User Tag List

First 13212223242533 Last

Results 221 to 230 of 505

Thread: NTs and God

  1. #221
    ⒺⓉⒷ 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
    This demonstrates the "exists until proven otherwise" thinking that is inherently erroneous. Again, Invisible Pink Unicorns.
    Quote Originally Posted by Darjur
    4# Until something is proven, the default position is skepticism. One does not logically believe in something he has no proof for.
    In this case, the possibilities of "exists" and "not exists" would be two choices that we do not have absolute proof for.

    The skeptics always throw up some analogy, such as pink unicorns, or the "Flying Spaghetti Monster". But these were obviously things people imagined; and notice, they all use distorted earthly images (animals, manmade food, etc.)

    God, in the basic generic definition, is the intelligence that created the universe. We may not have ultimate proof for various aspects of this entity, and people may have added all sorts of fanciful notions like the ones you use (an old man sitting in a chair, etc); but once those are removed; the concept of a God is nothing like unicorns. It is a description of a definite role in the cosmos, and not random images of earthly manmade things thrown together.
    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

  2. #222
    Senior Member Darjur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    493

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    In this case, the possibilities of "exists" and "not exists" would be two choices that we do not have absolute proof for.

    The skeptics always throw up some analogy, such as pink unicorns, or the "Flying Spaghetti Monster". But these were obviously things people imagined; and notice, they all use distorted earthly images (animals, manmade food, etc.)

    God, in the basic generic definition, is the intelligence that created the universe. We may not have ultimate proof for various aspects of this entity, and people may have added all sorts of fanciful notions like the ones you use (an old man sitting in a chair, etc); but once those are removed; the concept of a God is nothing like unicorns. It is a description of a definite role in the cosmos, and not random images of earthly manmade things thrown together.
    God in itself is highly subjective. To a Catholic it's one thing, to a Sunni - another and it changes with how many cultures you go around with fuck that, it changes from individual to individual. There is no basic generic definition of God. Each fucking culture has their own basic generic definition for a god.

    For me, someone who comes from a predominately Balto-pagonic/a fucking weird form of Catholicism that's still basically paganism renamed into Catholicism and has Jesus randomly being throughn in for a reason no understands/agnostic society. Your basic generic definition of god sounds like utter bullshit on the same level as unicorns and the flying spaghetti monster.

    Do not presume that your opposition shares your views on the subject when making an argument. I know I myself let this slip quite a lot, but by trying to defend god you guys make this error nearly constantly.



    Oh and yes. It's two choices. Choice A - Subject C exists, an option for which we have absolutely no proof of. Choice B - Subject C doesn't exist, we don't have absolutely any proof here either.

    Something tells me that anyone with an idea of common sense would take choice B until proven that choice A is better. Guess what? It still isn't.

  3. #223
    Senior Member Erudur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kangirl View Post
    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've thought about different ways to answer this, and I apologize in advance, but I can only think of answering it with a question:

    Can you say that there is no logical reason to believe that the world came about by strictly naturalistic means, but you have faith that it came about that way anyway?

    I would also add that there is nothing that you or anybody else has posted that indicates a logical reason to disbelieve in god (by that I mean a creator of the world).


    Darjur you are still misusing the term "fallacy" and if you think you have a mathematical proof for your cosmology, go ahead and roll it out so we can shred it up.

    And actually Einstein sent a fax to Dwight via "future" Dwight, and it said that Einstein was the one who kicked your ass.

  4. #224
    Senior Member Darjur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    493

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Erudur View Post
    Can you say that there is no logical reason to believe that the world came about by strictly naturalistic means, but you have faith that it came about that way anyway?

    I would also add that there is nothing that you or anybody else has posted that indicates a logical reason to disbelieve in god (by that I mean a creator of the world).


    Darjur you are still misusing the term "fallacy" and if you think you have a mathematical proof for your cosmology, go ahead and roll it out so we can shred it up.

