Gibberish of the day!

[Koumei]

Presuming the existence of the christian god here, you're telling me that because the church has declared something to be so, that means that god can not or will not perform said action at any time in the future?

Remember that this is Catholic craziness. The pope has about as much power as God does, to them, and they have been known to:

*declare a plane exists, at which point it has always existed
*decide that doesn't fit with modern times and strike it from having ever existed,
*then decide it does actually exist after all, and bring it back

In the eyes of the Catholics, if the pope said "God is a rock guitarist", God would pick that fucking guitar up and grow his hair long, because the pope hath spoken.

[tzor]

Tzor:
Scientific method:
Does the chair you are sitting on exist? If so, God doesn't. If it doesn't exist you are insane.

Logic
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Ah I love it how atheists start babbling like drooling idiots and start using nihilism whenever threatened; I thought they were the ones who were big into science and logic. Then they start throwing around probability; it’s just priceless.

Murtak; of course the chair exists, as I can do repeated observations and experiments on it. The physics within a black hole are a complete mystery to me. I cannot do any observations or experiments on it. The physics of the interaction of parallel universes (don’t laugh, that’s a current theory to explain the non linear acceleration of the universe) is likewise impossible to directly observe and experiment on. I also cannot (at this time) do any observations or experiments on life that has originated in a distant planet in another galaxy. I’m not the one descending into nihilism, but the one who states that one can only prove what one can verify through experimentation and observation.

Also because one cannot the lack of existence of “a” god, one cannot therefore assume one has proved the existence of Joe’s God, or Fred’s God, or the God theory of the month. The shoe falls on the other foot. You can’t prove he is not; I can’t prove he is.

As for “Logic,” you do build up quite a straw man there. “Omnipotence (Latin omnipotentia, from omnia and potens, able to do all things) is the power of God to effect whatever is not intrinsically impossible.”

As intrinsically impossible must be classed:

1. Any action on the part of God which would be out of harmony with His nature and attributes.
   • It is impossible for God to sin.
   • The decrees of God cannot be reversed.
   • The creation of an absolutely best creature or of an absolutely greatest number of creatures is impossible, because the Divine power is inexhaustible.
2. Another class of intrinsic impossibilities includes all that would simultaneously connote mutually repellent elements, e.g. a square circle, an infinite creature, etc.

[tzor]

Read the bolded part. Read it twice and then tell me you cannot see the idiocy inherent in that position. Presuming the existence of the christian god here, you're telling me that because the church has declared something to be so, that means that god can not or will not perform said action at any time in the future? If you're going to categorically deny the possibility of "public revelation" then how the hell is anyone supposed to know it's time when Jesus returns? How do we know it hasn't happened already and the christians are just carrying on a pointless pantomime for a god that's long since looked away?

Starting with the last point first; of course there is no way we can know. (Why people think that we can know is beyond me; “It is not for you to know the times or seasons that the Father has established by his own authority.” (Acts 1:7))

Secondly, and since at this point I am talking about the theology of the Roman Catholic Church, “the bride of Christ” and filled with the “Spirit of God,” then neither God (who just “is”) or the Church be out of sync with each other. It’s members can, but not the Church as a whole.

[tzor]

I hate it when someone actually believes that is some sort of counterargument. Just case Tzor or anyone else tries it:
If the goal is to have no evil and one is omnipotent, doing anything other than immediately eliminating all evil from the world amounts to causing humanity pain for the sake of causing pain. Clearly such behavior is evil. (or, as stated above, malevolent)

I thought the goal was love.

[tzor]

Remember that this is Catholic craziness. The pope has about as much power as God does, to them, and they have been known to: ...

No, just plain no.

If you want I can go into the notion of "limbo," but Augustine was never a Pope. Nor was limbo ever declared from the chair of Peter.

[Kaelik]

Ah I love it how atheists start babbling like drooling idiots and start using nihilism whenever threatened; I thought they were the ones who were big into science and logic. Then they start throwing around probability; it’s just priceless.

