do any of you think god is real. [Archive]

Rust

2006-03-31, 14:02

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

Your mom tells you not to touch the stove. She says you'll hurt yourself. You touch the stove as she watches. You hurt yourself. You learn a lesson.

Does that make mommy evil?

Shitty analogy.

For the analogy to be correct, the "mom" must have the power to teach you the lesson without you having to burn yourself.

We don't see the lessons that parents teach their children as bad because we ultimately believe that the lesson is of a greater magnitude of good than the magnitude of harm they caused; however, if she can teach you the exact same lesson, while causing absolutely no harm, all while using the same amount of time and reasources, then she would be considered "evil" if she chooses not to.

Even if we ignore this blatant fact, it would still be an atrocious analogy. There are numerous instances in nature where suffering occurs while no lesson is taught. Earthquakes can happen pretty much across the whole world, killing hundreds of people when they occur. What is the "lesson" in earthquakes? Build better houses? Move to another planet? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-31-2006).]

Lou Reed

2006-03-31, 15:13

quote:Originally posted by crazed_hamster:

No. He's a boring dick.

Only7 when hes bored

Dragonsthrone

2006-03-31, 16:24

quote:Originally posted by super chick:

nice that is good. what bible do you read? I read king james.

NIV

Atomical

2006-03-31, 17:51

quote:Originally posted by Adrenochrome:

No.

No you can't handle that there isn't a God?

Adrenochrome

2006-03-31, 19:57

quote:Originally posted by Atomical:

No you can't handle that there isn't a God?

No. I don't believe in any deities. I'm an atheist.

Iam

2006-03-31, 22:33

Why would you be an atheist? The atheist claims that there definitively is no God. This is equally as ridiculous as your argument against people who believe in God. You claim there is no evidence to support that fact, is there evidence to support the idea of no God? Not at all, you can come up with theories to discredit creationism, but that doesn't even come close to the grand proof that there is no God. Atheism requires an equal amount of faith as believing in God would take.

You know what, there has been a scientifically grounded proof of the existence of God which is actually being regarded as a strong argument in the scientific community. Most of you anarchist atheist little kids on this site have probably never heard it, so I'll enlighten you. If you don't believe what I say here, or don't understand, search George Hammond (the man who discovered the proof).

It basically says that the curvature in 3-axis space has a direct relationship with the curvature of psychometry. The curvature is gravity. (It's important for me to tell you hear that the above was previously found in an analysis named "The Secular Trend"). The whole of the theory is just connections really... but it goes on to link the growth in physical size and brain growth (along with IQ) to the curvature. We currently recognize about 85% of reality. It is speculated in the theory that, in essence, a 'full grown man' IS or would be God.

It gets more complex.. I think you should check it out.

Anyhow, there is just as much or more credulity in the belief that God exists than there is that God doesn't exist.

I'm not going to get into my personal beliefs ABOUT God, but they don't exactly match the proof. However, I am extremely adamant with my belief IN God.

super chick

2006-03-31, 23:36

do you think god is perfect?

Rust

2006-04-01, 02:35

quote:Originally posted by Iam:

Why would you be an atheist? The atheist claims that there definitively is no God. This is equally as ridiculous as your argument against people who believe in God. You claim there is no evidence to support that fact, is there evidence to support the idea of no God? Not at all, you can come up with theories to discredit creationism, but that doesn't even come close to the grand proof that there is no God. Atheism requires an equal amount of faith as believing in God would take.

1. You're greatly mistaken about the definition of "Atheism". Atheism has two different definitions. One is what you described; the other, simply lacking a belief in a god. These two definitions are different. One of them makes a positive claim on the non-existence of deities, the other does not. The vast majority of the atheist you will find here are of the latter definition; that is, they (who are known as "weak-atheists") simply lack a belief in a god.

2. Making a positive claim on the non-existence of a god is nothing alike to claiming that he exists, in terms of burden of proof.

The theist has a fulfillable burden; he could provide evidence of the existence of a god, and therefore to put that burden of proof on him is completely just and reasonable.

The strong-atheist on the other hand, cannot fulfill his burden of proof, because it is impossible to prove non-existence. As such, to put a burden of proof on him - one which he cannot possibly fulfill - is unjust and unreasonable.

quote:

You know what, there has been a scientifically grounded proof of the existence of God which is actually being regarded as a strong argument in the scientific community. Most of you anarchist atheist little kids on this site have probably never heard it, so I'll enlighten you. If you don't believe what I say here, or don't understand, search George Hammond (the man who discovered the proof).

It basically says that the curvature in 3-axis space has a direct relationship with the curvature of psychometry. The curvature is gravity. (It's important for me to tell you hear that the above was previously found in an analysis named "The Secular Trend"). The whole of the theory is just connections really... but it goes on to link the growth in physical size and brain growth (along with IQ) to the curvature. We currently recognize about 85% of reality. It is speculated in the theory that, in essence, a 'full grown man' IS or would be God.

It gets more complex.. I think you should check it out.

To call his argument even "evidence" of anything other than his own stupidity, is an insult to human intelligence. His "proof" is nothing but a myriad of logical fallacies strung together in a pathetic attempt to support his religious beliefs.

I invite anyone to read his rants. They read like Homer trying to predict the rapture in the Simpsons. It's hilarious.

http://www.insolitology.com/paranormal/georgehammond.htm

quote:

Anyhow, there is just as much or more credulity in the belief that God exists than there is that God doesn't exist.

Says you... Certainly not the numerous logical inconsistencies with various claims about god's nature; nor the sub-optimality (sheer stupidity in many cases) blatant in the alleged "design" of the universe; nor the lack of any credible evidence pointing to his existence.

Iam

2006-04-01, 02:49

1) Yes rust, I'm fully aware that people believe there to be 2 types of atheism. I'm also well aware of what they are. The latter, which you claim to be a part of, is agnosticism. I think it's retarded to have two terms with the same denotative meaning. Therefore, in this circumstance it is reasonable to assume connotative definitions. Since the former type of atheism is thus, I say atheism in itself IS this.

2) You're incorrect here. While a theist has the burden of proof over an agnost, a theist has only as much burden as an atheist. They are both making a claim, and as such, both have a burden to fulfill their claim. I've seen you argue this many times, and you're ridiculous quite frankly.

