Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Theist: new definition

Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 3:48:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 3:24:17 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Lacking disbelief in God

Legit?

Totally and because it is a negative statement, burden of proof is on the Atheist to prove you wrong.

Take for instance: Some Atheist know it all says, There are no sandwiches in the refrigerator so we will be hungry. But I say I am lacking hunger because I got a sandwich from the fridge. It is on the Atheist to prove I am not lacking hunger.

Too Legit.
bulproof
Posts: 25,171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 4:05:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 3:48:13 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/1/2014 3:24:17 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Lacking disbelief in God

Legit?

Totally and because it is a negative statement, burden of proof is on the Atheist to prove you wrong.

Take for instance: Some Atheist know it all says, There are no sandwiches in the refrigerator so we will be hungry. But I say I am lacking hunger because I got a sandwich from the fridge. It is on the Atheist to prove I am not lacking hunger.

Too Legit.

Gods are a claim made by man.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 4:45:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 3:24:17 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Lacking disbelief in God

Legit?

Double negative. So positive statement still.

I think if you have to wriggle around trying to redefine terms just to shirk the burden of proof, it might be time to take a long, hard look at why you feel the need to do that.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 5:02:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 4:45:16 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 6/1/2014 3:24:17 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Lacking disbelief in God

Legit?

Double negative. So positive statement still.

I think if you have to wriggle around trying to redefine terms just to shirk the burden of proof, it might be time to take a long, hard look at why you feel the need to do that.

Lacking disbelief in God = Affirming Belief in God

There should be no way to reword terms to shrink a burden of proof. Burden of proof and the amount needed is based on explanatory value. Meaning it must account for the information already known and answer the questions contrary theories do not.

Therefore "God does not exist" is equal to the positive "God is made up" should require the same amount of onus as well.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 5:14:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 5:02:14 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/1/2014 4:45:16 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 6/1/2014 3:24:17 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Lacking disbelief in God

Legit?

Double negative. So positive statement still.

I think if you have to wriggle around trying to redefine terms just to shirk the burden of proof, it might be time to take a long, hard look at why you feel the need to do that.

Lacking disbelief in God = Affirming Belief in God

There should be no way to reword terms to shrink a burden of proof. Burden of proof and the amount needed is based on explanatory value. Meaning it must account for the information already known and answer the questions contrary theories do not.

Therefore "God does not exist" is equal to the positive "God is made up" should require the same amount of onus as well.

And "God is made-up" is a negative statement in response to "God exists". That's what 'made-up' means; not real. As I said, if you have to play purile semantic games to try and strengthen your position then your position is probably a pretty shoddy one.
bulproof
Posts: 25,171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 5:22:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 5:02:14 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/1/2014 4:45:16 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 6/1/2014 3:24:17 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Lacking disbelief in God

Legit?

Double negative. So positive statement still.

I think if you have to wriggle around trying to redefine terms just to shirk the burden of proof, it might be time to take a long, hard look at why you feel the need to do that.

Lacking disbelief in God = Affirming Belief in God

There should be no way to reword terms to shrink a burden of proof. Burden of proof and the amount needed is based on explanatory value. Meaning it must account for the information already known and answer the questions contrary theories do not.

Therefore "God does not exist" is equal to the positive "God is made up" should require the same amount of onus as well.

Gods are a claim made by man.
Can you show that anything else claims the existence of gods?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 6:01:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 5:14:03 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 6/1/2014 5:02:14 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/1/2014 4:45:16 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 6/1/2014 3:24:17 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Lacking disbelief in God

Legit?

Double negative. So positive statement still.

I think if you have to wriggle around trying to redefine terms just to shirk the burden of proof, it might be time to take a long, hard look at why you feel the need to do that.

Lacking disbelief in God = Affirming Belief in God

There should be no way to reword terms to shrink a burden of proof. Burden of proof and the amount needed is based on explanatory value. Meaning it must account for the information already known and answer the questions contrary theories do not.

Therefore "God does not exist" is equal to the positive "God is made up" should require the same amount of onus as well.