See Tzor. This is the point. You are fucking retarded and know nothing about science at all. So instead you attempt to practice your amateur philosophy that you learned from some Catholic Priests or some Natural Law philosophers.

Things are true and false without logical proof all the time in science. It is true that evolution occurred. It is true that when I let go of my pen in the future it will fall towards the earth. It is true that the sun will rise tomorrow (IE, our world will rotate in such a way that the sun appears to be rising.)

None of those things can be logically proved. They are based on induction, something that logic can only ever point to the probability of the conclusion, never to the certainty or necessity.

All of science that has ever been or ever will be is induction, and as such cannot logically prove anything of any kind.

You cannot logically prove that your chair will support your weight when next you sit in it. You also cannot prove that no god could possibly exist. You also cannot prove that Cartesian Demons aren't fucking with you on a regular basis, or that you personally aren't suffering from massive hallucinations that color every aspect of your life, and that you actually live in a padded cell.

Induction never proves anything. And science never proves anything because it is based on induction.

What it does do is tell us things are true or false with a reasonable degree of certainty. 99.999...999 is a reasonable degree of certainty.

Any significant understanding of science tells us very clearly that it is more likely that you will get hit by a car on your 100th birthday than it is that god exists. Because there is some evidence for people getting hit with cars and having 100th birthdays, and even doing the first on the second. Whereas there is exactly zero evidence of the latter.

If there is zero evidence for the existence of something, then it does not exist. There is no requirement to prove everything, because nothing in life can be proven at all. Induction is not a logical proof.

Therefore:

Either

1) Computers do not actually exist. (you relied on induction to prove their existence)

or

2) God does not exist. (If induction is valid proof, then tough shit, because God is inductively disproved.)

[Neeeek]

Ah I love it how atheists start babbling like drooling idiots and start using nihilism whenever threatened; I thought they were the ones who were big into science and logic. Then they start throwing around probability; it’s just priceless.

The problem is you don't understand logic, tzor. Theists have this idea that for god(s) not to exist you have to prove them false. That's exactly backwards. Everything that is conceivable is assumed to NOT exist until affirmative evidence of it's existence is produced. You live your life believing this to be true. If you didn't you be completely fucking nuts. You just choose not to apply it to your belief in god.

I don't try to dodge invisible unicorns, and I don't bother to worry about invisible sky wizards. Both are equally likely to exist, and both lack any evidence of existence. The difference between being positive there is no god and simply refusing to believe in things without evidence is tiny, and functionally the same.

[NativeJovian]

Holy shit you guys fail at logic and philosophy.

Tzor is right; strong atheism is just as illogical (in the sense that it's impossible to prove or disprove) as strong theism. "God must exist" (the position of the theist) and "God cannot exist" (the position of the atheist) are equally unprovable. Seriously.

What Tzor calls "weak atheism", which I usually hear called "agnosticism", is the only position supported by logic. The stance of the agnostic is "God may or may not exist" (occasionally adding "and it is impossible for man to prove one way or the other").

It takes just as much faith (in the sense of "logically unsupported belief") to believe that God exists as it does to believe that God doesn't exist. The rest of us don't know one way or the other.

[Prak]

Remember that this is Catholic craziness. The pope has about as much power as God does, to them, and they have been known to: ...

No, just plain no.

If you want I can go into the notion of "limbo," but Augustine was never a Pope. Nor was limbo ever declared from the chair of Peter.

Ah, the chair of Peter. Reason number one why I should never be Pope... I'd never leave that chair unless I had to take a shit, and even then I'd have some people carry the chair to the bathroom, just in case I decided to fire off some papal doctrine on my way.

My first papal doctrine would be to shorten nun habits.
The second would probably be "clergy no longer need be celibate, in fact you should probably have relationships and sex if you're going to council people on these things"

[Kaelik]

Tzor is right; strong atheism is just as illogical (in the sense that it's impossible to prove or disprove) as strong theism. "God must exist" (the position of the theist) and "God cannot exist" (the position of the atheist) are equally unprovable. Seriously.