3)Aha, but see, I don't agree with his conclusion. The experiment does, in fact, support the existence of the traditional view of God. However, his conclusion of such doesn't. That's partially because the man isn't pushing his own agenda, as you say. He discovered the fucking proof accidentally for christ's sake. I read your link

and the main argument is simply that the traditional view of God isn't a brain growth. You're damn right it's not which supports what I wrote above.^

4) There are no logical inconsistencies to my beliefs.

Rust

2006-04-01, 03:10

quote:Originally posted by Iam:

1) Yes rust, I'm fully aware that people believe there to be 2 types of atheism. I'm also well aware of what they are. The latter, which you claim to be a part of, is agnosticism. I think it's retarded to have two terms with the same denotative meaning. Therefore, in this circumstance it is reasonable to assume connotative definitions. Since the former type of atheism is thus, I say atheism in itself IS this.

2) You're incorrect here. While a theist has the burden of proof over an agnost, a theist has only as much burden as an atheist. They are both making a claim, and as such, both have a burden to fulfill their claim. I've seen you argue this many times, and you're ridiculous quite frankly.

3)Aha, but see, I don't agree with his conclusion. The experiment does, in fact, support the existence of the traditional view of God. However, his conclusion of such doesn't. That's partially because the man isn't pushing his own agenda, as you say. He discovered the fucking proof accidentally for christ's sake. I read your link

and the main argument is simply that the traditional view of God isn't a brain growth. You're damn right it's not which supports what I wrote above.^

4) There are no logical inconsistencies to my beliefs.

1. Wrong. Weak-atheism is not synonimous with agnosticism; they simply do not have the same meaning.

Agnosticism is to lack knowledge of the existence of gods. That is not the same as lacking a belief in gods. The two are so un-alike in fact, that I could be an agnostic who doesn't lack a belief in god - that is, I could be theist for agnostic reasons.

"An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning “without, not,” as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gnsis, “knowledge,” which was used by early Christian writers to mean “higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things” hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as “Gnostics” a group of his fellow intellectuals“ists,” as he called themwho had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a “man without a rag of a label to cover himself with,” Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870."

-- The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language.

2. You did nothing but ignore what I said. The fact remains that to impose a burden on someone when you know that it is impossible for that someone to fulfill the burden you're imposing, is unreasonable and unjust. To put a burden of proof on an atheist is unreasonable and unjust.

3. Did you read what I said at all? His "proof" is not a "proof" at all. It is nothing but fabrications and logical fallacies on his part. The conclusions he draws are not substantiated in the least; it simply is not a "proof" or evidence of anything, let alone proof of a god.

4. So says you. Do you believe in a omnipotent and benevolent god?

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-01-2006).]

Fundokiller

2006-04-01, 03:33

Why did you feel the need to post some pseudo-scientific bullshit in an attempt to validate your beliefs iam? Why do think not having heard of these ludicrously inane rantings makes you an anarchist, an atheist and a kid?

Perhaps you should stop pulling bullshit out of thin air and calling it fact and lay off the unfounded assumptions.

[This message has been edited by Fundokiller (edited 04-01-2006).]

Iam

2006-04-01, 04:56

quote:Originally posted by Fundokiller:

Why did you feel the need to post some pseudo-scientific bullshit in an attempt to validate your beliefs iam? Why do think not having heard of these ludicrously inane rantings makes you an anarchist, an atheist and a kid?

Perhaps you should stop pulling bullshit out of thin air and calling it fact and lay off the unfounded assumptions.

To validate my beliefs? Calling it fact? I don't recally any such attempt at calling it a fact. I said it's accepted in the scientific community. And NOTHING here that I have posted validates my beliefs at all.

Rust: Apparently your intellectual capacity is quite where I thought it was.

1) This is ridiculous. You're saying a 'weak atheist' isn't someone who beleives it can't be proven either way? If they believed it could be, then why are they not either strong atheist or a theist? Apparently I have absolutely no knowledge on the subject? Yeah, it's easy to argue when you write everything off as ignorance and simply write your own perspective.

2) You just gave a reason to not tell theists to fulfill their burden. How? It's impossible to prove the existence of a God with anything short of God revealing himself to the person you're trying to convince. Therefore, it's UNREASONABLE AND UNJUST to tell a theist to fulfill their burden of proof which is impossible.

3) Yes I read your post, can you tell me why exactly it's nonsense? I'm guessing you read it from somewhere and take it as truth. I'm quite educated in the matters he speaks of in his proof and I (along with the science community) acknowledge it as something to be regarded with as a serious proof.

4) Omnipotent, yes. Benevolent, yes. Omnibenevolent, no.

Fundokiller

2006-04-01, 05:04

the straw-man becomes evermore obvious when you compare it against my quote. Now as to the "accepted by the scientific community". Psychometry is a " psi (or psychic) ability in which the user is able to relate details about the past condition of an object or area, usually by being in close contact with it" studied in parapsychology, which isn't accepted by the scientific community. The existence of psychometry is unconfirmed and therefore any paper containing the term would be violating the principle of parsimony aka occams razor. Something that pseudosciences are well known for.

Rust

2006-04-01, 05:46

quote:Originally posted by Iam:

Rust: Apparently your intellectual capacity is quite where I thought it was.

How cute. Any more insults?

quote:

1) This is ridiculous. You're saying a 'weak atheist' isn't someone who beleives it can't be proven either way? If they believed it could be, then why are they not either strong atheist or a theist? Apparently I have absolutely no knowledge on the subject? Yeah, it's easy to argue when you write everything off as ignorance and simply write your own perspective.

2) You just gave a reason to not tell theists to fulfill their burden. How? It's impossible to prove the existence of a God with anything short of God revealing himself to the person you're trying to convince. Therefore, it's UNREASONABLE AND UNJUST to tell a theist to fulfill their burden of proof which is impossible.

3) Yes I read your post, can you tell me why exactly it's nonsense? I'm guessing you read it from somewhere and take it as truth. I'm quite educated in the matters he speaks of in his proof and I (along with the science community) acknowledge it as something to be regarded with as a serious proof.

