EN | NL | FR
Current Wings Quest 130
Rainbow Connection

The God Delusion

Post new topic This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

Author  Message 
R3TRO
Lucid Jedi
cookie lover
30
Posts: 1005
Joined: 13 Jun 2004
Last Visit: 17 Nov 2016
Location: Northern California
 
PostPosted: Fri 25 Sep, 2009  Reply with quote

Couldn't have said it better myself...

Quote:
WE HAVE A CREATOR BECAUSE YOU DIDNT CREATE ANYTHING AND AT MOST WILL BUILD A BIRDHOUSE OR CRUDE SCULPTURE.


you are sitting in front of a computer... building... talking instantly to people on the other side of the globe... listening to an ipod... with music on it played on instruments...

yeah


back to top
Bruno
a smiling haze
Globahead
Chat Mods
Posts: 5954
Joined: 03 Dec 2005
Last Visit: 29 Mar 2018
LD count: a bunch.
Location: fleeting.
 
PostPosted: Sat 26 Sep, 2009  Reply with quote

addressing posts in pages 1 through 4.
hi. I'm catching up with the topic. feel absolutely free to skip this if you want to.

just to set the record straight: there's no such a thing as burden of proof: if your interlocutor challenges a statement you make and you can't even remotely back it up, then it's out of the table. it's as simple as that. (any statement you make can be challenged, and the hell that it matters who threw the first rock).

but in fact, there are also no such things as proofs to begin with, not outside of maths at least; welcome to real life, all we have are evidences (and like Bombax nicely demonstrates throughout the beginning of the thread, these can all be charged with non sequitur given a little craft), and refutations (given an objective measure) (which almost always isn't feasible, so don't count on refutations much either). refutations aren't proofs that a theory is wrong, because that would beg the point that the universe is logical to begin with, which is something we can only hope for.

~ * ~

@Freecube Viggo Olsen: uninspiring, a counter example would've turned the whole discussion zero-sum; prefer someone like Gabriel Marcel, whose case at least demonstrates that rationality is in the eyes of the beholder (cf. Benford's law of controversy). also, the Bible contains tons against scientific thought, it's not even self consistent or coherent (hell, it's written in at least three languages, all extinct). none of this makes it any less logical (compared to other books) or any less worthy a book overall: so let's not beg absurd points, shall we?

@Bombax pointing out logical fallacies: nice way to disregard someone's arguments and the point they're trying to make. done like you did it, not once has it worked outside of a high school logic & rhetoric club. prioritising form over content might get you far in maths, but it's generally seen as a sign of bad faith in a, shall we call it, a humanities discussion; plus it tends to get you ignored by the interesting folk. also, you don't expect, you know, real people to ever actually reason like you do, right?

@Tomothy "Richard Dorkins" made my day. but I wouldn't say God Delusion poorly written; it's a brilliant book for people accostumed to such stuff as television and, you know, not thinking. I'm actually sad I didn't get to ask "Did you apply any of this logic to his book?" first.

@EllyEve to back up your argument a bit further, it's worth reminding everyone that the scientific consensus isn't a proof of anything, and serve as no guarantee that apples will never fall up (rather depending on them not falling up in order to remain consensus). attempts to sweep this fact under the rug and keep the scientific consensus in spite of compelling evidence that it's wrong have come to be known as dark energy.

@underscore worse than praising Dawkins blindly, in that passage Bombax was begging the point that a little inconsistency is okay if the overall discourse is coherent and useful. that's a nowhere defined "a little", n.b., which turns this whole thread into a very silly aesthetic dispute over which theory is the most pleasing.

@EllyEve Wond3rland isn't fact-oriented, so picking up contradictions kind of doesn't really trap him for too long. also, the tree --- life in general --- does not "design" itself, because then it would have a social role regardless of any society, which would make it inherently social, begging the point of a higher order anthropomorphic rationality "to all this". :-)

@Abren thanks for clearing that up to all of us, bud.

