Gibberish of the day!

[RobbyPants]

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.

I can totally see people doing that. Rather, I have seen people do that.

A few years ago, I was in a group of people watching a DVD seiries that tried to use logic to prove God's existance. Everyone else in the group was thouroughy impressed with the psuedo science (confirmation bias), and they were taken aback when I critisized the basis of that approach.

I totally understand both side's stance, but trying to use science to prove God's existance is just a waste of time. If you want to believe it, belive it. Just don't demonstrate your lack of understanding of science while bragging how well you understand it.

[Kaelik]

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.

You're right, I phrased that completely wrong. People accept beliefs without evidence, or with only the briefest and most ridiculous correlations. They then seek evidence. But evidence isn't required to start believing anything, and 4000 years ago if someone told you that God wanted you to do X, you didn't evaluate that for evidence any more than people do now.

[mean_liar]

Is someone trying to prove faith through logic? Oh my.

[tzor]

I thought the goal was love.

In other words: you realize you have no answer and so choose to dodge the issue altogether.

I didn't dodge it; I answered it as plainly as possible. It's not my fault that you are blind, deaf, and lacking in the ability to detect gravity waves.

I gave you the answer. Understanding the answer ...

[tzor]

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.

While it might be interesting to liken the “chair of Peter” as something akin to the throne of the Keeper of Traken (Tom Baker is still the best Doctor for making great references) and that there is a “chair” (although that chair was actually donated by Charles the Bald in 875 A.D.) the fact is that every bishop has a chair in their home church, the name of the chair “cathedra” being the name of the building itself (a cathedral). Thus in general usage the “chair of Peter” refers to the office of the bishop who is the successor to Peter.

Anyway, since we are on it the Doctrine of Papal infallibility is very limited in scope. According to the teaching of the First Vatican Council and Catholic tradition, the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are as follows:

1. "the Roman Pontiff"
2. "speaks ex cathedra" ("that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority….")
3. "he defines"
4. "that a doctrine concerning faith or morals"
5. "must be held by the whole Church" (Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4)

In Catholic theology, the Latin phrase ex cathedra, literally meaning "from the chair", refers to a teaching by the pope that is considered to be made with the intention of invoking infallibility.

The "chair" referred to is not a literal chair, but refers metaphorically to the pope's position, or office, as the official teacher of Catholic doctrine: the chair was the symbol of the teacher in the ancient world, and bishops to this day have a cathedra, a seat or throne, as a symbol of their teaching and governing authority. The pope is said to occupy the "chair of Peter", as Catholics hold that among the apostles Peter had a special role as the preserver of unity, so the pope as successor of Peter holds the role of spokesman for the whole church among the bishops, the successors as a group of the apostles.

[tzor]

How do religions start up today?

The same way most government start up these days, ironically.

[RobbyPants]

I don't think people are debating if governments exist.

[Kaelik]

1. "the Roman Pontiff"
2. "speaks ex cathedra" ("that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority….")
3. "he defines"
4. "that a doctrine concerning faith or morals"
5. "must be held by the whole Church" (Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4)

So in other words:

When the pope says that the whole church must believe X.

[violence in the media]

Is someone trying to prove faith through logic? Oh my.

I like the subtle implication that carries. It means that, on some level, they realize their faith is groundless bullshit and seek legitimacy through science and logic. That warms my heart.

[violence in the media]

I thought the goal was love.

In other words: you realize you have no answer and so choose to dodge the issue altogether.

I didn't dodge it; I answered it as plainly as possible. It's not my fault that you are blind, deaf, and lacking in the ability to detect gravity waves.

I gave you the answer. Understanding the answer ...

Your answer was more of your abusive apologist garbage.

"Daddy only hits me because he loves me. He could not hit me, or prevent others from hitting me, but then I wouldn't appreciate the extent of his loving love."

[NativeJovian]

It is completely impossible to prove that you are sitting on a chair while you are sitting on a chair.

If you're a solipsist, maybe. If you want to toss out sensory experiences as evidence for things, then I don't know what to tell you. But that's neither here nor there in relation to God, because you can't experience God through your senses. (Or, if you can, tell me how and I'll certainly give it a shot myself.)

No, Agnosticism actually means believing something is unknowable. But you choose to use a different definition, because you are retarded.

It can mean both, or either. Do I seriously have to quote dictionary definitions at you? As I said before, it doesn't actually matter which terms you use, as long as you're explicit about the definition you're using.

Define God. I'll wait.

Let's start with "an omnipotent and omniscient being". Christian tradition would have us add "who loves everyone", but that's really not vital to the definition of a god.

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.

So, you don't believe them because you have evidence that they're wrong, you disbelieve because you know they're wrong. Nice.

Remember what I said earlier: lack of proof that something is true is not proof that something isn't true. You can't physically experience the existence of God and more than you can physically experience the nonexistence of God.

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.

Then explain some logical outcomes of God's existence for me, and show where it contradicts reality.