4) Omnipotent, yes. Benevolent, yes. Omnibenevolent, no.

1. First of all, where the fuck did I say you had no knowledge on the subject? Nowhere. I said you where wrong, which you are. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Second of all, a weak-atheist is someone who lacks a belief in god, period; the definition does not depend on whether the existence of gods could be proven either way. He could very well believe that the existence of gods could be proven, but that as of now we hold no such knowledge (thus he is agnostic as well). He would be a weak-atheist (someone who lacks a belief in a god) for agnostic reasons (he lacks the belief in god because while he believes the existence could be proven, he also believes we have no current knowledge on the subject).

The fact remains that agnosticism is not the same thing as weak-atheism. You were completely wrong. Agnosticism is lacking knowledge on both the existence and non-existence of gods; weak-atheism is simply lacking belief in gods. The two are not the same.

2. You've just admitted that it is possible; no amount of dressing the statement with hyperbole is going to change this. It would be possible, That it would be dificult? Sure, it may be difficult, but certainly not impossible. Hence, certainly not unreasonable to put a burden of proof on the theist.

3. "The Science community" regard this as a "serious proof"? Really? Then by all means post something showing that. Substantiate that ridiculous claim of yours.

As for why I think it is nonsense, that should be blatantly obvious to anyone who reads what he said.

a) His argument rests on a trivial and worthless definition of "god". He defines it as a bigger/more intelligent version of current humans. That's a ridiculous definition; not only is it not held by any meaningful amount of people, but by that definition we could consider any above-average version of human beings, a "god". Body-builders and geniuses could be considered gods.

b) He provides nothing to support his assertion. There is absolutely no evidence to support what he said.

He makes numerous claims to the magical/miraculous powers that would be achieved via this magnificent brain-growth and provides nothing to substantiate that (or anything else actually).

c) His assertion rests on logical fallacies. For example, this bit of idiocy:

"30 1st order eigenvectors = 30 demigods of the Hindu & primitive religions

13 2nd order eigenvectors = 13 Olypian gods of the Egypt-Greco-Roman Pantheon

4 3rd order eigenvectors = 4 Gospel "saints" of Christianity, Mt-Mk-Lk-Jn

1 4th order eigenvector = the GOD of world religion, God=Allah=Yahweh=Vishnu=..etc.

4. If he chooses not to be omnibenevolent, then arguably he's not even "benevolent"; he's a digusting being who chooses to not be omnibenevolent when he could be.

This even if we ignore the fact that you considering him omnipotent in the first place. Believing in beings which are not constrained by logic, is inconsitent with logic.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-01-2006).]

Fundokiller

2006-04-01, 10:59

quote:Originally posted by Iam:

1) Yes rust, I'm fully aware that people believe there to be 2 types of atheism. I'm also well aware of what they are. The latter, which you claim to be a part of, is agnosticism. I think it's retarded to have two terms with the same denotative meaning. Therefore, in this circumstance it is reasonable to assume connotative definitions. Since the former type of atheism is thus, I say atheism in itself IS this.

Take it up with the english language. Other words that have more than one meaning.

Fly,Murder,Religion,Determinism,Duality,Materialis m

Dual,Naturalism,Liberal,Conservative,Republic,A

Abel,Pi,Omega,Random etc.

Words with more than one meaning are an essential part of the english language and the fact that you think this is "retarded" doesn't change that fact.

quote:Originally posted by Iam:

The notion that there are 2 types of atheism really isn't up for debate. Philosophers, dictionaries and encyclopedias have acknowledged this for at least 90 years.

2) You're incorrect here. While a theist has the burden of proof over an agnost, a theist has only as much burden as an atheist. They are both making a claim, and as such, both have a burden to fulfill their claim. I've seen you argue this many times, and you're ridiculous quite frankly.

It's impossible to prove a negative so shifting the burden of proof onto strong atheists doesn't make sense and is unfair. However, as theists make the claim that god exists placing the burden of proof is eminently reasonable and even required in legal and scientific circles.

quote:Originally posted by Iam:

3)Aha, but see, I don't agree with his conclusion. The experiment does, in fact, support the existence of the traditional view of God. However, his conclusion of such doesn't. That's partially because the man isn't pushing his own agenda, as you say. He discovered the fucking proof accidentally for christ's sake. I read your link

and the main argument is simply that the traditional view of God isn't a brain growth. You're damn right it's not which supports what I wrote above.^

The "experiment" uses multiple psuedo-scientific terms in an attempt to convince people that he knows what he's talking about. The essay will convince only those who have already arrived at his conclusion. If you want to prove that the essay contains scientific merit and is accepted by the scientific community, show me where it is written and accepted in a peer-reviewed journal.

SurahAhriman

2006-04-01, 16:33

quote:Originally posted by Iam:

Why would you be an atheist? The atheist claims that there definitively is no God. This is equally as ridiculous as your argument against people who believe in God. You claim there is no evidence to support that fact, is there evidence to support the idea of no God? Not at all, you can come up with theories to discredit creationism, but that doesn't even come close to the grand proof that there is no God. Atheism requires an equal amount of faith as believing in God would take.

You know what, there has been a scientifically grounded proof of the existence of God which is actually being regarded as a strong argument in the scientific community. Most of you anarchist atheist little kids on this site have probably never heard it, so I'll enlighten you. If you don't believe what I say here, or don't understand, search George Hammond (the man who discovered the proof).

It basically says that the curvature in 3-axis space has a direct relationship with the curvature of psychometry. The curvature is gravity. (It's important for me to tell you hear that the above was previously found in an analysis named "The Secular Trend"). The whole of the theory is just connections really... but it goes on to link the growth in physical size and brain growth (along with IQ) to the curvature. We currently recognize about 85% of reality. It is speculated in the theory that, in essence, a 'full grown man' IS or would be God.

It gets more complex.. I think you should check it out.

Anyhow, there is just as much or more credulity in the belief that God exists than there is that God doesn't exist.

I'm not going to get into my personal beliefs ABOUT God, but they don't exactly match the proof. However, I am extremely adamant with my belief IN God.