Holy shit you are all kinds of retarded. Ignoring the bullshit Agnostic superiority that Agnostics never seem to have as relates to reality, but only fictional constructs.

Try reading what's actually said.

Not, "cannot" exist. "Does not" exist.

While I'm sure you are a disbeliever in objective reality or incapable of understanding statements about fact made about probabilistic outcomes (inclusive or), does not is a statement about what is true about reality, not a necessary conclusion of the evidence, merely the actually true one.

[NativeJovian]

Saying that "it's very unlikely that God exists" is an agnostic statement. You leave open the chance, even if it's very small, that God exists.

This is besides the fact that trying to apply probability to the existence of God is retarded. Seriously. How the hell do you judge a probability of an omnipotent being's existence? Short answer: you don't. Either He exists or He doesn't, and believing one or the other is ultimately just shooting craps. You really can't say that one or the other is true without saying that you believe that just for the hell of it. There's no logic involved either way. I guarantee you that for every logical argument for the existence of God, there's a counterargument for why He might not exist, and vice versa.

[Kaelik]

Saying that "it's very unlikely that God exists" is an agnostic statement. You leave open the chance, even if it's very small, that God exists.

Saying "I am sitting in a chair." Actually really means "It is very likely that I am sitting in a chair." Because I cannot logically prove that I am sitting in a chair. Induction does not prove anything.

Saying "it is theoretically possible that a god of some form could exist, but he doesn't." is not an agnostic statement. I am not agnostic about the existence of my chair, even though it is possible that it does not exist.

This is besides the fact that trying to apply probability to the existence of God is retarded. Seriously. How the hell do you judge a probability of an omnipotent being's existence? Short answer: you don't. Either He exists or He doesn't, and believing one or the other is ultimately just shooting craps. You really can't say that one or the other is true without saying that you believe that just for the hell of it. There's no logic involved either way. I guarantee you that for every logical argument for the existence of God, there's a counterargument for why He might not exist, and vice versa.

Yes there is. There is inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning can only ever point to the probability of something being more likely, never to absolute proof. But it's still there.

Induction is a logical argument which 100% all the time is against the existence of a god and has no comparable argument in favor of it.

It makes no sense to speak of the probability of a coin flip, it either comes up heads or tails, and yet, if I flip a coin and it lands, on the ground, before you look at it, it makes perfect sense to say that it has a 50% chance of being heads or tails. Likewise, it makes perfect sense to talk about the probability of a god existing. Either it doesn't exist, or it does, and there is absolutely zero evidence for it existing and lots for it not. Ergo, probability greatly in favor of not existing, to an incomprehensible number of zeros before the first 1 in that percent.

There is a reason shooting craps is a statement that can be made about some probabilistic statements and not about others. It's because when something is very likely, it's no longer shooting craps.

If I rolled a fair billion sided die, and there were two bets with equal payouts "1" and "not 1" it would not be 'shooting craps' to bet on not 1.

This is precisely the point of my "Agnostics never treat reality with agnosticism, only fictional constructs."

I don't believe it just for the hell of it. I believe it because everything that has ever happened in my life or anyone else's attests to this fact.

If you turn on your TV, there is a much greater chance that you in fact did not turn on your TV, and your remote is out of batteries, and your TV turned on from stray signals from China. But you never agnostically consider whether you should change your remote batteries.

You are making the Walter Wagner fallacy. Two outcomes does not mean that they are equally likely. One of them has evidence, the other does not, ergo: One of them is way more likely.

[Neeeek]

Tzor is right; strong atheism is just as illogical (in the sense that it's impossible to prove or disprove) as strong theism. "God must exist" (the position of the theist) and "God cannot exist" (the position of the atheist) are equally unprovable. Seriously.

What Tzor calls "weak atheism", which I usually hear called "agnosticism", is the only position supported by logic. The stance of the agnostic is "God may or may not exist" (occasionally adding "and it is impossible for man to prove one way or the other").

It takes just as much faith (in the sense of "logically unsupported belief") to believe that God exists as it does to believe that God doesn't exist. The rest of us don't know one way or the other.

