote. But I meant to put it whole.
You're worth more than my time

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 557
  • Darwins +84/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #733 on: April 01, 2014, 02:45:00 AM »
[...]what is portrayed in the book or film are not real[...]
Why? What makes you say they are not real?
You see that's why the discussion must start with the definition of what exist with an example of what exist and the reason why you think that example exist. If there is no reason it's existence, then it has no reason to exist :)
Erm, we're working with the notion that they are fiction. Please keep up.
Only you are. I'm not. I gave already my definition of what is real. And what is portrayed in the book or film are real. If you wish to continue discussing, please answer my questions, (like : What makes you say they are not real?) instead of hinting that I am slow. I may be not as smart as you are but I try my best :(

I was usng fiction as an example of something that can affect the way you feel without being real, to counter your point that because god made you feel something, therefore god is real. It really isn't a discussion on whether those hypothetical fiction books and films portray something real.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2271
  • Darwins +412/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #734 on: April 01, 2014, 10:00:05 AM »
If real = exist (some people would want to discuss that fact too) Not everything is real, just the things you can name and give a description of. (I introduced myself in this discussion with my definition of what is real a loong time ago, no need to be surprise now) I agree it does not leave much room for the unreal but hey, it's my definition and I challenge anyone to prove me wrong :) (Maybe on another post?)
I'll give it a whirl.

As per Lukvance:
'Real' and 'exist' are synonymous.
Exist: something exist as soon as it is named and has a definition.
Ergo, something is real as soon as it is named and has a definition.

<name>: <definition>
Loc-Nar 5s: Talisman that actively prevents the existence of entities called 'god'.  Also has the side-effect of preventing the existence of Blarghs.
God: Entity that does things like create the universe and interact with humanity.  Has really nice teeth.

The simultaneous existence of the Loc-Nar 5s and god is a logical impossibility.  Ergo, Lukvance's proposition of what constitutes 'real' is incoherent and invalid.

Please note the following details:
'The Loc-Nar 5s exists'.
'God exists'.
These cannot be simultaneously true statements.

'The concept of the Loc-Nar 5s exists'.
'The concept of god exists'.
These can be simultaneously true statements.
"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 Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #735 on: April 01, 2014, 10:33:58 AM »
If real = exist (some people would want to discuss that fact too) Not everything is real, just the things you can name and give a description of. (I introduced myself in this discussion with my definition of what is real a loong time ago, no need to be surprise now) I agree it does not leave much room for the unreal but hey, it's my definition and I challenge anyone to prove me wrong :) (Maybe on another post?)
.....
Are monsters real? Yes
Do you actually think there are real monsters under every scared child's bed? No (depends also on the definition you give of monsters)

As you say, it depends on whether real=exist, and the meanings you give to those terms.  Equally, things that are "real" (by your terms) but have no objective existence may still affect us.

Actual, physical speding car coming towards me - will have severe effects on me.
The idea that there is a speeding car coming towards me may well be "real" in the sense that we can discuss it.  It may, or may not, have an effect on me depending on the degree to which I believe its physical existence - for example, I may duck into a house to try to avoid it.  Generally, though, things that are "real" only in that sense will not have an effect on me.  The concept of a speeding car coming towards me will not actually cause me physical harm.

You saying to me "the car just hit you" is a lot different to the car actually hitting me. 

In your daily life, how do you differentiate between "real" and real?  DO you even make the distinction? 

For example: if you have not eaten all day, the concepts "you are hungry" and "you are NOT hungry" are both legitimately real by your terms.  Do you assign more value to one statement over the other?  If so, what process do you use?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #736 on: April 01, 2014, 12:53:31 PM »
I was usng fiction as an example of something that can affect the way you feel without being real, to counter your point that because god made you feel something, therefore god is real. It really isn't a discussion on whether those hypothetical fiction books and films portray something real.
I understand. The fact that something is real because it makes someone feel something is not my argument. It has been brought to me with the sun example. Are you saying that something that doesn't exist can make you feel something? If so, how do you know that something exist? What makes you think that love exist?
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #737 on: April 01, 2014, 01:17:51 PM »
I'll give it a whirl.

As per Lukvance:
'Real' and 'exist' are synonymous.
Exist: something exist as soon as it is named and has a definition.
Ergo, something is real as soon as it is named and has a definition.