    And actually Einstein sent a fax to Dwight via "future" Dwight, and it said that Einstein was the one who kicked your ass.
    Why so? We have theories and methods that predict the mechanics of the universe. That kind of ups the credibility for a naturalistic view point on the world in contrast to a fuck ton of religious theories that have what? A few old fairy tales to confirm them.

    Okay, let me rephrase. That's a logical error happy now?

    I can't answer that, because I don't really give a shit on how the universe got started because it doesn't fucking change anything. If you want me to spew out any scientific theory that I consider to be probable, I guess I could say M/string-theories explanation. I guess you can go and refute that if you so keen on my views on cosmology.

    If you want my general views on cosmology, I believe dark matter, dark energy, expansion of the space-time fabric... ect.

    Sorry, but I went to kick Einstein in the butt before his death hour, because he couldn't fight back at that point.

  5. #225
    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
    In this case, the possibilities of "exists" and "not exists" would be two choices that we do not have absolute proof for.

    The skeptics always throw up some analogy, such as pink unicorns, or the "Flying Spaghetti Monster". But these were obviously things people imagined; and notice, they all use distorted earthly images (animals, manmade food, etc.)

    God, in the basic generic definition, is the intelligence that created the universe. We may not have ultimate proof for various aspects of this entity, and people may have added all sorts of fanciful notions like the ones you use (an old man sitting in a chair, etc); but once those are removed; the concept of a God is nothing like unicorns. It is a description of a definite role in the cosmos, and not random images of earthly manmade things thrown together.
    The notion that because there are two options the odds of either being true is 50% is fallacious. There is, presently, no evidence in favor of the "God did it" theory. There is, on the other hand, evidence in favor of competing theories.

    As for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc., the point is that there is as much objective evidence in favor of this product of man's mind as there is in favor of the Christian God, Shiva, Zeus, even the featureless variation you propose: none.

    Does this mean that a deity of some sort absolutely, positively has been proven false and cannot possibly exist? No. What it means is that there is no evidence in favor of it. Conversely, the evidence for competing theories mounts with each passing day.

    People who very much want to believe in a deity are able for the simple fact that it isn't completely, 100% out of the question. However, the extent to which a man's beliefs are built on the basis of what he wants to believe simply because there is no conclusive evidence against it, rather than on the basis of that for which there is evidence -- his beliefs are, by definition, irrational. His premise is not based on verifiable fact.

    However, as evidenced by the following repetition of a basic logical fallacy which I have repeatedly pointed out:

    Quote Originally Posted by Erudur View Post
    I would also add that there is nothing that you or anybody else has posted that indicates a logical reason to disbelieve in god (by that I mean a creator of the world).
    ...this simply does not sink in with some people.
    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. #226
    Senior Member Erudur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    The notion that because there are two options the odds of either being true is 50% is fallacious. There is, presently, no evidence in favor of the "God did it" theory. There is, on the other hand, evidence in favor of competing theories.

    As for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc., the point is that there is as much objective evidence in favor of this product of man's mind as there is in favor of the Christian God, Shiva, Zeus, even the featureless variation you propose: none.

    (A)Does this mean that a deity of some sort absolutely, positively has been proven false and cannot possibly exist? No. (B)What it means is that there is no evidence in favor of it. Conversely, the evidence for competing theories mounts with each passing day.

    People who very much want to believe in a deity are able for the simple fact that it isn't completely, 100% out of the question. However, the extent to which a man's beliefs are built on the basis of what he wants to believe simply because there is no conclusive evidence against it, rather than on the basis of that for which there is evidence -- his beliefs are, by definition, irrational. They are not based on objective fact.

    However, as evidenced by the following repetition of a basic logical fallacy which I have repeatedly pointed out:



    ...this simply does not sink in with some people.
    Mycroft, while thankfully you do understand the correct use of the term fallacy, you have a tendency to create straw men fallacies (your 50% contention, your "boils down to" summary of my comments, and others), and you have an arrogance that blinds you.

