[quote=Zeta-Flux;198199]First, let me apologize for being impatient in the post that generated this response.[/quote]Accepted.

[quote]If you have no issues with #2, please answer it. If you do have issues, please elaborate on them.[/quote]My experience with this type of discussion is that if I don't concentrate on just one clarification at a time, the clarifications (and maybe more) will get confused.

I need clarification about #2, so I need to set that aside until #1 is taken care of.

[quote]- Do you still wish to include "potentially perceptible to all observers" as part of the definition of objective?[/quote]Yes, unless you can point out some "gotcha" interpretation I haven't thought of yet, or a better phrase for accomplishing what I want.

[quote]- Do you believe that the phrase "potentially perceptible to all observers" is (a) an essential part of the definition of objective,[/quote](a) not if there's a better one that accomplishes what I want, but yes, if there's no better phrase to accomplish what I want -- to exclude deception (especially self-) as far as possible.

As I wrote before, what I want is to distinguish things that are not the product of possible deception by self or others.

[quote](b) an important point of clarification but not a part of the definition, (c) an unimportant phrase when discussing objectivity, per se, or (d) something else [please elaborate if (d) is your answer].[/quote](a) is the one.

[quote]Would you be surprised to learn that someone might answer (c)?[/quote]No.

[quote]- Would you be surprised that someone named Steve who answered (c) would be willing to believe other people might answer (a), (b), or (d)?[/quote]Not particularly.

[quote]- Would you be surprised that if Tom said he wanted to include the phrase, then Steve would be willing to (for the sake of that current discussion) also include the phrase as part of the definition of objective, and even accept Tom's reasons for inclusion because Steve believed [B]Steve's own reasons for disliking the phrase[/B] were minor/irrelevant/esoteric/off-topic (and not implying that [B]Tom's reasons for inclusions[/B] were irrelevant or off-topic, but may even be fundamental)?[/quote]If I understand this correctly, I might be mildly surprised (by Steve, but perhaps also by my having understood correctly) but it's okay.

BTW, I wish to go on record about what I've already explained to flouran in PM: About 15 minutes after garo's post #286 (locked the thread), I came back here with the intention of deleting my post #285. Since I couldn't delete it, I then apologized to flouran, by PM, for that taunt, which had no redeeming value: nothing positive to add to the discussion. Now, I apologize to the rest of you for having allowed myself to post that. I'll try to avoid a repeat.

(flouran also apologized to me.)

[QUOTE=cheesehead;198212]BTW, I wish to go on record about what I've already explained to flouran in PM: About 15 minutes after garo's post #286 (locked the thread), I came back here with the intention of deleting my post #285. Since I couldn't delete it, I then apologized to flouran, by PM, for that taunt, which had no redeeming value: nothing positive to add to the discussion. Now, I apologize to the rest of you for having allowed myself to post that. I'll try to avoid a repeat.[/QUOTE]
[I]
[on the phone, after having been told that flouran is stoned] Hello? Uh, hello? Hello, flouran? Listen, I can't hear too well, do you suppose you could turn the music down just a little? [pause] Oh, that's much better. Yes. Fine, I can hear you now, flouran. Clear and plain and coming through fine. I'm coming through fine too, eh? Good, then. Well then, as you say we're both coming through fine. Good. Well, it's good that you're fine, and - and I'm fine. I agree with you. It's great to be fine. [Laughs] [...]Now then, flouran, you know how we've always talked about the possibility of something going wrong with the discussion. [pause] The DISCUSSION, flouran! The discussion about God! Well now, what happened is, uh, one of our base commanders, he had a sort of, well, he went a little funny in the head. You know. Just a little...funny. And uh, he went and did a silly thing. Well, I'll tell you what he did, he ordered his planes...to attack your posts. Well, let me finish, flouran. Let me finish, flouran. Well, listen, how do you think I feel about it? Can you imagine how I feel about it, flouran? Why do you think I'm calling you? Just to say hello? [sounding hurt] Of course I like to speak to you! Of course I like to say hello! Not now, but any time, flouran. I'm just calling up to tell you something terrible has happened. It's a friendly call. Of course it's a friendly call. Listen, if it wasn't friendly,...you probably wouldn't have even got it. [...][pause] I'm sorry too, flouran. I'm very sorry. All right! You're sorrier than I am! But I am sorry as well. I am as sorry as you are flouran. Don't say that you are more sorry than I am, because I am capable of being just as sorry as you are. So we're both sorry, all right? All right.[/I]

EDIT: (to pre-empt davieddy)

[I]Do you realize that in addition to [B]flouranating[/B] water, why, there are studies underway to [B]flouranate[/B] salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk, ice cream? Ice cream, Mandrake? Children's ice cream!...You know when [B]flouranation[/B] began?...1946. 1946, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual, and certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works. I first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love...Yes, a profound sense of fatigue, a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I-I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence. I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women, er, women sense my power, and they seek the life essence. I do not avoid women, Mandrake...but I do deny them my essence.[/I]

[QUOTE=__HRB__;198197]You'll end up in the 9th circle of hell with a non-zero probability.[/QUOTE]Yes, sure, when hell freezes over.

Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;198221]Yes, sure, when hell freezes over.

Paul[/QUOTE]

The temperature of the universe is 2.7K, so hell is most likely already frozen solid. If you have evidence that hell is located at one of those rare points that are not 2.7K or made of helium, please share the info.

[QUOTE=__HRB__;198224]The temperature of the universe is 2.7K, so hell is most likely already frozen solid. If you have evidence that hell is located at one of those rare points that are not 2.7K or made of helium, please share the info.[/QUOTE]Here you are: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell_%28crater%29[/url]

Glad to be of service. Hmmmmmmmm.


Paul

[QUOTE=__HRB__;198224]The temperature of the universe is 2.7K, so hell is most likely already frozen solid. If you have evidence that hell is located at one of those rare points that are not 2.7K or made of helium, please share the info.[/QUOTE]Sigh. I'm disappointed in you.

According to all the best travel guides, the 9th circle is [b]already[/b] frozen over. I thought everyone knew that.


Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;198264]Sigh. I'm disappointed in you.[/QUOTE]

Nice to know that you're surprised when my attempts to sink even lower are successful.

[QUOTE=xilman;198264]According to all the best travel guides, the 9th circle is [b]already[/b] frozen over. I thought everyone knew that.[/QUOTE]

[I]I shall take off my belt and by thunder me trousers will fall down...[/I] you're right! It turns out that uneducated wop Dan T. doesn't even know how to use cliches properly. Supposedly gaming the system hadn't been invented yet, because the methods of punishment in the 8th and 9th circles clearly suggest that any player should always commit a good deal of fraud with his treason.

Question: It appears that the innermost of 7th is dominated by the LGBT community, which isn't exactly everybody's cup of tea, so is there any combination of sins suggested by your travel guide which guarantees a spot with a good view of the 2nd circle amateur porn?

cheesehead,

Do you require further clarification concerning my use of "off-topic"?

I'm happy to accept your definition of objective, and understand your reason for inclusion of the phrase.

[quote=Zeta-Flux;198278]Do you require further clarification concerning my use of "off-topic"?
[/quote]
Yes.

If you are Tom and I am Steve in the story, what else is not clear to you? I'm unsure what else you want.

Aha!
 

