• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged A Proof of the Existence of God / Did Someone Create the Universe?

Buddha said:
In an interview that Popper gave in 1969 with the condition that it should be kept secret until after his death, he summarised his position on God as follows: "I don't know whether God exists or not. ... Some forms of atheism are arrogant and ignorant and should be rejected, but agnosticism—to admit that we don't know and to search—is all right. ... When I look at what I call the gift of life, I feel a gratitude which is in tune with some religious ideas of God. However, the moment I even speak of it, I am embarrassed that I may do something wrong to God in talking about God." He objected to organised religion, saying "it tends to use the name of God in vain", noting the danger of fanaticism because of religious conflicts: "The whole thing goes back to myths which, though they may have a kernel of truth, are untrue. Why then should the Jewish myth be true and the Indian and Egyptian myths not be true?" In a letter unrelated to the interview, he stressed his tolerant attitude: "Although I am not for religion, I do think that we should show respect for anybody who believes honestly” Wikipedia
Click to expand...


Again, your "loosely based on Popper" made up character misses the mark. Regarding the subject of this thread, so far.

"I don't know whether God exists or not. We may know how little we know, but this must not be turned or twisted into into a positive knowledge of the existence of an unfathomable secret... I do not think it is admissible to make a theology out of a lack of knowledge ... Some forms of atheism are arrogant and ignorant and should be rejected, but agnosticism -to admit that we don't know and to search- is all right.
So far as religion is testable, it seems to be false. This is not an accusation because religion is not science, however, does not mean that it is meaningless"

fragments in bold typeface = he was talking to the likes of you, "Buddha".
 
Buddha said:
I have reached my objective, now I know what I have to do to convey my ideas in a clear fashion.
Click to expand...

Why not test that hypothesis by doing so in this thread?

My next topic is the reincarnation. According to Buddha, in the afterlife a person faces 3 possibilities: the heaven, the hell and the reincarnation. The first two possibilities are accepted on faith alone. However, I can provide empirical data showing that the reincarnation exists. It will take me couple of days to prepare materials for a new thread.
Click to expand...

I'll join that thread in about two weeks, when you've got past all the "I'm going to post some data" stuff and actually get round to posting your data.

According to Buddha, in the afterlife a person faces 3 possibilities: the heaven, the hell and the reincarnation.
Click to expand...

It cannot be reincarnation, because there could be no video tape of the transition from one life to another. It cannot be Heaven because there cannot be a video tape of the transition from life to Heaven. Therefore the answer is hell.

There you go, I've saved you a bit of effort.
 
Last edited:
It cannot be reincarnation, because there could be no video tape of the transition from one life to another. It cannot be Heaven because there cannot be a video tape of the transition from life to Heaven. Therefore the answer is hell.
Click to expand...

No, you're still not getting it. According to Popper and positivism and deductive inductive reasoning the correct answer is always the third option.
 
Buddha said:
This is my last post at this thread. I have reached my objective, now I know what I have to do to convey my ideas in a clear fashion.
Click to expand...



Yeah, good luck with that.

JXW7hNi.gif


Please, come back and post links to details when you do.

joeAFAT.jpg


In the mean time, please seriously consider some remedial lessons on just about everything we've seen you post here.

g0atM06.jpg
 
I Am The Scum said:
So how long til he posts in this thread again?
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced he will. He seems like the type to leave so he can more effectively declare himself the winner. "Oh, I was finished with that thread - having already thoroughly accomplished my goal" is a great ending note to someone like that.
 
SOdhner said:
I'm not convinced he will. He seems like the type to leave so he can more effectively declare himself the winner. "Oh, I was finished with that thread - having already thoroughly accomplished my goal" is a great ending note to someone like that.
Click to expand...

He thinks he set the thread on fire and is walking away from the wreckage.