You're absolutely adorable with your armchair physics. And even the agnostic gives the very idea of god more credit than it merits. For anyone knowledgeable in physics, it's an absurd idea. We don't even bother to keep an open mind about absurd ideas. When some experimental evidence correletates to what the absurd idea predicts, we should look into it.

Until then, it's an absurd idea, and not even worth the effort of stating "I don't know".

That said, no atheist should have faith in there not being a God. An atheist should say "There is no God" the same way a parent tells a child "There is no monster under the bed". It's an absurd idea. But if a monster grabs your foot, you accept the proof. Same with God.

Iam

2006-04-01, 20:30

1a Implication.

1b I lack the linguistic capacity necessary for explaining why you are wrong to you. I apologize, you can accept whatever you want.

2) If you consider that within the realm of possibility, that is, futuristic events. Than the burden of disproving God is also within the realm of possibility and therefore a 'strong atheist' must fulfill his burden just as a theist must. It is possible that in the future we learn with 100% infallibility that the universe was spontaneous and self-caused outside the realm of and sort of divinity. It IS possible if you think of it that way, and you do but you're extremely biased against theists.

3) It's obvious you don't understand what he asserts. His 'God' perfectly matches the God described in. say, the Holy Bible. The only thing which could be considered erroneous on any level is the form of God, which isn't described in the Bible anyway so it doesn't matter. In fact, all that's said is that we are created in his image. Are we not similar looking to a 'full grown man'?

Read here, it explains why it meets the criteria for a God. http:// proof-of-g od.freewebsitehosting.com/13reasons.html (http: //proof-of -god.freew ebsitehost ing.com/13 reasons.ht ml)

As for it being said that there is no 'evidence,' you're obviously misinformed.

ht tp://proof -of-god.fr eewebsitehosting.com/cart.html (http: //proof-of -god.freew ebsitehost ing.com/ca rt.html) Read that.

Your one source is devoid of any real scientific reasoning or argumentation. Fuck, it's probably your site rust. For the acceptance by the scientific community, one has only to read about the theories he expanded, such as Cartestian Theory and the Structural Model of Personality in Psychology, The Secular Trend and the Flynn Effect, and any other EVIDENCE used in his proof. Most of which have been published in Science Journals.

-Edit: Again, I must reiterate that I do not agree with his conclusions. I'm defending him because you obviously don't understand the proof and no negative argument has been posed against it. I really believe the only thing on it that you have read, Rust, is from that insolitology bullshit.

[This message has been edited by Iam (edited 04-01-2006).]

Rust

2006-04-02, 01:32

quote:Originally posted by Iam:

1a Implication.

1b I lack the linguistic capacity necessary for explaining why you are wrong to you. I apologize, you can accept whatever you want.

If you lack the linguistic capacity to explain why I am allegedly wrong, then you remain wrong. To claim that you lack the ability is merely a pathetic cop-out.

Again, the fact remains that agnosticism is not the same thing as weak-atheism. The dictionary definition agrees with me. The etymology agrees with me. The person who coined the fucking word agrees with me. Sorry, but nothing agrees with you. So until you magically increase your linguistic abilities, you remain completely and utterly incorrect on the issue.

quote:

2) If you consider that within the realm of possibility, that is, futuristic events. Than the burden of disproving God is also within the realm of possibility and therefore a 'strong atheist' must fulfill his burden just as a theist must. It is possible that in the future we learn with 100% infallibility that the universe was spontaneous and self-caused outside the realm of and sort of divinity. It IS possible if you think of it that way, and you do but you're extremely biased against theists.

What you conveniently think may be possible in the future is irrelevant. It is completely idiotic to base yourself on something you have absolutely no evidence or clue about; you're doing so only in a desperate attempt to grasp at straws.

The fact remains that if an omnipotent god exists then he must be able to show himself, and to do so now. That's much more than we can say about your ridiculous musings about the future of human understanding. The point still stands.

quote:

3) It's obvious you don't understand what he asserts. His 'God' perfectly matches the God described in. say, the Holy Bible. The only thing which could be considered erroneous on any level is the form of God, which isn't described in the Bible anyway so it doesn't matter. In fact, all that's said is that we are created in his image. Are we not similar looking to a 'full grown man'?

Read here, it explains why it meets the criteria for a God.

As for it being said that there is no 'evidence,' you're obviously misinformed.

Read that.

You evaded all of my points. You provided some shitty links that do not refute what I said at all.

a. The claims he makes about his definition of "god" are unsubstantiated and many of them refute the traditional understanding of god. For example, the god of the bible (which you so ironically claim it supports):

He claims that his god is not omnipotent. He readily admits that his "god" conforms to the laws of physics and logic, which is not omnipotence in the slightest. That refutes the possibility of his god supporting the traditional view of god, let alone the biblical god.

You proved yourself wrong. Thank you.

b. The links do not refute the numerous logical fallacies he employs. You simply evaded the point.

c. The links do not provide any evidence for his conclusions. He provided evidence for some of the things he alludes to concerning human personality and psychology. That is not evidence for his conclusions, nor evidence of a god. That is merely evidence of something he happened to mention that might relate to something in psychology.

quote:

Your one source is devoid of any real scientific reasoning or argumentation. Fuck, it's probably your site rust. For the acceptance by the scientific community, one has only to read about the theories he expanded, such as Cartestian Theory and the Structural Model of Personality in Psychology, The Secular Trend and the Flynn Effect, and any other EVIDENCE used in his proof. Most of which have been published in Science Journals.

The Scientific community using some of the models he alludes to does not mean they support his conclusions, nor does it mean that they think it is proof of a god - which is what you claimed they did.

In other words, you cannot provide an instance of the scientific community supporting his bullshit ranting as "proof" of a god. Either do so, or kindly admit that you cannot.

quote: Again, I must reiterate that I do not agree with his conclusions. I'm defending him because you obviously don't understand the proof and no negative argument has been posed against it. I really believe the only thing on it that you have read, Rust, is from that insolitology bullshit.

1. Whether you agree with his conclusions is irrelevant, the fact is you called it evidence for the existence of a god when it is not evidence for such a thing, it doesn't even come close to being evidence.