[URL="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/12/01/0908374106.full.pdf"]Believers’ estimates of God’s beliefs are more egocentric than estimates of other people’s beliefs
[/URL]

[quote=Zeta-Flux;198356]If you are Tom and I am Steve in the story, what else is not clear to you? I'm unsure what else you want.[/quote]

You wrote in post #264, "What I was saying is that (most of) *my* comments in my previous post, which deal with my thoughts on a very small part of the definition you gave of objective, are not related to the discussion at hand. For example, I did not want to get into a discussion of alternate dimensions." But that was vague. Were you referring to post #260 as "my previous post"? Were you referring to only your comments in post #260, or was there anything else (that I wrote, for instance) that you considered off-topic?

When you wrote, at the beginning of post #260, "I'll tell you now that this stuff is fairly off-topic", what did you mean "this stuff" to refer to? My interpretation of "this" was that it was backward-referring, to something preceding post #260 (i.e., "this stuff" was what we were in the process of discussing). Were you, or were you not, referring to anything before post #260 as "off-topic"?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;198441]You wrote in post #264, "What I was saying is that (most of) *my* comments in my previous post, which deal with my thoughts on a very small part of the definition you gave of objective, are not related to the discussion at hand. For example, I did not want to get into a discussion of alternate dimensions." But that was vague. Were you referring to post #260 as "my previous post"?
[/quote]Yes.

[quote]Were you referring to only your comments in post #260, or was there anything else (that I wrote, for instance) that you considered off-topic?[/quote]Only some of my own comments.

[quote]When you wrote, at the beginning of post #260, "I'll tell you now that this stuff is fairly off-topic", what did you mean "this stuff" to refer to?[/quote]Some of the topics in post #260, such as alternate dimensions.

[quote]My interpretation of "this" was that it was backward-referring, to something preceding post #260 (i.e., "this stuff" was what we were in the process of discussing). Were you, or were you not, referring to anything before post #260 as "off-topic"?[/QUOTE]I was not referring to anything before post #260.

Any other questions?

bump

[quote=Zeta-Flux;199067]bump[/quote]

Look, cheesehead is not the kind of person you can reason with (really!), but here's what he'd say if he were davieddy:

[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8roxM1k02g[/URL]

P.S. the soapbox is the place where [I]everybody[/I] is an idiot - except me.

[QUOTE=__HRB__;199068]
[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8roxM1k02g[/URL]
[/QUOTE]
Awesome death metal!

[QUOTE=flouran;199069]Awesome death metal![/QUOTE]

The emoticons here are so '90s.

:man hug:
:fist bump:

[quote=Zeta-Flux;198528]Any other questions?[/quote]Where were we just before post #260? Hmmm... I had just asked
[quote=cheesehead;197867]What are the few more that make you still a little squeamish?[/quote]... which led to the excursion (no wonder you were a little squeamish!). Before that was your post #258:
[quote=Zeta-Flux;197750]But there are a few more that make me still a little squeamish about the use of the word "all." How about "potentially perceptible to observers"?[/quote]So it seems that the current status is that your proposal is "potentially perceptible to observers", but I'm reluctant to omit "all".

"potentially perceptible to all observers" is acceptable to me, but perhaps still squeam-provoking to you. Hmmm ...

I'm satisfied with "potentially perceptible to observers", while simply being on the lookout for cases where "all" would have made a significant difference. We can proceed from there with settled stomachs on both sides, it seems.

With that settlement, what do you see as the current status of the "objective" definition?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;199140]
With that settlement, what do you see as the current status of the "objective" definition?[/QUOTE]

No offense intended to either you or Zeta-Flux, but you guys are honestly considering to continue this inane discussion/debate/argument/whatever-you-may-call-it? :smile:

[quote=flouran;199142]No offense intended to either you or Zeta-Flux, but you guys are honestly considering to continue this inane discussion/debate/argument/whatever-you-may-call-it? :smile:[/quote]No offense intended to you, but are you honestly intending to continue following, and caring about, it? (Sometimes audience numbers matter.) :smile:

[quote=flouran;199159]Yes.
I would much rather witness an interesting debate that other forum members (not just two) find interesting as well....[/quote]
Then find/start another thread and try to say something
interesting/witty. There's no harm done by holding a
ono-to-one conversation here, provided you don't mind
others listening/interjecting occasionally.

[QUOTE=__HRB__;199070][...]
:man hug:
:fist bump:[/QUOTE]

One-to-zero conversations are even better. I define myself to be God, ewmayer shall be my prophet and cheeshead the virgin in who's brain has been replaced by an alien embryo.

:man hug self:
:fist bump self:

Flouran doesn't like beer, so he'll be [I]Bilious, the "Oh God" of Hangovers.[/I] Orgasmic troll gets a purple tricycle and will join the riders of the Apocalypse. He will ride out after [I]Pollution[/I] and [I]War[/I] but before [I]Geography Teachers[/I] as [I]Broccoli Stuck Between Your Teeth[/I].

[quote=davieddy;199160]There's no harm done by holding a ono-to-one conversation here, provided you don't mind others listening/interjecting occasionally.[/quote]Actually, it's quite feasible to hold simultaneous separate conversations in a thread if participants are careful to lead each post with the quote to which it responds.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;199140]I'm satisfied with "potentially perceptible to observers", while simply being on the lookout for cases where "all" would have made a significant difference. We can proceed from there with settled stomachs on both sides, it seems.

With that settlement, what do you see as the current status of the "objective" definition?[/QUOTE]It seems agreed upon. If you could respond to my two requests now, that would be great.

Best,
Zeta-Flux

[quote=Zeta-Flux;199250]It seems agreed upon. If you could respond to my two requests now, that would be great.[/quote]From your post #264:
[quote=Zeta-Flux;198010]1. I would like you to reword the last sentence you wrote, in your first post on Dec. 1, for clarity. (Post # 241.) (The sentence is: "...there's plenty of evidence that Man created God, but none for the other way. .")[/quote]From my post #241:
[quote=cheesehead;197450]there's plenty of evidence that Man created God, but none for the other way.[/quote]My restatement, current draft:

There is plenty of objective evidence that God exists as an idea in human minds. The latter phrase ("God exists ... minds") can be summarized as "Man created God" in a consciously sincere twist on the well-known phrase "God created Man".

I am aware of no objective evidence that God exists outside of human minds. For years I have requested that believers in God point me to such objective evidence; no one has done so. Often I have been directed to testimony by people who have had an experience they interpret as being some manifestation of God, but no such testimony I've ever seen contradicts the hypothesis that God exists only as an idea in human minds -- all such testimony I've ever seen can be interpreted as being the result of ordinary nonsupernatural experience plus ideas in human minds, and thus fails to contradict the hypothesis that God exists only as an idea in human minds.

- - -

(The expansion of words in my restatement above will probably lead to [I]much[/I] further discussion of meanings and intent.)

- - -

Again from post #264:
[quote=Zeta-Flux;198010] 2. I would like to know what you think about whether consistency implies evidence, now that I've given you that (counter-)example from 1st order logic. (See my posts #249 and #254.)[/quote]I'll tackle this later.

[QUOTE]
There is plenty of objective evidence that God exists as an idea in human minds.[/QUOTE]Can you make a succinct list of some of these objective evidences?

