ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 23rd January 2020, 01:25 AM   #321
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 15,630
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
You wish to use a meaning for the word god that is unlike any god of any religion I have ever heard of, so why do you use the word "god" to describe your idea?
That is so ignorant. The Torah, Bible and Quran all describe a creator God with minimally the properties I described.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2020, 02:16 AM   #322
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 89,708
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
That is so ignorant. The Torah, Bible and Quran all describe a creator God with minimally the properties I described.
Actually they don't.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2020, 02:26 AM   #323
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 15,630
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Actually they don't.
Which qualities don't they possess?
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2020, 03:58 AM   #324
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 21,618
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
He does make the odd appearance. Usually in the psychotic episodes of schizophrenics. Demons, on the other hand, are everywhere (if you follow the teachings of the Pentecostals).
There's one tapping me on the shoulder atm. He's small, orange, clawed and mewing for chin scratcting.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2020, 05:07 AM   #325
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 89,708
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Which qualities don't they possess?
For Judaism creating the universe, their God merely shapes what is already there, the only ex nihilo creation is light.

ETA: of course not all the various denominations of Judaism hold that view. All I am demonstrating is that you are repeatedly using a definition not used by the religious for their god.

And of course it doesn't help with the myriad of non creator gods that people have and do believe in.

Are you happy saying those noncreator gods don't exist?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you

Last edited by Darat; 23rd January 2020 at 05:16 AM.
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2020, 05:13 AM   #326
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 89,708
I really don't know why you want to call your personal beliefs god, it makes discussion harder when we've got to remember you are not using the label god the same as the religious believers do.

For clarity can we call your god pgod?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2020, 05:36 AM   #327
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 30,244
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
I really don't know why you want to call your personal beliefs god, it makes discussion harder when we've got to remember you are not using the label god the same as the religious believers do.

For clarity can we call your god pgod?
Don't you mean p-god? Then His son would be p-Jesus, and after resurrection he would become p-zombie Jesus.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2020, 05:43 AM   #328
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 89,708
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2020, 06:19 AM   #329
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 22,800
"You can't prove there isn't a God! You have to acknowledge the possibility and you can't use definite, declarative statements!"
"I can't prove there isn't a dragon in my garage either, but nobody pitches a fit if say that isn't a dragon in my garage."
"That's different."
"Why?"
*Beat, full fringe reset* "You can't prove there isn't a God!"
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2020, 06:49 AM   #330
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 22,800
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Claiming that the probability of the existence of a god is of the same order as "quantum tunneling" of large objects (ie virtually impossible) is no less silly than asserting that it is impossible.
You're (deliberately and dishonestly) missing the point.

You really think you've got us trapped in some "gotcha" with the whole "technically you can't prove to full metaphysical 100% certainty there is no God" thing.

You can't disprove anything to that standard. By your arguments you should be running into discussions screamin' and holler' whenever anyone says anything definitive.

"The sun is going to rise tomorrow." You run in screaming "You can't be sure of that!"

"The Battle of Hastings was in 1066." You run in screaming "NOOOO! You have to acknowledge the possibility that you are wrong!"

"Water is wet." You run in screaming "Ahhh.... excuse you. I think you mean you believe water is wet but aren't certain."

But you aren't. Nobody is. Because that would be insane. And so is this.

It's not a matter of God being "technically unproven" and we're not dutifully acknowledging it. It's a matter of God being way, way, way below the threshold of bringing the technical sliver of possibility up.

That is the point that YOU... JUST... KEEP... FAILING... TO... GET with the dragon in the garage and Russell's teapot and all the other metaphors.

When something is completely evidence-less and someone goes "That thing does not exist" nobody freaks out unless it's God. God has his own standards where you have to grovel before his concept until such time as you completely disprove him which is... stupid.

You are, as is obvious now, going to do a full fringe reset back to "But God is different" and act as you've supported that statement with literally anything that isn't special pleading at best, literally just "Because I say so" at worst.

