International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Religion and Philosophy (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   When Does Religion Become Just Silly? (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=341273)

acbytesla 26th January 2020 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynot (Post 12967812)
Before I could be interested in “what lies beyond the universe” I would need some credible reason to believe that there even is or ever has been a “beyond the universe”.

Then I would need some credible reason to believe there is or ever has been an “intelligence” that resides there, let alone that it “gave rise to the big bang”.

So please help me out – What are your credible reasons for believing there is a “beyond the universe” and an “intelligence beyond the universe that gave rise to the big bang”? If you can do that I would be very, very interested indeed.

Yep. Beyond or before The Big Bang maybe totally nonsensical because time is tied into all this in a bizarre way.

But we are wasting our time with this one YNOT. He's got his story and he's sticking to it. And of course, the story is entirely unfalsifiable. But like all unfalsifiable propositions, it is worthless.

psionl0 26th January 2020 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 12967825)
He's got his story and he's sticking to it. And of course, the story is entirely unfalsifiable.

Let me guess: my "story" is that God exists in the gaps (or something).

It just goes to show, if you can't rebut an argument, change the argument. :rolleyes:

ynot 26th January 2020 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12967818)
What would a singularity be if it wasn't contained in something?

Don't assume I accept all things theoretical physicists say (which isn't saying they're necessarily wrong). As I understand the singularity/big bang model it doesn't require an outside/beyond universe or multiverse. What would the container of the singularity be contained in, and what would that container be contained in, etc, etc, etc?

But what about this "intelligence" thing of which you speak?

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12967818)
Have you heard of the "event horizon"?

Sure, have you heard of cows?

ynot 26th January 2020 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 12967825)
Yep. Beyond or before The Big Bang maybe totally nonsensical because time is tied into all this in a bizarre way.

But we are wasting our time with this one YNOT. He's got his story and he's sticking to it. And of course, the story is entirely unfalsifiable. But like all unfalsifiable propositions, it is worthless.

Sure, but "this one" isn't the only one reading (I hope).

Besides, at least he's finally revealing some of "his story".

psionl0 26th January 2020 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynot (Post 12967848)
Don't assume I accept all things theoretical physicists say (which isn't saying they're necessarily wrong).

You would have to be a schizophrenic if you did.

ynot 26th January 2020 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12967862)
You would have to be a schizophrenic if you did.

To be clear, I don't readily accept the singularity/big bang/expanding universe model. Perhaps if I had the time to learn and understand it better I'd be more likely to accept it more. I hope the leading scientists of the world are smarter than me. But I yam what I yam.

Darat 27th January 2020 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12967818)
What would a singularity be if it wasn't contained in something? Have you heard of the "event horizon"?

Remember "singularity" and "event horizon " are merely English words to label some very high level mathematics. Which part of the maths do you want to discuss?

psionl0 27th January 2020 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynot (Post 12967868)
To be clear, I don't readily accept the singularity/big bang/expanding universe model.

Neither should you. As Carl Sagan wrote once, "nothing is sacred" (in science). Our scientific knowledge has been hit for six many times during our modern history and is likely to change many times more in the future. We really don't have any terrific theories about the origins of the universe therefore it is silly to make a specific claim.

You can't draw conclusions based on a lack of knowledge.

JoeMorgue 27th January 2020 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12967921)
You can't draw conclusions based on a lack of knowledge.

"But there's a tiny slim chance you're wrong and you have to acknowledge that in this instance and this instance only" is exactly that, with a few layers of special pleading coating on it.

Again the entire concept of belief is just a euphemistic term for "I have special mental powers that allow to know things without facts or evidence" so spare me the speechifying about skeptics' intellectual standards.

JoeMorgue 27th January 2020 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12967921)
Neither should you. As Carl Sagan wrote once, "nothing is sacred" (in science).

Carl Sagan also wrote the Dragon in the Garage metaphor specifically to call out backwards burden of proofing special pleading that has been you're entire argument thus far.

So maybe, just maybe, you don't have exactly have your thumb on his pulse.

"Nothing is sacred" doesn't mean "But we have to stop every discussion to slap on a 'I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE I COULD BE WRONG' modifier whenever the believers or apologist want to talk about God."

psionl0 27th January 2020 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12968063)
"But there's a tiny slim chance you're wrong . . . "

You don't even know that it is a "tiny slim chance". Any number you give me about the odds will be entirely made up.

JoeMorgue 27th January 2020 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12968138)
You don't even know that it is a "tiny slim chance". Any number you give me about the odds will be entirely made up.

Which is true of literally everything and we're all still waiting on why God is different from the invisible dragon that you can't prove doesn't exist in my garage.

20 GOTO 10, full fringe reset.

Steve 27th January 2020 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynot (Post 12967848)

Sure, have you heard of cows?


:cow:

acbytesla 27th January 2020 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12967834)
Let me guess: my "story" is that God exists in the gaps (or something).

It just goes to show, if you can't rebut an argument, change the argument. :rolleyes:

No, your argument is that God created the Universe and since we don't have information before the Big Bang we don't know. That there is a gap in man's understanding. That is the classic God of the Gaps. It's also unfalsifiable.

Try again.

JoeMorgue 27th January 2020 09:03 AM

It's a perfect, intellectual deadzone.

We don't know therefore God so God is the answer to everything, but God works in mysterious ways so we can never actually understand it. So by going "God diddit" we don't actually know anything new since we don't know anything about God, but we have an "answer" that isn't answer that can invoked.

The last of mankind's great Gods to die is going to be the one that is functionally identical to just not knowing.

acbytesla 27th January 2020 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12968138)
You don't even know that it is a "tiny slim chance". Any number you give me about the odds will be entirely made up.

As is the intelligence you claim caused the Big Bang.

Steve 27th January 2020 09:25 AM

When Does Religion Become Just Silly?
 
For at least one religion - "In the beginning......"

Darat 27th January 2020 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12968171)
It's a perfect, intellectual deadzone.

We don't know therefore God so God is the answer to everything, but God works in mysterious ways so we can never actually understand it. So by going "God diddit" we don't actually know anything new since we don't know anything about God, but we have an "answer" that isn't answer that can invoked.

The last of mankind's great Gods to die is going to be the one that is functionally identical to just not knowing.

And of course the god that matches that description would be utterly unlike any god religions posit exists.

We have had the ontological, we've had the nobody can know, we've had the redefine god to no longer be the good of the religious and we've had it's quantum. So yep reset it will be.

JoeMorgue 27th January 2020 09:28 AM

Indeed. "God did it with magic in a way we can never understand" isn't an answer.

It's also not the God that anyone actually believes in.

This discussion has not moved forward in about 10 pages now. It's almost getting Jabbian.

acbytesla 27th January 2020 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve (Post 12968199)
For at least one religion - "In the beginning......"

:bigclap

psionl0 27th January 2020 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 12968168)
No, your argument is that God created the Universe . . . .

I knew that you weren't paying attention.

This is what happens when you are too busy banging your own drum. You don't even know what you are arguing against.

JoeMorgue 27th January 2020 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12968300)
I knew that you weren't paying attention.

This is what happens when you are too busy banging your own drum. You don't even know what you are arguing against.

Then please take two seconds and clarify your points.

Because all of us are confused as to what they are and we all haven't just up decided to all misunderstand you in the same way.

Maybe, just maybe, you aren't making your points very well.

You've said nothing but "You can't say that God didn't do it because he's magic and special because I special pleading definitions into him that say he could have."

Say something that isn't that and we'll address it, I promise you.

And no before you hijack I don't care whether these are arguments that you literally personally believe in (as if that makes a difference) or are arguments you just trot out in discussions.

Goddamn at this rate you're gonna start claiming you can prove immortality soon.

psionl0 27th January 2020 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12968202)
And of course the god that matches that description would be utterly unlike any god religions posit exists.

That silly nonsense has been totally demolished. I quoted all 3 religious texts of the Abrahamic God which all say, "God created the universe".

psionl0 27th January 2020 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12968304)
Then please take two seconds and clarify your points.

I don't see the need to repeat myself yet again. You are not going to read what I write as long as there is a nice juicy strawman that you can deal with instead.

JoeMorgue 27th January 2020 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12968305)
That silly nonsense has been totally demolished. I quoted all 3 religious texts of the Abrahamic God which all say, "God created the universe".

Yeah but he didn't then go away.

Doesn't the Bible say something about bearing false witness?

JoeMorgue 27th January 2020 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12968306)
I don't see the need to repeat myself yet again. You are not going to read what I write as long as there is a nice juicy strawman that you can deal with instead.

Okay. No less then 3 or 4 people are just not listening to you and mis-interpreting you all in the same way and it's totally not your fault.

Get down off the cross, use the wood to build a bridge, and use the bridge to get over yourself.

acbytesla 27th January 2020 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12968300)
I knew that you weren't paying attention.

This is what happens when you are too busy banging your own drum. You don't even know what you are arguing against.

No. That is your argument. That some mystical magical being created the Universe.

God = Creator of the universe.

psionl0 27th January 2020 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 12968363)
No. That is your argument. That some mystical magical being created the Universe.

No, that is your strawman. It is much easier to rebut that than to rebut the idea that there is no information on which to deal with whether a creator was or was not involved with the origins of the universe.

JoeMorgue 27th January 2020 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12968393)
No, that is your strawman. It is much easier to rebut that than to rebut the idea that there is no information on which to deal with whether a creator was or was not involved with the origins of the universe.

*Head desk*

"But we can't know for sure, therefore maybe God" is not a strawman it's literally what you are saying.

This is going from dishonest debating to outright lying at this point.

Nobody is strawmanning you into claiming there is a God. We are disagreeing with your "Tiny sliver of doubt, therefore a God that has to be acknowledged and can't be declaratively said to not exist" argument.

Do you even know what strawman means or are you just another theist/apologist who heard the word used against them so many times you think it's just a magic word to use when you're losing an argument?

This is now like 10 posts in a row of "OMG THAT's nOT wHAt I'M saYing!" instead of just goddamn clarify what you are saying.

ynot 27th January 2020 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12968396)
*Head desk*

"But we can't know for sure, therefore maybe God" is not a strawman it's literally what you are saying.

This is going from dishonest debating to outright lying at this point.

Nobody is strawmanning you into claiming there is a God. We are disagreeing with your "Tiny sliver of doubt, therefore a God that has to be acknowledged and can't be declaratively said to not exist" argument.

Do you even know what strawman means or are you just another theist/apologist who heard the word used against them so many times you think it's just a magic word to use when you're losing an argument?

This is now like 10 posts in a row of "OMG THAT's nOT wHAt I'M saYing!" instead of just goddamn clarify what you are saying.

Which is why I said earlier . . .
Quote:

Originally Posted by ynot (Post 12967189)
Just as I predicted/expected. Not only do you want to hide your believed god in vagueness, you also want to hide your god beliefs in vagueness as well. Totally dishonest and cowardly tactics.


ynot 27th January 2020 11:43 AM

I never did get a coherent answer this . . .
Quote:

Originally Posted by ynot (Post 12967812)
So please help me out – What are your credible reasons for believing there is a “beyond the universe” and an “intelligence beyond the universe that gave rise to the big bang”? If you can do that I would be very, very interested indeed.


ynot 27th January 2020 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12968393)
No, that is your strawman. It is much easier to rebut that than to rebut the idea that there is no information on which to deal with whether a creator was or was not involved with the origins of the universe.

Sure, but do you BELIEVE there was/is a creator that was involved with the origins of the universe, regardless that you can't KNOW? A simple "yes" or "no" will do.

In other words, are you a theist or an atheist? (waits for - "Neither")

acbytesla 27th January 2020 11:53 AM

I just love this. It's our fault for misinterpreting that an intelligence beyond the universe that gave rise to the Big Bang means a God. Huh?

"An Intelligence that gave rise to the universe". What the hell would you call that?

ynot 27th January 2020 12:03 PM

Saying this . . .
Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12967690)
Fine. So you are not interested in what lies beyond the universe

is NOT saying this - "So you are not interested in what might lie beyond the universe"

JoeMorgue 27th January 2020 12:04 PM

"We've looked everywhere but have to keep looking for God because he might lie outside of 'everywhere.'" is like trying to keep going North when you're at the North pole.

Concepts like "Outside reality" and "Outside the universe" are just more special pleading.

It's like saying 2+2=4 in math, but maybe it equals something "outside Math."

See? It's not deep it's just stupid.

Darat 27th January 2020 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12968305)
That silly nonsense has been totally demolished. I quoted all 3 religious texts of the Abrahamic God which all say, "God created the universe".

Nope, not all those religions say that.

Please reread the posts that I demonstrated what I had claimed was true.

Sadly I suspect you will continue to lie.

Ulf Nereng 27th January 2020 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 12968427)
I just love this. It's our fault for misinterpreting that an intelligence beyond the universe that gave rise to the Big Bang means a God. Huh?

"An Intelligence that gave rise to the universe". What the hell would you call that?

Alan Guth? Or someone like him...

https://www.nytimes.com/1987/04/14/s...literally.html

I don't know if Guth still thinks this is possible, but it does show that -maybe- a universe creator wouldn't have to be any sort of god at all. It is also at bit funny when you consider that his name is pretty close to the word "god", especially in the scandinavian languages ("gud")! :D

JoeMorgue 27th January 2020 01:36 PM

People have been "claiming" stuff about God roughly as long as we've been human.

We don't have to carry the intellectual baggage of every random thought about God forever.

I don't have to account for every random philosopher, theologian, stoner, and internet commentators version of God with every variable, excuse, special pleading accounted for anymore then I have to define whether or not a 3 toed or 4 toed invisible dragon doesn't live in my garage.

acbytesla 27th January 2020 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12968443)
"We've looked everywhere but have to keep looking for God because he might lie outside of 'everywhere.'" is like trying to keep going North when you're at the North pole.

Concepts like "Outside reality" and "Outside the universe" are just more special pleading.

It's like saying 2+2=4 in math, but maybe it equals something "outside Math."

See? It's not deep it's just stupid.


I wouldn't go so far to say it's stupid.

It is like hard solopsism. We cannot prove that there isn't anything outside our mind is real. Or that everything we see feel and touch is just code of some powerful computer and we are just programs in the machine/the matrix.

But while it is an interesting idea to ponder for a few moments, beyond that, it is useless.

JoeMorgue 27th January 2020 01:53 PM

Well I find solopsism, in any version, stupid.

And much like the Watchmaker God or other God built out of Special Pleadings you'll never actually meet a solopsist outside a padded room.

I can entertain something on a purely intellectual level as much as the next person, but when something isn't just detached from the real world but purposely built to be detached from the real world, I really, really fail to see the point.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:34 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.