• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[NT] NTs and God

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
This demonstrates the "exists until proven otherwise" thinking that is inherently erroneous. Again, Invisible Pink Unicorns.
Darjur said:
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.
 

Darjur

New member
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
493
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5
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.
 

Erudur

New member
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
190
MBTI Type
INTJ
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.
 

Darjur

New member
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
493
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5
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.
 

Mycroft

The elder Holmes
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
1,068
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
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:

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.
 

Erudur

New member
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
190
MBTI Type
INTJ
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.
 

Erudur

New member
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
190
MBTI Type
INTJ
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.
 

Mycroft

The elder Holmes
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
1,068
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
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.
 

Erudur

New member
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
190
MBTI Type
INTJ
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.
 

Anja

New member
Joined
May 2, 2008
Messages
2,967
MBTI Type
INFP
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. ;)
 

Mycroft

The elder Holmes
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
1,068
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
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.

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.
 

Anja

New member
Joined
May 2, 2008
Messages
2,967
MBTI Type
INFP
In line with my point. EVERYBODY knows unicorns don't exist.
 

Erudur

New member
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
190
MBTI Type
INTJ
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.
 

Mycroft

The elder Holmes
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
1,068
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
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.
 

Darjur

New member
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
493
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5
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.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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.

Mycroft said:
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.
 

Kangirl

I'm a star.
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
1,470
MBTI Type
ENTJ
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.
 

Mycroft

The elder Holmes
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
1,068
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
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.
 
Top