ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Sat Jun 06, 2020 1:14 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 84 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 02, 2002 7:13 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3236
Location: Allentown, PA
Did I sound like I was trying to prove his existence? Gee, I'm sorry, I couldn't care less. I couldn't care. You cannot prove it either way, so I'm saying why are you trying to disprove it when it's impossible to do either?

(Who cares if God exists or not? That's a personal choice, not a scientific one to be argued over with proof. Both sides will paint themselves into a corner at some point. I choose to believe he does, because I've seen proof of his existence in my life. I can't force anyone else into my opinion, nor am I trying to.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 02, 2002 7:18 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3446
Location: New York
Quote:
On 2002-11-02 18:13, Kitsune1527 wrote:
Did I sound like I was trying to prove his existence? Gee, I'm sorry, I couldn't care less. I couldn't care. You cannot prove it either way, so I'm saying why are you trying to disprove it when it's impossible to do either?

(Who cares if God exists or not? That's a personal choice, not a scientific one to be argued over with proof. Both sides will paint themselves into a corner at some point. I choose to believe he does, because I've seen proof of his existence in my life. I can't force anyone else into my opinion, nor am I trying to.)


If there's no sufficient reason to believe in the existence of something, then we assume it doesn't exist. At least, we do in all areas except religion, where magically the rules of logic don't apply for some reason.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 02, 2002 7:24 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3236
Location: Allentown, PA
If it cannot be disproven, it can exist. Besides . . . gah . . .

Euclidian geometry, you idiot.

They've managed to prove that the Fifth Postulate (if line l and point p, there is only one line thrugh point p parallel to l) is untrue, but it doesn't change the fact that the entire mathematical universe requires that Postulate to be true . . . and they had to create a completely aberrant form of geometry to do so.

_________________
I'm too damn pretty to die.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 02, 2002 7:29 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 458
Our mathematical models are just a system that appears to match up with what we see in the real world. Since true knowlege of reality is impossible because of our lack of omniscence and omnipotence, we are forced to make these models that appear to roughly coorespond with what we see. Without defining the basis of a model and setting it in stone, it is impossible to conclude anything.

_________________
All power corrupts. Absolute power is even more fun!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 02, 2002 7:30 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3446
Location: New York
Quote:
On 2002-11-02 18:24, Kitsune1527 wrote:
If it cannot be disproven, it can exist. Besides . . . gah . . .

Euclidian geometry, you idiot.

They've managed to prove that the Fifth Postulate (if line l and point p, there is only one line thrugh point p parallel to l) is untrue, but it doesn't change the fact that the entire mathematical universe requires that Postulate to be true . . . and they had to create a completely aberrant form of geometry to do so.



If it cannot be disproven, it can exist; true. There is a possibility that several dozen invisible monkeys are in the room with me right now. After all, I can't disprove it, since they're invisible and can't be seen. The point is, there's no real reason for me to believe that they exist. Their existence doesn't solve any problems or answer any questions. God is the same way. His existence wouldn't solve any problems or answer any questions either.

(And before you even try to say that it would solve the problem of where we came from, let me ask you this: where did God come from? "God existed forever" you will respond. Well, why can't we just say that about the universe?)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 02, 2002 8:05 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3236
Location: Allentown, PA
Hmm . . . Two words--Anslem's Proof.

1. God exists in the understanding.
2. God might have existed in reality. (God is a possible being)
3. If something exists only in the understanding and might have existed in reality, then it might have been greater than it is.
4. Suppose God exists only in the understanding.
5. God might have been greater than He is.
6. God is a being than which a greater is possible.
7. The being than which none greater is possible is a being than which a greater is possible.
8. It is false that God exists only in the understanding.
9. God exists in reality as well as in the understanding.

There.

_________________
I'm too damn pretty to die.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 02, 2002 8:40 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3446
Location: New York
Quote:
On 2002-11-02 19:05, Kitsune1527 wrote:
Hmm . . . Two words--Anslem's Proof.

1. God exists in the understanding.
2. God might have existed in reality. (God is a possible being)
3. If something exists only in the understanding and might have existed in reality, then it might have been greater than it is.
4. Suppose God exists only in the understanding.
5. God might have been greater than He is.
6. God is a being than which a greater is possible.
7. The being than which none greater is possible is a being than which a greater is possible.
8. It is false that God exists only in the understanding.
9. God exists in reality as well as in the understanding.

There.



Listen - I've heard every friggin' Medieval bullshit "proof" of God you can come up with, and I've poked holes in every single one. This particular proof simply plays with semantics and also simply assumes that "existing is greater than not existing" without backing it up.

Using this same proof, you could demonstrate that (for example) a perfect island exists.

