User Tag List

First 11192021222331 Last

Results 201 to 210 of 505

Thread: NTs and God

  1. #201
    The Memes Justify the End EcK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    738
    Socionics
    ILE None
    Posts
    7,265

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kangirl View Post
    Again, that's a yes or no question.
    I love you
    Expression of the post modern paradox : "For the love of god, religions are so full of shit"

    Theory is always superseded by Fact...
    ... In theory.

    “I’d hate to die twice. It’s so boring.”
    Richard Feynman's last recorded words

    "Great is the human who has not lost his childlike heart."
    Mencius (Meng-Tse), 4th century BCE

  2. #202
    Senior Member Erudur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kangirl View Post
    I just want the answer, forget the 'proof' for now.

    Do you, or do not accept this:

    "Flaws in theory A do not necessarily *prove* theory B." Just yes or no!

    You keep posting these flaws, or suspected flaws, over and over and over, and then you keep claiming you're not offering them as 'proof'. What are you offering them as? Why are you posting them?

    A few times you posted something along the lines of "x can't possibly exist without an intelligent designer - therefore the existence of x = god/intelligent designer exists". Is this your position or not? Again, that's a yes or no question.

    I inceasingly have no idea what you're actually trying to get across here.
    Here I am saying it:
    Flaws in theory A do not necessarily *prove* theory B. Did I not say that already?

    What I am trying to get across:
    Darwinism (theory A) is fatally flawed.

    I am guessing this isn't interesting to you, but from the dialogue above there remains a place for the discussion. EcK (and the authors of the articles he posted), seems to think "theory A" is indisputable. He is also very dismissive of those who disagree.

    I suppose it has deviated from the original post, but it certainly is a good example of a couple NTs debating a topic in close proximity to the "God" topic.

  3. #203
    I'm a star. Kangirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    1,470

    Default

    Well it's obviously interesting enough for me to keep reading and participating.

    Here I am saying it:
    Flaws in theory A do not necessarily *prove* theory B. Did I not say that already?
    I think you did, but I was confused because you keep offering examples of flaws in Theory A (and I'm not going to get into whether or not those flaws are valid - not personally qualified, really) and was wondering why, if you accept that these flaws don't prove Theory B, you keep offering them.

    Are there 2 (or 3) different conversations going on here? It seems like one conversation is in regards to what was posted above, by me and others (theory A having flaws doesn't prove theory B) - and it looks like we apparently all agree on that, no?

    The other conversation seems to be about god, and whether or not god exists. Given that 1)you and other theists appear not to need logic in order to prove or validate your faith (and I'm not saying you should) and 2)that many of the atheists view the lack of a logical reason to believe in god as reason not to believe in god, it kind of seems like there's nowhere else to go from here. Some need logic to believe and therefore don't. Some don't need it and, sometimes, do then believe.

    The 3rd conversation seems to be about Darwinism and it's bullet proof-ness as a theory. I don't see what this has to do with god but if someone wants to debate Darwinism then I've got no problems with that.

    What I am getting at in my long-winded way is that you appear to have accepted that there is no logical reason to believe in god. Is that correct? And don't roll out the sandcastles again because you've already conceded that they prove nothing!

    I love you
    Yay! Do I get chocolate?
    "Only an irrational dumbass, would burn Jews." - Jaguar

    "please give concise answers in plain English" - request from Provoker

  4. #204
    Senior Member Erudur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kangirl View Post
    Well it's obviously interesting enough for me to keep reading and participating.

    I think you did, but I was confused because you keep offering examples of flaws in Theory A (and I'm not going to get into whether or not those flaws are valid - not personally qualified, really) and was wondering why, if you accept that these flaws don't prove Theory B, you keep offering them.

    Are there 2 (or 3) different conversations going on here? It seems like one conversation is in regards to what was posted above, by me and others (theory A having flaws doesn't prove theory B) - and it looks like we apparently all agree on that, no?

    The other conversation seems to be about god, and whether or not god exists. Given that 1)you and other theists appear not to need logic in order to prove or validate your faith (and I'm not saying you should) and 2)that many of the atheists view the lack of a logical reason to believe in god as reason not to believe in god, it kind of seems like there's nowhere else to go from here. Some need logic to believe and therefore don't. Some don't need it and, sometimes, do then believe.

    The 3rd conversation seems to be about Darwinism and it's bullet proof-ness as a theory. I don't see what this has to do with god but if someone wants to debate Darwinism then I've got no problems with that.

    What I am getting at in my long-winded way is that you appear to have accepted that there is no logical reason to believe in god. Is that correct? And don't roll out the sandcastles again because you've already conceded that they prove nothing!
    I would distinguish between logic and proof. Something can be logical but unproven, and I guess something can be logical but untrue (if, for instance, an underlying premise is false). I believe my perspectives on God are logical yet conjectural.