Season's Greetings God Botherers
 

"Peter Cook was the funniest man ever to draw breath" - Stephen Fry
[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AgJgQYPXyk[/URL]

***King David

[quote=Zeta-Flux;199280]Can you make a succinct list of some of these objective evidences?[/quote]Sure, but I'm a bit surprised you ask -- surely you've had thoughts of God? I know I have. I think the vast amounts of written discussion of God by people (e.g., Torah, Bible, Koran) is sufficient objective evidence that people have ideas of God, without requiring a formal confirmation, but there _are_ MRI studies of a more direct connection.

(I hope you haven't misinterpreted my "objective evidence that God exists as an idea in human minds" as being "objective evidence that God exists [I]only[/I] as an idea in human minds".)

Here are a couple of quickie references to short summaries in [I]Scientific American[/I] of studies reported in other journals:

1. "God on the brain? Scientists map religious thoughts with scans"

[URL]http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=god-on-the-brain-scientists-map-rel-2009-03-13[/URL]

The next one is about brain activity during religious experience. Will you consider "religious experience" to be close enough to "thoughts of God" for this list?

2. "Brain Activity Altered during Religious Experience"

[URL]http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=brain-activity-altered-during-relig-08-12-24[/URL]

BTW, this second one introduced me to [I][I]Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science[/I][/I] ([URL]http://www.zygonjournal.org/[/URL]), which looks to me at first glance like it might be a good source for our discussion.

Is that what you had in mind?

Correct me if I'm wrong:
cheesehead, you are religious and/or believe in God?
And Zeta-Flux, you are either agnostic or atheist?

[quote=flouran;199872]Correct me if I'm wrong:
cheesehead, you are religious and/or believe in God?
And Zeta-Flux, you are either agnostic or atheist?[/quote]You got it backwards. :smile:

[QUOTE=cheesehead;199873]You got it backwards. :smile:[/QUOTE]

Ah. Mea Culpa :smile:

Are you agnostic or atheist?

[QUOTE=flouran;199874]Ah. Mea Culpa :smile:

Are you agnostic or atheist?[/QUOTE]Cheesehead: I'd advise pleading the Fifth Amendment on that one...

Paul

[quote=cheesehead;199873]You got it backwards. :smile:[/quote]
As the actress said to the bishop.

[quote=xilman;199878]Cheesehead: I'd advise pleading the Fifth Amendment on that one...

Paul[/quote]
Are you a liar?

[QUOTE=xilman;199878]Cheesehead: I'd advise pleading the Fifth [...] on that one...[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=davieddy;199892]Are you a liar?[/QUOTE]

No, his children don't honor him.

[QUOTE=flouran;199874]Ah. Mea Culpa :smile:

Are you agnostic or atheist?[/QUOTE]

Neither. He's primarily a mistheistist: he's too stupid to understand the philosophical stuff, but he definitely knows that he wants to hate people who believe in a god because he thinks that makes him a scientist. Unless they are African-American theists like Obama, of course, because that would be racist. Unless the African-American theist is an outspoken Republican like Michael Steele, in which case it's OK to hate him again, because the KKK doesn't really hate him as much as they hate Obama.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;199871]Sure, but I'm a bit surprised you ask -- surely you've had thoughts of God?[/quote]

In your rephrase you wrote: "There is plenty of objective evidence that God exists as an idea in human minds. The latter phrase ("God exists ... minds") can be summarized as "Man created God" in a consciously sincere twist on the well-known phrase "God created Man"."

From your previous posts I assumed that you were implicitly meaning that "God exists [i]only[/i] as an idea in human minds." This interpretation seemed to be backed up by the clarification/summary: "The latter phrase ("God exists ... minds") can be summarized as "Man created God" in a consciously sincere twist on the well-known phrase "God created Man"." But from what you just said (at the top of my post), I'm uncertain whether you are saying this. As there are two main options, let me address each one.

Option 1: You were only claiming there is objective evidence that people think about God.

This is rather trivially true, and seems to be a significant retraction.

Option 2: You were claiming there is objective evidence that God exists only as an idea in human minds.

In this case, nothing on your list gives objective evidence for this statement.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;200049]
You were claiming there is objective evidence that God exists only as an idea in human minds.
[/QUOTE]
I agree with cheesehead here only partially. There [B]is[/B] a difference between the "idea of God" and God.

[B]Case I:[/B]
If God exists in all "His glory" then He is an infinite entity (as purported by the monotheistic faiths, which I believe you are an adherent of). For us to fathom God in His true form would not be feasible because as finite beings (humans), we cannot possibly perceive the infinite (in fact, we can hardly begin to understand our own universe which in itself is not an infinite entity and may indeed be part of a network of other equally unfathomable parallel universes). Thus, all we can understand (at least to the best of our cognitive abilities in current practice) is an "idea of God". This "idea of God" [B][I]is[/I][/B] indeed finite and therefore is more within the grasp of humans than the actual God (that is, [B]if[/B] He exists). Sadly, even this "idea of God" does not suffice in a larger socio-ethical paradigm as it is easily corrupted and twisted by humans for their own means. But this idea is all that we have been able to "grasp" of God (so far) and this idea is pursued by monotheistic faiths (though they may alter this idea to better fit the tenets of their religion).

[B]Case II:[/B]
Now, on the other hand, God may not even exist. However, this "idea of God" may still exist since both are easily separable from one another. Humans [B]do[/B] have excellent imaginations and this "idea of God" can be used to decree a set of basic rules to ensure the survival of an isolated community (i.e. the people under Moses' rule whilst in the desert), this idea can be used to thwart people towards a political platform, and so on and so forth.


My point is: the "idea of God" and God Himself are two very different things. To state that the "idea of God" is an [B]accurate[/B] representation of God is entirely false because one cannot represent the infinite in terms of finite components. The reason why I find arguments over the existence of God pointless is because the debaters are essentially basing their arguments and substantiations on the corruptible "idea of God". No one can truly convince another that God exists because that person does not even know for sure. If God does indeed exist, then one cannot know entirely because the idea of existence that we as humans believe in has only been viewed as a finite construct and not an infinite one.

Anyway, those are my two cents :smile:

[QUOTE=flouran;200050]If God exists in all "His glory" then He is an infinite entity (as purported by the monotheistic faiths, which I believe you are an adherent of). For us to fathom God in His true form would not be feasible because as finite beings (humans), we cannot possibly perceive the infinite (in fact, we can hardly begin to understand our own universe which in itself is not an infinite entity and may indeed be part of a network of other equally unfathomable parallel universes).[/QUOTE]I am not an adherent of a faith that purports many of the things you bring up. For instance, we believe that humans are literally spirit children of God, and hence capable of being like our Father.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;200052]I am not an adherent of a faith that purports many of the things you bring up.[/QUOTE]
My apologies for the miscalculation. So your faith does NOT purport that God is an infinite being? And what faith may that be?
[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;200052]
For instance, we believe that humans are literally spirit children of God, and hence capable of being like our Father.[/QUOTE]
You mean after death humans can join the likeness of their Father?

[QUOTE=flouran;200053]So your faith does NOT purport that God is an infinite being? And what faith may that be?[/quote]Our faith doesn't use the Greek philosophical terminology of "infinite" (or other such terms) on a regular basis. We are not what you might call "creedal Christians". For example, we don't believe in creation ex nihilo; but rather that the universe was organized from previous states. I'm not sure that we would disagree with the idea that God is infinite, per se, just the idea that there is a fundamental dichotomy between God and man that is insurmountable. For the most part we reject many of the philosophical creeds that arose after the death of Christ.