@Wond3rland first off, Tomothy is one of our most devout theists, so set the record straight. second, hey I'm also very wise and tend to think of my peers as a bunch of alienated sheep: ---where do I apply for elder's wisdom credentials? :-)


@Bombax "knows logic" doesn't imply "can't get laid"; "speaks like a logician when in defensive", however... :-) did you stop to realise how this thread began? freecube loses style points along with you, but hey, the whole thing sprung up from pure silly!

also, exposing Wond3rland's "illogical state" isn't a blow to anyone, in particular not to him, he's not aiming at logic to begin with. read his posts like metaphor, literature, or even like revelation. learn to respect those genres. outcasting it as illogical will move no stone in this discussion. also, weren't you the one excusing the inconsistencies in Dawkins's book in the name of overall usefulness and whatnot?

@Danielns13 you're the brightest 13 year old to set foot in this forum in quite a while, thank you for that post. I feel less mature than you right now. :-) it would've been nice to have you in the forum back in the golden days, at the cloud.

@Bombax science cannot per definition provide explanations, period. nowadays, the most optimistic view is that science can sort out useless theories, but provided we hit the theoretical jackpot and stumble upon the correct theory of everything, science provides us with no way of verifying it's right. we'd spend the rest of our lives having to trust it through --- wait for it --- faith. also, for the love of God, drop that Schopenhauer manual and speak like a human being! :-) you'll have more fun. so will we. you don't think anyone's going to change their minds over an internet thread anyway, do you? and yes, I'm quite fond of ad hominem myself: it proves I'm inconsistent, it doesn't prove I'm wrong.

@Scarface I'm indifferent to God's existence, I very much rather he doesn't exist and life ends with death, and still I think Dawkins's book sucks. (and hey, don't take me wrong, I quote from it when it pleases me; I just think it's poorly written and it's not my, you know, bible).

@Freecube what if I argue that I'm an atheist by preference (as opposed to faith)?


back to top
R3TRO
Lucid Jedi
cookie lover
30
Posts: 1005
Joined: 13 Jun 2004
Last Visit: 17 Nov 2016
Location: Northern California
 
PostPosted: Sat 26 Sep, 2009  Reply with quote

Quote:
you don't think anyone's going to change their minds over an internet thread anyway, do you?


i'd be willing to bet that is the reason 90 % of us continue to post in this thread lol... so yes


back to top
Wond3rland
Astral Explorer
Astral Explorer
30
Posts: 324
Joined: 22 Jul 2008
Last Visit: 29 Sep 2009
LD count: 22
 
PostPosted: Sat 26 Sep, 2009  Reply with quote

If they saw the truth they would... must I repeat again.

There is NO way in ANY possible rational explanation that the ENTIRE cosmos including emotions, consciousness, and morals are a bi product of "!NOTHING!" exploding 500 billion years ago. This theory however because possible, and highly probable, once intelligence is placed behind it as the initiator or grand architect.


"The Big Bang is correct, God pulled the trigger"


This is NOT debatable. I repeat... NOT debatable. There is no room for doubt or question. OF COURSE there is a creator. Now if you want to call "God" or Allah or Intelligence doesn't matter I don't imagine the entity being picky.

BUT THERE IS A DESIGNER. A PAINTER. A DIRECTOR OR PLAYWRIGHT if you will...

NO OTHER EXPlANATION

PLEASE BRING ONE TO THE TABLE. NO ONE HAS DONE ANYTHING TO CREATE ANOTHER PLATFORM OR ARGUMENT.

Every opposer to the idea of God on this thread has done nothing to create an account or testimony to another idea. All they said was it was on believers to prove it. So we did. And if it is not intelligent design, what do you propose. Do you have ANY ideas?