    For instance, I believe it is logical to conclude that since I think, love, hate, remember, enjoy, desire friendships, make decisions that benefit others to my own expense, etc; that I was created by one with a greater capacity to do these same things. But I don't see how I could set up a way to test this hypothesis and therefore prove it. I also don't see how one could set up a test to disprove this hypothesis.

    So, to go back to your statement above. As I ponder God, I use logic to form conjectures, but I am at a loss for proof. Though I also agree with you that many people don't need logic to believe in God, and I do think truth may be found without logic, but I am convinced it will still be logical--perhaps logical based on higher truths than mankind has discovered.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kangirl View Post
    Some need logic to believe and therefore don't.
    The reason I spent so much time on darwinism was because I think many people conclude that darwinism has answered questions that it hasn't. And from that faulty premise, they logically conclude that there is no God.

  5. #205
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Erudur View Post
    So, to go back to your statement above. As I ponder God, I use logic to form conjectures, but I am at a loss for proof. Though I also agree with you that many people don't need logic to believe in God, and I do think truth may be found without logic, but I am convinced it will still be logical--perhaps logical based on higher truths than mankind has discovered.

    The reason I spent so much time on darwinism was because I think many people conclude that darwinism has answered questions that it hasn't. And from that faulty premise, they logically conclude that there is no God.
    The only thing you've done since joining this discussion is reiterate over and over the same argument from incredulity. Your argument, as clearly demonstrated by the above comments boils down to:

    - I've thought a lot about God!
    - I've also thought a tad about alternative theories.
    - These alternative theories were unable to convince me that God does not exist.
    - Therefore, God exists.

    It's called burden of proof. You seem convinced that people who ascribe to the theory of evolution operate under the following logic:

    - The theory of evolution explains a few things!
    - Therefore, evolution is absolutely the answer and God does not exist.

    This is erroneous.

    First of all, evolutionary theory does not explain or attempt to explain how life came into being. It explains how, once life has come into being, adaptations to the environment and competition from other living things leads to the evolution of a variety of species variously suited to a variety of ecological niches.

    All of your attacks on evolutionary theory are irrelevant to the question of how life came into being.

    Secondly, my logic, and the logic of people similar to me is such:

    - Life came into existence.
    - The exact manner in which life arose from chemicals is presently unknown, but evidence is mounting in favor of a variety of rational theories.
    - There is presently no evidence in favor of the "God did it" theory. (And yes, it is only a theory.)
    - I will therefore withhold ultimate judgment while building my world view on the basis of theories for which there is some degree of evidence, as these theories are, presently, the best that we have.

    It baffles me the way believers have such difficulty grasping the notion of building one's beliefs up from the ground on the basis of evidence rather than entering into the fray with some set idea that will be ascribed to until anything can prove it wrong. (Which, as the classic "mermaid / dragon / invisible pink unicorn" comparisons demonstrate, is impossible.)

    Also, quit picking on EcK. He's basically this message board's living straw man.
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  6. #206
    Senior Member Erudur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    190

    Default

    I'm okay with that.

    A bit into this I realized I was overreacting to EcK. I'm leaving him alone now.

    Your second to last paragraph isn't really a fair assessment of "believers." But hey, to each his own.

    Have you never had experiences that defy western rational explanation? A couple of those will mix things up for you a bit.

  7. #207
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Erudur View Post
    Have you never had experiences that defy western rational explanation? A couple of those will mix things up for you a bit.
    Ration is ration, regardless of the area of the globe you hail from.
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  8. #208
    The Memes Justify the End EcK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    738
    Socionics
    ILE None
    Posts
    7,265

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Erudur View Post
    For instance, I believe it is logical to conclude that since I think, love, hate, remember, enjoy, desire friendships, make decisions that benefit others to my own expense, etc; that I was created by one with a greater capacity to do these same things.
    You mean like a fast car being created by an even fastest car ?
    Even applied to life, this idea would kind of tell us evolution isn't of much importance, since there's no 'emergence of new traits' but only degenerescence of a set of qualities. Man should probably have appeared a billion years ago then and then devolve into unicellular creatures. Oh wait, we have evidences of the opposite!
    You can whine as much as you want, I'm just using your own logic.

    Thanks for opening my eyes... by the way :rolli:

    And I won't even start commenting on your subjectivity. Especially when all of the above feelings and desires can be explained by a gradual and adaptive evolution rather than some kind of 'creative leap'. That is, as you said yourself, like trying to jump to the moon.