KAG9pRs.jpg


When all he's really done is walk away when the going got tough.

bGy3C2i.jpg
 
Buddha said:
My next topic is the reincarnation. According to Buddha, in the afterlife a person faces 3 possibilities: the heaven, the hell and the reincarnation. The first two possibilities are accepted on faith alone. However, I can provide empirical data showing that the reincarnation exists. It will take me couple of days to prepare materials for a new thread.
Click to expand...
anatta: no self, no atman

No reincarnation
 
SOdhner said:
I'm not convinced he will. He seems like the type to leave so he can more effectively declare himself the winner. "Oh, I was finished with that thread - having already thoroughly accomplished my goal" is a great ending note to someone like that.
Click to expand...

He was supposed to prove the existence of God, and he failed. It's the Jabba pattern all over again. When Jabba discovered he couldn't prove immortality, he tried to move the goalposts and prove only "immateriality."

Similarly Buddha found he couldn't prove the existence of God. At first he tried to make it seem like he could if only his audience were smart enough to realize what a philosophy genius he was. But then when it appeared that wasn't going to work, he moved the goalposts and invented a whole new scenario where this was just the dry run of his argument, to gather feedback, before he released it toward his "real" goal, the unraveling of string theory. That way he can thoroughly lose the debate, have his proof completely refuted and still "win" because he got valuable feedback.
 
JayUtah said:
It's the Jabba pattern all over again.
Click to expand...

Right, but with Jabba there was a feeling of desperation to his overconfidence, whereas with Buddha the overconfidence is tinged with obliviousness. That difference will allow Buddha to leave this thread and not look back, though he may make other threads where the exact same scenario will play out.

So with Jabba you get one five-year-long thread, with Buddha I think we get a bunch of short or medium ones instead.

I guess the other comparison would be King of the Americas, where we got a medium number of long(ish) threads but he still hopped around a lot.
 
Tommok said:
No, you're still not getting it. According to Popper and positivism and deductive inductive reasoning the correct answer is always the third option.
Click to expand...

Yup. I put reincarnation first, and Heaven second. Disproved the first two by means of video tape, therefore the third, Hell, is correct.
 
Buddha said:
I can provide empirical data showing that the reincarnation exists. It will take me couple of days to prepare materials for a new thread.
Click to expand...

In order to keep this thread from accumulating cobwebs while we wait for you to start your new one that will end up being merged here, I am going to take a stab at the proof on reincarnation on your behalf. Here goes:

There are all sorts of new innovations and technologies that have come into existence in the 6000 years since the earth was created. People are clearly becoming more intelligent.

But, since it has been proven that evolution is impossible, that cannot be the reason for this progress.

We are left with the only possibility being that souls are reincarnated and that the accumulated wisdom of many lifetimes is driving these improvements, even without having the specific memories of those lives having been lived.

How's that?
 
jr, that's more than brilliant! About 34% more, I would estimate.

Okay, I lifted that from Mark Twain. He won't get me for it.

Unless he reincarnates.
 
SOdhner said:
I'm not convinced he will. He seems like the type to leave so he can more effectively declare himself the winner. "Oh, I was finished with that thread - having already thoroughly accomplished my goal" is a great ending note to someone like that.
Click to expand...

Yep, Buddha says he will start a new thread about reincarnation.

This time Buddha says he has "empirical data" to prove reincarnation, instead of deductive/inductive/convective logic.

Pity we will have to wait a week or two to get the 'proof'......
:popcorn1
 
Last edited:
Buddha said:
This is my last post at this thread. I have reached my objective, now I know what I have to do to convey my ideas in a clear fashion.
Click to expand...

I'd say you've done an excellent job conveying your ideas clearly; pretty well everyone grasped them clearly enough to see what was wrong with them. You may want to work on conveying them less clearly.

Buddha said:
However, I can provide empirical data showing that the reincarnation exists.
Click to expand...

Dear God, let it not be based on Bayes' Theorem.

Buddha said:
It will take me couple of days to prepare materials for a new thread.
Click to expand...

How many days do you expect it to have been running before you start preparing?

Dave
 
I predict that the proof of reincarnation which will provided by 'Buddha' will be just as valid as the other proofs of reincarnation that everyone else has provided over the centuries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom