Probabilities of God's existence debate

[Azdgari]

So you don't yet know what you're talking about, but you're "working on it".  How about work on it first, and then start posting about it?

[Lukvance]

So you don't yet know what you're talking about, but you're "working on it".  How about work on it first, and then start posting about it?

What is the purpose of your post? Why would you take time and write such a thing?

[DumpsterFire]

what do you think? should I take one position? I like the Idea that love is like Math or gravity. Something we discover. Something that has an existence independent of the mind.

OK then, let me make this easy for you. Regardless of what you may prefer, there is no doubt whatsoever which position is correct. "Love," being an emotion, cannot exist outside a cognizant mind.

You're welcome.

[Lukvance]

what do you think? should I take one position? I like the Idea that love is like Math or gravity. Something we discover. Something that has an existence independent of the mind.

OK then, let me make this easy for you. Regardless of what you may prefer, there is no doubt whatsoever which position is correct. "Love," being an emotion, cannot exist outside a cognizant mind.
You're welcome.

How can you prove that? What if love wasn't "just" an emotion? Like Math isn't "Just" numbers.

[nogodsforme]

If love is not an emotion, you have to show why you think that. We have given standardly accepted definitions and scientific descriptions. You have given us poetic nonsense and analogies that don't work in the real world. If you think that love is something that is different from what we have said, and you have evidence to that effect, time way past for you to present it.

Otherwise, you are just making stuff up and I am out of patience with you. I am almost done here as well as many others. 

[Azdgari]

So you don't yet know what you're talking about, but you're "working on it".  How about work on it first, and then start posting about it?

What is the purpose of your post? Why would you take time and write such a thing?

Because this thread is a train-wreck, largely, it seems, because you didn't do something like what I just posted to advise you to do.

[Lukvance]

If love is not an emotion, you have to show why you think that. We have given standardly accepted definitions and scientific descriptions. You have given us poetic nonsense and analogies that don't work in the real world. If you think that love is something that is different from what we have said, and you have evidence to that effect, time way past for you to present it.

Otherwise, you are just making stuff up and I am out of patience with you. I am almost done here as well as many others. 

You too don't read the posts? I just said in post #1094 that in post #1082 I said I was working on the concept of love existing independently of the mind or not and that I did not have the answer... yet. You can go read them again if you want it will prevent you to say things like " If you think that love is something that is different from what we have said, and you have evidence to that effect".

[Lukvance]

So you don't yet know what you're talking about, but you're "working on it".  How about work on it first, and then start posting about it?

What is the purpose of your post? Why would you take time and write such a thing?

Because this thread is a train-wreck, largely, it seems, because you didn't do something like what I just posted to advise you to do.

The reason why it's a train-wreck is because people don't take time to read the other reply. They just assume things like you assumed that I don't know what I'm talking about when you seem to be the one who doesn't know.

[Azdgari]

You're the one who said it.  You were asked about the nature of this independent existence of love, that is so central to what you're talking about.  In response, you said you were "working on it".  That was all you had.  That was your only answer.

If that's all you've got, then you've not done your homework, have you?  Figure your sh!t out first, and then post about it.  Because otherwise, everyone will just come to the conclusion that you're clueless.  Which is what's actually happened.

Unless your intention is just to troll, that is.  If that's your intention, then you're doing marvelously.

[Lukvance]

You're the one who said it.  You were asked about the nature of this independent existence of love, that is so central to what you're talking about.  In response, you said you were "working on it".  That was all you had.  That was your only answer.

If that's all you've got, then you've not done your homework, have you?  Figure your sh!t out first, and then post about it.  Because otherwise, everyone will just come to the conclusion that you're clueless.  Which is what's actually happened.

Unless your intention is just to troll, that is.  If that's your intention, then you're doing marvelously.

From my point of view you are the troller, the guy who's looking for a fight that is not related at all to the topic. Usually the troll puts himself in a position where he is the judge of others, so he could really dominate the direction were the conversation will be going since he's "the king".

[median]

God always existed he created everything. Our minds are a product of this creation. He was there before our mind and will be after.

Prove it.

Just like if I said I have an invisible pet magic fire breathing dragon in my backyard, and you wanted proof.