If anyone even thinks of the idea of saying the big bang, don't. Sit still and rest your weary fingers from the hard work of typing that out. There is NO way any other possibilities exist. Not even a remote chance of a possible maybe kinda sorta argument exist.


back to top
Bombax
Dream Deity
Dream Deity
Posts: 523
Joined: 25 Sep 2006
Last Visit: 24 Mar 2018
LD count: Thrice a week
 
PostPosted: Sat 26 Sep, 2009  Reply with quote

Wond3rland wrote:
NO OTHER EXPlANATION
He who raises his voice has run out of arguments.


back to top
Wond3rland
Astral Explorer
Astral Explorer
30
Posts: 324
Joined: 22 Jul 2008
Last Visit: 29 Sep 2009
LD count: 22
 
PostPosted: Sat 26 Sep, 2009  Reply with quote

No. He who types in caps is tired of repeating.

back to top
Wond3rland
Astral Explorer
Astral Explorer
30
Posts: 324
Joined: 22 Jul 2008
Last Visit: 29 Sep 2009
LD count: 22
 
PostPosted: Sat 26 Sep, 2009  Reply with quote

Besides, run out of arguments? The other side never had any. And it just goes to show, i asked for another explanation and what do you do? Comment something I said, nothing more. That is all the opposing side has done the entire argument. Quote and say wrong. Where's your evidence, not even evidence. I just want to hear what you are trying to prove. You don't even have an argument. There is no argument, because there is no other way. God can be interpreted differently, but still exists.

back to top
Bombax
Dream Deity
Dream Deity
Posts: 523
Joined: 25 Sep 2006
Last Visit: 24 Mar 2018
LD count: Thrice a week
 
PostPosted: Sat 26 Sep, 2009  Reply with quote

In short, it appears as if you have totally ignored everybody's posts except your own. We have clearly stated the basis for this discussion on the previous pages.

Disproving arguments are arguments in themselves.

You claim God, therefore you must provide evidence for God. The opposing part's job is to attempt to disprove your evidence for God, which has also happened, in at least some degree, in the previous pages. We (meaning mostly me and FreeCube) have vigorously discussed rules of argument which we have finally agreed on. You have also demonstrated countless times that you do not argue according to even the simplest rules of reason. So, why should we even bother to listen to you?

Quote:
Quote and say wrong. Where's your evidence, not even evidence.
Evidence for what?


back to top
Bruno
a smiling haze
Globahead
Chat Mods
Posts: 5954
Joined: 03 Dec 2005
Last Visit: 29 Mar 2018
LD count: a bunch.
Location: fleeting.
 
PostPosted: Sat 26 Sep, 2009  Reply with quote

Wond3rland wrote:
Besides, run out of arguments? The other side never had any.

To be fair, neither side has arguments, on principle. Atheists will go "I reject your arguments on the grounds that they're not falsifiable" whereas theists will go "I reject your platonism and demand a piece of evidence as to why the universe must be strictly materialistic and logical", and so long as there is no scientific argument coming from theists and no begging the question coming from atheists, neither side will be able to prove their point or to destroy the other's. What? anyone here really thought that in a philosophical topic on a lucid dreaming board someone in their early 20s would finally come up with the argument to put an end to this milenar debate?

Also, guys, if word capitalisation is fair game an argument in this topic, then I'm seriously reconsidering my catching up with it. This applies to both those who capitalise and those who poke fun at it while ignoring the rest of the message.




Last edited by Bruno on Sat 26 Sep, 2009; edited 1 time in total
back to top
Bruno
a smiling haze
Globahead
Chat Mods
Posts: 5954
Joined: 03 Dec 2005
Last Visit: 29 Mar 2018
LD count: a bunch.
Location: fleeting.
 
PostPosted: Sun 27 Sep, 2009  Reply with quote


(What I like the most about the expression "higher intelligence" is how amusingly ignorant it is to the fact that humans are only self-styled intelligence anyway).



<mod>this topic is now locked. it has run it's course and is running around in circles.</mod>


back to top
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

print  

All times are GMT + 2 Hours
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB
LD4all ~ spreading the art and knowledge of lucid dreaming online since 1996 ~