<name>: <definition>
Loc-Nar 5s: Talisman that actively prevents the existence of entities called 'god'.  Also has the side-effect of preventing the existence of Blarghs.
God: Entity that does things like create the universe and interact with humanity.  Has really nice teeth.

The simultaneous existence of the Loc-Nar 5s and god is a logical impossibility.  Ergo, Lukvance's proposition of what constitutes 'real' is incoherent and invalid.

Please note the following details:
'The Loc-Nar 5s exists'.
'God exists'.
These cannot be simultaneously true statements.

'The concept of the Loc-Nar 5s exists'.
'The concept of god exists'.
These can be simultaneously true statements.
I have to agree with you, existence doesn't make any sense. (it's illogical)

So what exist? and why? I told you it was easy to destroy any definition someone gives you when you do not give a better one.
You're worth more than my time

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2271
  • Darwins +412/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #738 on: April 01, 2014, 01:42:00 PM »
I'll give it a whirl.

As per Lukvance:
'Real' and 'exist' are synonymous.
Exist: something exist as soon as it is named and has a definition.
Ergo, something is real as soon as it is named and has a definition.

<name>: <definition>
Loc-Nar 5s: Talisman that actively prevents the existence of entities called 'god'.  Also has the side-effect of preventing the existence of Blarghs.
God: Entity that does things like create the universe and interact with humanity.  Has really nice teeth.

The simultaneous existence of the Loc-Nar 5s and god is a logical impossibility.  Ergo, Lukvance's proposition of what constitutes 'real' is incoherent and invalid.

Please note the following details:
'The Loc-Nar 5s exists'.
'God exists'.
These cannot be simultaneously true statements.

'The concept of the Loc-Nar 5s exists'.
'The concept of god exists'.
These can be simultaneously true statements.
I have to agree with you, existence doesn't make any sense. (it's illogical)
I'm rather uncertain how you came to this conclusion.  Could you step through it for me?
(Hint: The illogical-ness of the statement might have something to do with your definition of the word 'exists')

Quote
So what exist?
Lot's of stuff exists.  I dare say a bunch of stuff that exists are things that I do not know or believe do, in fact, exist.

Quote
and why?
Why do they exist or why do I think they exist?  Well, for some stuff, I think it exists because they manifest circumstances in external, objective reality that coincide with it's existence and do not coincide with it's non-existence.  I can make predictions regarding what circumstances to manifest in external, objective reality that either will coincide with it's existence or non-existence.  I can explain other aspects of external, objective reality based on the manifestations in external, objective reality due to it's existence.  And I can do such things successfully.

For other stuff...well, the existence or non-existence of that stuff, as well as the stuff that I think does exist, doesn't really care whether or not I think it exist.  It will go on affecting external, objective reality despite my protestations that it does not actually exist, or despite my lack of knowledge of it's existence.

As for the more general 'why do they exist' question, there is an awful lot loaded into the word 'why'.  Loaded enough where I think it would be prudent to use different words to ask the question.

Quote
I told you it was easy to destroy any definition someone gives you when you do not give a better one.
We could destroy each other's definitions and semantics all day long, and external, objective reality will just keep doing it's thing regardless of whether we say it can or cannot.
"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
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #739 on: April 01, 2014, 01:42:31 PM »
In your daily life, how do you differentiate between "real" and real?  DO you even make the distinction? 

For example: if you have not eaten all day, the concepts "you are hungry" and "you are NOT hungry" are both legitimately real by your terms.  Do you assign more value to one statement over the other?  If so, what process do you use?