The name of the church is [URL="http://www.lds.org"]The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints[/URL]

[quote]You mean after death humans can join the likeness of their Father?[/QUOTE]We believe man was created in the image of God, and that we are already like Him in many ways. Ultimately, we can be at one with God, just as Christ is. You might say we strive to fulfil the admonition in Ephesians 4, to "come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ".

[QUOTE=South Park's response to cheesehead & flouran?]

Look, maybe us Mormons do believe in crazy stories that make absolutely no sense, and maybe Joseph Smith did make it all up, but I have a great life. and a great family, and I have the Book of Mormon to thank for that. The truth is, I don't care if Joseph Smith made it all up, because what the church teaches now is loving your family, being nice and helping people. And even though people in this town might think that's stupid, I still choose to believe in it. All I ever did was try to be your friend, Stan, but you're so high and mighty you couldn't look past my religion and just be my friend back. You've got a lot of growing up to do, buddy. Suck my balls.
[/QUOTE]

Moderator's Note - HRB apparently thought most people would recognize the quote as really coming from South Park, as shown by a link a few posts down, and thought it would be funny suggest that Zeta-flux should have responded in like manner by giving a faked attribution that I have changed.

In addition to the wikipedia link a few posts down, HRB also provided this link to help explain his intent. I moved it into the body because the "latest editing" now shows me.

[url]http://www.yoism.org/?q=node/307[/url]

HRB,

Those are not my words. It is completely inappropriate to "put them in my mouth" as it were, by creating a "quotation."

Not to mention the inaccuracy, puerilism, and downright nastinest.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;200070]HRB,

Those are not my words. It is completely inappropriate to "put them in my mouth" as it were, by creating a "quotation."

Not to mention the inaccuracy, puerilism, and downright nastinest.[/QUOTE]

Aw, c'mon. Anybody with a brain must realize that cannot be a quote of one of your posts. Furthermore it is so clearly out of character that you should be ashamed of yourself for thinking that anybody could think you had written it.

All I ever did was try to make fun of cheesehead and flouran. But, Zeta-Flux, you're so high and mighty you couldn't look past your religion and have some fun. You've got a lot of growing up to do, buddy. Suck [I]my[/I] balls.

I apologize for thinking you were cool enough to enjoy one of the few positive portrayals of members of a religion [I]South Park[/I] has to offer.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_About_the_Mormons[/url]

Better, now?

HRB and William,

I understand that some people might see the link at the bottom of the post, and I understand HRB's intent. I still believe it is entirely inappropriate for him to make it look like a quote from me. At the very least, please change that. He can quote SouthPark all he likes. Just don't let him get away with putting their words in my mouth.

[size=1][color=red]I have moderated the post to make it clearer to even the most casual of observers that Zeta-Flux didn't utter the South Park quote.[/color][/size]

[quote=Zeta-Flux;200049]From your previous posts I assumed that you were implicitly meaning that "God exists [I]only[/I] as an idea in human minds."[/quote]That is correct.

[quote]This interpretation seemed to be backed up by the clarification/summary: "The latter phrase ("God exists ... minds") can be summarized as "Man created God" in a consciously sincere twist on the well-known phrase "God created Man"."[/quote]Yes, it does.

[quote]But from what you just said (at the top of my post), I'm uncertain whether you are saying this.[/quote]Perhaps the difficulty is that I did not spell out that the statement

"God exists [I]only[/I] as an idea in human minds"

can be separated into two separate hypotheses, for simplicity in proof:

[I]Hypothesis 1)[/I] God exists as an idea in human minds.

[I]Hypothesis 2)[/I] God does not exist in any form other than as an idea in human minds.

Hypothesis 1 is a subset of "God exists [I]only[/I] as an idea in human minds". Even though you (and I) consider it trivial, I wanted to get evidence for it formally on the record here, for possible later reference.

My post #320 presented evidence to support #1.

I claim that hypothesis 2 is true. I can, and will later, present evidence to support that part of the claim which is not covered by #1.

My challenge to you is to present evidence that disproves hypothesis 2, which you evidently think is false.

[quote]Option 1: You were only claiming there is objective evidence that people think about God.

This is rather trivially true, [/quote](thus my mild surprise at your nevertheless-quite-reasonable request for a list, which I would have presented soon anyway to formally support my claim)

[quote]and seems to be a significant retraction.[/quote]No, it's no retraction at all. [I]Notice the different placement of "only" in your Option 1 and Option 2.[/I]

We're all familiar with the use of "if and only if" in mathematics. The "if" and the "only if" require separate subproofs. So, too does the "exists as" and "not exist in any form other than as" (= "exists only as") in the present discussion -- though I don't claim the analogy with math goes any further.

In post #320, I was presenting evidence to support only the claim that there is objective evidence that people think about God. ... But that didn't say anything about, or exclude the possibility of evidence for, hypothesis #2.

[quote]Option 2: You were claiming there is objective evidence that God exists only as an idea in human minds.[/quote]I have and do claim this, yes, but I never said that post #320 presented evidence for [I]all[/I] parts of that claim.

- - -

Perhaps it would be simpler to reverse the negation in #2, so that it says:

[I]Hypothesis 2A)[/I] God exists in some form other than as an idea in human minds

... and you and I would reverse our positions relative to it. That is, I'd claim that 2A is false and present evidence to support disproof of it, while you'd claim that 2A is true and present evidence to support it.

Which do you prefer?

William,

Thank you.

---------------

cheesehead,

That clears it up quite a bit. I have no preference how you state the hypothesis.

[quote=flouran;199874]Ah. Mea Culpa :smile:

Are you agnostic or atheist?[/quote]It would be more accurate to categorize me as explained here: [URL]http://www.the-brights.net/[/URL]

I have a naturalistic worldview, free of supernatural and mystical elements. My ethics and actions are based on a naturalistic worldview.

I was raised by Christian parents, and attended (Methodist) church and Sunday school regularly until I was 18. Thus, I am familiar with the general tenets of Protestant Christianity. I doubted the supernatural/mystical aspects of Christianity (or any other religion) from an early age.

[QUOTE=jasong;181497]I only read the first half of this page, but I am still of the same opinion,

If Darwin was right, then our values, our deeds, our opinions about morality is equally as important as a rock or a piece of feces. I am a Christian because the alternative is unbearable. If Darwin is correct, kill me now, for my reason for existence is crap.

Some say all we need is God plus nothing. By the same token, without God, there is nothing. Not the nothing before creation, but nothing of value. God is my rock, He either exists or my life is meaningless. Therefore let cling to the idea that God exists, even if we are ever given overwhelmingly convincing evidence.

Since this is a Forum of intellectuals, I will express it thus. Let's take two basic questions: Is there a God? and Do I believe in God? and look at their ramifications. Because I'm a Christian, we're going to assume that if there is a God in this scenario that he loves us and wants us to be happy. So there are 4 possibilities.

There ISN'T a God and I DON'T believe in him.

In this case the person is simply correct, they live their life in a better way than people who do believe in God, but in the end they die, with the only absolute truth being physics.