1. The perfect island exists in the understanding.
2. The perfect island might have existed in reality. (The perfect island is a possible thing)
3. If something exists only in the understanding and might have existed in reality, then it might have been more perfect than it is.
4. Suppose the perfect island exists only in the understanding.
5. The perfect island might have been more perfect than it is.
6. The perfect island is an island than which no more perfect is possible.
7. The island than which none more perfect is possible is an island than which an island more perfect is possible.
8. It is false that a perfect island exists only in the understanding.
9. A perfect island exists in reality as well as in the understanding.

I could use a similar line of argument to "prove" the existence of perfect versions of everything. Kant used this exact same counterproof to show that the Anselm proof is bullshit over two centuries ago. You'd think that by now theists would get the hint and stop using it as a "proof".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 02, 2002 8:47 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1558
Location: Santa Cruz
I hate people that try to prove God's existence by semantics.

Quote:
On 2002-11-02 19:05, Kitsune1527 wrote:
Hmm . . . Two words--Anslem's Proof.

1. God exists in the understanding.


Sure.

Quote:
2. God might have existed in reality. (God is a possible being)


This is where you start running into problems. What is "reality"? If God contains all of reality (as he must, being omnipresent, omniscient, et cetera) then God must exist outside of reality. Therefore, the Christian God does not exist in reality. Therefore, Anslem's Proof is false. But, just for argument's sake, let's take this as a given...

Quote:
3. If something exists only in the understanding and might have existed in reality, then it might have been greater than it is.


This statement makes my brain hurt, but I'll take a shot at it anyway.

The mixed tenses don't work for God. If God might have "been" greater than he is, that presumes that God is a limited being, capable of evolving over time. That's the Tielhard Heresy, famously proposed in the sixteenth century, and rejected by the Church.

Quote:
4. Suppose God exists only in the understanding.


I feel a reductio ad absurdum coming on...

Quote:
5. God might have been greater than He is.

6. God is a being than which a greater is possible.


Interesting idea. Is a God over Gods possible? That is, one with the power over Gods that Gods have over us?

Quote:
7. The being than which none greater is possible is a being than which a greater is possible.


Foul! He never claimed this as a presumption!

Quote:
8. It is false that God exists only in the understanding.
9. God exists in reality as well as in the understanding.


Wrong. All you've 'proven' (leaving aside the problems with premise 2) is that at least one of your initial premises is wrong; taking #7 as a given even though he never stated it, that's the following:

-God exists in the understanding.
-God might have existed.
-Nothing is greater than God.

A Christian might take issue with the first premise, since no one can understand God.

An atheist might take issue with the second premise, claiming that it's impossible for a God to exist.

A polytheist might take issue with the third, citing several gods with varying degrees of power.

Take your pick.

P-M

-><-

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Pyromancer on 2002-11-02 19:48 ]</font>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 02, 2002 8:48 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 676
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Look at yourselves. This point cannot be argued due to a fundamental conflict in the way your minds work: Faith VS Logic. Eventualy you will both hit a brick wall and be forced to agree to disagree. Mark my words.

_________________
And thus, Grey wins. He's creating worthless drama in a totally unrelated thread even after he's been banned. - Emy

We're not mad. We're just argumentative. And we live in a state of fluctuating contempt for everything. - onion, when talking about herself and shoonra, actually describes the whole of kyhm forums.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 02, 2002 8:54 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3142
Location: Detroit
*walks into the room and starts throwing bricks at people*

There now be good! No more proving that god might exist!

-Lifyre


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 02, 2002 8:55 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3236
Location: Allentown, PA
Heheh.

It's so enjoyable watching people run around yelling at me.

Be back later with yet another challenge.

_________________
I'm too damn pretty to die.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 676
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Image

_________________
And thus, Grey wins. He's creating worthless drama in a totally unrelated thread even after he's been banned. - Emy

We're not mad. We're just argumentative. And we live in a state of fluctuating contempt for everything. - onion, when talking about herself and shoonra, actually describes the whole of kyhm forums.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:11 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1558
Location: Santa Cruz
You'll notice that I stay away from this kind of thing when it's a "faith" issue. I don't have faith, I probably never will, and I'm smart enough to keep away from it when it rears its ugly head.

When people start trying to use logic to prove things like the existence of God, however, I feel obligated to step in and point out what an idiotic thing to do that is.

Oh, and Vaergoth... fuck off. If that was a "STOP CRAPPY THREAD", I would accept it; in fact, I'd be inclined to agree. But don't insult my intelligence for getting into a debate.

P-M

-><-

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Pyromancer on 2002-11-02 20:12 ]</font>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:15 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3446
Location: New York
My main problem with the Anselm argument is simply this: You're assuming that existence is greater than nonexistence. How do we know? And how does one define "greatness" anyway?

I'm not going to be on the computer tomorrow or the day after by the way (waaay too much work), so don't be suprised when I don't respond to any of your arguments until Tuesday.