I make some kind of distinction. We could call them degrees of reality. I tend to chose what is of higher degree based on the aftermath. (what will make me happier)
For example, between you are hungry and you are not hungry. If I am hungry I will be happier if I eat than if I don't. So I chose the reality "you are hungry" to be of higher degree than the other one.
In the case of the car driving towards me. If it has the ability to cripple me, I won't be happy so I chose the reality that make me doge it.
If it has not the ability to cripple me (like in a theater) I chose to not dodge but still might close my eyes...just in case :) But this is fun (me closing my eyes because of the movie)
That is why I don't like horror movies. Witch one I'm suppose to be? the killer? (I don't feel happy about that) the murdered? (I don't feel happy about that) Neither? (I'm waisting my time since It won't make me feel anything (or teach me anything)
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #740 on: April 01, 2014, 04:16:16 PM »
I have to agree with you, existence doesn't make any sense. (it's illogical)
I'm rather uncertain how you came to this conclusion.  Could you step through it for me?
(Hint: The illogical-ness of the statement might have something to do with your definition of the word 'exists')
You are again right. Based on my definition, existence doesn't make any sense. If I was discussing my definition of existence I would prove that any definition doesn't make any sense. But I'm here to find out if God exist.
Quote
Lot's of stuff exists.  I dare say a bunch of stuff that exists are things that I do not know or believe do, in fact, exist.
Can God be one of those? If no, why not?
Quote
Why do they exist or why do I think they exist?
You answered correctly. The question Why I asked at the beginning (My first post on this thread) was about why do you think they exist.
Let me try and make sure I understood your "why" :
1. The thing manifest circumstances in external, objective reality that coincide with it's existence and do not coincide with it's non-existence.
2. You can make predictions about it explain other aspects of external, objective reality based on the manifestations in external, objective reality due to it's existence
3. It continue to exist even If you deny it existence.
I'm having trouble to understand point 1 and 2. Does it apply to Love? Or does Love answer some other rules that you forgot to describe? Or love doesn't exist?
For 3. I'd say that it applies perfectly to God :)

You're worth more than my time

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12682
  • Darwins +335/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #741 on: April 02, 2014, 12:44:14 AM »
Quote from: Lukvance
But I'm here to find out if God exist.

No you're not. You're here to say, "You're wrong, I'm right and if you don't accept Jesus as your lord and saviour you'll burn in hell."

Almost every single Christian that comes here says that's not why they are here but it's a lie. You know it's a lie, I know it's a lie--everyone here knows it's a lie. You're not here to see if your god exists, you're here to show us that you're god exists. You can't do it because you believe base on faith--your religion dictates that you believe on faith. Proverbs 3:5 tells you not to believe on YOUR OWN understanding but by the Bible's as in Biblegod. Some chapter in Corinthians tells you that you "walk by faith not by what is seen" -- meaning no evidence required.  In some other chapter, Philippians I think...it says that "you walk in Christ" or something. You do things "through him" -- as in: no evidence required. There are over 30+ verses all throughout the Bible that says similar things: faith no evidence required. Why? Because you're too stupid to understand, basically.

All you've been here doing is saying, "I'm a Christian! You're wrong, I'm right...hurry up and save your soul." 99% of every Christian that comes here says the same thing: you're not special, don't think you are.

We'd be turned by a guy like OCG[1] before a guy like you, skeptic, Jesuis, and the many others who have come and gone. You know why? Because he doesn't come here and project himself as better than others (us, or anyone else) like people like you do. This is not to imply that there aren't atheists here who don't think they believe they're better than you, hell, probably even think they're better than OCG but, in my opinion, they are few and far between rather than a high percentage such as those of your accord.

So, please, stop with the lies.

-Nam
 1. not meant negatively
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6620
  • Darwins +791/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #742 on: April 02, 2014, 12:55:10 AM »
Let me try and make sure I understood your "why" :
1. The thing manifest circumstances in external, objective reality that coincide with it's existence and do not coincide with it's non-existence.
2. You can make predictions about it explain other aspects of external, objective reality based on the manifestations in external, objective reality due to it's existence
3. It continue to exist even If you deny it existence.
I'm having trouble to understand point 1 and 2. Does it apply to Love? Or does Love answer some other rules that you forgot to describe? Or love doesn't exist?
For 3. I'd say that it applies perfectly to God :)

Number 2, making predictions, seems to exclude god. Unless you make the prediction that he'll never show himself, never do anything, never care and never matter. Even I have to admit, that's a spot on prediction. But otherwise…
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 557
  • Darwins +84/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #743 on: April 02, 2014, 01:42:30 AM »
I was usng fiction as an example of something that can affect the way you feel without being real, to counter your point that because god made you feel something, therefore god is real. It really isn't a discussion on whether those hypothetical fiction books and films portray something real.
I understand. The fact that something is real because it makes someone feel something is not my argument. It has been brought to me with the sun example.

Yes, jdawg used the sun as an example of something that manifests in the world we perceive and makes him feel something. You then found it prudent to equate god to that because god makes you feel something. We don't judge the manifested existence of something based on whether it makes us feels something, we base it on whether it can be perceived, demonstrated and verified externally to us.

Quote
Are you saying that something that doesn't exist can make you feel something?

Yes, I've been making that point for some time.

Quote
If so, how do you know that something exist?

I answered this when you asked last time. Perhaps take a look back over the previous responses.

Quote
What makes you think that love exist?