That really is the problem with God discussion. The believers/apologist go into the discussion with the mentality that we've all already agree that discussions about God operate under completely different rules and the believers/apologist get... like legit angry anytime anyone dares to discuss their precious God as if his existence was just another opinion to be discussed like we discuss everything. "How dare you expect me to actually support God with evidence" is the undertone to all of this.

At this point I'm talking at you more then I trying to maintain the illusion that I'm talking with you, because you're just gonna stamp your feet, cross your arms, and huff "But you can't say for certain!" or "God is different because I say so!" or some other special pleading variation on it back at me because you are literally incapable of moving intellectually beyond that in this one discussion.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 23rd January 2020 at 06:51 AM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2020, 07:01 AM   #331
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 22,800
Someone, I believe it was arthwollipot, mentioned the argumentative rule of thumb "Occam's Razor" a page or so back.

Occam's Razor is the argumentative standard that when given two possible choice that, all other factors being equal, that the one which has fewer assumed or undefined variables is more likely to be the correct one, a concept sometimes (rather over simplified in my opinion) to "The simpler answer is usually the correct one."

There's actually a concept, half serious and half joke, that takes Occam's Razor one step further. It's called Newton's Flaming Laser Sword and it states that "That which cannot be settled by experimentation is not worth debating."

psionIO has presented us, ostensibly, with the old chestnut of "The Vaguely Vague God of Vague Vagueness doing Vague Things Vaguely." It's a well worn tactic, an attempt to clumsily shoehorn the "God" concept into apologetics by removing literally all defining characteristic from God to the point that when you say God you are saying nothing, and then dropping the Mic as if you accomplished something when nobody can come up with a counter-argument to... nothing.

So I shall now use Newton's Flaming Laser Sword to cut through this crap.

How would a universe with God in it be functionally different from a universe without?

If you present a difference, then that difference is evidence, and must be defended and you can no longer hid behind vagueness.

God does X. Show X. God is the cause of X. Show the evidence. God explains X. Defend that position.

If you cannot show a difference, if you fall back on vague mumblings about distinctions with difference and technicalities, then there is no difference and the topic is not worth discussing. And no that doesn't mean you get to go "Okay but I'm still gonna harp on my meaningless technical difference and you can shut up then."

You cannot dart back and forth between the two any longer, no more "God might exist and it is vitally important that that possibility be acknowledged" and "God exists? I never said that. Who said God exist? What is God? What God? Who said God? God the nothing nothing with no characteristics? How on Earth can I show that it exists?"
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 23rd January 2020 at 07:06 AM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2020, 08:40 AM   #332
Steve
Philosopher
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,637
The title of this thread includes the word Religion. To me that implies religions existing in the world today. In the context of the thread there is no purpose to introducing a god that no religions believe in. Religions uniformly believe in a god that meddles in the affairs of humans.

So, psionl0, your particular god that you cannot define and does nothing has no relevance. Do you have anything to offer pertinent to the actual gods and beliefs of religions?
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2020, 08:51 AM   #333
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 22,800
It won't happen.

I can't remember the last time God was actually positively defended, on this board, or in general discourse.

It's always this, playing wack-a-mole with a shape-shifting argumentative God made of whatever special pleadings it needs to be excused away at whatever moment, one that nobody actually believes in and exists only in arguments and philosophy, one that is functionally identical to "No God" except for it existing on some technical level. It's the Spherical Cow in a friction-less vacuum of theology. It's much more a defense of belief then of God.

This is why apologetics bother me more then just being wrong. Wrong people eventually give up.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 23rd January 2020 at 09:05 AM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2020, 09:26 AM   #334
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 15,630
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
For Judaism creating the universe, their God merely shapes what is already there, the only ex nihilo creation is light.
I'm pretty sure that you are not going to find anywhere in any of the texts I listed that God "shaped" an existing universe.

Some bible translations use the term "the heavens" and others "the universe". Regardless Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". The Torah is similar (not surprisingly since the first 5 books in both are the same).