    Here, see, I'm using simple examples to explain complex concepts too.
    Expression of the post modern paradox : "For the love of god, religions are so full of shit"

    Theory is always superseded by Fact...
    ... In theory.

    “I’d hate to die twice. It’s so boring.”
    Richard Feynman's last recorded words

    "Great is the human who has not lost his childlike heart."
    Mencius (Meng-Tse), 4th century BCE

  9. #209
    Senior Member Darjur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    493

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Erudur View Post
    1# I would distinguish between logic and proof. Something can be logical but unproven, and I guess something can be logical but untrue (if, for instance, an underlying premise is false). I believe my perspectives on God are logical yet conjectural.

    2# For instance, I believe it is logical to conclude that since I think, love, hate, remember, enjoy, desire friendships, make decisions that benefit others to my own expense, etc; that I was created by one with a greater capacity to do these same things. 3# But I don't see how I could set up a way to test this hypothesis and therefore prove it. I also don't see how one could set up a test to disprove this hypothesis.

    4#
    So, to go back to your statement above. As I ponder God, I use logic to form conjectures, but I am at a loss for proof. Though I also agree with you that many people don't need logic to believe in God, and I do think truth may be found without logic, but I am convinced it will still be logical--perhaps logical based on higher truths than mankind has discovered.

    5# The reason I spent so much time on darwinism was because I think many people conclude that darwinism has answered questions that it hasn't. And from that faulty premise, they logically conclude that there is no God.
    1# If something can not be proved, then it is not logical.

    2# What you described is not logical. There is no connection presented between the Effect and the Cause. What you wrote here is basically "There's A, B and C, so D caused it." This is not logic, this is a leap of logic.

    3# Of course you can't. You don't even have a stable hypothesis. That is also why you can't disprove it, because there is simply nothing to disprove.

    4# This is not a logical conjecture. This, is an assumption. An assumption is a belief based in the absence of proof. Logic itself cannot exist without proof, it can interact with proof in various forms and ways, but it inherently cannot exist without it.

    5# I forsake god before I even knew what evolution was. As a matter of fact I never believed in a need for god.

    And as to the article you pointed, I'd have to say that It's a shitty one.

    All it really says is that there are some people who disagree about the importance of natural selection. The article only answer to the question "What?". There are no answers presented as to "Why?" or "How?". It's a failure of an article, in itself it's useless.

  10. #210
    Senior Member Erudur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darjur View Post
    1# If something can not be proved, then it is not logical.
    Then if you believe that matter has always existed you believe something illogical, because that "assumption (or conjecture)*" cannot be proven.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darjur View Post
    2# What you described is not logical. There is no connection presented between the Effect and the Cause. What you wrote here is basically "There's A, B and C, so D caused it." This is not logic, this is a leap of logic.
    It is certainly not a rigorous proof, but it is not a fallacy either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darjur View Post
    3# Of course you can't. You don't even have a stable hypothesis. That is also why you can't disprove it, because there is simply nothing to disprove.
    Stable or unstable is your subjective evaluation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Darjur View Post
    4# This is not a logical conjecture. This, is an assumption. An assumption is a belief based in the absence of proof. Logic itself cannot exist without proof, it can interact with proof in various forms and ways, but it inherently cannot exist without it.
    *Look up the definition of conjecture. You're playing a semantics game.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darjur View Post
    5# I forsake god before I even knew what evolution was. As a matter of fact I never believed in a need for god.
    That's fine, but according to your comment #1 that is an illogical conclusion. (I disagree with your comment #1 btw, therefore I don't brand your misguided conjecture as illogical).

    --I'm being tongue in cheek with my own subjective use of "misguided."

    Quote Originally Posted by Darjur View Post
    And as to the article you pointed, I'd have to say that It's a shitty one.

    All it really says is that there are some people who disagree about the importance of natural selection. The article only answer to the question "What?". There are no answers presented as to "Why?" or "How?". It's a failure of an article, in itself it's useless.
    Exactly. Here are a bunch of guys considered by the article writer as experts in the field of biology. They are rejecting at least parts of darwinism and struggling to find some replacement or new version of it. It makes my point perfectly, and you nicely summarized it. i.e. "your guys" are just as confounded as "my guys" in explaining life.

    *conjecture definition | Dictionary.com

Similar Threads

  1. [NT] NTs and time
    By Natrushka in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 01-25-2010, 02:56 PM
  2. [NT] NTs and controlling thoughts
    By Varelse in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-08-2007, 02:10 PM
  3. [NT] Berens' comments on NTs and conflict
    By rivercrow in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 07-13-2007, 05:05 PM
  4. [NT] NTs and Concentration
    By Varelse in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-23-2007, 01:17 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