2. Whether you think I've already read one website (which you now ignorantly think I created... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif) ) is unimportant; you have absolutely no clue of what I've read and what I have not, so your allegations remain meaningless dribble.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-02-2006).]

guero_loco

2006-04-02, 02:06

i dont belive theres a god nor do i belive what the bible says. i do think thaat the bible is a good thing though cause its all about being a good person.

Sephiroth

2006-04-02, 05:42

Yes.

crazed_hamster

2006-04-02, 14:22

quote:Originally posted by Iam:

1a Implication.

1b I lackthe linguistic capacity necessary for explaining why you are wrong to you. I apologize, you can accept whatever you want.

2) If you consider that within the realm of possibility, that is, futuristic events. Than the burden of disproving God is also within the realm of possibility and therefore a 'strong atheist' must fulfill his burden just as a theist must. It is possible that in the future we learn with 100% infallibility that the universe was spontaneous and self-caused outside the realm of and sort of divinity. It IS possible if you think of it that way, and you do but you're extremely biased against theists.

3) It's obvious you don't understand what he asserts. His 'God' perfectly matches the God described in. say, the Holy Bible. The only thing which could be considered erroneous on any level is the form of God, which isn't described in the Bible anyway so it doesn't matter. In fact, all that's said is that we are created in his image. Are we not similar looking to a 'full grown man'?

Read here, it explains why it meets the criteria for a God. http:// proof-of-g od.freewebsitehosting.com/13reasons.html (http: //proof-of -god.freew ebsitehost ing.com/13 reasons.ht ml)

As for it being said that there is no 'evidence,' you're obviously misinformed.

ht tp://proof -of-god.fr eewebsitehosting.com/cart.html (http: //proof-of -god.freew ebsitehost ing.com/ca rt.html) Read that.

Your one source is devoid of any real scientific reasoning or argumentation. Fuck, it's probably your site rust. For the acceptance by the scientific community, one has only to read about the theories he expanded, such as Cartestian Theory and the Structural Model of Personality in Psychology, The Secular Trend and the Flynn Effect, and any other EVIDENCE used in his proof. Most of which have been published in Science Journals.

-Edit: Again, I must reiterate that I do not agree with his conclusions. I'm defending him because you obviously don't understand the proof and no negative argument has been posed against it. I really believe the only thing on it that you have read, Rust, is from that insolitology bullshit.

Dooooooood!!!! Did you see that??.... it's like the...the Bible Code. I thought of this cool phrase that I wanted to say, so I wrote this hot computer program which found what I wanted and highlighted it to prove the infallibility of God, and God's knowledge of the future, and that God himself wrote this post, and that we should all obey God now! Praise you Jesus! Glory to God! Let's have a revival and convert more missionaries using this scientific evidence. Wow!!!!!!

Fuck, I'm bored.

Streetvision

2006-04-02, 14:25

Yeah sometimes.

Iam

2006-04-02, 17:32

Uh... You made the connection with the definition part of it, I DID lose the argument. I gave it up in the previous post, I thought that would have been obvious.

-Yes, you're fucking right, my satire of your logical argument that it is possible that God will reveal himself is fucking ridiculous. I'm glad you agree that sort of logic is stupid. Now you can just say that neither side has the burden of proof because either one is contingent upon future events. It's either both or neither dude. They're in the same boat.

-His claims about God are fucking traditional. It's obvious as fuck that you didn't read the first link I sent you. Didn't even open it for that matter. The whole thing is defining what the traditional views of God are and then explaining why they are met. Fucking Christ Rust, I thought you'd at least try to learn.

-There are no logical fallacies, perhaps you could present some to me before I try to refute them? Start small. However, I'm guessing they were answered in the 2nd link and you didn't read it either.

-The evidence for his conclusions are the models. The models are accepted by the scientific community. I don't see how you're missing that.

MasterMind420

2006-04-02, 17:47

The only god is Rust.

"Iam" got owned,pwned,bwned,raped, and honestly he should just leave totse.

Rust

2006-04-02, 20:15

quote:Originally posted by Iam:

Uh... You made the connection with the definition part of it, I DID lose the argument. I gave it up in the previous post, I thought that would have been obvious.

It was obvious, I was merely reiterating how pathetic your argument was.

quote:

-Yes, you're fucking right, my satire of your logical argument that it is possible that God will reveal himself is fucking ridiculous. I'm glad you agree that sort of logic is stupid. Now you can just say that neither side has the burden of proof because either one is contingent upon future events. It's either both or neither dude. They're in the same boat.

The point of my post flew by your head.

It's not that they are contigent on "futrue events"; that is a requirement in order for the burden to exist in the first place! If they were already proven now, there would be no burden.

It's the fact that you have absolutely no shred of evidence pointing to the possbility of your "future events", and that you're desperately trying to grasp at straws that makes your position a ridiculous one.

Again, the fact remains that we can say that the theist could prove his position now; you cannot even begin to say that of the strong-atheist because you have absolutely no shred of evidence to support your delusional musings of the future of human understanding. You have nothing to support the assertion that humans will be able to prove non-existence in the future, while I have everything to support the claim that a god could prove his existence today.

quote:

-His claims about God are fucking traditional. It's obvious as fuck that you didn't read the first link I sent you. Didn't even open it for that matter. The whole thing is defining what the traditional views of God are and then explaining why they are met. Fucking Christ Rust, I thought you'd at least try to learn.

Ignoring what I said isn't going to work; it only proves how dishonest you are, and serves to show the length of your pathetic tactics.

"The claims he makes about his definition of "god" are unsubstantiated and many of them refute the traditional understanding of god. For example, the god of the bible (which you so ironically claim it supports):

He claims that his god is not omnipotent. He readily admits that his "god" conforms to the laws of physics and logic, which is not omnipotence in the slightest. That refutes the possibility of his god supporting the traditional view of god, let alone the biblical god.

You proved yourself wrong. Thank you."

His god is not omnipotent; it therefore does not fit with the common definition of a god. Moreover, another example would be how hi claims his god must have a human form; again this does not fit with the common definition of god.

I suggest you read your own link because it's obvious to anyone who does that his "god" is nothing close to the common definition of a god.

quote:

-There are no logical fallacies, perhaps you could present some to me before I try to refute them? Start small. However, I'm guessing they were answered in the 2nd link and you didn't read it either.

I already provided one example of the logical fallacy. How about reading? I'll repeat myself for your sake:

"c) His assertion rests on logical fallacies. For example, this bit of idiocy:

"30 1st order eigenvectors = 30 demigods of the Hindu & primitive religions

13 2nd order eigenvectors = 13 Olypian gods of the Egypt-Greco-Roman Pantheon

4 3rd order eigenvectors = 4 Gospel "saints" of Christianity, Mt-Mk-Lk-Jn

1 4th order eigenvector = the GOD of world religion, God=Allah=Yahweh=Vishnu=..etc."

That is a logical fallacy.

quote:

-The evidence for his conclusions are the models. The models are accepted by the scientific community. I don't see how you're missing that.

Wrong. He provides absolutely no evidence. He loosely mentions some models or concepts of human behaviour and psychology when he rants (and provides references for those concepts) but that in and of itself is not evidence of anything.

The fact remains that he provides nothing to support his assertions.

crackhead

2006-04-02, 20:43

quote:Originally posted by super chick:

I whant to know if there is more than 2 totse people that think god is real. If not I understand.

Yes, and I beleive every thing in the bible is true.

Iam

2006-04-02, 21:59

Hehe, you're getting pretty heated up aren't ya buddy?

-Okay, explain to me why it's more logical to say, "God can be proven today," than to say "God can be disproven today?" I think that's basically the heart of your argument on the matter of burden.

-If I ignored something, it was unintentional and I apologize. However, when you refer to '#5 God can transcend the (known) Laws of Physics' I'm not seeing why omnipotence fails. It doesn't say "God cannot transcend the laws of physics." (Which the article does somewhat say he transcends with his a priori existence.) It says he conforms to laws of physics. Because God conforms to the laws of physics doesn't necessarily mean that he has to. Assuming God is real, it would make sense for him to conform to them, seeing as he created the universe to function as it does.

-I don't understand why that is a logical fallacy. He explains how the 4 axes of psychometry have created for us those religio-beliefs. If I'm missing something, feel free to enlighten me.

-If I look I take Einstein's theory of relativity, and another theory. Splice them together and analyze it to create another theory, then those theories are my evidential basis for my conclusion.... The sole purpose of him mentioning the models (most namely the Secular Trend) is to support is assertions.

[This message has been edited by Iam (edited 04-02-2006).]

Rust

2006-04-02, 22:43

quote:Originally posted by Iam:

Hehe, you're getting pretty heated up aren't ya buddy?

More like annoyed/saddened by your sheer ignorance.

quote:

-Okay, explain to me why it's more logical to say, "God can be proven today," than to say "God can be disproven today?" I think that's basically the heart of your argument on the matter of burden.

Because it is an absolute necessity of omnipotence for him to be able to prove himself today. You cannot come close to saying that of humans being able to refute his existence. A god could make himself invisible and untraceable with any mortal means; that would mean he would be impossible to refute.

So we can certainly, without a doubt, say that he must be able to prove himself. We cannot say that of our ability to refute him - because he has the power to evade any and all attempts to refute him if he were to exist. The two are nothing alike.

quote:

-If I ignored something, it was unintentional and I apologize. However, when you refer to '#5 God can transcend the (known) Laws of Physics' I'm not seeing why omnipotence fails. It doesn't say "God cannot transcend the laws of physics." (Which the article does somewhat say he transcends with his a priori existence.) It says he conforms to laws of physics. Because God conforms to the laws of physics doesn't necessarily mean that he has to. Assuming God is real, it would make sense for him to conform to them, seeing as he created the universe to function as it does.

Read what Hammond himself writes in response to the ability of god being able to transcend the laws of physics:

"This WAS true before we discovered the scientific explanation of God."

In other words, it is not true now. His "god" must, by pure necessity, follow the alleged "laws of physics" he's using. Hence, he cannot transcend them; if his "god" could, he wouldn't be able to claim he "proved" anything to begin with - because the god would be able to transcend those laws and render them useless.

You also ignored (how ironic) his claim that the "god" must have human from. The traditional view of god doesn't claim that he is contained in one form, but that he can take any form he wishes at any point in time, for whatever reason, even if they contradict the laws of nature. His "god" is simply incapable of doing such.

quote:

-I don't understand why that is a logical fallacy. He explains how the 4 axes of psychometry have created for us those religio-beliefs. If I'm missing something, feel free to enlighten me.

He's creating a parallel with numbers he sees in his theory, and numbers that are meaningful in various religions, and using that to support his theory. That is logically fallacious.

The number of Greek gods is as much evidence for his theory, as they are evidence for anything else - none. I can make a parallel with the number of times I masturbate a month and the number of god's a certain religion has; that doesn't serve as evidence that my masturbation is a holy act. The same applies here.

Just because he believes there are 13 second order eigenvectors, doesn't support his lunatic idea that they are somehow related to the 13 Olympian gods in Greek Mythology and that this then supports his rants.

quote:

-If I look I take Einstein's theory of relativity, and another theory. Splice them together and analyze it to create another theory, then those theories are my evidential basis for my conclusion.... The sole purpose of him mentioning the models (most namely the Secular Trend) is to support is assertions.

That's not what he is doing at all. He is mentioning those models, but those models, in and of themselves, do not support his assertions at all, and hence where he fails to provide any proof of what he is saying.

In other words, it would be like mentioning some theories which are legitimate (i.e. Einstein's relativity) and citing sources for those theories, and then reaching conclusions with them that those theories do not support at all.

Iam

2006-04-03, 01:04

-Okay, now you're jumping to all kinds of conclusions. Why is it a necessity for him to prove himself? Your argument for the burden is helping the theist again, you're saying God can have the ability to make himself invisible untraceable by mortal means.... Then it's equally impossible to prove or disprove. You can't prove something that's invisible and untraceable any more easily than you can refute it. If anything, it's less possible to prove. Yes, we can say with certainty that he must be able to prove himself. He by no means has to out of necessity (as you said above).