There ISN'T a God and I DO believe in him.

This state is actually covered in the Bible, Christians are beings to be pitied, since they hope and strive for something that they'll never receive. In the end, everyone dies, but Christians have it worse because they believed something that was totally untrue and therefore behaved in unnecessary ways. Not good.

There IS a God and I DON'T believe in Him.

Ouch, the penalties for this are horrendous, you assume there isn't a God and suffer in the worst possible way.

There IS a God and I DO believe in Him

Choirs of Angels, huge mansions and limitless food, as well as a job that you enjoy and look forward to.(no lie, I just forget where it's written.)

Of course there are trillions of variations on this theme, but this is how I approach it. My value system teaches me that Godless evolutionary theory(a God-based evolutionary theory would suggest an evil God that likes to cause pain and death) doesn't have anything to offer me, and I'd rather entertain the idea that Islam and Christianity simply diverged a long time ago then consider the idea that I'm related to pond scum.

It's not logical, it's not rational, but it keeps me on track in a world that's hard enough as it is. Ray Kurzweil is a nutjob for simultaneously believing in evolution and actually wanting to live long enough to see humans get made obsolete.[/QUOTE]


Is there a God?


to jasong:


Let me say I agree with your last point first: to believe in evolution and
also to want humanity to become obsolete is contradictory and wrong.

But as an atheist who doesn't believe in any god, and does believe in
science and evolution and all those good things, I want to address to
you personally a suggested way based on my reading only of your OP
of this thread for you to live through and hopefully regain some hope
for humanity and for you personally, even if I would under
other circumstances challenge your religious views / conclusions.

Here's the crux:

From your OP:

/* quote */
If Darwin was right, then our values, our deeds, our opinions about morality is equally as important as a rock or a piece of feces. I am a Christian because the alternative is unbearable. If Darwin is correct, kill me now, for my reason for existence is crap.
/* unquote */

You value values, deeds, morality, and importance.
That's a good start. We all agree.

We know your religion got you through a mental health crisis.
Some people here have known others with similar pasts.

Maybe with some guidance from your friends here you can learn
what most of us know, that the same values and virtues you already value
will still be there and still be yours even if their religious basis becomes
replaced by a scientific, rational, philosophical one.

Maybe this thread was a start.

[QUOTE=T.Rex;181510]Logic says: with a false property, one cannot build some true property.
There is no proof that there is a God (moreover, everything shows that the idea of a God is stupid), so "God knew" is a false statement, and everything you say then has no meaning: bullshit. Full stop.
[/QUOTE]

True, we atheists know there is no god.

But you (TRex) are arguing logically against the second post of
this thread, which he (jasong) just included to explain his
reluctance to accept evolution as being wrong in some way
while you are ignoring his (jasong) first OP in this thread.

[QUOTE=Primeinator;181585]I do not know why the human tendency is to view issues as just black and white- many issues have a gray area (or whatever color you want to call it).
Evolution vs Creationism happens to be a great example. For instance, evolution is a proven scientific fact. BUT, when people use this word, they often forget that there are two types of evolution- macro and micro. Macro evolution indicates that people came from single-celled organisms billions of years ago. Microevolution concerns itself more with natural selection (the giraffe with the taller neck lives because it can reach more food- thus giraffes have tall necks). I am a firm believer of microevolution, but not so much for macroevolution, though there is evidence for this, I believe that if humans did originate from primitive life, it was by God's design. So although I am Christian, I do believe in evolution to a degree. Creation and Evolution do not have to be oppositional. Further, I would like to address your comment, Tony. Not everything suggests the idea of God is stupid. Science and religion have long been opposing forces, but leading research in areas like String Theory suggest a divine power of some nature. Even the laws of physics (matter cannot be created nor destroyed) suggests this. Where did all the "stuff" for the big bang originate? As energy? Well, energy is just another form of matter- they are exchangeable currencies.[/QUOTE]

Science and faith are indeed opposites and mutually exclusive.

There is no god and never was.

The Big Bang is Creationism in disguise.

If you're interested in cosmology, see the Puzzles sub-forum,
in particular the thread Elemental Puzzle.

[QUOTE=T.Rex;181605]The problem is that it is quite impossible for you to change your mind because that would mean disagreeing with all that you thought true since ages. That would be terrible for you: accept to say that everything you were thinking about was wrong. Your first enemy is yourself. But it is not really your fault: you are a victim. First try psychotherapy.

You only have to accept one thing: [B]you'll die one day and your spirit, your mind, whatever you call it, will totally, definitely disappear, vanish, with no hope.[/B]
When this is clear for you, everything will be clear for you. Just try.
[/QUOTE]

Accepting one' eventual death as an absolute is NOT conducive to
good mental health or human success.

But religion is not a solution.

[QUOTE=T.Rex;181608]There is no way to discuss with people believing in God: you are not logical, you are crazy. It is a complete loss of time.

You, Christians from the USA are the same than the muslim guys who did the "September, 11". You could kill because you think there is a God. In fact, you killed: about 19 millions of Indians of North America were killed because you thought that an Indian is not a man.

My wife died of a cancer. I was with her, during 5 months, till the end. I know what death means. Now, she's gone. No hope for after-life. I will not meet her in any place again because she is no more: she's completely gone, disappeared, vanished. But life must continue, because there are still beauty and happiness around me.

You hate Evolution because you cannot accept the fact that we are there by chance. You are like a baby asking for your mother.
Read about Darwin: why he stopped believing in God, why he didn't publish his book because he was so deeply inloved with his wife, which was afraid that they could not be inloved for ever if God did not exist. He published his book.

[/QUOTE]

We agree that religion, any and all religion, is the problem.

But not all people who believe in a religion. Some are OK.

[QUOTE=Mini-Geek;181619]1. Only the very highest estimates put the number of Indians prior to European exploration at near 19 million.
2. Many of the Indians died from smallpox carried over by the Europeans, not genocide. "It is thought that between 75 to 90 percent of all Indian deaths resulted from [diseases]." (src: first link below)
3. I can find nothing saying that anyone thought Indians weren't people. Exactly how the killing and taking of land were justified in the minds of early settlers, I don't know.
4. Some Indians sided with the colonies in the revolutionary war. Clearly they would not do this if they felt that they were massacred like subhumans that must be driven out to make room for people.
sources:
[URL]http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html[/URL]
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States[/URL]

How are you so sure?

I assume you're referring to physical life and death. Of course I know what life and death are.

I accept that there is an infinitesimal chance that we and this whole universe "just happened", but you're correct in saying that I don't think that it did. What evidence is there that it did instead of being created? How did the universe come into existence? (and don't just say, "the Big Bang, of course", where did the substance for the big bang come from?)

I'm not afraid of dying. Are you?
Even if I'm wrong, and when I die I never again wake up, I've lost nothing except being seen as foolish by other humans during my life. [I]I won't even know[/I] that I was wrong. But that's not the point, because I know that I [I]am[/I] right.

I don't really expect you to answer me since you say, "There is no way to discuss with a fool." which you have bluntly labeled me and every religious person.[/QUOTE]

Even a religious person can have good values.

Though supernatural ideas don't really exist in reality.

Well since this thread has been opened up again:[QUOTE=jasong;181497]...
There IS a God and I DON'T believe in Him.