Prove it.

[Lukvance]

God always existed he created everything. Our minds are a product of this creation. He was there before our mind and will be after.

Prove it.

Just like if I said I have an invisible pet magic fire breathing dragon in my backyard, and you wanted proof.

Prove it.

I can prove it. Wanna have a debate? Here is not the place. I already proved the existence of God. For other claims like the one you ask, chose another thread.

[median]

God always existed he created everything. Our minds are a product of this creation. He was there before our mind and will be after.

Prove it.

Just like if I said I have an invisible pet magic fire breathing dragon in my backyard, and you wanted proof.

Prove it.

I can prove it. Wanna have a debate? Here is not the place. I already proved the existence of God. For other claims like the one you ask, chose another thread.

No, you didn't prove the existence of God. 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.

You're lying for Jesus. Yay!


Btw, you have been given numerous chances on this site to demonstrate a coherent definition of the term "God", that this thing actually exists (not just as a concept like unicorns), and that this alleged thing manifests in reality. But you haven't demonstrated any of these things. You just keep making more claims. I'm sorry, anyone can do that. It proves nothing.

[Lukvance]

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.

[Lukvance]

Btw, you have been given numerous chances on this site to demonstrate a coherent definition of the term "God"

I did it one my very first post :

Hello all,
So many things has been said. So many wrong path has been taken.
I Believe that it makes more sense that God exist than that he doesn't.
Usually the debate I have with people IRL on that subject diverge on what "exist" mean.
For me, something exist as soon as it is named and has a definition. (something without a name does not exist)
Since God is a name and (for me) has the following definition : the one with all the qualities imaginable (the ultimate best) . He does exist.

I'd be happy to read your thoughts and what exist and what does not. (Please be more on what exist than the other one, it's too easy to say "it doesn't exist!")

------------
"Curiosity is a willing, a proud, an eager confession of ignorance." - Rubinstein

You find this definition not coherent? What's incoherent about it? Or maybe you just disagree with it so you lie?

[median]

Lukvance, I have challenged you to a debate in the debate challenge section regarding this last post. Please direct your attention there.

[DumpsterFire]

How can you prove that? What if love wasn't "just" an emotion? Like Math isn't "Just" numbers.

You continue to hyper-conflate completely unrelated terms, concepts, and language and act as if, by doing so, your argument has been validated. It has not. Love is an emotion. Math and gravity are not. You can say "What if?" all day long, but without specific evidence to demonstrate how love is anything more than an emotion, you are merely speculating and severely reaching.

I wonder how much thought you've given to the possibility that hate, fear, greed, and anger exist eternally. I'm going to guess none, because you feel that if you can "prove" love exists independently then you prove god exists, and giving negative emotions the same consideration doesn't aid you in your goal.

[eh!]

Luk what proof do you have thatgod existz outside. your mind.

[Lukvance]

How can you prove that? What if love wasn't "just" an emotion? Like Math isn't "Just" numbers.

You continue to hyper-conflate completely unrelated terms, concepts, and language and act as if, by doing so, your argument has been validated. It has not. Love is an emotion. Math and gravity are not. You can say "What if?" all day long, but without specific evidence to demonstrate how love is anything more than an emotion, you are merely speculating and severely reaching.

I wonder how much thought you've given to the possibility that hate, fear, greed, and anger exist eternally. I'm going to guess none, because you feel that if you can "prove" love exists independently then you prove god exists, and giving negative emotions the same consideration doesn't aid you in your goal.

You want hate? I don't care. My question is really about emotions in general.
What is so different between Hate and Math?
How do you know that Math is not just in your brain? That it exist outside your mind? (by answering that you will answer "eh!" question I hope)

[Azdgari]

From my point of view you are the troller, the guy who's looking for a fight that is not related at all to the topic. Usually the troll puts himself in a position where he is the judge of others, so he could really dominate the direction were the conversation will be going since he's "the king".

Believe whatever makes you feel better.  Let your intentional trainwreck continue.

[DumpsterFire]

You want hate? I don't care. My question is really about emotions in general.
What is so different between Hate and Math?
How do you know that Math is not just in your brain? That it exist outside your mind? (by answering that you will answer "eh!" question I hope)

I do not "want hate" in any way, please do not put words in my mouth or make such ridiculous presumptions. My only point in bringing it up is that if one emotion can exist independently (the very core of your position), then it follows that they all can.

The difference between hate and math is the same as love and math. Hate is an emotion, math is not. I know that math exists externally because the measurement of quantities is universal. If there is a mountain on the North side of a valley and another mountain on the South side then there are 2 mountains (1+1=2), regardless of whether my mind (or any other's) is there to observe them. Please, pretty please with sugar on top, cut the vagaries and doublespeak and just give one legitimate example that demonstrates how an emotion can exist outside the mind.

[Lukvance]

I remember saying that following sentence and being asked to support the claim.

Yeah I got that when you said the following lie : "because you never actually answer the question I'm posing."

I thought how can I prove that I answered all the questions that Anfauglir posed me?
The only way I found is to return through the different replies and look for the question that he asked me.
Here they are :

• reply #1041 If every human being's brain was suddenly removed, would "god" still exist?  And if so, in precisely what way?
• Reply #1056 How - exactly - will your love "be with me"?  How - exactly - will I find this love?
• Reply #1057 Why the sudden leap away from "love" and other emotions, towards "numbers"?  All through this thread, you've been relating "god" to "love" - yet suddenly, you've dropped "love" like a hot potato and gone for something else? My suspicion is because you realised that the answer to "If every human being's brain was suddenly removed, would 'love' still exist?" would be a resounding and definitive "no" - which would shoot your analogy with god stone dead.
• Reply #1062 Your response also seems conditional on my being aware that you love me, in order for my memory to spark the electrochemical process off, is that correct?  If I was unaware that you loved me, would I feel love on the moon at the thought of you - given that I have no feelings of love towards you?

After those 4 questions he said : "Reply #1070 Unfortunately, I'm getting tired of asking them[the questions], because you never actually answer the question I'm posing."

Here are the answers to each question :

• Reply #1046 (to question posed on #1041) That's a good question. It is like : "If every human being's brain was suddenly removed, would "Numbers" or "mathematics" still exist?  And if so, in precisely what way?"
  I would be inclined to say that logically Yes. But I'm not sure
• Reply #1058 (to question posed on #1056) God always existed he created everything. Our minds are a product of this creation. He was there before our mind and will be after
• Reply #1059 (to question posed on #1056) For example you could think of me on the moon and the fact that I love you will push the necessary button on your brain to feel love. Then you have felt love on the moon, you found love on the moon.
• Reply #1060 (to question posed on #1057) Not quite.
• Reply #1063 (to question posed on #1062) It depends, where you looking for it?
• Reply #1068 (to question posed on #1062) Yes. If you looked for it. For example : You get to the moon, you think of me (not in a particularly loving way), then you search love on the moon (with your brain or any other tools you have at your disposition to measure love) you might surprise yourself thinking of me in a loving way....or thinking about your lover. There, you found love on the moon.
  This is one of many scenario that I can think of. Most of them imply God creating the universe and you looking down on earth and feeling that love that God made in his creation.

I hope this serve as an example. I make sure that no question is left without an answer
I hope in the future that no one will think of me as a person that "never actually answer the question"
This lie hurt more because it came from an admin.

[Lukvance]

I do not "want hate" in any way, please do not put words in my mouth or make such ridiculous presumptions. My only point in bringing it up is that if one emotion can exist independently (the very core of your position), then it follows that they all can.

That's my point. You said "giving negative emotions the same consideration doesn't aid you in your goal". And I replied "I don't care". I don't have any goal beside finding if emotion could exist independently. Nothing related to God. The subject of God existence is closed since reply #870.

The difference between hate and math is the same as love and math. Hate is an emotion, math is not.

I know that, I was asking "history wise" the difference between them relative to time.

I know that math exists externally because the measurement of quantities is universal.

Math is not the same when you look to the extremes. (infinite and such) Is math only measurement of quantities? Isn't that numbers?
Plus, couldn't I say that love exist externally because the feeling is universal? We need to think more deeply about math.

If there is a mountain on the North side of a valley and another mountain on the South side then there are 2 mountains (1+1=2), regardless of whether my mind (or any other's) is there to observe them.

Without your mind (let's say after you lose part of your brain after an accident) you couldn't count them but you could still feel loved.

Please, pretty please with sugar on top, cut the vagaries and doublespeak and just give one legitimate example that demonstrates how an emotion can exist outside the mind.

You know I don't have such example. Stop asking.

[DumpsterFire]

That's my point. You said "giving negative emotions the same consideration doesn't aid you in your goal". And I replied "I don't care". I don't have any goal beside finding if emotion could exist independently. Nothing related to God. The subject of God existence is closed since reply #870.

The only thing determined in reply #870 is that god and love both only exist in the mind. Not sure why that should be viewed as some sort of triumph for you.

I know that, I was asking "history wise" the difference between them relative to time.

Love is an emotion and math is not, no matter how much time has passed.

Math is not the same when you look to the extremes. (infinite and such) Is math only measurement of quantities? Isn't that numbers?
Plus, couldn't I say that love exist externally because the feeling is universal? We need to think more deeply about math.

There are certainly elements of mathematics that are not yet fully understood, but that does not bolster your assertions at all. Ultimately, yes, math is the measurement of quantities. We use numbers to represent those quantities. You can say whatever you want but that doesn't make it true. Love and math are not the same thing, no matter what you say.

Without your mind (let's say after you lose part of your brain after an accident) you couldn't count them but you could still feel loved.

There would still be 2 mountains regardless of whether anyone was around to count them. And it is more than a bit presumptuous for you to assume what every person who has lost part of their brain can feel.

You know I don't have such example. Stop asking.

Fine, stop asserting.

[Lukvance]

The only thing determined in reply #870 is that god and love both only exist in the mind. Not sure why that should be viewed as some sort of triumph for you.

Bolded for emphasis. Many people make the same mistake that you are making. You think that proving the existence of something is proving that that thing exist physically. Existence does not stop with the physical world.

I know that, I was asking "history wise" the difference between them relative to time.

Love is an emotion and math is not, no matter how much time has passed.

I know that!(and you are right) Let me explain to you with an example.
If I ask "what is the difference between Math and me? history wise" I'm looking for the answer along the line : "Math has always existed and I have a certain age" not "I am human and Math is not, no matter how much time has passed" You see the difference?

Math is not the same when you look to the extremes. (infinite and such) Is math only measurement of quantities? Isn't that numbers?
Plus, couldn't I say that love exist externally because the feeling is universal? We need to think more deeply about math.

There are certainly elements of mathematics that are not yet fully understood, but that does not bolster your assertions at all. Ultimately, yes, math is the measurement of quantities. We use numbers to represent those quantities. You can say whatever you want but that doesn't make it true.

Where do you see me asserting anything? I'm just asking questions there and you seem to be dodging the answer with "You can say whatever you want but that doesn't make it true"

Love and math are not the same thing, no matter what you say.

I know! stop it...I don't know what you are trying to accomplish here.

Without your mind (let's say after you lose part of your brain after an accident) you couldn't count them but you could still feel loved.

There would still be 2 mountains regardless of whether anyone was around to count them. And it is more than a bit presumptuous for you to assume what every person who has lost part of their brain can feel.

Bold for emphasis. See? I didn't say WILL feel loved or WON'T be able to count them. Stop insulting me.

Care to try again with different answers?
What is so different (history wise) between Hate and Math?
How do you know that Math is not just in your brain? That it exist outside your mind?

[median]

Btw, you have been given numerous chances on this site to demonstrate a coherent definition of the term "God"

I did it one my very first post :

Hello all,
So many things has been said. So many wrong path has been taken.
I Believe that it makes more sense that God exist than that he doesn't.
Usually the debate I have with people IRL on that subject diverge on what "exist" mean.
For me, something exist as soon as it is named and has a definition. (something without a name does not exist)
Since God is a name and (for me) has the following definition : the one with all the qualities imaginable (the ultimate best) . He does exist.