-It is you who ignored my argument here friend. I agreed that Hammond asserts that God does adhere to our laws of physics. Here is assume some more again. You say "Must out of pure necessity," where does that come from? You try to justify this argument by saying that if he can, then he proved nothing. However, he did. He proved his concept of a God (something I interpret differently) and that his 'God' adheres to physics. Just because God doesn't transcend the laws, other than a priori existence, by no means exhibits that he can't.

- I didn't ignore the traditional view of God not being a brain growth and I also spoke of how (in my first post I believe) Hammond claims that a 'full grown man' would essentially be God. You just don't listen. I mentioned it in multiple posts.

- It's not logically fallicious to do so, however it is jumping to conclusions which should not be jumped to. He doesn't use that as evidence, however, it's simply a way he explains the singularity of his God. I do agree that this... table of his is stupid though.

-Uh, you're wrong. You're dead wrong. If you look at the Secular Trend and then look at Hammond's proof.... It is painfully obvious that most of his work/conclusions draw directly from it.

Edit: Rust, I honestly have tons of respect for you and your one of the reasons I decided to move from lurker to poster. I've watched you on here for a long time and you're obviously very intelligent. However, I must request that in this argument you stop making assumptions and please... Always keep an open mind. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

[This message has been edited by Iam (edited 04-03-2006).]

Rust

2006-04-03, 03:22

quote:Originally posted by Iam:

-Okay, now you're jumping to all kinds of conclusions. Why is it a necessity for him to prove himself? Your argument for the burden is helping the theist again, you're saying God can have the ability to make himself invisible untraceable by mortal means.... Then it's equally impossible to prove or disprove. You can't prove something that's invisible and untraceable any more easily than you can refute it. If anything, it's less possible to prove. Yes, we can say with certainty that he must be able to prove himself. He by no means has to out of necessity (as you said above).

I said it's a necessity that he able to prove himself, not that he must do so ( Read what I said again... "it is an absolute necessity of omnipotence for him to be able to prove himself today".

The fact remains that a theist could prove his position today, while you cannot say the same thing for a strong atheist - at the very least not today since you have absolutely no shred of evidence to support the idea that humanity could in fact prove his non-existence today or in the future. As such, the point still stands: it would be unreasonable to put a burden of proof on the strong atheist, now, while completely reasonable to put the burden of proof on the theist as he could prove his position.

quote:

-It is you who ignored my argument here friend. I agreed that Hammond asserts that God does adhere to our laws of physics. Here is assume some more again. You say "Must out of pure necessity," where does that come from? You try to justify this argument by saying that if he can, then he proved nothing. However, he did. He proved his concept of a God (something I interpret differently) and that his 'God' adheres to physics. Just because God doesn't transcend the laws, other than a priori existence, by no means exhibits that he can't.

First of all, I'm not assuming anything; Hammond already admits that his god must follow the laws of physics, which is exactly why he corrects the person who asked the question, and answered that we thought a god would be able to transcend the laws of physics in the past, not now. Again, he said "This [the thought that gods would be able to transcend the laws of physics] WAS true before we discovered the scientific explanation of God.".

Second of all, the point was to show how you were completely and utterly incorrect in saying that his "god" supported the traditional or biblical god. You were wrong. It does not support the biblical or traditional view of god in the least.

quote:

- I didn't ignore the traditional view of God not being a brain growth and I also spoke of how (in my first post I believe) Hammond claims that a 'full grown man' would essentially be God. You just don't listen. I mentioned it in multiple posts.

You're putting words in my mouth. I said you ignored the fact that Hammond claims that his "god" must have human form. You ignored that, period. The fact that Hammond claims his "god" must have a human form is, again, incompatible with the traditional view of god. So would be his claim that all humans that achieved the brain growth would be god.

quote:

- It's not logically fallicious to do so, however it is jumping to conclusions which should not be jumped to. He doesn't use that as evidence, however, it's simply a way he explains the singularity of his God. I do agree that this... table of his is stupid though.

Jumping to conclusions is logically fallacious. I suggest you study logic before you decide to comment on the subject because it is obvious you have not.

quote:

-Uh, you're wrong. You're dead wrong. If you look at the Secular Trend and then look at Hammond's proof.... It is painfully obvious that most of his work/conclusions draw directly from it.

Wrong. He most certainly does not. The Secular Trend only deals with the rate of our growth. That, in and of itself, has absolutely no connotations of a god. It simply means we have seen a tendency in human beings, to grow in stature and intelligence. That, in no way, shape or form, supports his definition of a god.

quote:Rust, I honestly have tons of respect for you and your one of the reasons I decided to move from lurker to poster. I've watched you on here for a long time and you're obviously very intelligent. However, I must request that in this argument you stop making assumptions and please... Always keep an open mind. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

I haven't made any assumptions; you not reading what I say correctly is not an example of me making assumptions.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-03-2006).]

Iam

2006-04-03, 04:03

-I'm revoking this entire part of the argument. You win.

-No Hammond does not. He says that God does conform to the law of physics, that doesn't necessarily mean he MUST. You're taking the beginning of the statement out of context, read the whole to get a complete view. They have only determined that God does conform, nothing more.

Dude, I fucking already said that is the aspect in which it doesn't match how people thought he would be. However, and I said all this before, the Holy Bible only says that we were created in the image of God. This God would definitely meet the criteria for being the God of the Holy Bible. Could it not be said that we are the shrunken image of a 'full grown man'?

-I didn't ignore that at all, I've addressed it at least 4 times including ^.

-Alright then, I guess you're the most logically fallicious person on the planet.

-Now I'm completely convinced that you haven't read up on it.