And "God is made-up" is a negative statement in response to "God exists". That's what 'made-up' means; not real. As I said, if you have to play puerile semantic games to try and strengthen your position then your position is probably a pretty shoddy one.

Made-up means imaginary. Many definitions use the negation of an opposite to define the word. It does not make the word or statements using the word negative.

When it comes to the sentence itself that is called polarity. Polarity is negative or positive and is effected by things like "not" "nothing".

In logic a positive claim expresses an assertion true, and a negative claim expresses the assertion is false.

Classical negation is an operation on one logical value, typically the value of a proposition, that produces a value of true when its operand is false and a value of false when its operand is true. So, if statement A is true, then "A (pronounced "not A") would therefore be false; and conversely, if "A is true, then A would be false.

So guess what both have a burden of proof, and it is equal burden of proof.

Because:

P because "A is the same as "P because A
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 6:04:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 6:01:08 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/1/2014 5:14:03 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 6/1/2014 5:02:14 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/1/2014 4:45:16 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 6/1/2014 3:24:17 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Lacking disbelief in God

Legit?

Double negative. So positive statement still.

I think if you have to wriggle around trying to redefine terms just to shirk the burden of proof, it might be time to take a long, hard look at why you feel the need to do that.

Lacking disbelief in God = Affirming Belief in God

There should be no way to reword terms to shrink a burden of proof. Burden of proof and the amount needed is based on explanatory value. Meaning it must account for the information already known and answer the questions contrary theories do not.

Therefore "God does not exist" is equal to the positive "God is made up" should require the same amount of onus as well.

And "God is made-up" is a negative statement in response to "God exists". That's what 'made-up' means; not real. As I said, if you have to play puerile semantic games to try and strengthen your position then your position is probably a pretty shoddy one.

Made-up means imaginary. Many definitions use the negation of an opposite to define the word. It does not make the word or statements using the word negative.

When it comes to the sentence itself that is called polarity. Polarity is negative or positive and is effected by things like "not" "nothing".

In logic a positive claim expresses an assertion true, and a negative claim expresses the assertion is false.

Classical negation is an operation on one logical value, typically the value of a proposition, that produces a value of true when its operand is false and a value of false when its operand is true. So, if statement A is true, then "A (pronounced "not A") would therefore be false; and conversely, if "A is true, then A would be false.

So guess what both have a burden of proof, and it is equal burden of proof.

Because:

P because "A is the same as "P because A

not signs didn't come through.

Classical negation is an operation on one logical value, typically the value of a proposition, that produces a value of true when its operand is false and a value of false when its operand is true. So, if statement A is true, then -A (pronounced "not A") would therefore be false; and conversely, if -A is true, then A would be false.

So guess what both have a burden of proof, and it is equal burden of proof.

Because:

P because -A, is the same, as -P because A
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 6:12:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 6:01:08 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/1/2014 5:14:03 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 6/1/2014 5:02:14 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/1/2014 4:45:16 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 6/1/2014 3:24:17 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Lacking disbelief in God

Legit?

Double negative. So positive statement still.

I think if you have to wriggle around trying to redefine terms just to shirk the burden of proof, it might be time to take a long, hard look at why you feel the need to do that.

Lacking disbelief in God = Affirming Belief in God

There should be no way to reword terms to shrink a burden of proof. Burden of proof and the amount needed is based on explanatory value. Meaning it must account for the information already known and answer the questions contrary theories do not.

Therefore "God does not exist" is equal to the positive "God is made up" should require the same amount of onus as well.

And "God is made-up" is a negative statement in response to "God exists". That's what 'made-up' means; not real. As I said, if you have to play puerile semantic games to try and strengthen your position then your position is probably a pretty shoddy one.

Made-up means imaginary. Many definitions use the negation of an opposite to define the word. It does not make the word or statements using the word negative.

When it comes to the sentence itself that is called polarity. Polarity is negative or positive and is effected by things like "not" "nothing".

In logic a positive claim expresses an assertion true, and a negative claim expresses the assertion is false.