To be an atheist, all that is required is the lack of a belief in god(s). That's it. Not a belief that there is no god(s).

Most agnostics are either atheists who are kidding themselves or using "agnostic" to mean something different (Some use agnostic to mean they don't believe it is possible to know if there is a god(s), while gnostic would mean they believe it is possible to know whether or not there is a god(s). These definitions aren't necessarily correct, but they are actually much more useful than trying to make the spectrum atheist-agnostic-theist, when if you don't have an active believe in god(s) you really are an atheist. Tzor's strong/weak atheist distinction is a much better description than atheist/agnostic.)

I believe in god(s) exactly the same amount I believe in invisible unicorns. Could they exist? Sure. Is it meaningful enough chance that I'd do anything at all differently because of this chance? No.

Note: I believe in the Christian version of God not at all. Their conception is utterly ridiculous. Most existent religious concepts of god(s) are the same. So by Tzor's definition, I'm a weak atheist with regards to the concept and a strong atheist regarding specific conceptions of god(s).

[Maj]

To be an atheist, all that is required is the lack of a belief in god(s). That's it. Not a belief that there is no god(s).

See, I was taught that the lack of belief in a god was agnosticism, and the belief that there is not a god was atheism.

I'm thinking of creating a new term - apatheism - that refers to not giving a damn about the question at all.

Note: I believe in the Christian version of God not at all. Their conception is utterly ridiculous. Most existent religious concepts of god(s) are the same. So by Tzor's definition, I'm a weak atheist with regards to the concept and a strong atheist regarding specific conceptions of god(s).

See, and that's where I get kind of confused because most of the arguments on this board seem to say that because there is no God, there is no god. Arguing against the existence of God doesn't exclude the existence of a god at all.

For all we know, the Christian god may have become God because of some devious marketing strategy.

[NativeJovian]

Saying "I am sitting in a chair." Actually really means "It is very likely that I am sitting in a chair."

No, it doesn't. If you said "I am sitting in a chair" and someone said "Wrong! You had a 0.01% chance of sitting on a stool instead, and that's what ended up happening," you couldn't say "Oh, well, close enough". You'd be wrong, because you said "I'm sitting in a chair" and you weren't. "Is very very likely" is not and never will be the same thing as "is true".

Saying "it is theoretically possible that a god of some form could exist, but he doesn't." is not an agnostic statement. I am not agnostic about the existence of my chair, even though it is possible that it does not exist.

If you believe that your chair might not exist, then you are agnostic about it, because that's what the word means.

Yes there is. There is inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning can only ever point to the probability of something being more likely, never to absolute proof. But it's still there.

Prove to me that God doesn't exist (or rather, that it's very very unlikely that He exists), using inductive reasoning. I'll wait.

It makes no sense to speak of the probability of a coin flip, it either comes up heads or tails, and yet, if I flip a coin and it lands, on the ground, before you look at it, it makes perfect sense to say that it has a 50% chance of being heads or tails. Likewise, it makes perfect sense to talk about the probability of a god existing.

You can't measure God's existence like you can measure the result of a coin toss. God is not empirically observable. That's why trying to use probability is pointless.

I don't believe it just for the hell of it. I believe it because everything that has ever happened in my life or anyone else's attests to this fact.

Then explain to me how a lot of people who have experienced more than you believe in God. They obviously disagree with you, and they have more experience than you, so they should be able to make that judgment better than you can, shouldn't they?

You are making the Walter Wagner fallacy. Two outcomes does not mean that they are equally likely. One of them has evidence, the other does not, ergo: One of them is way more likely.

I didn't say that they were equally likely; I said that we don't have any way to determine how likely either belief is. Show me some evidence for the non-existence of God and you'll have a point. A preemptive note: lack of evidence supporting the existence of God is not evidence supporting God's nonexistence.

To be an atheist, all that is required is the lack of a belief in god(s). That's it. Not a belief that there is no god(s).

See, I was taught that the lack of belief in a god was agnosticism, and the belief that there is not a god was atheism.

