User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 85

  1. #41
    Senior Member LEGERdeMAIN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    I think what Red was trying to get at was the distinction between positive and negative atheism.
    Yes, of course. That's why this thread is such a mess. It's a difference that doesn't really have anything to do with the OP, since he was clearly not talking about agnostics and other lazy atheists. However, to avoid confusion, Reason could have been more specific about which category of atheists he was referring to which may have prevented several members from expressing outrage at his generalizations about atheists. Max Stirner is not Richard Dawkins, both are/were atheists.
    “Some people will tell you that slow is good – but I’m here to tell you that fast is better. I’ve always believed this, in spite of the trouble it’s caused me. Being shot out of a cannon will always be better than being squeezed out of a tube. That is why God made fast motorcycles, Bubba…”


  2. #42
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,674

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LEGERdeMAIN View Post
    Yes, of course. That's why this thread is such a mess. It's a difference that doesn't really have anything to do with the OP, since he was clearly not talking about agnostics and other lazy atheists. However, to avoid confusion, Reason could have been more specific about which category of atheists he was referring to which may have prevented several members from expressing outrage at his generalizations about atheists. Max Stirner is not Richard Dawkins, both are/were atheists.
    Before that he should have been specific about what god he was referring to, or placed anything specific about the object in the reasoning. The way his argument runs in the OP, replace god with any object and it all turns out the same. Objects yet to be observed work best though, given the context. That's a lot of objects! (Technically any object, if you vary the point of view from which the logic works)

    The use of the "y" variable is incredibly faulty as well, but gotta get past the issues with the premises first.

  3. #43
    Senior Member LEGERdeMAIN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erm View Post
    Before that he should have been specific about what god he was referring to. The way his argument runs in the OP, replace god with any object and it all turns out the same. Objects yet to be observed work best though, given the context.
    I think he was being very general about god, more detailed info would help.

    It would help to know mass/volume and density as well - Is god affected by gravitational fields and temperature?
    “Some people will tell you that slow is good – but I’m here to tell you that fast is better. I’ve always believed this, in spite of the trouble it’s caused me. Being shot out of a cannon will always be better than being squeezed out of a tube. That is why God made fast motorcycles, Bubba…”


  4. #44
    A window to the soul
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erm View Post
    Before that he should have been specific about what god he was referring to, or placed anything specific about the object in the reasoning. The way his argument runs in the OP, replace god with any object and it all turns out the same. Objects yet to be observed work best though, given the context. That's a lot of objects! (Technically any object, if you vary the point of view from which the logic works)
    That's just it, they don't know God.

    BTW, I didn't see anything about an 'object' in the original post. I see where the OP refers to an element in the equation as a 'thing' and then for clarification says "that thing is God." Is that the part you're talking about? The overall post didn't flow quite right; maybe a language translation issue.

  5. #45
    Senior Member LEGERdeMAIN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerd Girl View Post
    That's just it, they don't know God .

    BTW, I didn't see anything about an 'object' in the OP. I see where the OP refers to an element in the equation as a 'thing' and then for clarification says "that thing is God." Is that the part you're talking about? The overall post didn't flow quite right; maybe a translation issue.
    an object is any thing that can be perceived, whether through the naked eye, instruments, senses, etc
    “Some people will tell you that slow is good – but I’m here to tell you that fast is better. I’ve always believed this, in spite of the trouble it’s caused me. Being shot out of a cannon will always be better than being squeezed out of a tube. That is why God made fast motorcycles, Bubba…”


  6. #46
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,674

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerd Girl View Post
    That's just it, they don't know God .

    BTW, I didn't see anything about an 'object' in the original post. I see where the OP refers to an element in the equation as a 'thing' and then for clarification says "that thing is God." Is that the part you're talking about? The overall post didn't flow quite right; maybe a language translation issue.
    The "G" at the start. Change it to any other object or thing you can think of, and follow the reasoning.