Classical negation is an operation on one logical value, typically the value of a proposition, that produces a value of true when its operand is false and a value of false when its operand is true. So, if statement A is true, then "A (pronounced "not A") would therefore be false; and conversely, if "A is true, then A would be false.

So guess what both have a burden of proof, and it is equal burden of proof.

Because:

P because "A is the same as "P because A

So "God is made up" is a POSITIVE CLAIM. onus required.
bulproof
Posts: 25,171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 6:15:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Do you have any gods that claim the existence of gods?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bulproof
Posts: 25,171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 6:21:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I claim that I am sitting with the god of the undergrowth and we are drinking whisky.
You can accept my claim or reject it.
What do you choose?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 6:52:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 6:01:08 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Made-up means imaginary.

And imaginary means 'not real', 'fabricated', 'illusory'.

I'm well aware on how semantics works, thanks. I spent years studying it. I suggest you should do the same and then get back to me. I'm not interested in playing word games with people who are far less accomplished at them than they think.
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 9:18:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 3:24:17 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Lacking disbelief in God

Legit?

Color me amused. However, since the question remains unprovable, in either direction, the value of the "lack of assertion" remains zero. The fact that gawd remains an assertion removes the necessity to disprove anything. You "lack of disbelief" still:

1) comes with a set of rules
2) issues mandates and edicts
3) requires faith.
4) rests on nothing.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 9:21:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 5:02:14 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/1/2014 4:45:16 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 6/1/2014 3:24:17 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Lacking disbelief in God

Legit?

Double negative. So positive statement still.

I think if you have to wriggle around trying to redefine terms just to shirk the burden of proof, it might be time to take a long, hard look at why you feel the need to do that.

Lacking disbelief in God = Affirming Belief in God

There should be no way to reword terms to shrink a burden of proof. Burden of proof and the amount needed is based on explanatory value. Meaning it must account for the information already known and answer the questions contrary theories do not.

Therefore "God does not exist" is equal to the positive "God is made up" should require the same amount of onus as well.

This is agreed, with caveat: What if the disbelief is ONLY the disbelief in those gawds that have been asserted? As an agnostic, I don't entirely rule out the possibility of a god. I do, however, flatly reject all gawds at which humans have attempted some form of definition. Further, the existence of any gawd should not come with an attached set of obviously human dictatorial rules.

Thoughts?
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 9:34:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 9:21:46 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/1/2014 5:02:14 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/1/2014 4:45:16 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 6/1/2014 3:24:17 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Lacking disbelief in God

Legit?

Double negative. So positive statement still.

I think if you have to wriggle around trying to redefine terms just to shirk the burden of proof, it might be time to take a long, hard look at why you feel the need to do that.

Lacking disbelief in God = Affirming Belief in God

There should be no way to reword terms to shrink a burden of proof. Burden of proof and the amount needed is based on explanatory value. Meaning it must account for the information already known and answer the questions contrary theories do not.

Therefore "God does not exist" is equal to the positive "God is made up" should require the same amount of onus as well.

This is agreed, with caveat: What if the disbelief is ONLY the disbelief in those gawds that have been asserted? As an agnostic, I don't entirely rule out the possibility of a god. I do, however, flatly reject all gawds at which humans have attempted some form of definition. Further, the existence of any gawd should not come with an attached set of obviously human dictatorial rules.

Thoughts?

As a deist I have pondered this same thing. Some one made the claim "Gods are man made claims". I pondered God is something so strange to human experience. That God would be inconceivable.

So how do I say "The real God is the God no body has claimed yet or could claim." With out it self defeating itself, because I am making a claim of such a God's existence.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 9:48:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 9:18:30 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/1/2014 3:24:17 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Lacking disbelief in God

Legit?

Color me amused. However, since the question remains unprovable, in either direction, the value of the "lack of assertion" remains zero. The fact that gawd remains an assertion removes the necessity to disprove anything. You "lack of disbelief" still:

1) comes with a set of rules
2) issues mandates and edicts
3) requires faith.
4) rests on nothing.

Well maybe not for a pure Theist who just accepts a personal God.

