Thread: Comments on a world without God.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

No, like I said, you seem to be confusing facts and theories previously.

hardly, again, you do not even understand your own words. We can state as facts that the distance between the sun and earth is that much, only to find out later that the distance was different. Most of the "facts" in Science are difficultly measured, forcing Scientists to deal with models instead of reality (the theory part) to further their research. That make Science at par with religion.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

There are shortcomings in aspects of scientific research methodology, but the wonderful thing about it is, that these will be addressed in time and as much as it's possible for us to reveal and comprehend will be gleaned. Science advances constantly.

Indeed it is, because Science is a dynamic religion, motivated to find the ultimate answers to everything, or god in other religion definition.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

If you wish to debate the reality of numbers, by all means go and knock yourself out.

gee, you are missing quite a few points. Out of your league ?

The numbers are real, but the foundation of Science is based on certain assumptions or axioms that can't be proved or demonstrated. They are the equivalent of the 10 commandments. I bet you didn't know that

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

but you can not prove or provide even the slightest shred of evidence to back up your assertions.

philosophy exercise (the topic of this sub-forum) is about logic demonstration and reflexion in arguments, it's more Science methodology than pure debate techniques. If you want to see substantiated evidence in every argument, then you might want to look at debate techniques about modern social science, not philosophy. This is something that many people are confused about. The debaters on those videos were also speculating without bringing any evidence, but that didn't stop you from believing them in full faith. See my point ?

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

It is because you say it is, seems to be about as far as you can go. That's simply not anywhere near to a compelling argument.

because you are confused. The idea is to show the 2 sides of a coin, not to take one side and argue about it to death using different evidence to back up your claims. For every claim, you can find a counter-claim, and for every evidence, you can find counter-evidence.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

I know what happens when we die.
Some worms get real happy and fat.
That's it.

*giggle* I'm being cremated. But my soul will not burn and die.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

As regards predictions/premonitions. Again there's no evidence to suggest such dreams are real or true or even nothing more than coincidence or at best some unconscious reaction to events occurring in the real world. But actual premonitions? Nope...

If you don't have the gift, you don't have it. I feel sorry for folks like you who live solely in this three-dimensional world.
Can you translate this for me? (transcribed so the spelling is likely incorrect; I do not know the meaning)
maraina
mahktak
meitu

Originally Posted by Butterfly

The numbers are real

The square root of -9 is not real, its imaginary

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

I think you've misunderstood a lot of what I've written and reinterpreted or reframed quite a bit of it too.

oh no I understand perfectly what you are saying, but I am making counter-claims using your own arguments, and you can't accept that. That's what I am saying when you are out of league. Not because you are stupid, because you are not, but because you don't understand what the real discussion is about, you keep focusing on one side and in your own opinion.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

it does nothing to further your rather arrogant standpoint, that you believe you have all the answers and us lesser mortals are incapable of understanding such complexity.

but there are no answers per se, just counter-arguments to your "naive" claims. Again, you are completely missing the points, the arguments and counter-arguments might be perceived arrogant for those "unfamiliar" with those questions, but in reality they are simple questions. You are having the same reaction as a Thai who doesn't understand a situation

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Can you supply any evidence to back up your assertions?

You will need to start reading a few philosophy books first, otherwise all this little discussion will keep being superficial and pointless, which I warned you about a few pages ago. Difficult to go deeper when you already "lost the plot" on the surface.

Start with the classic, they are all on Wiki: Hengel (sp), Kant, Descartes, even Nietsche (sp)

Originally Posted by slackula

And then that statement shows that you also lack any understanding of the meaning of religion.

Are you sure ? I think I have a very clear understanding of the word religion. Equating Religion with Science is not a claim I have made originally or monopolized, theses are questions that were addressed before by many philosophy students and authors. The majority of the "mass" doesn't understand what religion means. It's one of the good topic of classic philosophy. Man is definitely a religious animal.

Originally Posted by slackula

We can accept that this might not be your first language, but making such blanket and easily disprovable statements is simply infantile.

nothing to do with it, I would make the same argument in French, even though they would sound better and more logical.

Originally Posted by slackula

That statement is total rubbish, and shows that you have absolutely no understanding of the concepts and underlying principles of the scientific method.

ah ah, the joke is on you

maybe start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

Originally Posted by Looper

The square root of -9 is not real, its imaginary

merely a technical convenience

what is it ? i9 or 9i ? can't remember, so it should be Sqr(i9)=i3 ?

sqrt(-1) = i
sqrt(-9) = 3i

If imaginary numbers can be used to solve real world structural engineering problems then perhaps imaginary gods can be used to solve real world social engineering problems.

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

If you don't have the gift, you don't have it. I feel sorry for folks like you who live solely in this three-dimensional world.

(emphasis mine).

I guess that explains a lot about Jet and effaces any credibility.

Me having to repost this might also explain which mod Jet is blowing.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

^ Stronk Sneak, I said I suppose, I do not presume to know your thoughts, suppose as in perusing the ideas of your statements.
Sure, go with your MRIs and transmitters. That's fun. Sadly, your science cannot figure out where we go, what we learn and WTF we can often predict future events. You don't have the science to explain that yet, because...you try to complicate what is simple.
For me, premonition dreams can sometimes be a very bad gift and no, they are not play on demand.

I know what happens when we die.

Some worms get real happy and fat.

That's it.

As regards predictions/premonitions. Again there's no evidence to suggest such dreams are real or true or even nothing more than coincidence or at best some unconscious reaction to events occurring in the real world. But actual premonitions? Nope...