_________________
"There are only 10 types of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't."

<h6>(http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts/frustrations/5aa9/zoom/)</h6>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: IcyMonkey on 2002-11-02 20:17 ]</font>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 02, 2002 10:31 pm 
Offline
<font color=darkred><b>Lorem Ipsum
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3342
Location: ich bin ein Auslander
i know i'm jumping into this whole debate a little late, and it's moved on since this, but i'll start here first.

Quote:
On 2002-10-27 14:56, Kitsune1527 wrote:
Do you think a person can justify a killing by the base of their religion,



in a word, no.

one can only justify killing based on one's own moral beliefs, and by that, i mean "i believe the crime the person getting killed did something morally wrong, and severe enough to warrant death to stop them doing it again, (NOT 'God said he was a bad man')

Quote:
and thus do you believe religion is root of all evil or root of most,


i believe that all too often, religion is the sole source of people's moral beliefs. instead of them asking the questions of what's right and wrong inany given situation. All to often, like the law, religions are forced to make a standpoint on a certain issue, and right or wrong they then have to stick by that statement, unable to consider any mitigating circumstances.

in my opinion, morality should be left out of religion altogether. why the hell ask an organisation that has to deal in absolute to make the decisions YOU should be making YUORSELF?! it's plain lunacy. (oops, i'm ranting...)

Quote:
or do you believe religion has nothing to do with it and it's just caused by serial killers with delusions of granduer looking for an excuse?


continuing from my previous statement, yes. but i'm including holy Wars in that too. fighting a war over God is the stupidest thing Humanity has ever done....and they just won't stop doing it. it's what happens when you assume your religion is morally right.


Quote:
I'm not looking for factual basis here, although it would help. Since EC's Saudi, I'd like to hear his opinion on the whole Quran "jihad" thing.

(I think the second opinion is right. Religion itself offers no support for killing.)


i think i pretty much agreed with you on that point...sorta...it all depends on whether you believe your religion's policies come from god, or are political. i CERTAINLY believe that religion and politics should not mix.

Quote:
I digress though - many stupid people live for others as opposed to living selfishly solely because of religion, and for that we should be grateful. I find it difficult to justify benevolence to anyone if I assume there is no afterlife - I doubt society would have progressed if we all were godless, selfish bastards.


there would be a lot more stupid people who would be stupid assholse were it no0t for the moral absolutes that religion offers in it's tidy package of 'easy answers'

*md stops a mokent to suck on his chuppa chup*

i'd like to believe most intelligent folks quickly work out that assholes are disliked and get treated like assholes, and we all don't need the spiritual honey/stick combination of heaven/hell to'be good'

shit, a lot of stupid people have committed murder in 'holy wars' because they thought it would keep them out of hell.

*mad stops while his tooth hurts a whole helluva lot...stupid shugary chuppa chup...*

Quote:
On 2002-10-28 13:51, Barghest wrote:
Still though it's nice to think that you go somewhere when you die.Oblivion doesn't sound like a nice place to spend eternity.


if you cease to exist, i'm not sure your'e going to notice eternity. like Veritron said, and someone else i think... did you notice the millennia before you existed?

now, the existence and nature of god...this is The Big One...in that it's not.

whether or not god exists is totally irrelevant, as is Heaven and hell. they are nothing more than ideas thought up by fallible humans, so whether a god exists or not, there's no saying any religion has it anywhere near right. that's the thing about religion and spirituality, it's all subjective.

i'll stop now. all these posts by me are merely opinions, and should not be taken as fact, unless the fact is 'this is what mad thinks'

i don't have the answers, but then, who's to say anybody else does. it's the questions that matter.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 02, 2002 10:43 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 709
Location: Ohio
Here is what I think: the very fact that we exist is proof that God exists in one form or another.

There are an Infinite number of variables that must be true for life, let alone intelligent life to develop

Take the mass of an electron: 9.108 X 10 –28 grams

That’s 90 decatillionths of a gram

If this value were any different, atoms would not behave as they do, chemical compounds would behave differently and intelligent life wouldn’t exist.

The odds against the universe forming in the way it did are impossible, you would be working with degrees of infinity

Its more likely for every molecule in your monitor to spontaneously shift one foot to your left simultaneously. Or for energy to spontaneously convert to matter which happens to be a new BMW in your driveway.

It just isn’t going to happen.


So, I feel there must have been some divine guidance involved. Whether you share this belief or not is your concern.


EDIT(Hehe, postcount = 123)

_________________
*Proudly displays DNI stamp, courtesy of themadthinker*

"Now dance! Dance for your diplomat!"

Dogbert, <i>Dilbert (Animated Series) Season 1, Episode 6</i>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: B on 2002-11-02 21:46 ]</font>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 02, 2002 10:47 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 521
Location: California
Hmm... "Existence is greater than non-existence."