The Quran doesn't begin with creation "week" but you don't have to look very hard to find references to "Allah" creating the universe. For example, in [51:47] it says, "We constructed the universe with power, and We are expanding it.".
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2020, 09:28 AM   #335
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 15,630
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
You really think you've got us trapped in some "gotcha" with the whole "technically you can't prove to full metaphysical 100% certainty there is no God" thing.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2020, 09:50 AM   #336
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 22,800
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Dude read the room. I'm not the one in the hole.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2020, 10:18 AM   #337
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 10,704
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Plus of course nearly everyone who claims to believe in a god, all the Christians, all the Muslims, all the Hindus, all the Sikh claim to believe in a god that is active in our world* and can be seen to be active, and those gods account for the gods the vast majority of actual believers in the world claim to believe in.


*there may be some esoteric sects that don't but I don't know of any.
I'm far from expert, but I think there is a strand of mysticism in many faiths that sort of transcends the rulebook sort of God and stresses individual experience of a deity, but those experiences won't be very compelling evidence to an independent observer and could be chalked up to self-hypnosis, wishful thinking, epilepsy, drugs, etc. Still, if someone cites personal experiences, while you can offer different explanations you can't really argue about what they experienced. Or what they think they experienced, which amounts to the same thing. To them, it may be compelling evidence indeed.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2020, 11:02 AM   #338
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,500
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
I'm far from expert, but I think there is a strand of mysticism in many faiths that sort of transcends the rulebook sort of God and stresses individual experience of a deity, but those experiences won't be very compelling evidence to an independent observer and could be chalked up to self-hypnosis, wishful thinking, epilepsy, drugs, etc. Still, if someone cites personal experiences, while you can offer different explanations you can't really argue about what they experienced. Or what they think they experienced, which amounts to the same thing. To them, it may be compelling evidence indeed.
Understatement of the century.

They tried hiding their imaginary god(s) at the top of mountains, then in outer space (sky), then outside of the Universe and time; now they try hiding their imaginary god(s) in vagueness (what's next?).

Thinks . . . Where will Santa live if the North Pole completely melts?
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.

Last edited by ynot; 23rd January 2020 at 11:13 AM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2020, 11:25 AM   #339
Steve
Philosopher
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,637
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I'm pretty sure that you are not going to find anywhere in any of the texts I listed that God "shaped" an existing universe.

Some bible translations use the term "the heavens" and others "the universe". Regardless Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". The Torah is similar (not surprisingly since the first 5 books in both are the same).

The Quran doesn't begin with creation "week" but you don't have to look very hard to find references to "Allah" creating the universe. For example, in [51:47] it says, "We constructed the universe with power, and We are expanding it.".
Gods did none of the above. The texts are fantasies. How do you suppose the writers knew what their supposed gods did or did not do before there were people? Gods were just a place holder for "we don't know".
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2020, 11:26 AM   #340
Steve
Philosopher
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,637
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Understatement of the century.

They tried hiding their imaginary god(s) at the top of mountains, then in outer space (sky), then outside of the Universe and time; now they try hiding their imaginary god(s) in vagueness (what's next?).

Thinks . . . Where will Santa live if the North Pole completely melts?
Santa's Ark. Hey, it apparently worked once before.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2020, 11:33 AM   #341
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,500
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
Gods did none of the above. The texts are fantasies. How do you suppose the writers knew what their supposed gods did or did not do before there were people? Gods were just a place holder for "we don't know".
Seems theists have “horse before cart” god beliefs. They believe in their god(s) because they believe in their books, rather than they believe in their books because they believe in their god(s).
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2020, 11:34 AM   #342
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,500
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
Santa's Ark. Hey, it apparently worked once before.
Obvious solution! (silly me)
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2020, 02:31 PM   #343
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,880
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
The title of this thread includes the word Religion. To me that implies religions existing in the world today. In the context of the thread there is no purpose to introducing a god that no religions believe in. Religions uniformly believe in a god that meddles in the affairs of humans.

So, psionl0, your particular god that you cannot define and does nothing has no relevance. Do you have anything to offer pertinent to the actual gods and beliefs of religions?