Good to hear someone knows what happens when we die.... to each their own... believe what you want....
But I think I would rather live my life with the Bible as a road map and well when i die ... if its all a joke... no big deal cause at least I lived a life that was not a hinderence to someone else... Rather than say to heck with religion (I dont believe) ... Now i die and I find out that there really is a God....wooops.... Guess Ill take my chances with the first option... But again.. to each their own..

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

No, like I said, you seem to be confusing facts and theories previously. I never said I was.

There are shortcomings in aspects of scientific research methodology, but the wonderful thing about it is, that these will be addressed in time and as much as it's possible for us to reveal and comprehend will be gleaned. Science advances constantly.

If you wish to debate the reality of numbers, by all means go and knock yourself out. Of course there are assumptions about our reality. Our sensory perception is rather limited.

However, none of this pointless rambling by you furthers your point in the slightest. You can criticise elements of science and of course it isn't without its failings, but you can not prove or provide even the slightest shred of evidence to back up your assertions.

It is because you say it is, seems to be about as far as you can go. That's simply not anywhere near to a compelling argument.

Meriam webster says: "religion, a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith".....
By that definition your areguments show that you are as religous as anyone.... Albeit a bit different than that way I believe, but good for u..... I mean you really do explain very well that we all believe in something, even if it is only our self.

Originally Posted by AjarnJonesy

Good to hear someone knows what happens when we die.... to each their own... believe what you want....

We *ALL* know what happens when we die -- some people just prefer to delude themselves with fairy tales. ;-)

Originally Posted by AjarnJonesy

But I think I would rather live my life with the Bible as a road map and well when i die ... if its all a joke... no big deal cause at least I lived a life that was not a hinderence to someone else... Rather than say to heck with religion (I dont believe) ... Now i die and I find out that there really is a God....wooops.... Guess Ill take my chances with the first option... But again.. to each their own..

Pascal's Wager sometimes equals a wasted a life - doesn't see so in your case, by what you describe, but people that are militantly fundamentalist, and establish all kinds of barriers to the enjoyment of their life, hoping for a big pay off after death - that kind is basically a waste of oxygen on the planet.

Pascal's wager was also quite flawed, IMO.

Lastly, how do you know the Bible with its barely 2000 years of history is an authority, in a world of humans that goes back 10s of thousands of years, with earlier, and different gods...?

Originally Posted by DaffyDuck

We *ALL* know what happens when we die

You do? So, you have died already?

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

Originally Posted by DaffyDuck

We *ALL* know what happens when we die

You do? So, you have died already?

Subconsciously every human is aware of their own mortality, and what this 'mortality' means. For some people, it's a rather uncomfortable realization, so a healthy amount of delusion and subsequent ego protection is going on -- or, in simpler terms, cognitive dissonance.

Some of us simply don't choose to delude ourselves, but deal with hard facts.

Don't tell me, you believe in some fancy fairy tale of an afterlife, and lots of other similar fantasy creations, right?

"....having the gift..." and all that gab...

Quack Quack sounds like a nice religious preacher, always knew he was a strong believer

Originally Posted by AjarnJonesy

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

No, like I said, you seem to be confusing facts and theories previously. I never said I was.

There are shortcomings in aspects of scientific research methodology, but the wonderful thing about it is, that these will be addressed in time and as much as it's possible for us to reveal and comprehend will be gleaned. Science advances constantly.

If you wish to debate the reality of numbers, by all means go and knock yourself out. Of course there are assumptions about our reality. Our sensory perception is rather limited.

However, none of this pointless rambling by you furthers your point in the slightest. You can criticise elements of science and of course it isn't without its failings, but you can not prove or provide even the slightest shred of evidence to back up your assertions.

It is because you say it is, seems to be about as far as you can go. That's simply not anywhere near to a compelling argument.

Meriam webster says: "religion, a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith".....
By that definition your areguments show that you are as religous as anyone.... Albeit a bit different than that way I believe, but good for u..... I mean you really do explain very well that we all believe in something, even if it is only our self.

Eh? I think you've been reading different words to the ones I wrote...

Still waiting for BF to define his version of "god".....

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Still waiting for BF to define his version of "god".....

Don't hold your breath mate.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Still waiting for BF to define his version of "god".....

re-read the thread from the start, you might have an idea

told you already, there are several definition that tend toward the same "idea"

Definition of God = the creator of the universe

did that help ?

Ki = the universal life source. Whatever.

Just "Energy"

But...... no separate entity requiring a "leap of faith".

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Still waiting for BF to define his version of "god".....

re-read the thread from the start, you might have an idea

told you already, there are several definition that tend toward the same "idea"

Definition of God = the creator of the universe

did that help ?

Not really, could you be more specific?

I've read the entire thread and you seem to be dodging actually quantifying your version of "god".

For example, this creator dude you talk of, does it/he/she appear in any well known works of fiction, such as the Bible, Koran or Talmud? Or is it your own version, plucked from the deepest, darkest recesses of your brain? Or a hybrid?

There are more, but we'll take this one step at a time.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

I've read the entire thread and you seem to be dodging actually quantifying your version of "god".

somehow I doubt that, you must have missed it completely. Try again.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

For example, this creator dude you talk of, does it/he/she appear in any well known works of fiction, such as the Bible, Koran or Talmud? Or is it your own version, plucked from the deepest, darkest recesses of your brain? Or a hybrid?

See what my point above

you sound as articulate as a presenter ranting on Faux

No, I'm just quietly having fun BF, which I thought I'd made fairly obvious....

Do try to answer the question, there's a good chap.

^ see this is not MKP or the Lounge, we were trying to have an "educated" discussion,

then you showed up

but seriously, it's a bit like lecturing basic geometry to a goat, it's a bit pointless and ridiculous, isn't it ?

the point remains, you are a religious animal