True, the world would be a sadder place if certain people, such as I, did not exist, but even if I didn't exist, just because me existing is preferable to me not existing does not guarantee that I will exist, if my existence was in doubt.

If you don't know what the heck I am talking about, good, neither do I. I hate medieval semantics, because the sentences are nothing but so much verbiage that in reality say nothing and only serve to give all people who aren't mental slouches headaches. It is such a pain to disect them, so thanks to Ice and Pyro for doing it for us. It makes my life easier.

As for Veritrons statement on post 44, all I have to say is that not all people have given up in trying to understand reality, because one <i>can</i> aquire true knowledge of reality, even though we don't know EVERYTHING yet. Over time our understanding of our universe will improve, building up from general knowledge to specific knowlege, and we don't have to be omniscient to do so. Don't believe me? Look at the history of science. It started out with the basics and then scientists gradually expanded on these basics until today, where we now have knowledge that is very detailed about our universe. We use this knowledge to build cars, computers, and spaceships, and they obviously work, so I don't know where you get your idea that "true knowledge of reality" is impossible. We aren't there yet, and it is a far way off, but that doesn't mean we can't know what is true.

One fact of reality is that 2 of something plus 2 of something makes 4, whether it is apples, wolves, people, coins or abstract numbers on a piece of paper. That is one true fact of reality, shall I name another?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 02, 2002 11:03 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 521
Location: California
Quote:
On 2002-11-02 21:43, B wrote:

There are an Infinite number of variables that must be true for life, let alone intelligent life to develop

Take the mass of an electron: 9.108 X 10 –28 grams

That’s 90 decatillionths of a gram

If this value were any different, atoms would not behave as they do, chemical compounds would behave differently and intelligent life wouldn’t exist.

The odds against the universe forming in the way it did are impossible, you would be working with degrees of infinity


Ok, I have only one question, where is your proof that there are infinite variables? Is the universe infinite or finite. If it is finite then there is a limit on the variables, isn't there? If it is infinite where is your proof? And where do you get the idea that if electrons were lighter life wouldn't exist, because matter would behave differently? Don't you think that is a bit of a stretch, considering that if matter behaved differently, life might simply be different, sort of like how a chair made of wood and a chair made of plastic can both still be used as chairs?


Quote:
There are an Infinite number of variables that must be true for life, let alone intelligent life to develop


Where is your proof? Thats all I have to say about that.


Oh, one more thing. I really liked your picture you put up Vaergoth, I feel the same way! It is an exercise in futility, (most of the time) so I just do this to practice typing skills and take readings on the general sanity of the websurfing population.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 02, 2002 11:05 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3446
Location: New York
Quote:
On 2002-11-02 21:43, B wrote:
Here is what I think: the very fact that we exist is proof that God exists in one form or another.

There are an Infinite number of variables that must be true for life, let alone intelligent life to develop

Take the mass of an electron: 9.108 X 10 –28 grams

That’s 90 decatillionths of a gram

If this value were any different, atoms would not behave as they do, chemical compounds would behave differently and intelligent life wouldn’t exist.

The odds against the universe forming in the way it did are impossible, you would be working with degrees of infinity

Its more likely for every molecule in your monitor to spontaneously shift one foot to your left simultaneously. Or for energy to spontaneously convert to matter which happens to be a new BMW in your driveway.

It just isn’t going to happen.


So, I feel there must have been some divine guidance involved. Whether you share this belief or not is your concern.



Ah, but if the laws of nature were such that humanity couldn't exist, no one would be here to notice it, would they?

Moat scientists today believe that an infinite number of universes exist. In most of these universes, no doubt, the laws of physics don't allow for the existence of life. However, ours does, and if it didn't there'd be no one here to notice it anyway.

_________________
"There are only 10 types of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't."

<h6>(http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts/frustrations/5aa9/zoom/)</h6>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: IcyMonkey on 2002-11-02 22:06 ]</font>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 02, 2002 11:21 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 709
Location: Ohio
Quote:
A better question is: how can you have the audacity to say you have proven the existence of God?

Keep in mind that, whenever arguing for the existence of an entity, the burden of proof lies on the person arguing for the entity's existence. Therefore, it is your job to prove your point beyond reasonable doubt, not mine.

Now, the problem lies in the fact that it is impossible to ever conclusivly prove the existence of anything. Period.


How can I prove beyond a resonable doubt that the chair I am sitting in exists?

I can feel it, but that is meerly a perception caused by synapses in my cerebral tissue.

I can see it, but again...

I can smell it, but...

It can interact with other objects (bump into them) but thats defining one things existence by assuming that somthing else exists.

I cannot offer conclusive evidence that proves beyond a resonable doubt that the chair exists, I can only assume it does.

In the same way, it is impossible to prove the existence of God, one must either embrace the concept of God's existence or reject it, there is no proof either way.

_________________
Your Ad Here.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 84 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group