I'd be happy to read your thoughts and what exist and what does not. (Please be more on what exist than the other one, it's too easy to say "it doesn't exist!")

------------
"Curiosity is a willing, a proud, an eager confession of ignorance." - Rubinstein

You find this definition not coherent? What's incoherent about it? Or maybe you just disagree with it so you lie?

No, I find your definition an equivocation fallacy b/c you know that isn't what anyone here is talking about when they use the term "God", neither is it the common definition. So you are, once again, engaging in irrational reasoning. It's kind of a funny ploy for you to define "God" as "the ultimate best" but elsewhere attempt to define God as "everything". This is the inherently slippery situation you are now in - actually demonstrating that the term "God" refers to something actual or real - and not something that is merely imaginary (i.e. - and henceforth not real).

Secondly, your claims in the other thread (i.e. - that God "manifests" in the world and does "miracles") becomes completely meaningless in the light of these definitions you have attempted. So "everything" does miracles? "Everything" manifests? Talk about nonsense and redundancy. You need to actually refer to something in particular that is this "God" in order for that word to have any meaning.

Third, it does not follow that because you can imagine something in your head that therefore it must be real. I can imagine one billion dollars in my bank account right now, but it isn't real. I can imagine a pet flying fire breathing dragon in my backyard. That doesn't make it real. So stop playing these words games of yours with everyone because you know exactly what we have been getting at and you really aren't doing yourself any favors by trying to use these tactics of debate.

[median]

Many people make the same mistake that you are making. You think that proving the existence of something is proving that that thing exist physically. Existence does not stop with the physical world.

And this is yet again, another one of your claims that you have yet to demonstrate.

[Lukvance]

Btw, you have been given numerous chances on this site to demonstrate a coherent definition of the term "God"

I did it one my very first post :

Hello all,
So many things has been said. So many wrong path has been taken.
I Believe that it makes more sense that God exist than that he doesn't.
Usually the debate I have with people IRL on that subject diverge on what "exist" mean.
For me, something exist as soon as it is named and has a definition. (something without a name does not exist)
Since God is a name and (for me) has the following definition : the one with all the qualities imaginable (the ultimate best) . He does exist.

I'd be happy to read your thoughts and what exist and what does not. (Please be more on what exist than the other one, it's too easy to say "it doesn't exist!")

------------
"Curiosity is a willing, a proud, an eager confession of ignorance." - Rubinstein

You find this definition not coherent? What's incoherent about it? Or maybe you just disagree with it so you lie?

No, I find your definition an equivocation fallacy b/c you know that isn't what anyone here is talking about when they use the term "God", neither is it the common definition. So you are, once again, engaging in irrational reasoning. It's kind of a funny ploy for you to define "God" as "the ultimate best" but elsewhere attempt to define God as "everything". This is the inherently slippery situation you are now in - actually demonstrating that the term "God" refers to something actual or real - and not something that is merely imaginary (i.e. - and henceforth not real).

Secondly, your claims in the other thread (i.e. - that God "manifests" in the world and does "miracles") becomes completely meaningless in the light of these definitions you have attempted. So "everything" does miracles? "Everything" manifests? Talk about nonsense and redundancy. You need to actually refer to something in particular that is this "God" in order for that word to have any meaning.

Third, it does not follow that because you can imagine something in your head that therefore it must be real. I can imagine one billion dollars in my bank account right now, but it isn't real. I can imagine a pet flying fire breathing dragon in my backyard. That doesn't make it real. So stop playing these words games of yours with everyone because you know exactly what we have been getting at and you really aren't doing yourself any favors by trying to use these tactics of debate.

Nevermind. You find it coherent, you realize that you lied (i have gave a coherent definition of God since my first post) so you go and look for something that might look incoherent because I did not demonstrate it in the post.
Unfortunately "being everything" is a quality that I can give to God (since he has all the qualities per my definition). So, there you go no more incoherence.
Stop being so dense and move on.

[Lukvance]

Many people make the same mistake that you are making. You think that proving the existence of something is proving that that thing exist physically. Existence does not stop with the physical world.

And this is yet again, another one of your claims that you have yet to demonstrate.

This is not the thread for that. Stop being so dense and move on.