Because it can be demonstrated to exist in the world I perceive, plus I can believe it exists because I can demonstrate it self evidently, in the same way that I can believe hunger or jealousy exists.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 557
  • Darwins +84/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #744 on: April 02, 2014, 02:24:52 AM »
[...]what is portrayed in the book or film are not real[...]
Why? What makes you say they are not real?
You see that's why the discussion must start with the definition of what exist with an example of what exist and the reason why you think that example exist. If there is no reason it's existence, then it has no reason to exist :)
Erm, we're working with the notion that they are fiction. Please keep up.
Only you are. I'm not. I gave already my definition of what is real. And what is portrayed in the book or film are real. If you wish to continue discussing, please answer my questions, (like : What makes you say they are not real?) instead of hinting that I am slow. I may be not as smart as you are but I try my best :(

By the way, what happened to your response to the rest of my post that you have conveniently dismissed? Wasn't I challenging you to demonstrate that god is everything?
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #745 on: April 02, 2014, 03:30:57 AM »
I make some kind of distinction. We could call them degrees of reality. I tend to chose what is of higher degree based on the aftermath. (what will make me happier)
For example, between you are hungry and you are not hungry. If I am hungry I will be happier if I eat than if I don't. So I chose the reality "you are hungry" to be of higher degree than the other one.

So desire determines the degree of reality?  It makes me wonder why most crimes ever happen.  For example, I am less happy if I was burgled and my possessions were stolen.  If I believed the reality where the burglary had not hapened, I would be happier.

Why does the "happiness" test so easily break down?


In the case of the car driving towards me. If it has the ability to cripple me, I won't be happy so I chose the reality that make me doge it.
If it has not the ability to cripple me (like in a theater) I chose to not dodge but still might close my eyes...just in case :) But this is fun (me closing my eyes because of the movie)

You've misunderstood my point, unintentionally I'm sure.

You chose to define "reality" as including anything people say, and do not appear to consider much distinction between the said, and the actual.  Consider these two situations.
1) You are standing in the street.  A friend yells "look out!  Car!" (thus making the car "real").  You turn.....and see a car speeding towards you.
2) You are standing in the street.  A friend yells "look out!  Car!" (thus making the car "real").  You turn.....and see nothing, because there is nothing there.

Do you react differently in the two situations?  If so, why?
Is the car any more real in either situation?  If so, why? 

From what you said earlier.....
I make some kind of distinction. We could call them degrees of reality. I tend to chose what is of higher degree based on the aftermath. (what will make me happier)
...I would presume that at the point when you are turning you would be happier if there was no car there, so my assumption would be that you would react as if the second situation was always the case?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1561
  • Darwins +105/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #746 on: April 02, 2014, 04:30:06 AM »
(I introduced myself in this discussion with my definition of what is real a loong time ago, no need to be surprise now) I agree it does not leave much room for the unreal but hey, it's my definition and I challenge anyone to prove me wrong.

Are alien visitors real? Yes


So you do admit that you are seeing what you want to see.

Just this one example about aliens should be ringing bells in your head that you are not thinking clearly.
The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2271
  • Darwins +412/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #747 on: April 02, 2014, 10:04:54 AM »
(Hint: The illogical-ness of the statement might have something to do with your definition of the word 'exists')
You are again right. Based on my definition, existence doesn't make any sense. If I was discussing my definition of existence I would prove that any definition doesn't make any sense.
Are you saying that there cannot be a coherent definition of 'existence'?  I guess I'm a little confused.

But, no worries.  I think we're both in agreement that having a name and a requisite definition is not sufficient to demonstrate existence.

Quote
But I'm here to find out if God exist.
Presumably, then, you have other criteria for demonstrating existence in mind?  Seeing as how 'being given a name and a definition' fails to provide sufficient reason to demonstrate existence?

Quote
Quote
Lot's of stuff exists.  I dare say a bunch of stuff that exists are things that I do not know or believe do, in fact, exist.
Can God be one of those? If no, why not?
Depends on what you mean by 'god', but, for the most part, without any further definition of 'god', then certainly that fits into the 'may exist I just don't know it' bucket.  Lots of stuff is in that bucket: white hole, mome raths, good Rush songs, flux capacitors, Vishnu, invisible red strings of fate, ice-9, snowmen on Pluto, fire-monsters on Venus, the President of Mexico, the lost city of Atlantis, black smoke monsters, Bigfoot, leprechauns, pixies, good Pixies cover bands, etc.  If I assume that I have grotesque, fundamental misunderstandings of reality (which is a possibility), the list can get even bigger.  Like, infinitely bigger.