You frequentists sicken me to the core.

What the fuck is a fequentist?

[Heath Robinson]

What the fuck is a fequentist?

A person who believes Probability applies only to repeatable events. I.e. Probability measures the frequency with which event A occurs under a particular set of conditions.

There are also Bayesians, who interpret Probability to mean the certainty associated with a fact. They say that you can use their interpretation for anything. So long as uncertainty exists, the probability of a fact is less than 1.


Stating that a deity exists or does not and that this negates the role of probability is a Frequentist position. There isn't a population of events to enumerate in order to determine the number, thus no probability can exist.

A Bayesian laughes, call the Freuquentist hidebound, and proceed to set priors to lay out an argument that demonstrates why they have a particularly level of certainty in the existence of the supernatural. Then he goes on to demonstrate why he has nearly absolute certainty in the existence of a microscopic teapot in the vicinity of Mars.

[NativeJovian]

Stating that a deity exists or does not and that this negates the role of probability is a Frequentist position.

That's not what I was saying at all. The fact that a coin toss landed on either heads or tails doesn't negate the fact that there's a 50% probability of either outcome.

What I was saying is that we have no way to judge the probability of God's existence, because God is not an empirically observable phenomenon, so attempting to assign a probability to God's existence is pointless, and the decision to believe that God does or does not exist boils down to "which makes me happier", not "which is more likely".

[tzor]

Your answer was more of your abusive apologist garbage.

Nonsense. Now it is true that "love" is the biggest, most common, and lamest excuse in the world, but I'm talking about real love which in turn demands free will. This kind of love doesn't wrap others up in bubble wrap.

[Murtak]

Your answer was more of your abusive apologist garbage.

Nonsense. Now it is true that "love" is the biggest, most common, and lamest excuse in the world, but I'm talking about real love which in turn demands free will. This kind of love doesn't wrap others up in bubble wrap.

In other words: God is incapable of simply causing this love to exist, he has to teach it. That means he is not omnipotent. Q.E.D.

[Kaelik]

If you're a solipsist, maybe. If you want to toss out sensory experiences as evidence for things, then I don't know what to tell you. But that's neither here nor there in relation to God, because you can't experience God through your senses. (Or, if you can, tell me how and I'll certainly give it a shot myself.)

If you don't toss out sensory experiences, then they are evidence of the non-existence of any god. And yes, you can experience the presence or lack of god through your senses. If there were an omnipotent being who loved us, you could see the results of his actions, just like I can see the results of your actions, typing on a computer.

But you still completely missed the point. That you have a non zero percent chance to be hallucinating at any given time. So once again, sensory evidence points to probability of chair existence, not certainty.

Let's start with "an omnipotent and omniscient being".

So you don't think creator of the universe is a necessary quality of a god?

Now please define being, omnipotent, and omniscient.

For being, I want as exact and technical definition as you can.

For omniX I will suffice with knowing your position on burritos and free will, with a clarification on where the sphere of action is "the universe" or "everything."

So, you don't believe them because you have evidence that they're wrong, you disbelieve because you know they're wrong. Nice.

Fuck you asshole. Pay attention. I do have evidence they are wrong. They self admit to having no evidence they are right. It's not my problem that the fucking Pope himself can't point to his evidence for god's existence and tells people to take it on faith.

There beliefs are wrong. I know this because I have evidence that they are wrong. I further know this because they have no evidence they are right. People with 'more evidence' can believe whatever they want, but if their beliefs are not based on evidence, and they in fact admit to having zero evidence in favor of their position. Their beliefs are clearly not evidence based.

Remember what I said earlier: lack of proof that something is true is not proof that something isn't true. You can't physically experience the existence of God and more than you can physically experience the nonexistence of God.

Remember what I said earlier: if something being true has consequences, and those consequences are not true, that is evidence that it is not true.

You can't physically experience my existence either. You can experience the results of my existence, and that may lead you to the inference that I exist. Likewise, if someone asked you if there were a Gaming Den poster named "KJHOIHBKJNBKJNB" who wrote the Tome of Virtue and posted it yesterday, you would not have physical evidence of his non-existence. You would have experienced the lack of evidence indicating his proposed actions, and based on his actions never occurring, you would know that he does not exist.

Then explain some logical outcomes of God's existence for me, and show where it contradicts reality.

I will, right as soon as I find out what you mean by "God."

So far we have ruled out:

Christianity/Islam/Norse Gods/Judaism/Greek Gods, ect.

After your response to this post, we might also have ruled out a deistic god. And we might even have enough of a definition to actually know what you do mean instead of just what you don't mean.

[RobbyPants]

What I was saying is that we have no way to judge the probability of God's existence, because God is not an empirically observable phenomenon, so attempting to assign a probability to God's existence is pointless, and the decision to believe that God does or does not exist boils down to "which makes me happier", not "which is more likely".

I think you're right in terms of probability. I'd say it's equally pointless debating God's existence one way or the other.