Good point Steve!
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2020, 07:45 PM   #344
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 15,630
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
Gods did none of the above. The texts are fantasies. How do you suppose the writers knew what their supposed gods did or did not do before there were people? Gods were just a place holder for "we don't know".
LOL you could have made the exact same response to Darat's post #331. Instead, you had to wait until I corrected Darat about what was in these religious texts before you came out swinging.

What a peanut gallery.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

Last edited by psionl0; 23rd January 2020 at 07:48 PM.
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2020, 08:34 PM   #345
Steve
Philosopher
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,637
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
LOL you could have made the exact same response to Darat's post #331. Instead, you had to wait until I corrected Darat about what was in these religious texts before you came out swinging.

What a peanut gallery.
I owe you an apology here. I actually thought it was a post by Darat that I quoted and responded to. I guess I was just not paying attention. My mistake and my sincere apology.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2020, 08:54 PM   #346
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 89,708
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
LOL you could have made the exact same response to Darat's post #331. Instead, you had to wait until I corrected Darat about what was in these religious texts before you came out swinging.

What a peanut gallery.
You cant correct something by being incorrect yourself..
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2020, 09:07 PM   #347
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 15,630
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
You cant correct something by being incorrect yourself..
Give it up. I proved that you are wrong about what was written in these religious texts.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2020, 09:09 PM   #348
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 15,630
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
I owe you an apology here. I actually thought it was a post by Darat that I quoted and responded to. I guess I was just not paying attention. My mistake and my sincere apology.
Thanks. I hope that unlike Darat, you don't think that I am inventing a new god that nobody has ever invented before.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2020, 12:52 AM   #349
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 10,704
Exclamation

Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I could say that IF x > 0 THEN sqrt(x) is a real number.

Would you argue that I am using an ontological argument for the positiveness of x?
The positiveness? Or the realness? Not that this has anything to do with God though to the Pythagoreans maybe it did. They apparently did not approve of irrational numbers. Though 2,000+ years ago I can't even grasp how anyone knew what an irrational number was. Even though I've seen a simple proof that the square root of any number not a perfect square is irrational. But it doesn't make sense to me. How can 2 identical numbers with infinite digits multiply to equal 2.0000...? Hmm. I've been raked over the coals for such questions before since I've been licensed to teach algebra to 14-year-olds therefore I'm asking stupid questions.

Sometimes I think I see the hand of God in mathematics. The elegance of it all. That's kind of a squishy statement and I can't really elaborate. Pi, e, a few other things remind me of all I don't know.is

I do get why people call this special pleading, though in the case of the existence of nonexistence of God maybe special pleading is allowable [ETA: because the existence of nonexistence of God may be the ultimate special case]. I think I understand your arguments but I'm not sure I do. [ETA2: Just as I think I understand what Joe, Darat et al. are saying. But I probably come down on your side, if only for the notion of the difficulty, if not impossibility, of proving a negative.]

Last edited by Minoosh; 24th January 2020 at 01:12 AM. Reason: Fixed garble, I hope
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2020, 01:24 AM   #350
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 15,630
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
I do get why people call this special pleading, though in the case of the existence of nonexistence of God maybe special pleading is allowable. I think I understand your arguments but I'm not sure I do.
Special pleading is when you insist that you or your statements don't have to comply with the rules you set for others. Merely saying "one of these things is not like the others" doesn't automatically make it special pleading (otherwise we would call it special pleading if you don't insist that chimpanzees have to go to school until adulthood).

We have one poster arguing that questions about god(s) are like searching a confined space for a being he says he has made up.

OTOH I am saying that there are a couple of fundamental issues that can't be answered:
* Was the universe created or has it always existed?
* If it was created, was it due to some eternal natural law or was an intelligent being involved?

Now you tell me which one of those positions is "special pleading".
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

Last edited by psionl0; 24th January 2020 at 01:26 AM.
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2020, 01:46 AM   #351
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 89,708
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Give it up. I proved that you are wrong about what was written in these religious texts.
That you don't understand how most religions determine their beliefs isn't my issue.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you

Last edited by Darat; 24th January 2020 at 01:48 AM.
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2020, 02:52 AM   #352
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 89,708
Took me a while to find my copy as it is an actual paper book and I had to update my software to deal with such an old file format....