Ouch, the penalties for this are horrendous, you assume there isn't a God and suffer in the worst possible way.[/QUOTE]This assumes a lot. It assumes one's state of belief is actually tracked by god and that god will take negative action based upon that. Kind of puts god in the box of "mean teenage boy that only tolerates things that go his own way".[QUOTE=jasong;181497]There IS a God and I DO believe in Him

Choirs of Angels, huge mansions and limitless food, as well as a job that you enjoy and look forward to.(no lie, I just forget where it's written.)
...[/QUOTE]Also assume a lot. Assumes that your chosen book is correct in its descriptions and allusions. What if your book is the wrong one? OMG, you believe in the wrong thing, now you go to hel... umm ... somewhere else I guess, maybe nowhere. Who knows?

[QUOTE=davar55;248261]Science and faith are indeed opposites and mutually exclusive.[/QUOTE]

That depends upon what you mean by "faith". If you "faith in god", then yes, but I think that people often have "faith in medicine" or "faith in medical treatment". For example, if a particular treatment is successful 90% of the time (says science), then someone getting that treatment expects (says faith) it to work for them (in the 90%).

[QUOTE=rogue;248316]That depends upon what you mean by "faith". If you "faith in god", then yes, but I think that people often have "faith in medicine" or "faith in medical treatment". For example, if a particular treatment is successful 90% of the time (says science), then someone getting that treatment expects (says faith) it to work for them (in the 90%).[/QUOTE]

Well, faith in god is obviously misguided if there is no god.

Faith in medicine is the same as confidence in science and a
certain degree of confidence in the character of doctors.

Not all doctors deserve that, do they?

So faith is the wrong word here too.

Faith means based on feelings or subjectivism or mysticism,
as opposed to on the basis of reason.

[QUOTE=davar55;248320]Well, faith in god is obviously misguided if there is no god.

Faith in medicine is the same as confidence in science and a
certain degree of confidence in the character of doctors.

Not all doctors deserve that, do they?

So faith is the wrong word here too.

Faith means based on feelings or subjectivism or mysticism,
as opposed to on the basis of reason.[/QUOTE]

I argue that the line between faith and reason isn't always clear. How does on categorize instinct? Instinct can be based on both objective and subjective thinking.

there is no God once I get to the restroom

[QUOTE=MooooMoo;181637]No, there are two more possibilities:

- There is a God(s) and I don't know whether he/she/it/they exist
- There isn't a God(s) and I don't know whether he/she/it/they exist

The issue isn't black and white, there are people who are neither atheists nor believers (I'm one of them). In this case, there isn't enough evidence to decide one way or another. It's similar to asking whether there is any life outside Earth. We haven't been contacted by any aliens and we haven't seen any evidence of extraterristrial life, but there may be planets where bacteria, insects, or even intelligent species live.

Getting back on the topic of evolution/intelligent design, I'll repost my earlier message since it was posted in the wrong thread a few weeks ago.

-------------------------------------
"If an intelligent designer lived on Earth, people would break his windows"

If an intelligent designer did exist, why did he/she/it give humans so many bad characteristics? Why can't people regrow limbs like salamanders? Why can't people fly like birds? Why aren't people as strong as bears? Why can't we swim as fast as sharks or run as fast as horses and cheetahs? Why do we have useless structures like appendices?

You could say that the intelligent designer gave us really good brains, but we're finding out that even our intelligence isn't that great. Computers are beating us at finding prime numbers, playing chess, and recalling facts. Apes, gorillas, and chimps know how to make basic tools and learn sign language, and some of them are even better than college students at memory tests:
[URL]http://cbs5.com/health/chimps.memory....2.601356.html[/URL]
Also, it took us thousands of years for our intelligence to develop cars, TVs, cell phones, air conditioning, and other modern conveniences. For most of human history, our living standards were at best only a bit above that of most animals.

So, are you struggling to outrun a lion? Are you having difficulty finding the result of (296142*40895) ^ 10? If so, you can blame your intelligent designer for that.
--------------------------------------------------[/QUOTE]

Very eloquent.

[QUOTE=jasong;181652]We don't exist so that we can do awesome things, we exist to glorify God. Would your parents have tried to conceive you if they thought that you would dishonor and disrespect them? No, your parents had you because they wanted to pass on their values, replicate what makes them who they are.

There are people who are the best in their field, rich, famous, and are miserable. On the other side there are people that have nothing, they're in abject poverty, barely scraping by, that think God is the most awesome thing there is.

And then there's me, at the age of 17 I began hallucinating. I thought the TV was talking to me, that people were trying to kill my little brother, I heard voices and saw visions. Before that I was an atheist, someone headed down a very dark road. Most people would see this sort of thing as proof there is no God. I saw it as proof that if there is no God, that life isn't worthwhile. My intelligence, my knowledge, my physical appearance, they are 100% meant to glorify God. That is my purpose.

Mind you, this doesn't mean I should abandon everything and read the Bible 24 hours a day. But, whatever I do, I am to do it for the glorification of God. If I learn a new skill, or read about the Intel SSDs that are supposedly coming out on Tuesday, I am to realize that those things exist because of the type of universe that God created. God wants to be discovered, He wants people to seek Him out in whatever way they can or want. And that's why He tells us,"Ask and you shall receive, seek and you shall find, knock and the door will be opened." God will show Himself to anyone who wants to see him, if you don't want to believe in him than he won't show himself.[/QUOTE]

to jasong: We atheists who live with similar goals but still knowing
that there is no god but only existence, reality, nature, science,
knowledge, intelligence, morality, mathematics, a history of evolution,
and many other important good things sometimes refer to the bounty
of knowledge and things the universe can provide to us through our
own efforts "the benevolent universe", meaning benevolent in a secular,
non-religious, non-supernatural way.

The past is past. Go on to the future.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;181683]I think that there was already a decline before 1491.

I was trying to point out that Europeans and others may have already had a disruptive effect. Cristobal Colon was just the start of a sustained assult.[/QUOTE]

What has this opinion of yours to do with the OP and thread title?

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;181777]Tony, technically speaking, there is no *proof* for any statement. Not in the sense of absolute proof. Even in math, there is always the possibility that we did the computation wrong (for the 300 millionth time), or have misunderstood the basic axioms, or etc...

However, there certainly is a lot of evidence for God.

-------------------------------



Cheesehead, while I cannot speak for jasong, and there are times I significantly disagree with him, I think I can express his reasoning another way. Suppose we create a very large computer, that runs a very large computation. Think of it as a very large hologram, similar to Star Trek. It runs through the history of an imaginary intelligent species.

Would we say that there is any real value to anything the players on the stage do? Would we consider it immoral that Grok slew Filibar in the 300,123rd year of the program, so he could steal his wife? Or is it just a computer program? What gives meaning to the lives of the inhabitants of the program? What if we ran the program, but nobody watched it, and then we destroyed the computer?

If this universe is truly finite, and we are merely existent for a small part, and it will die heat death... it just isn't a pleasant alternative to the idea that we are eternal beings, on the path of eternal improvement and progression.

All things being equal, which would you rather believe in? At what point would evidence from one side trump evidence for the other? At what point is believing beneficial vs. disbeneficial to the occupant of the universe?[/QUOTE]

Not correct.

There are statements, many, that can be proven.

For example, one plus one equals two.

