User Tag List

First 12202122232432 Last

Results 211 to 220 of 505

Thread: NTs and God

  1. #211
    Senior Member Darjur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    493

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Erudur View Post
    1#Then if you believe that matter has always existed you believe something illogical, because that "assumption (or conjecture)*" cannot be proven.

    2# It is certainly not a rigorous proof, but it is not a fallacy either.

    Stable or unstable is your subjective evaluation.

    3# *Look up the definition of conjecture. You're playing a semantics game.

    4# 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).

    5# 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.
    1# I don't believe that.
    But one can prove things in various ways. Mathematics being one of them and most theories concerning our universe have quite a decent mathematical proof behind them. A scientific theory based on nothing does not exist.

    2# Tell me how is that claim you've just written not a leap of logic? It was exactly like that article. You answered to the question "What?" and that is all, what you need to next for it to be complete is to answer to the questions "How? and "Why?". As a hypothesis, it is full of fallacies.

    3# This is why I disagree. An assumption or a conjecture cannot be logical. Because there is no proof.

    4# Actually, it is completely logical. The natural state is skepticism. To add something to an equation, you need proof for it to be there.

    5# I don't see any problem whatsoever with what has been said in the article. What was said is that the theory of evolution needs a little revision. That is all. There were no mention of the theory being fundamentally flawed or anything like that, all that was said is that the amount of importance on certain aspects of it need to be changed. This is nothing new, this shit happens every week in the scientific arena. Hell the theory of evolution itself has gone through a lot of changes already in the past 100 years, this is nothing new or shocking.

    P.S.

    In the scientific arena, no one gives a shit who you are. If there is no proof presented with a theory or a hypothesis behind it. You can go fuck yourself. Your degree says only minimal things about your credibility.

    The fact that someone has a Hab. Doctorate in something or something equal to that does not mean shit. They can be as wrong as anyone else. Hell, Einstein himself was fundamentally wrong in a lot of his views, even thought he himself is written in the history books as one of the greatest scientist to exist.

  2. #212
    I'm a star. Kangirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    1,470

    Default

    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.
    It doesn't matter if you *believe* this is logical. It isn't. And not because I don't believe it isn't, but because it. isn't. That's the great thing about logic - personal belief has f*ck all to do with it.

    - 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.
    Yeah, this.
    "Only an irrational dumbass, would burn Jews." - Jaguar

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

  3. #213
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    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.)
    But what often happens in this issue is that the evolution side takes the lack of evidence for God as making it a safe bet to conclude that he is just a "delusion" as people like Dawkins call it. They then criticize the so-called "God of the gaps" tactic and include the issue of origins as one of these "gaps" like others that were once explained as supernatural, but then shown to be natural. So they overgeneralize, that because these other gaps were "filled", then ALL gaps, including original of life and the universe will be also, so God can now safely be dismissed as false. That's no longer going on evidence; it's jumping to a conclusion based on speculation of future discoveries; which is itself unprovable. You might not do this, but many others you can read today, do.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  4. #214
    Senior Member Darjur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    493

    Default

    Fuck it, wrong topic again.

  5. #215
    Senior Member Erudur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darjur View Post
    1# I don't believe that.
    But one can prove things in various ways. Mathematics being one of them and most theories concerning our universe have quite a decent mathematical proof behind them. A scientific theory based on nothing does not exist.

    2# Tell me how is that claim you've just written not a leap of logic? It was exactly like that article. You answered to the question "What?" and that is all, what you need to next for it to be complete is to answer to the questions "How? and "Why?". As a hypothesis, it is full of fallacies.

    3# This is why I disagree. An assumption or a conjecture cannot be logical. Because there is no proof.

    4# Actually, it is completely logical. The natural state is skepticism. To add something to an equation, you need proof for it to be there.

    5# I don't see any problem whatsoever with what has been said in the article. What was said is that the theory of evolution needs a little revision. That is all. There were no mention of the theory being fundamentally flawed or anything like that, all that was said is that the amount of importance on certain aspects of it need to be changed. This is nothing new, this shit happens every week in the scientific arena. Hell the theory of evolution itself has gone through a lot of changes already in the past 100 years, this is nothing new or shocking.
    #1 - my point is that whatever your cosmological view is, there is an underlying assumption that cannot be proven. Therefore, by your definition, your underlying position is illogical. Go ahead and go out on a limb and articulate your basic cosmological view and I'll respond directly to it.

    #2 - it is inductive reasoning and contains leaps. but that is different than an illogical statement or a fallacy. You seem to be confusing inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning) with fallacy. It is a hypothesis that is unproven.

    Given A as an established truth, there may be a truth outlined as A>B>C>D>E>F. If A is true and I am able to identify B,C,D and E, then I can deduce F. But I may be able to stumble upon F through inductive reasoning even if I only discover C. i.e. I see A and C and conjecture that F is true. Now it may also be that I inductively conclude G. In that case one could show G to be a fallacy by deducing A,B,C,D,E and F.

    All of these fall apart if A is false, both the deductive conclusion and the inductive conclusion.

    #3 - see #2. btw, you can verify definitions on dictionary.com or wikipedia. it would help if you'd take the time to understand the terms you are using before you use them. "conjecture" and "assumption" are interchangeable terms the way you are using them.

    #4 - I agree that, as stated, it may be logical, but it may not be true. But if I apply your misconception of logicality/illogicality this would have the same level of fallacy as my statement was because like my statement it contains logical leaps.

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

    This may be true, but it may also be true that God exists, and further, that you need God. You made the logical leap that God does not exist, and that you do not need him. You've been cagey with what you do believe, but presumably, in some way or form, you believe that the world as we know it came about without God, or has always been this way. That belief is a logical leap, and yet still may or may not be true.

    #5 - your take on the article is severely clouded by your own bias or your lack of understanding. These statements about the shortcomings of darwinism are huge and significantly erode some longstanding orthodoxies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darjur View Post
    P.S.

    In the scientific arena, no one gives a shit who you are. If there is no proof presented with a theory or a hypothesis behind it. You can go fuck yourself. Your degree says only minimal things about your credibility.

    The fact that someone has a Hab. Doctorate in something or something equal to that does not mean shit. They can be as wrong as anyone else. Hell, Einstein himself was fundamentally wrong in a lot of his views, even thought he himself is written in the history books as one of the greatest scientist to exist.
    Aww, now you're just trying to flatter me.

    And based on your brilliant discourse so far, I am sure you are just the guy to straighten out ol' Einstein aren't cha.

  6. #216
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    But what often happens in this issue is that the evolution side takes the lack of evidence for God as making it a safe bet to conclude that he is just a "delusion" as people like Dawkins call it. They then criticize the so-called "God of the gaps" tactic and include the issue of origins as one of these "gaps" like others that were once explained as supernatural, but then shown to be natural. So they overgeneralize, that because these other gaps were "filled", then ALL gaps, including original of life and the universe will be also, so God can now safely be dismissed as false. That's no longer going on evidence; it's jumping to a conclusion based on speculation of future discoveries; which is itself unprovable. You might not do this, but many others you can read today, do.
    This demonstrates the "exists until proven otherwise" thinking that is inherently erroneous. Again, Invisible Pink Unicorns.
    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 --

  7. #217
    Senior Member Nonsensical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4
    Posts
    4,010

    Default

    In general, NTs belief in things that they can conceptually reason out in their head..with logic. NFs are more prone to 'just understand' things, even if they are very far-fetched out of reason. I still think that some NTs believe, or can believe in God. Hell..no one knows if there is a god or not. Some people 'just know', and others need proof until they can believe of his existence.
    Is it that by its indefiniteness it shadows forth the heartless voids and immensities of the universe, and thus stabs us from behind with the thought of annihilation, when beholding the white depths of the milky way?

  8. #218
    The Memes Justify the End EcK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    738
    Socionics
    ILE None
    Posts
    7,262

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OneWithSoul View Post
    In general, NTs belief in things that they can conceptually reason out in their head..with logic. NFs are more prone to 'just understand' things, even if they are very far-fetched out of reason. I still think that some NTs believe, or can believe in God. Hell..no one knows if there is a god or not. Some people 'just know', and others need proof until they can believe of his existence.
    when talking about factual data such as the existence of a god and telling you 'just know', by definition, you don't.

    just sayin'
    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. #219
    Senior Member Darjur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    493

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Erudur View Post
    #1 - my point is that whatever your cosmological view is, there is an underlying assumption that cannot be proven. Therefore, by your definition, your underlying position is illogical. Go ahead and go out on a limb and articulate your basic cosmological view and I'll respond directly to it.

    #2 - it is inductive reasoning and contains leaps. but that is different than an illogical statement or a fallacy. You seem to be confusing inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning) with fallacy. It is a hypothesis that is unproven.

    Given A as an established truth, there may be a truth outlined as A>B>C>D>E>F. If A is true and I am able to identify B,C,D and E, then I can deduce F. But I may be able to stumble upon F through inductive reasoning even if I only discover C. i.e. I see A and C and conjecture that F is true. Now it may also be that I inductively conclude G. In that case one could show G to be a fallacy by deducing A,B,C,D,E and F.

    All of these fall apart if A is false, both the deductive conclusion and the inductive conclusion.

    #3 - see #2. btw, you can verify definitions on dictionary.com or wikipedia. it would help if you'd take the time to understand the terms you are using before you use them. "conjecture" and "assumption" are interchangeable terms the way you are using them.

    #4 - I agree that, as stated, it may be logical, but it may not be true. But if I apply your misconception of logicality/illogicality this would have the same level of fallacy as my statement was because like my statement it contains logical leaps.

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

    This may be true, but it may also be true that God exists, and further, that you need God. You made the logical leap that God does not exist, and that you do not need him. You've been cagey with what you do believe, but presumably, in some way or form, you believe that the world as we know it came about without God, or has always been this way. That belief is a logical leap, and yet still may or may not be true.

    #5 - your take on the article is severely clouded by your own bias or your lack of understanding. These statements about the shortcomings of darwinism are huge and significantly erode some longstanding orthodoxies.



    6# Aww, now you're just trying to flatter me.

    And based on your brilliant discourse so far, I am sure you are just the guy to straighten out ol' Einstein aren't cha.
    1# As I said. There are various ways of proving something.Going back in time and filming the whole ordeal is not the only way to present proof. Mathematical proof as an example can be easily used in these cases.

    2# It is not a stable hypothesis precisely because it is incomplete. In an argument, this is a fucking logical fallacy, it can be used as a prime example for the term "non sequitor".

    Quote Originally Posted by Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    An inductive logic is a system of reasoning that extends deductive logic to less-than-certain inferences. In a valid deductive argument the premises logically entail the conclusion, where such entailment means that the truth of the premises provides a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion. Similarly, in a good inductive argument the premises should provide some degree of support for the conclusion, where such support means that the truth of the premises indicates with some degree of strength that the conclusion is true.
    What you have is just "A, thus B". That is a fucking logical fallacy.

    3# Sorry but arguing in my third foreign language is a bit hard as it is without the extra vocabulary definitions to keep track off. And I really couldn't give a shit about the differences between assumption and conjecture.

    4# Until something is proven, the default position is skepticism. One does not logically believe in something he has no proof for.

    This gentlemen Mycroft sums it up:
    This demonstrates the "exists until proven otherwise" thinking that is inherently erroneous. Again, Invisible Pink Unicorns.
    Do you logically conclude that on gods side there were 72 masturbating T-rexes helping him out? No you do not, why? Because you have no fucking need to believe in any of the T-rexes.

    Just the absolute same is with me. I just have no fucking need to believe in either the T-rexes or a god.

    Why? Because there is no bloody rigid proof which would show me the need for a supreme being of any fucking kind.

    5# Your view on the article is as severely biased as is mine. It's just biased in the opposite direction. You are looking for stuff to nit-pick about evolution and I am waiting for a research paper that both answers to what is wrong with evolution, why is it wrong and what is the proposed solution to fix the problem. I do not see that in that article which in turn means that this article has absolutely no worth to me and that I am disappointed to have wasted my time reading it. In all actuality, it can't be even fucking used as a point in this argument.

    It does not tell anything of value. What we have here is just a speculation, nothing more. I have no knowledge to what this research will lead to, but its existence is worthless at this point in time.

    6# Sorry, but I wasn't referring to you. You have yet to bring any solid material.

    Yes and as a matter of fact I just broke the Space-Time fabric went back to the past and lodged my foot into Einsteins rectum for being wrong.

  10. #220
    I'm a star. Kangirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    1,470

    Default

    Gah! Darjur, you leave the masturbating T-Rexes out of this! They *definitely* exist and are doing god's work!

    Erudur - why can't you just say that no, there is no logical reason to believe in god, but you have faith anyway? That would be acceptable. But people are right in pointing out that nothing you've posted indicates a logical reason to believe in god.

    I think most people in this thread would concede that Darwinism as it stands *may* be flawed (not a strange occurence in the history of scientific theories!). That's fine. But it doesn't necessitate belief.
    "Only an irrational dumbass, would burn Jews." - Jaguar

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

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