    In this space I originally presented some evidence for the "God did it" discussion, but forget it. I'm putting the ball in your court first.

    I have no problem if you don't find the evidence compelling. I do have a problem with smug statements like the bolded statements above.

    Oh, and by way of education, you provide a good example of a fallacy -- B may not be deduced from A.

    You could have said, "(A) A deity cannot be proven to exist. (B) Because I see no evidence in favor of the existence of a diety, I don't believe there is one." That would be logical inductive reasoning, that I happen to disagree with.

    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 I see no evidence in favor of the "God did it" theory [by that you mean you don't find any evidence compelling]. (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.
    There is a summary of your cosmology using logical (as corrected) inductive reasoning. Very nice. Except for the bullshit (below).

    Mycroft, I am calling you out as cowardly and disingenuous. You are very careful to remain vague about your own beliefs, while you manufacture an air of objectivity ("withold judgment" my ass). I also suspect that you share the same irrationality you accuse those "believers" of (oh, the disdain) by "wanting" to believe there is no god.

    Name, with specificity some of the "rational theories" you think have mounting evidence. Let's take a look at them. I am really curious to know how closely you have looked at them.

  7. #227
    Senior Member Erudur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darjur View Post
    If you want my general views on cosmology, I believe dark matter, dark energy, expansion of the space-time fabric... ect.
    Those aren't really cosmologies. I suppose they are used to inform one's cosmology -- but they can also be used to inform competing cosmologies. You other statements indicate that you haven't really worked out a cosmology because you don't care about it.

    So there's not much else to say except:

    Actually Einstein said he didn't even bother to kick your ass personally, he sent Niels Bohr to do it for him. He didn't think the fight would be fair if he did it himself. Afterward he realized sending Niels wasn't fair either.

  8. #228
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Erudur, the links you've posted simply demonstrate that certain features of evolutionary theory are under scrutiny and debate. As mentioned, this is irrelevant to the question of how life came into being.

    If you do happen to be in possession of empirical evidence in the favor of the existence of a deity, both myself and all those of an inquiring mind would be extremely interested in seeing it. I am not being sarcastic or facetious.

    As for the present theories on the initial formation of life, you can use Google and Wikipedia just as well as I can.
    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 --

  9. #229
    Senior Member Erudur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    Erudur, the links you've posted simply demonstrate that certain features of evolutionary theory are under scrutiny and debate. As mentioned, this is irrelevant to the question of how life came into being.

    If you do happen to be in possession of empirical evidence in the favor of the existence of a deity, both myself and all those of an inquiring mind would be extremely interested in seeing it. I am not being sarcastic or facetious.

    As for the present theories on the initial formation of life, you can use Google and Wikipedia just as well as I can.
    ID presents empirical arguments, and not all of them are negative arguments. Design, or directed processes versus non-directed processes can be evaluated and quantified. Those characteristics may then be used to evaluate aspects of the universe we do not yet know to be the product of directed or non-directed processes. Using them to suggest that, for example, the simplest stages of organic life are the product of a directed process is rational and useful for informing one's cosmology.

    But you know, you did it again. You keep mum, and ask me to present information that you can criticize. If you choose to do so, go out on your own limb first. Then we can come back to this if you like.

  10. #230
    Senior Member Anja's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    2,967

    Default

    My opinion? Anyone who spends an inordinate amount of time fussing about something he doesn't believe in has a puzzling connection to that nonthing.

    How many people write volumes about why unicorns don't exist? Read volumes to support their argument? Post volumes to prove it to others? Get testy about it?

    I find a simple shrug more convincing.

    Sumpin goin' on there. Dunno what, but sumpin.
    "No ray of sunshine is ever lost, but the green which it awakes into existence needs time to sprout, and it is not always granted to the sower to see the harvest. All work that is worth anything is done in faith." - Albert Schweitzer

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