Yes, there are certainly some descriptions of 'god' that I can confidently say do not exist (but again, if I have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of reality, I could be wrong).  If by 'god' you mean a 7-sided purple monster that plays tennis with the heads of children on the top of the Washington Monument...well, I'm rather confident that 'god' does not exist.  Why, you ask?  Because the manifestation of actual reality is incongruent with that entity's existence - I see no entity on the top of Washington Monument engaged in a game of tennis with the heads of children.

If by 'god' you mean an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving entity that has a vested interested in human affairs that inspired and/or penned an old poetic book as his primary means of communication to his beloved creations...well, I'm rather confident that 'god' does not exist.  Why, you ask?  Because the manifestation of actual reality is incongruent with that entity's existence - I see no loving action from an entity with unrestricted power; I see no entity perfectly capable of communication, with the apparent desire for communication, actually engaging in communication.  I see lots of people playing pretend.

I'll shortcut some of the conversation, because I've seen this song-and-dance before and have a rough idea of where you're going with this:
No, I do not know everything.  I have never claimed to know everything.  There are gaps in my knowledge.  Yes, I could be wrong about all sorts of stuff, not just regarding beliefs/claims I have that I do not have extreme confidence in (Higgs boson is a real phenomenon), but also regarding beliefs/claims I do have extreme confidence in (the sun will rise in the morning; fire burns; there are no good Rush songs).

Quote
Quote
Why do they exist or why do I think they exist?
You answered correctly. The question Why I asked at the beginning (My first post on this thread) was about why do you think they exist.
Let me try and make sure I understood your "why" :
1. The thing manifest circumstances in external, objective reality that coincide with it's existence and do not coincide with it's non-existence.
2. You can make predictions about it explain other aspects of external, objective reality based on the manifestations in external, objective reality due to it's existence
3. It continue to exist even If you deny it existence.
I'm having trouble to understand point 1 and 2. Does it apply to Love? Or does Love answer some other rules that you forgot to describe? Or love doesn't exist?
For 3. I'd say that it applies perfectly to God :)
What is love[1]?  Because points 1 and 2 certainly do apply to love.  Or is love something so meaningless to you that you cannot differentiate between 'love' and 'not love'?

3 would certainly apply to god.  And Thanos.  And Santa Clause.  And white holes.  And invisible red strings.  And Vishnu.  And small teapots orbiting the sun.  That things that exist do so without regard to our opinion on the matter does nothing to suggest that everything therefore must exist.

The ontological argument is a pretty weak argument.  I suggest you abandon it.
 1. Baby don't hurt me.  Don't hurt me.  No more.
"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
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #748 on: April 02, 2014, 08:01:50 PM »
(I introduced myself in this discussion with my definition of what is real a loong time ago, no need to be surprise now) I agree it does not leave much room for the unreal but hey, it's my definition and I challenge anyone to prove me wrong.

Are alien visitors real? Yes


So you do admit that you are seeing what you want to see.

Just this one example about aliens should be ringing bells in your head that you are not thinking clearly.
I don't see alien visitors.
Thank you for pointing out that I am crazy. It doesn't really helps the discussion but proves me how desperate you are to shift from a discussion to a fight.
Now that you revealed how you see me, what will you do? Punch and yell louder?
Not helping much moving forward is it?
« Last Edit: April 02, 2014, 08:09:14 PM by Lukvance »
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #749 on: April 02, 2014, 08:12:27 PM »
Quote from: Lukvance
But I'm here to find out if God exist.

No you're not. You're here to say, "You're wrong, I'm right and if you don't accept Jesus as your lord and saviour you'll burn in hell."