It is provable and true, yes simply by going to
the definitions of one, two, and plus, but it still
takes a mind's understanding to get the proof.

There's more to respond to in this post, but not yet.

[QUOTE=rogue;181779]I guess that depends upon what you mean by "absolute proof". Are you referring to philosophical or mathematical concepts when you talk about "absolute proof"? Does 1 = 1? It does mathematically, unless you want to argue that either "1" or "=" do not have a definitive meaning.

BTW, where is your evidence for god? You claim that there is a lot, but I am unaware of any evidence.



Your first statement is the reason one people believe in god in the first place. How does one spend eternity without getting bored? We cannot possibly know what any afterlife consists of (no proof), so why waste time thinking about it? Why waste time theorizing on what god wants? Why waste time preparing ourselves for a complete unknown?

There is nothing that can prove the existence or non-existence of god. If the side of caution you error on is the theistic one, how can you guarantee that you are doing the correct things to make your deity happy?[/QUOTE]

I agreed with this post up until the penultimate sentence.

How can you claim, just because you've never heard the proof,
that NO ONE ELSE has proven the non-existence of god?

I'm happy to tell you (and you don't have to believe me, I'm not god)
that someone, on earth, has proven THERE IS NO GOD.

I've seen the proof (don't ask me to reproduce it right here), and
I know for a fact the proof is totally correct.

Hence there is no god.

I still haven't seen anyone present evidence that God exists other than as an idea in human minds.

If there really were "a lot of evidence" for God (other than as an idea in human minds), why are the believers so shy about telling us what it is? Why don't they just trot it out for everyone to see? Why do they so often present statements of limitation of their own imaginations (e.g., "I can't imagine that the universe could exist without God") as, supposedly, such evidence?

Why are hallucinations sometimes claimed to be evidence of God -- other than, of course, the mundane explanation that such claimers simply don't understand that a hallucination is a process inside human brains, and they attribute things they don't understand to "God"?

Why would teachings or tenets of religion be presented as "evidence" of the existence of God (other than as an idea in human minds) when those teachings or tenets only show that God exists as an idea in human minds ... if real evidence of the existence of God (as something other than an idea in human minds) existed? Why not show us the real evidence instead (which would be more convincing)?

Why do believers sometimes cite benefits of belief in their (or others') religion as evidence for existence of God (as something other than an idea in human minds), when, actually, such citations are evidence only of the benefits of an idea in human minds?

Is the answer to all the questions simply the mundane explanation that God-believers simply have trouble distinguishing (or don't want to distinguish) an idea from reality?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;248493]I still haven't seen anyone present evidence that God exists other than as an idea in human minds.

If there really were "a lot of evidence" for God (other than as an idea in human minds), why are the believers so shy about telling us what it is? Why don't they just trot it out for everyone to see? Why do they so often present statements of limitation of their own imaginations (e.g., "I can't imagine that the universe could exist without God") as, supposedly, such evidence?

Why are hallucinations sometimes claimed to be evidence of God -- other than, of course, the mundane explanation that such claimers simply don't understand that a hallucination is a process inside human brains, and they attribute things they don't understand to "God"?

Why would teachings or tenets of religion be presented as "evidence" of the existence of God (other than as an idea in human minds) when those teachings or tenets only show that God exists as an idea in human minds ... if real evidence of the existence of God (as something other than an idea in human minds) existed? Why not show us the real evidence instead (which would be more convincing)?

Why do believers sometimes cite benefits of belief in their (or others') religion as evidence for existence of God (as something other than an idea in human minds), when, actually, such citations are evidence only of the benefits of an idea in human minds?[/QUOTE]

Agreed.

They don't because they can't.

So for an agnostic or atheist to take the next step,
it's a question of: is there somewhere in there a
proof of the non-existence of god?

Sure there is.

I do believe there is God and 'God is Love'. Only those who love unconditionally will know the existence of God. We need to have show true love to our neighbors always. The 2 greatest physicists to ever come out of this world share their opinion here - [url]http://www.worldtransformation.com/is-there-a-god/[/url].

Science and a rational philosophy on which to base it
are the surest way to answer the original question in
this thread. Is there a god? Of course not.

[QUOTE=davar55;349533]Is there a god? Of course not.[/QUOTE]

Prove it.

[QUOTE=chalsall;349547]Prove it.[/QUOTE]Except in some formal constructions, non-existence is almost impossible to prove.

Existence is something that must be proven. Especially if one uses the existence of an entity to prove something, then that entity should be proven to exist.

Jacob

[QUOTE=chalsall;349547]Prove it.[/QUOTE]

Prove what? The fact that there iis no god?
Asking for the proof as one's total contribution to
that post, is being on the wrong side of the challenge.

Let the agnostics try to prove there MIGHT be a god.
Even that's impossible.

Wrong path.

The right path:
Q: Is there a god?
A: Who the freaking cares?

[QUOTE=LaurV;349672]Wrong path.

The right path:
Q: Is there a god?
A: Who the freaking cares?[/QUOTE]
My take:
A1: Who knows?

AA1: Rather a large number of people AFAICT.

[QUOTE=xilman;349676]AA1: Rather a large number of people AFAICT.[/QUOTE]

Indeed.

Many millions of humans have died over this question over the ages.

And, yet, we still don't have an agreed definition about which god is involved....

[QUOTE=LaurV;349672]Wrong path.

The right path:
Q: Is there a god?
A: Who the freaking cares?[/QUOTE]

I would agree with you, but we atheists
are still an endangered oppressed species
as long as church and state are not
fully separated.

Hence my absolutist statement -
there is no god. The agnostics
can't even prove there MIGHT be one.

[QUOTE=xilman;349676]My take:
A1: Who knows?

AA1: Rather a large number of people AFAICT.[/QUOTE]
I can't really understand this. The question was "is there a god?", and your answer is "rather a large number of people". They make the god, all together, or what? I don't imagine that someone could consider my "who cares?" a question.:smile: As stated, that was [B][U]an answer[/U][/B].

[QUOTE=LaurV;349787]I can't really understand this. The question was "is there a god?", and your answer is "rather a large number of people". They make the god, all together, or what? I don't imagine that someone could consider my "who cares?" a question.:smile: As stated, that was [B][U]an answer[/U][/B].[/QUOTE]It was an answer in the form of another question. I gave an answer to that question.

[QUOTE=xilman;349676]My take:
A1: Who knows?

AA1: Rather a large number of people AFAICT.[/QUOTE]

Yes, a large number of people do know.
But wait, there really is no god?
Surprise !

And a happy Xmas to all and to all a good night !

[QUOTE=davar55;390994]And a happy Xmas to all and to all a good night ![/QUOTE]
Don't get yourself banned, we need you on the chess team.:smile:

OK I'll try my darndest.

:smile:

I have a question.

Has anyone here recently changed their view on whether there is or isn't a God,
and whether or not this can be proved?

[QUOTE=davar55;394676]I have a question.

Has anyone here recently changed their view on whether there is or isn't a God,
and whether or not this can be proved?[/QUOTE]Perhaps it depends upon your definition of "recently" and "view".

[QUOTE=retina;394678]Perhaps it depends upon your definition of "recently" and "view".[/QUOTE]

I'll let anyone else define "view" as they choose. :smile:

As for "recently", say within the past two years.

[QUOTE=davar55;394676]I have a question.