[tzor]

In other words: God is incapable of simply causing this love to exist, he has to teach it. That means he is not omnipotent. Q.E.D.

I thought I already went over that in a previous post. Omnipotent implies that God cannot go against his own nature. God, for example, cannot lie, not because he lacks the power but because it goes against his nature. God is incapable of causing this love to exist because it goes against his nature, not because he lacks the power.

[tzor]

If you don't toss out sensory experiences, then they are evidence of the non-existence of any god. And yes, you can experience the presence or lack of god through your senses. If there were an omnipotent being who loved us, you could see the results of his actions, just like I can see the results of your actions, typing on a computer.

OK Kaelik, I'm going to call you on this one. Let's change the topic from "god" to the current "parallel universe theory." If the current parallel universal theory was true you can experience the presence of the parallel universe through your senses, you could see the results of its actions.

Well, how exactly do you go about and start "looking?"

[Kaelik]

If you don't toss out sensory experiences, then they are evidence of the non-existence of any god. And yes, you can experience the presence or lack of god through your senses. If there were an omnipotent being who loved us, you could see the results of his actions, just like I can see the results of your actions, typing on a computer.

OK Kaelik, I'm going to call you on this one. Let's change the topic from "god" to the current "parallel universe theory." If the current parallel universal theory was true you can experience the presence of the parallel universe through your senses, you could see the results of its actions.

Well, how exactly do you go about and start "looking?"

Well first you would have to understand what exactly the implication of parallel universes are. I assume you'd do lots of math to find that sort of things out. For a god, I am doing the best I can to figure out what is meant (by Native, I know what you mean.)

If for example, one implication was that gravity is a force not confined to it's original universe, we might look for a crap ton of mass where there isn't any matter.

You know, that thing that they actually are doing?

[PhoneLobster]

So your argument that god exists is that he isn't in the observable universe?

You know, typically something that isn't part of you know everything is considered non existent.

[tzor]

You know, that thing that they actually are doing?

You also forgot accurate measurements of the expansion of the universe at all points in observable time but my point remains. These effects are not always obvious and are in some ways subtle. Trying to determine what effects to look for can be harder than actually trying to find the effects. The effects could be right in front of your nose and you won't "see" it because you aren't looking for it in that manner.

[Kaelik]

So your argument that god exists is that he isn't in the observable universe?

You know, typically something that isn't part of you know everything is considered non existent.

Well the observable universe stopped being everything a long time ago.

The problem is that any omnipotent being by definition must be able to perform actions that are visible within this universe.

So if your god is omnipotent, then he must have observable results to actions he could take. If your God has desires, he would implement them.

So if your god isn't omnipotent, that's cool, whatever. If he doesn't have any desires or wants or wishes of any kind, and never has, that's cool. In either case, your God isn't a very godlike being.

On the other hand if you define him as omnipotent within his sphere which happens to be another universe, well then it's pretty fair to say he doesn't exist in this one. Since not being able to take any actions would make him non existent.

[Kaelik]

You also forgot accurate measurements of the expansion of the universe at all points in observable time but my point remains. These effects are not always obvious and are in some ways subtle. Trying to determine what effects to look for can be harder than actually trying to find the effects. The effects could be right in front of your nose and you won't "see" it because you aren't looking for it in that manner.

Which has jack all to do with observable effects. If I can't see the effects because they are below my level of precision, then that sucks for me. But it doesn't stop someone who has figured it out, or thinks they have, from telling me what to look for or giving me the devices needed, and then I will notice that it is there or isn't.

Your argument is made worse by your setting up the argument from analogy to god. But it still doesn't at any point contradict my argument for why existent things have logical consequences which are observable.

[Murtak]

In other words: God is incapable of simply causing this love to exist, he has to teach it. That means he is not omnipotent. Q.E.D.

I thought I already went over that in a previous post. Omnipotent implies that God cannot go against his own nature. God, for example, cannot lie, not because he lacks the power but because it goes against his nature. God is incapable of causing this love to exist because it goes against his nature, not because he lacks the power.

Why does causing love go against God's nature? Sounds like pure evil to me.

All that handwaving bullshit about God not being able to go against his nature is just that, bullshit. I'd be fine with christians saying God is not omnipotent. Then all that misery on earth might make sense, if only to beat morality into humans. I'd be fine with them saying he is not willing. I have my asshole days, I am fine with God having them. I'd be fine with them saying he isn't omniscient. If he isn't capable of perceiving everything that is happening it might be hard to make the correct changes. But no, christians aren't saying any of the above.

They insist God is omnipotent, omniscient and all-loving - in other words perfectly capable and willing to instantly eliminate all suffering, including imbuing us with all the lessons we need to learn to keep that state forever. He just isn't doing so because, like Meat Loaf, he will do anything for love, but not that. If that statement was about but religion we'd be looking for the guys with straightjackets to turn up. I have seen zen koans that make more sense.