There you go, now that you told me what to think I don't have anything to say anymore? right?
Is there a word for that kind of "logic" you are using?
How did that ever helped in a discussion?`
Is it a fight you want?
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #750 on: April 02, 2014, 08:14:37 PM »
Let me try and make sure I understood your "why" :
1. The thing manifest circumstances in external, objective reality that coincide with it's existence and do not coincide with it's non-existence.
2. You can make predictions about it explain other aspects of external, objective reality based on the manifestations in external, objective reality due to it's existence
3. It continue to exist even If you deny it existence.
I'm having trouble to understand point 1 and 2. Does it apply to Love? Or does Love answer some other rules that you forgot to describe? Or love doesn't exist?
For 3. I'd say that it applies perfectly to God :)

Number 2, making predictions, seems to exclude god. Unless you make the prediction that he'll never show himself, never do anything, never care and never matter. Even I have to admit, that's a spot on prediction. But otherwise…
I'm sorry I still don't get number 1 and 2. Does it apply to Love? Or does Love answer some other rules that you forgot to describe? Or love doesn't exist?
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #751 on: April 02, 2014, 08:27:22 PM »
Because it [Love] can be demonstrated to exist in the world I perceive, plus I can believe it exists because I can demonstrate it self evidently, in the same way that I can believe hunger or jealousy exists.
As I understand : Something (like Love) exist because it can be demonstrated to exist in the world you (and only you?) perceive? And you (and only you?) can demonstrate it self evidently?
I think I'm having trouble understanding it correctly. Could you expand on that with an example please?
[...]what is portrayed in the book or film are not real[...]
Why? What makes you say they are not real?
You see that's why the discussion must start with the definition of what exist with an example of what exist and the reason why you think that example exist. If there is no reason it's existence, then it has no reason to exist :)
Erm, we're working with the notion that they are fiction. Please keep up.
Only you are. I'm not. I gave already my definition of what is real. And what is portrayed in the book or film are real. If you wish to continue discussing, please answer my questions, (like : What makes you say they are not real?) instead of hinting that I am slow. I may be not as smart as you are but I try my best :(

By the way, what happened to your response to the rest of my post that you have conveniently dismissed? Wasn't I challenging you to demonstrate that god is everything?
I thought you were joking. You want to challenge me to demonstrate that God is everything when you don't even believe that God exist?!?
If you want to talk about the everything-ness of God please create another thread, one with the assumption that God exist. Then we will be able to discuss.
You're worth more than my time

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12682
  • Darwins +335/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #752 on: April 02, 2014, 08:34:30 PM »
Lukvance,

It would be easier to prove your love for your god existing than to prove the love your god (as you perceive) has for you. One can be measured by a group (or one) observing you yet no one can observe your god because...

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #753 on: April 02, 2014, 08:46:24 PM »
So desire determines the degree of reality?  It makes me wonder why most crimes ever happen.  For example, I am less happy if I was burgled and my possessions were stolen.  If I believed the reality where the burglary had not hapened, I would be happier.

Why does the "happiness" test so easily break down?

Wait a minute, it does not "easily break down". I'm not sure that you would be happier if you chose the reality "the bugler didn't take anything" If so, you would look for the thing it didn't take and then you would be sad not finding it. Or worse, you'd imagine the stolen things and then be interned or die of starving if he stole your food. I hope you are happier alive than dead, yes?


Quote
In the case of the car driving towards me. If it has the ability to cripple me, I won't be happy so I chose the reality that make me doge it.
If it has not the ability to cripple me (like in a theater) I chose to not dodge but still might close my eyes...just in case :) But this is fun (me closing my eyes because of the movie)

You've misunderstood my point, unintentionally I'm sure.

You chose to define "reality" as including anything people say, and do not appear to consider much distinction between the said, and the actual.  Consider these two situations.
1) You are standing in the street.  A friend yells "look out!  Car!" (thus making the car "real").  You turn.....and see a car speeding towards you.
2) You are standing in the street.  A friend yells "look out!  Car!" (thus making the car "real").  You turn.....and see nothing, because there is nothing there.

Do you react differently in the two situations?  If so, why?
Is the car any more real in either situation?  If so, why? 

I do react differently in the two situation. Why? Because I want to be happy. I duck on 1) and laugh on 2)
The car is of higher degree of reality on 1) because my eyes could see it. The car on 2) is not there and my friend is making a joke that makes me feel something. I prefer feeling something than nothing, it makes me happier.
Let's say that the car on 2) comes from above. I turn see nothing, don't move and get squashed. Jokes on me :)

Quote
From what you said earlier.....
I make some kind of distinction. We could call them degrees of reality. I tend to chose what is of higher degree based on the aftermath. (what will make me happier)
...I would presume that at the point when you are turning you would be happier if there was no car there, so my assumption would be that you would react as if the second situation was always the case?
Humm I don't get it. I dodge the car If i see it coming. I don't dodge if I don't see it. Yes I would be happier if there is no car moving towards me and yes I might have to look before I duck because I prefer the second situation.
You're worth more than my time