From

COMMENTARY ON THE TORAH WITH A NEW ENGLISH TRANSLATION RICHARD ELLIOTT FRIEDMAN

Quote:
... snip..
1:2. the earth had been. Here is a case in which a tiny point of grammar makes a difference for theology. In the Hebrew of this verse, the noun comes before the verb (in the perfect form). This is now known to be the way of conveying the past perfect in Biblical Hebrew. This point of grammar means that this verse does not mean “the earth was shapeless and formless”—referring to the condition of the earth starting the instant after it was created. This verse rather means that “the earth had been shapeless and formless”—that is, it had already existed in this shapeless condition prior to the creation. Creation of matter in the Torah is not out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo), as many have claimed. And the Torah is not claiming to be telling events from the beginning of time.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2020, 03:16 AM   #353
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 15,630
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
That you don't understand how most religions determine their beliefs isn't my issue.
If that wasn't such a lame effort I would have said it was worthy of a Dunning-Kruger award.

Originally Posted by Darat View Post
COMMENTARY ON THE TORAH WITH A NEW ENGLISH TRANSLATION RICHARD ELLIOTT FRIEDMAN
All that proves is how easy it is to twist the text of religious writings. One would think that "In the beginning of God's creation of the heavens and the earth" (https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8165) could not mean anything other than that they didn't exist prior to God creating them (what else could "shapeless and formless” mean?) but people who fancy themselves as Supreme Court judges can clearly find a way.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

Last edited by psionl0; 24th January 2020 at 03:20 AM.
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2020, 03:38 AM   #354
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 89,708
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
If that wasn't such a lame effort I would have said it was worthy of a Dunning-Kruger award.


All that proves is how easy it is to twist the text of religious writings. One would think that "In the beginning of God's creation of the heavens and the earth" (https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8165) could not mean anything other than that they didn't exist prior to God creating them (what else could "shapeless and formless” mean?) but people who fancy themselves as Supreme Court judges can clearly find a way.
All it shows is that my comment to you was correct, and you were unaware of how even the "Abrahamic" religions differ in how they describe their gods.

Again I have no problem with you having your own definition for god apart from it causing avoidable ambiguity and confusion.

The god (your point about not knowing if it exists) is not a god any of the religions I know about claims exists.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2020, 03:47 AM   #355
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 15,630
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
All it shows is that my comment to you was correct, and you were unaware of how even the "Abrahamic" religions differ in how they describe their gods.
The concept of an "Abrahamic" god who's powers are so limited that he can't create a universe is unique to you and whatever author you can dredge up to support your unique POV.

The vast majority of believers do not subscribe to that POV. They believe (and they are told by their ministers) that God is all powerful.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2020, 03:55 AM   #356
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 89,708
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
The concept of an "Abrahamic" god who's powers are so limited that he can't create a universe is unique to you and whatever author you can dredge up to support your unique POV.



The vast majority of believers do not subscribe to that POV. They believe (and they are told by their ministers) that God is all powerful.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2020, 04:16 AM   #357
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 15,630
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I'm beginning to suspect that you have another agenda on your mind.
Your agenda became clear very quickly. No matter what god I described and no matter what characteristics I listed, you would say "nobody believes in that god".

Unfortunately, you became so emotionally invested in this dishonest strategy that you had to dig your heels in and say that Christians don't believe that God created the universe.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2020, 04:19 AM   #358
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 89,708
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Your agenda became clear very quickly. No matter what god I described and no matter what characteristics I listed, you would say "nobody believes in that god".

Unfortunately, you became so emotionally invested in this dishonest strategy that you had to dig your heels in and say that Christians don't believe that God created the universe.
Why are you now lying?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2020, 04:28 AM   #359
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 15,630
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2020, 05:36 AM   #360
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 89,708
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Lying is funny for you?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:00 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.