Has anyone here recently changed their view on whether there is or isn't a God,
and whether or not this can be proved?[/QUOTE]
Wait. Of course!

Quite recently one davar55 proved that Capitalism [B]is[/B] God, and he is defending Him [B]religiously[/B]:
- Capitalism is omnipotent; there is nothing it can't do. Do not be confused by with perversions of people trying to build their own capitalism in His image. All of them failed miserably so far.
- Capitalism is Freedom. Only Capitalism will set you Free. Before Capitalism, Freedom didn't exist
- Capitalism is the only thing there is without sin. Again, do not be confused with what [I]you[/I] think of Him; you are misguided, you are thinking of capitalism, and Shirley, it is not the same thing
- ...
- PROFIT?!!!

Was the French Engels quote too obscure? Ok, in plain English: "Well, then, Capitalism is your religion!"

Seriously, a scientist does not approach scientific matters religiously (or some people can refer to this as fiat argument, or simply an exercise in circular logic) - "this is so, because be definition it is so; I just defined an object for you in plain English for which it is always so, and now I will expand at length on its property of being so, and voila, I just proved that it is so - and you all dare to question my logic?"

The whole nations make the same epistemological mistake, so don't feel bad. Take one nation where religion was suppressed for 70 years - their need to believe in anything has now overcome any shred of rationality, en masse. (A gross exaggeration, to be sure.) The consequences are far from humorous, but the margins of this [STRIKE]book[/STRIKE] monograph are too narrow to contain a satisfactory discussion of this matter.

@ Batalov- :grin: Thanks.

[QUOTE=Batalov;394730]Wait. Of course!

Quite recently one davar55 proved that Capitalism [B]is[/B] God, and he is defending Him [B]religiously[/B]:
- Capitalism is omnipotent; there is nothing it can't do. Do not be confused by with perversions of people trying to build their own capitalism in His image. All of them failed miserably so far.
- Capitalism is Freedom. Only Capitalism will set you Free. Before Capitalism, Freedom didn't exist
- Capitalism is the only thing there is without sin. Again, do not be confused with what [I]you[/I] think of Him; you are misguided, you are thinking of capitalism, and Shirley, it is not the same thing
- ...
- PROFIT?!!!

Was the French Engels quote too obscure? Ok, in plain English: "Well, then, Capitalism is your religion!"

Seriously, a scientist does not approach scientific matters religiously (or some people can refer to this as fiat argument, or simply an exercise in circular logic) - "this is so, because be definition it is so; I just defined an object for you in plain English for which it is always so, and now I will expand at length on its property of being so, and voila, I just proved that it is so - and you all dare to question my logic?"

The whole nations make the same epistemological mistake, so don't feel bad. Take one nation where religion was suppressed for 70 years - their need to believe in anything has now overcome any shred of rationality, en masse. (A gross exaggeration, to be sure.) The consequences are far from humorous, but the margins of this [STRIKE]book[/STRIKE] monograph are too narrow to contain a satisfactory discussion of this matter.[/QUOTE]Brilliant!

@Batalov: Genial!

(:razz:)

[QUOTE=Batalov;394730]Wait. Of course!

Quite recently one davar55 proved that Capitalism [B]is[/B] God, and he is defending Him [B]religiously[/B]:
- Capitalism is omnipotent; there is nothing it can't do. Do not be confused by with perversions of people trying to build their own capitalism in His image. All of them failed miserably so far.
- Capitalism is Freedom. Only Capitalism will set you Free. Before Capitalism, Freedom didn't exist
- Capitalism is the only thing there is without sin. Again, do not be confused with what [I]you[/I] think of Him; you are misguided, you are thinking of capitalism, and Shirley, it is not the same thing
- ...
- PROFIT?!!!

Was the French Engels quote too obscure? Ok, in plain English: "Well, then, Capitalism is your religion!"

Seriously, a scientist does not approach scientific matters religiously (or some people can refer to this as fiat argument, or simply an exercise in circular logic) - "this is so, because be definition it is so; I just defined an object for you in plain English for which it is always so, and now I will expand at length on its property of being so, and voila, I just proved that it is so - and you all dare to question my logic?"

The whole nations make the same epistemological mistake, so don't feel bad. Take one nation where religion was suppressed for 70 years - their need to believe in anything has now overcome any shred of rationality, en masse. (A gross exaggeration, to be sure.) The consequences are far from humorous, but the margins of this [STRIKE]book[/STRIKE] monograph are too narrow to contain a satisfactory discussion of this matter.[/QUOTE]

Hey, my cosmology monograph has BIG margins !

Doesn't reciprocity imply no ganging up? :smile:

[QUOTE=davar55;394779]Doesn't reciprocity imply no ganging up? :smile:[/QUOTE]
I'd say it does, yes. I'll try to tone down my own responses to your posts in future.

Hey! Isn't Democracy one of your Prime Virtuous Things? Are you objecting to people voting on, or reviewing another participant's discourse?

Then too, if you [METAPHOR]piss on a hornets' nest[/METAPHOR], you can't be all that surprised if a few stingers get through. :wink:

[QUOTE=Brian-E;394784]I'd say it does, yes. I'll try to tone down my own responses to your posts in future.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=kladner;394792]Hey! Isn't Democracy one of your Prime Virtuous Things? Are you objecting to people voting on, or reviewing another participant's discourse?
Then too, if you [METAPHOR]piss on a hornets' nest[/METAPHOR], you can't be all that surprised if a few stingers get through. :wink:[/QUOTE]

As long as tone down doesn't mean talk down to. I've never seen you harsh agianst any post.
And I stand by 98% of my posts from the last 9 years I've rescinded a few in which I was either
harsh or in error. It happens. But my experience here has been valuable to me. Just want to
keep on reading, contributing, getting (some) positive feedback. Even the negatives (you know
who you were) make me think, and that's the cardinal virtue. So thanks.

[QUOTE=davar55;394804]As long as tone down doesn't mean talk down to.[/QUOTE]
Absolutely not. I meant that I would try to show respect for your point of view even when challenging it.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;394821]Absolutely not. I meant that I would try to show respect for your point of view even when challenging it.[/QUOTE]

OK, that's a fair and friendly statement, even if I think you already were applying it.

[QUOTE=xilman;198033]GOD is REAL [COLOR=White]except when declared INTEGER.[/COLOR]
[spoiler]Yes, I know. I just happen to think the old ones are the best.[/spoiler]
[/QUOTE]

And yet you objected when I declared her IMAGINARY.

I know, I simplify a COMPLEX topic.

You have a rare gift of necroposting without even understanding what the post was about. (That post was from 2009 !)

TL;DR variant: It was an (unattrlibuted) [URL="http://quotabl.es/quotes/24645"]quote[/URL] from J. Allan Toogood.

Longer version for non-AOLers:
In Fortran, if you type
I = 3
I = I/5
you will get a zero.
However, if you replace I for GOD, you will get 0.6, because GOD is REAL. See?

GOD is REAL unless [I]you[/I] do something about it. Of course, [I]you[/I] can declare GOD COMPLEX or even create a new type and then declare GOD IMAGINARY. But that will be [I]you[/I], and it will be true for [I]you[/I] (sensu your programming world).
Before [I]you[/I] redefine GOD, though, GOD is REAL for everyone! :innocent: