User Tag List

First 14222324252634 Last

Results 231 to 240 of 505

Thread: NTs and God

  1. #231
    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
    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.
    Arguments are not evidence.

    And you are correct, to a fashion: I don't bother presenting specific theories (my own included) because it's apparent that you would simply look for holes in these theories, claiming victory by default.

    Again and again you fall back upon the same fallacy: your theory (that God exists) is true until proven otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anja View Post
    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?
    If wars were being fought over which version of unicorns to believe in and people were flying airplanes into buildings in the name of unicorns, you can bet there would be a good number of books on the subject.
    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 --

  2. #232
    Senior Member Anja's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    2,967

    Default

    In line with my point. EVERYBODY knows unicorns don't exist.
    "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

  3. #233
    Habitual Fi LineStepper JocktheMotie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anja View Post
    In line with my point. EVERYBODY knows unicorns don't exist.
    WHAT!?



  4. #234
    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 Anja View Post
    In line with my point. EVERYBODY knows unicorns don't exist.
    Bull!:steam:
    Prove it!!! (Ah aah)
    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

  5. #235
    Senior Member Erudur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    Arguments are not evidence.

    And you are correct, to a fashion: I don't bother presenting specific theories (my own included) because it's apparent that you would simply look for holes in these theories, claiming victory by default.

    Again and again you fall back upon the same fallacy: your theory (that God exists) is true until proven otherwise.
    ID theory presents evidence. The arguments follow the evidence.

    Please stop with the straw men. I am not saying my theory, by this default is true. I have said different things to different posters on this thread. What I am saying to you, is that your cosmology (as best I can guess it) is no more rational than mine. And you are no more building your cosmology up from the ground than I am. In this particular debate, your own biases have caused you to dismiss ID as baseless, without empirical evidence.

    Like I said before, I respect your prerogative to reject the theory because you don't find it compelling. But you want to reject it as baseless. You want to reject it as equivalent to unicorn theory. That is not a rational evaluation, that is your own irrationality.

  6. #236
    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
    ID theory presents evidence. The arguments follow the evidence.

    Please stop with the straw men. I am not saying my theory, by this default is true. I have said different things to different posters on this thread. What I am saying to you, is that your cosmology (as best I can guess it) is no more rational than mine.

    And you are no more building your cosmology up from the ground than I am. In this particular debate, your own biases have caused you to dismiss ID as baseless, without empirical evidence.

    Like I said before, I respect your prerogative to reject the theory because you don't find it compelling. But you want to reject it as baseless. You want to reject it as equivalent to unicorn theory. That is not a rational evaluation, that is your own irrationality.
    Given the way the religious community goes nuts over any vaguely-qualified talking head who will concede that the story of Noah's Ark is maybe not completely impossible, if scientifically verifiable evidence indicating the existence of a deity had come to light, I should think its existence would have been highly publicized, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, as is always my policy:

    If you can post a link to a study verifying the existence of this evidence and if this evidence is indeed scientifically valid (i.e. verifiable and repeatable), you have my sincere word that I will take it into the utmost consideration.
    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. #237
    Senior Member Darjur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    493

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anja View Post
    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.
    Not really, I just like to argue.

  8. #238
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darjur View Post
    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.
    But that's what I addressed above regarding "all the stuff that man has added to it. The root definition of God is the entity that created the universe. That concept is much different than whatever the Catholics, or some Catholic sect, or any other cultural sect or religion (or mocking skeptics) come up with.
    Erudur used the right word: STRAW MAN. I was even going to add this t the last post, but ran out of time.
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft
    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.
    These "competing theoried" do not explain how it all started; only how it developed after it all started. Yet, what people are doing is assuming that because the theories seem to explain how it developed without any apparent intervention, then it must have started without it as well, so then it seems no further proof is needed to accept B, and we can now deride choice A.
    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

  9. #239
    I'm a star. Kangirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    1,470

    Default

    Anja - nope. I enjoy discussing things, most things, and the God topic is a good one.

    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
    Dude, copout answer! Go on, I dare you to answer the original 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 don't know how the world came about, nor do I have any strong beliefs or faith regarding this topic. In the absence of evidence for 'god' I'll continue to be skeptical about god's possible role in the creation of the universe.

    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).
    I think a complete lack of evidence for a thing is actually a fairly good reason for being at the very least skeptical about said thing.

    Erudur, what *would* you consider logical reasons to be an atheist or an agnostic? Is there literally any argument that you would be moved by?

    Do you know what this thread reminds me of? The run-up to the Iraq war, and the aftermath. Specifically, the WMD. There was that chorus of "PROVE Saddamn doesn't have WMD!" before the war. It feels similiar to what's being posted here, and it's just as erroneous. The burden of proof is on the party making the positive claim. The burden of proof was on the people saying Saddamn had WMD, not on the people questioning it. Just as the burden of proof here is on the theists.
    "Only an irrational dumbass, would burn Jews." - Jaguar

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

  10. #240
    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
    These "competing theories" do not explain how it all started; only how it developed after it all started. Yet, what people are doing is assuming that because the theories seem to explain how it developed without any apparent intervention, then it must have started without it as well, so then it seems no further proof is needed to accept B, and we can now deride choice A.
    I was referring to present theories on how "it started". (A quick search around will allow one to become initiated with present theories on the matter. I may post about it one of these days when I have time.) I wasn't addressing evolution. I believe I've been quite clear in that distinction.
    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 --

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