"Incidentally, this foundation stone of the theory is NOT a conjecture. It is proven by one of the most massive bodies of evidence in biology where it is known as the Secular Trend and the Flynn Effect The SECULAR TREND is the well documented increase in height, weight, brain size and lifespan of the entire human population that was first noticed a century ago and is now one of the most studied effects by World Health Organizations. Perhaps you have heard the story of how they noticed one day in a museum that no modern man could fit into a Medieval suit of armour because we are too tall. This is a result of the SECULAR TREND. The Flynn Effect is a component of this which is a 3 IQ point per decade increase in world intelligence measurements. So remarkable is this Secular Trend in human growth that it has even made the front page of Time Magazine (1996) . So this "growth deficit" is one of the most well known and proven facts of biology. Figure 1 is simply a graphical picture of the SECULAR TREND. In short, the discovery of the SECULAR TREND, is the first and foremost piece of direct scientific evidence which explains, and proves, the existence of God. Incidentally, it is necessary to point out that the Secular Trend in growth is NOT genetic, it is entirely caused by the rising world standard of living, mainly nutrition. It is a sheer matter of physical "growth". The point is, that this condition affects the brain. The human brain never reaches full size because of it. In this century alone, due to increased world nutrition, the size of the human brain has increased by almost 4%. The primary mental effect of a stunted brain is obvious. It makes us believe that, somewhere, there must be a perfect (i.e. full grown) person walking around. This person we call "God". Of course he is simply latent within our own body. Fact is, somewhere around 15% of our brain is missing. This causes us to see only 85% (more or less) of reality. This gives us a funny feeling that somewhere "above us" is a perfect being who guides us. It makes us feel as though "someone is looking over us", which of course is true; since this partially grown 15% of our brain is still latent (subconscious) and is literally watching over us. We call this 15% ungrown part of the brain that is "watching over us", GOD. The effect of this, is to actually see, and even worship, a mysterious "supernormal force" which influences reality- which indeed it does. This then, is the physical explanation of what "God" is." Want even more connection the Secular Trend? I'll give you some more.

"Interestingly, exactly this proposal has recently been advanced by one of the world's leading scientists. Sir Roger Penrose in a celebrated book Shadows of the Mind (1994), has advanced that Quantum Gravity controls brain function, and it would therefore control brain growth. As we see, my discovery serves to confirm his theory and vice versa. It also tells us that apparently we have not uncovered the complete theory of God. We have only proved that "God exists". Apparently, until the theory of Quantum Gravity is discovered we will not have a "complete theory of God"."

Well, it sure looks like he just pulled the theory out of his ass doesn't it? No basis for anything, no sir. Dick. Want more mathematical basis? I'm tired of killing totse bandwidth because of your lack of reading ability so go here and please don't make me copy a bunch of that onto here because you refuse to read it as well.---> http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com/mathweb.html

Rust

2006-04-03, 04:38

quote:Originally posted by Iam:

I'm revoking this entire part of the argument. You win.

Perfect.

quote:No Hammond does not. He says that God does conform to the law of physics, that doesn't necessarily mean he MUST. You're taking the beginning of the statement out of context, read the whole to get a complete view. They have only determined that God does conform, nothing more.

Dude, I fucking already said that is the aspect in which it doesn't match how people thought he would be. However, and I said all this before, the Holy Bible only says that we were created in the image of God. This God would definitely meet the criteria for being the God of the Holy Bible. Could it not be said that we are the shrunken image of a 'full grown man'?

Wrong. I'm not taking anything out of context. The context is already set by the question he is answering, and he clearly answers by saying that it was true; therefore saying that it isn't true today. There would be absolutely no point in using the word "WAS" if it still true today! The fact remains that his god must conform to the laws of physics.

As for the rest of your ridiculous rant, you're mistaken yet again. When the bible says that we are created in his image, it must be take as figurative passage since the bible then goes on to claim that god transcends the laws of physics, is omnipresent and omniscient; neither of which we can do, nor his "god".

quote:I didn't ignore that at all, I've addressed it at least 4 times including ^.

No. You did not address it at all. If you did, then please quote where exactly you addressed his claim that his "god" must have the human form.

quote:Alright then, I guess you're the most logically fallicious person on the planet.

You should note that you failed to prove that I jumped to any conclusions in this last post of yours - or any other post for that matter, making this pathetic attempt at an insult (in a post where you're admitting that you were stupid enough to think that jumping to conclusions was not a logical fallacy) even more hilarious. Fucking hilarious.

quote:Now I'm completely convinced that you haven't read up on it.

What would make you say that? The fact that what you quoted supports what I said completely?

What you quoted supports the fact that the so-called "Secular trend" is merely a statistical tendency in the growth of humans (both physically and mentally). That's a fact. What is not a fact is that it supports his idea of a "god". For example, there is absolutely nothing in the definition of what the "secular trend" entails, to suggest we don't see reality in it's entirety - which is the whole basis of his argument. Having a lower amount of IQ does not mean seeing a lower amount of reality.

My point stands completely, now especially with what you quoted: he mentions things which are accepted in Science, and then concludes outrageous and unsubstantiated things with them. Thank you for providing that article.

If you want even more reasons why his arguments are miserable failures, I suggest you read:

http://www.schornak.de/aspog/peer-4pg/index.htm

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-03-2006).]

ohhi

2006-04-03, 05:10

quote:Originally posted by super chick:

do you think god is perfect?

Seeing how he created humans, I would go with a "no".

slickt0mmy

2006-04-03, 16:21

ok, first of all, YES there is a god. THE God (the one from the Bible) created the earth, the universe, and everything in it. So yes, he created humans. God is perfect. So WERE humans. Until Adam & Eve ate from the "tree of good and evil". This brought evil into the world.

Basically, God said, "ok i've made this perfect land for you. No deseases, no evil, no pain. BUT i'm also giving you free will. If you eat from this tree, evil will enter the world."

But Adam & Eve, being humans, were tempted by a serpent (Satan) to eat from it. So they did. God knew what they did, so they were cast out of the Garden of Eden (where they lived). So now, there is evil in the world.

That's only the beginning of the Bible. God's Word is amazing. It's the greatest letter ever written.

If you like, action, war, romance, death, drama, etc. then read the Bible. It has it all in it.

Personally, I read the NIV Teen Study Bible. I find it easier to understand then King James Version.

Whoever said, "man wrote the bible." good job! you just proved another point!

God picked a select few (they didn't know each other at all. they didn't even speak the same language) to write the Bible. These people had no clue the others were writing another part of it. They wrote what God told them to write. So, in essence, God DID write the Bible. Humans just "translated" it.

If you don't believe me, then fine. Tell me what you don't believe and i can give you a better point that will prove any other religion wrong.

I'm not saying i know it all. I'm 17 and was raised in the church (still go there) so i'm sure i can find the answer to whatever you ask.