1) Theist states we can not know God's will so no rules passed down.
2) same
3) well if you remove this then I guess that's Deism
4) interesting. But really no more than any other belief. At it's core a belief makes certain assumptions about the world. Then weighs evidence against the assumption and forms a view consistent with the accepted evidence.

I think everything does that. Here is a funny thought I had. God is said to have made humans in his image.

humans create belief systems based on nothing. humans establish these systems with mutually supportive thoughts.

God created the universe out of nothing. God establishes the world in his own mind.
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 9:49:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 9:34:06 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/1/2014 9:21:46 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/1/2014 5:02:14 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/1/2014 4:45:16 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 6/1/2014 3:24:17 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Lacking disbelief in God

Legit?

Double negative. So positive statement still.

I think if you have to wriggle around trying to redefine terms just to shirk the burden of proof, it might be time to take a long, hard look at why you feel the need to do that.

Lacking disbelief in God = Affirming Belief in God

There should be no way to reword terms to shrink a burden of proof. Burden of proof and the amount needed is based on explanatory value. Meaning it must account for the information already known and answer the questions contrary theories do not.

Therefore "God does not exist" is equal to the positive "God is made up" should require the same amount of onus as well.

This is agreed, with caveat: What if the disbelief is ONLY the disbelief in those gawds that have been asserted? As an agnostic, I don't entirely rule out the possibility of a god. I do, however, flatly reject all gawds at which humans have attempted some form of definition. Further, the existence of any gawd should not come with an attached set of obviously human dictatorial rules.

Thoughts?

As a deist I have pondered this same thing. Some one made the claim "Gods are man made claims". I pondered God is something so strange to human experience. That God would be inconceivable.

So how do I say "The real God is the God no body has claimed yet or could claim." With out it self defeating itself, because I am making a claim of such a God's existence.

I fully understand your position. I like the fact that you generally don't make assertions or blanket accusations (generally). I often ponder that if (big "if") there is some form of deity, what are the chances that it is anything even remotely resembling anything man has ever dreamed up? I like Heinlein's assessment, best:

'Man has rarely (if ever) invented a god superior to himself. Most have the manners and morals of a spoiled child.' (paraphrased, I'm sure).

The problem that I have is not with the existence of a gawd. It's with religion, and its insistence that morality is their sole and exclusive dominion. All other contentions are a direct result of such an assertion. This is coupled with the fact that all such assertions are made by those who claim to speak on behalf of a gawd that is obviously man-made. The more ridiculous the gawd, the more adamant the assertions.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 10:14:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 9:48:42 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/1/2014 9:18:30 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/1/2014 3:24:17 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Lacking disbelief in God

Legit?

Color me amused. However, since the question remains unprovable, in either direction, the value of the "lack of assertion" remains zero. The fact that gawd remains an assertion removes the necessity to disprove anything. You "lack of disbelief" still:

1) comes with a set of rules
2) issues mandates and edicts
3) requires faith.
4) rests on nothing.

Well maybe not for a pure Theist who just accepts a personal God.

1) Theist states we can not know God's will so no rules passed down.
2) same
3) well if you remove this then I guess that's Deism
4) interesting. But really no more than any other belief. At it's core a belief makes certain assumptions about the world. Then weighs evidence against the assumption and forms a view consistent with the accepted evidence.

All of your responses rest on the premise that no religion is derived from the perceived gawd. These are rare and often very benign. I misspoke, to a degree. My list presumed an accompanying religion.

I think everything does that. Here is a funny thought I had. God is said to have made humans in his image.

Only by a few religions.

humans create belief systems based on nothing. humans establish these systems with mutually supportive thoughts.

It is these belief systems with which I have the contention, not the existence of a gawd.

God created the universe out of nothing. God establishes the world in his own mind.

Kewl concept. That, however, leads to an existentialist controversy. I tend to shy away from those.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 10:34:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 10:14:17 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/1/2014 9:48:42 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/1/2014 9:18:30 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/1/2014 3:24:17 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Lacking disbelief in God

Legit?

Color me amused. However, since the question remains unprovable, in either direction, the value of the "lack of assertion" remains zero. The fact that gawd remains an assertion removes the necessity to disprove anything. You "lack of disbelief" still:

1) comes with a set of rules
2) issues mandates and edicts
3) requires faith.
4) rests on nothing.

Well maybe not for a pure Theist who just accepts a personal God.

1) Theist states we can not know God's will so no rules passed down.
2) same
3) well if you remove this then I guess that's Deism
4) interesting. But really no more than any other belief. At it's core a belief makes certain assumptions about the world. Then weighs evidence against the assumption and forms a view consistent with the accepted evidence.

All of your responses rest on the premise that no religion is derived from the perceived gawd. These are rare and often very benign. I misspoke, to a degree. My list presumed an accompanying religion.

I think everything does that. Here is a funny thought I had. God is said to have made humans in his image.

Only by a few religions.

Not just religions. But Math and science. They are built on axioms they can not prove or disprove. Thinks only make sense when they are processed inside the system with out breaking the rules. But it is not to say that there could be information that can not be processed.

Math: think about alebra. Letters together get multiplied. "irreverent_god" becomes ir^3e^3vnt subscripted god. It makes no sense and is meaningless in Math.


humans create belief systems based on nothing. humans establish these systems with mutually supportive thoughts.

It is these belief systems with which I have the contention, not the existence of a gawd.

God created the universe out of nothing. God establishes the world in his own mind.

Kewl concept. That, however, leads to an existentialist controversy. I tend to shy away from those.
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 10:41:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 10:34:16 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
All of your responses rest on the premise that no religion is derived from the perceived gawd. These are rare and often very benign. I misspoke, to a degree. My list presumed an accompanying religion.

I think everything does that. Here is a funny thought I had. God is said to have made humans in his image.

Only by a few religions.

Not just religions. But Math and science. They are built on axioms they can not prove or disprove. Thinks only make sense when they are processed inside the system with out breaking the rules. But it is not to say that there could be information that can not be processed.

Perhaps, but mathematicians don't attempt to establish rules of living for others based on their mathematical derivations. Religions do.

Math: think about alebra. Letters together get multiplied. "irreverent_god" becomes ir^3e^3vnt subscripted god. It makes no sense and is meaningless in Math.


I don't believe I get the sense of what you're trying to convey, with this. Please elaborate.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
bulproof
Posts: 25,171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 10:54:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 9:34:06 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Some one made the claim "Gods are man made claims". I pondered God is something so strange to human experience. That God would be inconceivable.

The god invented by man (all gods) are not inconceivable but explanatory.
Thor explains thunder.
Vulcan explains volcanoes.

All gods are conceivable, hence their existence. Gods are the explanations that ancient man needed for the unexplainable in his life.
Even before an inkling of an understanding of the universe existed, man (caveman) had the necessary mental faculties to question their existence.
They didn't possess the capacity to answer those questions, but they possessed an imagination capable of providing an answer that satisfied them.
That answer was a very powerful being (like them) who had the capacity to make the things happen that they were aware of. Of course there were many things that happened so there must have been many very powerful beings.
All of a not very sudden you have GODS.
Just as our ancestors have passed on many things to us, we have inherited the ignorant beliefs in these gods like DNA.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 10:57:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 3:24:17 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Lacking disbelief in God

Legit?

Not really. That's a kinda-sorta agnostic.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 11:01:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 10:41:19 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/1/2014 10:34:16 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
All of your responses rest on the premise that no religion is derived from the perceived gawd. These are rare and often very benign. I misspoke, to a degree. My list presumed an accompanying religion.

I think everything does that. Here is a funny thought I had. God is said to have made humans in his image.

Only by a few religions.

Not just religions. But Math and science. They are built on axioms they can not prove or disprove. Thinks only make sense when they are processed inside the system with out breaking the rules. But it is not to say that there could be information that can not be processed.

Perhaps, but mathematicians don't attempt to establish rules of living for others based on their mathematical derivations. Religions do.

Math: think about alebra. Letters together get multiplied. "irreverent_god" becomes ir^3e^3vnt subscripted god. It makes no sense and is meaningless in Math.


I don't believe I get the sense of what you're trying to convey, with this. Please elaborate.

Your name uses symbols that are used in Math. The result is gibberish in mathematical sense.

In language however your name is processed and the result is a type of identifier "a name"

In science Netwons classical formula for gravity is useful till we examine the extremely small or the extremely dense. At that point we use quantum physics or special relativity.

In all these systems they have rules and self supporting axioms and interconnected premises.

We can not process information like the center of a black hole in Newtonian formulas. We can not process your name in a system of Math.

God may exist as a construct that can not be processed by the human mind.
bulproof
Posts: 25,171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 11:06:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 11:01:06 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

God may exist as a construct that can not be processed by the human mind.

But it's much more likely that god exists as a construct of the human mind.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Mineva
Posts: 336
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 11:10:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 3:24:17 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Lacking disbelief in God

Legit?

Google says that the meaning of "lack" is "not having enough of something", so something that includes "doubts". According to this definition, the lack of disbelief cannot be "Theism", because theists believes in God with"no doubts".
bulproof
Posts: 25,171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 11:13:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 11:10:55 AM, Mineva wrote:
At 6/1/2014 3:24:17 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Lacking disbelief in God

Legit?


Google says that the meaning of "lack" is "not having enough of something", so something that includes "doubts". According to this definition, the lack of disbelief cannot be "Theism", because theists believes in God with"no doubts".

And therein lies the problem.
A closed mind.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 11:14:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 11:01:06 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/1/2014 10:41:19 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 6/1/2014 10:34:16 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
All of your responses rest on the premise that no religion is derived from the perceived gawd. These are rare and often very benign. I misspoke, to a degree. My list presumed an accompanying religion.

I think everything does that. Here is a funny thought I had. God is said to have made humans in his image.

Only by a few religions.

Not just religions. But Math and science. They are built on axioms they can not prove or disprove. Thinks only make sense when they are processed inside the system with out breaking the rules. But it is not to say that there could be information that can not be processed.

Perhaps, but mathematicians don't attempt to establish rules of living for others based on their mathematical derivations. Religions do.

Math: think about alebra. Letters together get multiplied. "irreverent_god" becomes ir^3e^3vnt subscripted god. It makes no sense and is meaningless in Math.


I don't believe I get the sense of what you're trying to convey, with this. Please elaborate.

Your name uses symbols that are used in Math. The result is gibberish in mathematical sense.

In language however your name is processed and the result is a type of identifier "a name"

In science Netwons classical formula for gravity is useful till we examine the extremely small or the extremely dense. At that point we use quantum physics or special relativity.

In all these systems they have rules and self supporting axioms and interconnected premises.

We can not process information like the center of a black hole in Newtonian formulas. We can not process your name in a system of Math.

God may exist as a construct that can not be processed by the human mind.

I see. This, also, is interesting, but now you appear to be calling in 'metaphysics,' to deal with concepts that don't translate from language to (essentially) another language. The point that appears to be missed, in that analogy, is that "irreverent_god" was never intended to be a mathematical statement, of any kind. This seems to be an "apples and oranges" type analogy. At any rate, the existence of a gawd is not of great import to me. The way I see it, I will find out when (if) I find out. Until that time, I will remain unconvinced, in either direction. Further, I will continue to reject all religions and religious definitions of gawd, to date.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
Mineva
Posts: 336
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 11:51:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 11:13:18 AM, bulproof wrote:
And therein lies the problem.
A closed mind.

2:13 And if they are told: "Believe, as the people have believed," they say: "Shall we believe as the fools have believed?" No, they are the fools but they do not know.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 5:39:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/1/2014 11:10:55 AM, Mineva wrote:
At 6/1/2014 3:24:17 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Lacking disbelief in God

Legit?


Google says that the meaning of "lack" is "not having enough of something", so something that includes "doubts". According to this definition, the lack of disbelief cannot be "Theism", because theists believes in God with"no doubts".

And, philosophically, both hyperbolic and hypobolic doubt are incoherent positions to hold on anything. Any position that isn't agnostic is irrational.