It depends on what terminology you prefer; people use both. I like atheist/agnostic/theist better because I don't like the strong/weak atheist distinction, and because Gnosticism is a specific religious belief (rather than a general concept like theism and atheism). As long as you're clear which you're using, it doesn't really make a difference.

[Kaelik]

I'm thinking of creating a new term - apatheism - that refers to not giving a damn about the question at all.

You've already been beat to the punch. It exists. And to paraphrase a bit:

"Whether or not there is an omnipotent sky daddy who wants you to do specific things or you will burn for all eternity is quite possibly the most important question of all."

No, it doesn't. If you said "I am sitting in a chair" and someone said "Wrong! You had a 0.01% chance of sitting on a stool instead, and that's what ended up happening," you couldn't say "Oh, well, close enough". You'd be wrong, because you said "I'm sitting in a chair" and you weren't. "Is very very likely" is not and never will be the same thing as "is true".

Yes they really do mean that. I have no absolute proof that such things as chairs even exist at all. I have equally as much proof that chairs exist as that gods do not exist. It doesn't matter if you sit on something in the future, I am talking about in the present. It is completely impossible to prove that you are sitting on a chair while you are sitting on a chair.

If you believe that your chair might not exist, then you are agnostic about it, because that's what the word means.

No, Agnosticism actually means believing something is unknowable. But you choose to use a different definition, because you are retarded. That aside, I do not believe my chair might not exist. I believe it exists. I just recognize that I cannot logically prove it's existence, and that a remote chance exists that I am hallucinating the existence of the chair. If your claim is that every single person aware of the existence of hallucinations in other people, and capable of making the inference that it is possible for them to have a hallucination is agnostic about the existence of everything ever, then you are a fucking troll, and you need to go be agnostic about the nearest cliff.

Prove to me that God doesn't exist (or rather, that it's very very unlikely that He exists), using inductive reasoning. I'll wait.

Define God. I'll wait.

Then explain to me how a lot of people who have experienced more than you believe in God. They obviously disagree with you, and they have more experience than you, so they should be able to make that judgment better than you can, shouldn't they?

And yet, if you actually approach the existence of god logically for those people, 50% of them, and all the ones with any functioning brain cells will admit that they have no actual experiential evidence for any god. Most of them will tell you that straight up.

If they had any experiential evidence for the existence of a god, they would be able to tell other people about that, and from that, I would have heard about it, because that would seriously be the biggest thing ever in the history of anything.

They don't disagree because of their experience. The have no experience. They disagree because they were brainwashed, or they are stupid, or they wish it were true, or their brain chemistry is fucked up so that they believe things without evidence.

I didn't say that they were equally likely; I said that we don't have any way to determine how likely either belief is. Show me some evidence for the non-existence of God and you'll have a point. A preemptive note: lack of evidence supporting the existence of God is not evidence supporting God's nonexistence.

Except you are totally wrong and we do have a way to determine what is more likely. Just like we can determine whether animals evolved from other animals, or were spontaneously created. Because there are logical outcomes of that which we can then compare against reality.

And if something stupid, like special creation, has multiple outcomes that should be the case, but aren't, then yes, that is evidence of it's not being true.

[Neeeek]

Saying "I am sitting in a chair." Actually really means "It is very likely that I am sitting in a chair."

No, it doesn't. If you said "I am sitting in a chair" and someone said "Wrong! You had a 0.01% chance of sitting on a stool instead, and that's what ended up happening," you couldn't say "Oh, well, close enough". You'd be wrong, because you said "I'm sitting in a chair" and you weren't. "Is very very likely" is not and never will be the same thing as "is true".

Umm, you completely missed the point there. There is a non-zero chance that the entire world is a hallucination I am having, therefore there is no statement I can make that is 100% certain (Other than "I think", which is what "I think therefore I am" actually shows, because for me to think at all I must exist). The question isn't whether or not "I am sitting in a chair" is correct as opposed to sitting on something else, it's whether the chair, my body, the earth and everything else exists at all.

[Murtak]

I hate it when someone actually believes that is some sort of counterargument. Just case Tzor or anyone else tries it:
If the goal is to have no evil and one is omnipotent, doing anything other than immediately eliminating all evil from the world amounts to causing humanity pain for the sake of causing pain. Clearly such behavior is evil. (or, as stated above, malevolent)

I thought the goal was love.

In other words: you realize you have no answer and so choose to dodge the issue altogether. Disappointing, but then again I didn't really expect better. On the off chance that you are merely as dumb as a brick:

If the goal is to have only love and one is omnipotent, doing anything other than immediately making everybody love everyone amounts to causing humanity pain for the sake of causing pain. Clearly such behavior is evil.

[Murtak]

As pointed out above, if you want to state "my computer exists" you also have to state "God doesn't exist".

If the apply the same kind of thinking we apply to pretty much every part of our life to religion we will come out stating "God does not exist". That is not to say you should immediately stop believing. But any rational being should be able to comprehend there is no reason to believe in God, and many reasons not to. If you still choose to believe, fine, go ahead. I believe in my lucky of dice. I am sure if I actually bothered to calculate an average I would find out they are average dice, but still I choose to believe perhaps because it makes me a tiny bit happier. But I will freely admit all evidence points to them not being special at all. And I will certainly not base any important decisions on the roll of the dice, much less murder in their name.

[Koumei]

No, just plain no.

If you want I can go into the notion of "limbo," but Augustine was never a Pope. Nor was limbo ever declared from the chair of Peter.

Interesting. I wasn't aware of that.

Yet I notice that you're not arguing the basic point there, you're just pointing out that my example was bad. Indeed you just went and said that magic chair would have made it completely correct.

So if the pope sits in his magic chair and says something, it's more true to catholics than anything that anyone else says to them.

[RobbyPants]

Interestingly enough, when I think about a lack of evidence, it makes me think about how the religon would have started in the first place.

Looking from the standpoint of the religion being true, the assumption is there was evidence several thousand years ago. It's just that now, we've had to rely on word of mouth and a book. Obviously, this doesn't prove it true, as there's no possible way we could know if the people were lying or telling the truth. So, it's not that there is no evidence, but rather, that there's no longer any evidence (and there might not have been, but we can't tell).

[Murtak]

How do religions start up today? Someone charismatic (merely insane will do in a pinch) makes up some shit on the fly (writing it down is optional) and gets some followers. That's all there is to it.

[Heath Robinson]

This is besides the fact that trying to apply probability to the existence of God is retarded. Seriously. How the hell do you judge a probability of an omnipotent being's existence? Short answer: you don't. Either He exists or He doesn't, and believing one or the other is ultimately just shooting craps. You really can't say that one or the other is true without saying that you believe that just for the hell of it. There's no logic involved either way.

You frequentists sicken me to the core.

[Kaelik]

Interestingly enough, when I think about a lack of evidence, it makes me think about how the religon would have started in the first place.

Looking from the standpoint of the religion being true, the assumption is there was evidence several thousand years ago. It's just that now, we've had to rely on word of mouth and a book. Obviously, this doesn't prove it true, as there's no possible way we could know if the people were lying or telling the truth. So, it's not that there is no evidence, but rather, that there's no longer any evidence (and there might not have been, but we can't tell).

How did Mormonism and Scientology start?

Oh right, some guy told a bunch of people that he was a prophet, and they believed him without any evidence at all.

Welcome to religion. The vast majority of people don't actually seek evidence for their beliefs. I don't know why you'd be surprised that the same thing was true thousands of years ago.

[angelfromanotherpin]

The vast majority of people don't actually seek evidence for their beliefs.

People actually do seek evidence for their religious beliefs, but they look for evidence to support an already-established conclusion, rather than shaping their conclusions to the evidence.

I knew a guy who presented as evidence for the existence of God that sometimes bad people change their ways. When I asked him why that wasn't just proof of human willpower, he froze up because he'd seriously never considered any other conclusion. He just instinctively attributed anything improbable and beneficial to divine will.