  7. #47
    A window to the soul
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LEGERdeMAIN View Post
    an object is any thing that can be perceived, whether through the naked eye, instruments, senses, etc
    I know that silly. I am trying to understand what erm is talking about. If it's an element in the equation and if so, which one.

  8. #48
    Senior Member LEGERdeMAIN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerd Girl View Post
    I know that silly. I am trying to understand what erm is talking about. If it's an element in the equation and if so, which one.
    Atheists claim the existence of God is highly improbable, because we have searched and searched and yet no thing discovered so far has been God.
    well...we have searched and searched and no thing is god...so far.

    Let the domain of x be the set of all things. If God exists, then some x is God. If God does not exist, then no x is God. Simple:
    Theism: ∃x[Gx]
    In words: there exists a thing (∃x), and that thing is God (Gx).
    Atheism: ∀x[~Gx]
    In words: for all things (∀x), no thing is God (~Gx).
    x is all things, god(if it exists) is some things(although I think it would be interesting if he made god all things), if god doesn't exist god then, omg, just read the parts I quoted and you can see how objects play a role given my previously stated definition of objects being things that can be percieved. The problem is that most theist religions have preemptively dick-swabbed this whole exercise by claiming that god is invisible and undetectable. how the fuck are we going to find god if we can never detect it???
    “Some people will tell you that slow is good – but I’m here to tell you that fast is better. I’ve always believed this, in spite of the trouble it’s caused me. Being shot out of a cannon will always be better than being squeezed out of a tube. That is why God made fast motorcycles, Bubba…”


  9. #49
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Okay, a quick summary of the argument (without special characters that evidently do not show up for everyone):

    The degree to which a hypothesis is probabilistically supported by evidence is equal to the probability of the hypothesis given the evidence minus the probability of the hypothesis alone. Let "ps" be probabilistic support:

    ps(h|e) = p(h|e) - p(h)

    The degree to which a hypothesis is inductively supported by the evidence is equal to the probability of the material conditional, where the evidence is the antecedent and the hypothesis is the consequent, minus the probability of the same material conditional given the evidence. Let "is" be inductive support:

    is(h|e) = p(e -> h|e) - p(e -> h)

    Here's the deal: for any evidence which probabilistically supports some hypothesis, that same evidence will also inductively counter-support that same hypothesis. In other words, probabilistic and inductive support for the hypothesis move in opposite directions given the same evidence.

    Another way to say this is that as the conclusion of an inductive argument becomes more probable given new evidence, the logical inference from the premises to the conclusion becomes weaker. That is, the evidence logically supports the conclusion less and less even while the probability of the conclusion keeps rising. Whatever is responsible for the increasing probabilistic support, it is not anything resembling an inductive or partially deductive inference.

    This creates a dilemma for atheists (most seem to be empiricists/Bayesianists): every time they observe something that is not God, the (subjective) probabilistic support for God not existing increases, but, logically, the same evidence inductively supports (defined as partial deducibility) the conclusion that God does exist.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  10. #50
    A window to the soul
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erm View Post
    The "G" at the start. Change it to any other object or thing you can think of, and follow the reasoning.
    I think I follow you. I think we're both saying that the OP left out the important part about what qualifies as a "God thing" (aka, Gx - proof of God's existence), other than being represented by Ga, Gb, Gc, etc. As in, what qualifies as Gx? Splitting a molecule with water?? :)

Similar Threads

  1. If there is no god of any kind...
    By iNtrovert in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 09-19-2013, 09:55 AM
  2. There is no God
    By swordpath in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 329
    Last Post: 03-19-2012, 01:53 PM
  3. Who, or what, is this "God"?
    By Iriohm in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 106
    Last Post: 08-04-2010, 09:09 PM
  4. OH MY GOD THERE IS A CRISIS!
    By Antimony in forum Home, Garden and Nature
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 08-26-2009, 09:28 PM
  5. There is no such thing as personality.
    By ygolo in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-12-2009, 10:13 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO