Author Topic: #PrayforIstanbul  (Read 182939 times)

Offline Akomine

  • Staff Member | Administrator
  • Cheese
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Llamas: 666
  • Meep Meep
    • View profile
Re: #PrayforIstanbul
« Reply #527 on: 17 January 2017, 07:56:36 PM »
What did you learn about debating?

1. Don't get baited into using Russel's Teapot arguments.

2. Don't get yourself into a position in which you inevitably keep making more claims without taking the time to prepare a decent argument with evidence. If there's anything that I learned from this that I'd consider the most important, it's this. Never make claims without evidence.

3. Don't overlook things that can be solved with common sense (i.e: I didn't think the water in living creatures one through).

4. Don't debate Ako, as he will always find holes in your arguments and then proceed to hammer the living damn out of you.

Might update this in the near future as I keep finding so many things I did wrong lmao

Wow, this is quite nice to see coming from you. This sounds like a solid set of improvements.

On #1, is "baited" the right word? Nobody baited you into not understanding how burden of proof works haha, but I get your sentiment.

#2, excellent, this is huge. Glad to hear it.

#3, haha, yeahhhh, that was pretty bad. Worth thinking critically about the arguments you posit.

#4 nooo, do debate Ako. Finding holes in your arguments is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. Improving your understanding of reality is a positive exercise. Correcting your erroneous positions is exactly how to improve on doing that. I try hard with just about everything to improve my position.

Cheers. This is a hopeful post

Ako is gay and has superaids - Air

Offline OctoGamer

  • Staff Member | Forum Mod
  • Cheese
  • *****
  • Posts: 1286
  • Llamas: 22
  • #vc4lyfe
    • View profile
Re: #PrayforIstanbul
« Reply #528 on: 17 January 2017, 09:32:14 PM »
can you please add #5 and make it about not talking in tiny fonts that are stupid.

Lividup64

  • Guest
Re: #PrayforIstanbul
« Reply #529 on: 18 January 2017, 04:34:34 PM »
18 pages :d

Offline luisc99

  • Staff Member | Administrator
  • Cheese
  • *****
  • Posts: 1438
  • Llamas: 60
    • View profile
Re: #PrayforIstanbul
« Reply #530 on: 18 January 2017, 05:46:31 PM »
18 pages :d

It's just shy of having double the number of replies as the second-place topic for most replies.

However, it's only 5th in terms of number of views.

[End Luis's Random Stats]

Offline PengBunny

  • Member of Parliament
  • Cheese
  • *
  • Posts: 522
  • Llamas: 11
    • View profile
Re: #PrayforIstanbul
« Reply #531 on: 18 January 2017, 06:14:36 PM »
i now declare this as the new general discussion board
You know a thread is really bad when PengBunny posts on it.


My daddy is Air

air when the fuck did you do this ^^^

Offline gerrit70

  • Member of Parliament
  • Cheese
  • *
  • Posts: 482
  • Llamas: 9
  • U all succ
    • View profile
Re: #PrayforIstanbul
« Reply #532 on: 24 January 2017, 05:55:40 PM »
I swear to Cthulu, if someone replies on this thread one more time, I will find you and eat you.
Guh

I'm a huge faggot and I love sucking airs cock.

It is abysmal that any one person would take try to limit the happiness that Gerrit70 has brought to this dull place.

Free Gerrit70 from his chains!

holy fuck gerrit you're autistic.

Offline Airbongo

  • Staff Member | Administrator
  • Cheese
  • *****
  • Posts: 4318
  • Llamas: 69
  • Eh, what's up, doc?
    • View profile
Re: #PrayforIstanbul
« Reply #533 on: 24 January 2017, 07:06:43 PM »
I swear to Cthulu, if someone replies on this thread one more time, I will find you and eat you.
Eat my tiny cock?




Offline gerrit70

  • Member of Parliament
  • Cheese
  • *
  • Posts: 482
  • Llamas: 9
  • U all succ
    • View profile
Re: #PrayforIstanbul
« Reply #534 on: 25 January 2017, 09:45:45 PM »
<3
Guh

I'm a huge faggot and I love sucking airs cock.

It is abysmal that any one person would take try to limit the happiness that Gerrit70 has brought to this dull place.

Free Gerrit70 from his chains!

holy fuck gerrit you're autistic.

Offline Blacka_ch33ze

  • Villager
  • ****
  • Posts: 51
  • Llamas: 0
    • View profile
Re: #PrayforIstanbul
« Reply #535 on: 14 February 2017, 02:08:01 AM »
Not my fault your idea is retarded, cock loving moose fucking fool.

Offline gerrit70

  • Member of Parliament
  • Cheese
  • *
  • Posts: 482
  • Llamas: 9
  • U all succ
    • View profile
Guh

I'm a huge faggot and I love sucking airs cock.

It is abysmal that any one person would take try to limit the happiness that Gerrit70 has brought to this dull place.

Free Gerrit70 from his chains!

holy fuck gerrit you're autistic.

Offline OctoGamer

  • Staff Member | Forum Mod
  • Cheese
  • *****
  • Posts: 1286
  • Llamas: 22
  • #vc4lyfe
    • View profile
Re: #PrayforIstanbul
« Reply #537 on: 8 January 2018, 12:06:50 PM »
4 days until this posts aniversary :)

Offline Airbongo

  • Staff Member | Administrator
  • Cheese
  • *****
  • Posts: 4318
  • Llamas: 69
  • Eh, what's up, doc?
    • View profile
Re: #PrayforIstanbul
« Reply #538 on: 8 January 2018, 12:47:58 PM »




Offline gerrit70

  • Member of Parliament
  • Cheese
  • *
  • Posts: 482
  • Llamas: 9
  • U all succ
    • View profile
Re: #PrayforIstanbul
« Reply #539 on: 8 January 2018, 11:37:36 PM »
Guh

I'm a huge faggot and I love sucking airs cock.

It is abysmal that any one person would take try to limit the happiness that Gerrit70 has brought to this dull place.

Free Gerrit70 from his chains!

holy fuck gerrit you're autistic.

Offline OctoGamer

  • Staff Member | Forum Mod
  • Cheese
  • *****
  • Posts: 1286
  • Llamas: 22
  • #vc4lyfe
    • View profile
Re: #PrayforIstanbul
« Reply #540 on: 12 January 2018, 06:04:54 PM »
ANNIVERSARY NIGGAS

Offline gerrit70

  • Member of Parliament
  • Cheese
  • *
  • Posts: 482
  • Llamas: 9
  • U all succ
    • View profile
Re: #PrayforIstanbul
« Reply #541 on: 3 May 2020, 07:14:43 PM »
ANNIVERSARY NIGGAS

fuck, we missed it
Guh

I'm a huge faggot and I love sucking airs cock.

It is abysmal that any one person would take try to limit the happiness that Gerrit70 has brought to this dull place.

Free Gerrit70 from his chains!

holy fuck gerrit you're autistic.

Offline OctoGamer

  • Staff Member | Forum Mod
  • Cheese
  • *****
  • Posts: 1286
  • Llamas: 22
  • #vc4lyfe
    • View profile
Re: #PrayforIstanbul
« Reply #542 on: 3 May 2020, 07:25:12 PM »

Offline gerrit70

  • Member of Parliament
  • Cheese
  • *
  • Posts: 482
  • Llamas: 9
  • U all succ
    • View profile
Re: #PrayforIstanbul
« Reply #543 on: 5 September 2020, 02:22:23 AM »
@NotEnder Please revive this, I want to see the refreshed matchup of older Ender vs Ako.
Guh

I'm a huge faggot and I love sucking airs cock.

It is abysmal that any one person would take try to limit the happiness that Gerrit70 has brought to this dull place.

Free Gerrit70 from his chains!

holy fuck gerrit you're autistic.

Offline Akomine

  • Staff Member | Administrator
  • Cheese
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Llamas: 666
  • Meep Meep
    • View profile
Re: #PrayforIstanbul
« Reply #544 on: 5 September 2020, 02:45:53 AM »
I'm down

Ako is gay and has superaids - Air

Offline TheLegend12369

  • Member of Parliament
  • Cheese
  • *
  • Posts: 305
  • Llamas: 7
  • I'm not very creative, it is what it is.
    • View profile
Re: #PrayforIstanbul
« Reply #545 on: 7 September 2020, 01:09:26 AM »
Sometimes I think "will this thread ever die?" and then I remember Gerritt exists.
« Last Edit: 7 September 2020, 01:14:23 AM by TheLegend12369 »

Offline gerrit70

  • Member of Parliament
  • Cheese
  • *
  • Posts: 482
  • Llamas: 9
  • U all succ
    • View profile
Re: #PrayforIstanbul
« Reply #546 on: 7 September 2020, 01:30:03 AM »
Sometimes I think "will this thread ever die?" and then I remember Gerritt exists.

Damn right

However in an attempt to revive the discussion- seeing as ender has not shown up yet- I think a fun question to be posed is: Can it be empirically proven within a reasonable doubt that a god does or does not exist?
Guh

I'm a huge faggot and I love sucking airs cock.

It is abysmal that any one person would take try to limit the happiness that Gerrit70 has brought to this dull place.

Free Gerrit70 from his chains!

holy fuck gerrit you're autistic.

Offline Akomine

  • Staff Member | Administrator
  • Cheese
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Llamas: 666
  • Meep Meep
    • View profile
Re: #PrayforIstanbul
« Reply #547 on: 9 September 2020, 11:20:40 AM »
Sometimes I think "will this thread ever die?" and then I remember Gerritt exists.

Damn right

However in an attempt to revive the discussion- seeing as ender has not shown up yet- I think a fun question to be posed is: Can it be empirically proven within a reasonable doubt that a god does or does not exist?

Generically, the answer is "no". Can we prove "a god" exists? No. Can we prove "a god" doesn't exist? No.

However, it may be possible to disprove a specific god that has more details behind it by finding contradictory or false claims attached to it. Furthermore, when twisting or changing the usual the definition of "god" it may be possible to attach a specific meaning to it and then prove it is real, like saying "god is water", then providing evidence of water. Lastly, it may be possible to prove a specific god exists with sufficient evidence, and I always await the presentation of that evidence.

For these reasons, whenever I discuss this sort of stuff with a theist, I request a definition of their god so that we can determine what we're actually talking about.

Ako is gay and has superaids - Air

NotEnder

  • Guest
Re: #PrayforIstanbul
« Reply #548 on: 1 October 2020, 07:15:46 PM »
@NotEnder Please revive this, I want to see the refreshed matchup of older Ender vs Ako.
Maybe

Sometimes I think "will this thread ever die?" and then I remember Gerritt exists.

Damn right

However in an attempt to revive the discussion- seeing as ender has not shown up yet- I think a fun question to be posed is: Can it be empirically proven within a reasonable doubt that a god does or does not exist?

Generically, the answer is "no". Can we prove "a god" exists? No. Can we prove "a god" doesn't exist? No.

However, it may be possible to disprove a specific god that has more details behind it by finding contradictory or false claims attached to it. Furthermore, when twisting or changing the usual the definition of "god" it may be possible to attach a specific meaning to it and then prove it is real, like saying "god is water", then providing evidence of water. Lastly, it may be possible to prove a specific god exists with sufficient evidence, and I always await the presentation of that evidence.

For these reasons, whenever I discuss this sort of stuff with a theist, I request a definition of their god so that we can determine what we're actually talking about.

One of my biggest mistakes, looking back at all this, is that I was too focused on trying to prove something with a combination of empirical/theoretical evidence (and attempting to demonstrate it as purely empirical) without considering the logical loophole I was digging myself into. A lot of what I posted wasn't really meaningful without the necessary context, and even then, I don't think I had the right approach altogether.

In retrospect, a lot of pages in this thread could have very easily not needed to exist, as I do believe you're correct in saying that we can't broadly and indisputably come to the conclusion that God (or any niche deity someone might happen to believe in) exists through empirical evidence alone (which is what I think I had initially been trying to do all those years back). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and no supposed empirical evidence compounded within a few thousand years of written history will be able to sufficiently match what logically is a very bold claim.

With that said, I don't think that rules out the existence of God whatsoever. As much as you can look at a combination of sources that prove/disprove something, a key thing to also consider is the overall likelihood of all the events in the history of the universe sequentially leading up to us having that messy foodfight of a debate in the first place (mainly just human existence in general). I think the odds of the universe very coincidentally having had the perfect conditions to initially expand, the solar system forming the way it did, and life on Earth eventually coming have to evolve/develop the way it did until the modern definition of a human came around are extremely slim to none. Does this empirically prove the existence of God? Nah. Does it imply that some supernatural design went into it, given how the entire environment of the universe and life on Earth came to develop and that the odds of everything lining up by what essentially boils down to perfect chance, due to the very precise conditions needed to sustain life on Earth (and perhaps elsewhere that we don't know of)? I believe it does. From a statistical standpoint, I don't think the sequence of events that led up to the conditions of the present day occurring merely through chance is very likely, as there are quite a couple of variables all at stake.

Bear in mind that this is by no means a perfect and impartial rationale. However, based on what I described, I'm inclined to believe that this is more likely to suggest the existence, rather than lack thereof, of a higher force with input/influence of the design and occurrence of everything. I'm down to have an actually friendly discussion over this. What do you think, Ako?
« Last Edit: 1 October 2020, 07:19:18 PM by NotEnder »

Offline Akomine

  • Staff Member | Administrator
  • Cheese
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Llamas: 666
  • Meep Meep
    • View profile
Re: #PrayforIstanbul
« Reply #549 on: 2 October 2020, 12:53:18 AM »
Hey Ender, welcome back after a nice hiatus. I hope you've been well. I gladly accept your invitation to a friendly discussion.

Last time we talked, a problem frequently occurred, and I think solving it now is a good idea. If one of us wants to know what the other thinks, knows, or believes, let's ask one another. Let's avoid assumptions to avoid strawmanning eachother. And, to add to it, let's try to read, understand, and consider eachother's messages in full when we respond. We can agree, or disagree, and we can do it honourably.

So,




One of my biggest mistakes, looking back at all this, is that I was too focused on trying to prove something with a combination of empirical/theoretical evidence (and attempting to demonstrate it as purely empirical) without considering the logical loophole I was digging myself into. A lot of what I posted wasn't really meaningful without the necessary context, and even then, I don't think I had the right approach altogether.

I actually read most of this old thread the other day when Gerrit reminded me of it. Your mistake, in my view, wasn't trying to prove something with evidence (that's exactly what you should be doing), it was that you were often trying to disprove unrelated, often erroneously cited concepts that had no bearing on the conversation. For pages and pages you set out to disprove (an incorrect version of) the Big Bang theory, but it didn't matter. It had essentially nothing to do with what you claimed to have evidence of; your god.

As for digging yourself into logical loopholes? Yes, I'd call them logical fallacies, and they create eternal conversation loops until they are corrected, unfortunately. It's sometimes hard for someone to recognize when they're stuck in a logical fallacy, but when discovered, it should be helpful for everyone to fix it. As for your approach not being the right one altogether? I suppose I'll just simply agree, and I appreciate your self reflection on that.


Quote
In retrospect, a lot of pages in this thread could have very easily not needed to exist, as I do believe you're correct in saying that we can't broadly and indisputably come to the conclusion that God (or any niche deity someone might happen to believe in) exists through empirical evidence alone (which is what I think I had initially been trying to do all those years back). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and no supposed empirical evidence compounded within a few thousand years of written history will be able to sufficiently match what logically is a very bold claim.

I just want to be clear here. I think once you define a god specifically, it may be possible to prove or disprove it. Empirical evidence can be used, of course - if something can be observed and tested, we should take it into consideration. I'm not sure what "theoretical evidence" (mentioned in your first paragraph) is referring to, but using established scientific theories is perfectly acceptable if that's what you mean.

So, it's best if you define your god specifically, so we can both be on the same page with what we're talking about when we use that term.


Quote
With that said, I don't think that rules out the existence of God whatsoever. As much as you can look at a combination of sources that prove/disprove something, a key thing to also consider is the overall likelihood of all the events in the history of the universe sequentially leading up to us having that messy foodfight of a debate in the first place (mainly just human existence in general). I think the odds of the universe very coincidentally having had the perfect conditions to initially expand, the solar system forming the way it did, and life on Earth eventually coming have to evolve/develop the way it did until the modern definition of a human came around are extremely slim to none. Does this empirically prove the existence of God? Nah. Does it imply that some supernatural design went into it, given how the entire environment of the universe and life on Earth came to develop and that the odds of everything lining up by what essentially boils down to perfect chance, due to the very precise conditions needed to sustain life on Earth (and perhaps elsewhere that we don't know of)? I believe it does. From a statistical standpoint, I don't think the sequence of events that led up to the conditions of the present day occurring merely through chance is very likely, as there are quite a couple of variables all at stake.

Bear in mind that this is by no means a perfect and impartial rationale. However, based on what I described, I'm inclined to believe that this is more likely to suggest the existence, rather than lack thereof, of a higher force with input/influence of the design and occurrence of everything. I'm down to have an actually friendly discussion over this. What do you think, Ako?

Playing the incomplete odds to make a solid determination in a universe where we know so little is a problematic game. One could argue the circumstances that allowed for life on Earth are seemingly so slim to have actually worked out that some sort of outside intervention must have taken place. Yet, another could argue the sheer number of solar systems and planets in the universe mean the chances of life popping up somewhere is actually fairly high. At its most base form, life is made up of little chemical protein reactions, and it's conceivable that they can occur in many places in the cosmos.

But it doesn't matter. Just because something appears statistically unlikely doesn't mean we can suddenly say some other claim is somehow true; in this case a god / supernatural force intervening to make Earth habitable.
"A is unlikely, therefore B is true." It doesn't work that way. B has to stand on its own merits, otherwise C or D or L could be just as true. We need to operate on a better basis. Let's try "A appears unlikely, perhaps B is true. Let's investigate."


So, before we move on, let's settle some definitions.
You used the word "supernatural". As far as I can tell, this means "not natural", as in not of the natural world, not observable, and beyond scientific understanding, observation and testing. I don't know what this even means, then. If something isn't natural, then surely it doesn't exist? If it is natural, and does exist, and does influence the natural universe, then we should be able to observe it and test it, right? If I'm misunderstanding "supernatural", then let's fix that now.

The other word is "God" as you use it. Please define it so I know what you mean.

Welcome back, and cheers!


Ako is gay and has superaids - Air

Offline Yvette

  • Staff Member
  • Cheese
  • *****
  • Posts: 391
  • Llamas: 7
    • View profile
Re: #PrayforIstanbul
« Reply #550 on: 2 October 2020, 04:03:54 AM »
imagine only believing in one god

this post was brought to you by pagan gang
VC always has been like this. It has ebbs and flows, just like my menstrual periods

<[VIP] ~VieuxRiche> get with your reading skills and dont piss off powerful elite

How the fuck is @Jakrelia staff, shes probably r/againsthatesubreddits or some gay shit. 0/10 review on yelp.

Offline Akomine

  • Staff Member | Administrator
  • Cheese
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Llamas: 666
  • Meep Meep
    • View profile
Re: #PrayforIstanbul
« Reply #551 on: 2 October 2020, 11:55:40 AM »
imagine only believing in one god

this post was brought to you by pagan gang

Polytheist! Burn the witch!

Ako is gay and has superaids - Air

Offline gerrit70

  • Member of Parliament
  • Cheese
  • *
  • Posts: 482
  • Llamas: 9
  • U all succ
    • View profile
Re: #PrayforIstanbul
« Reply #552 on: 2 October 2020, 02:09:56 PM »
imagine only believing in one god

this post was brought to you by pagan gang

Polytheist! Burn the witch!

But there's no motivation to do so, we can only burn the witches if we are wealthy peasants attempting to draw attention away from our wealth and leadership, or to blame the supposed witches for natural disasters and unexplained phenomena.
Guh

I'm a huge faggot and I love sucking airs cock.

It is abysmal that any one person would take try to limit the happiness that Gerrit70 has brought to this dull place.

Free Gerrit70 from his chains!

holy fuck gerrit you're autistic.

NotEnder

  • Guest
Re: #PrayforIstanbul
« Reply #553 on: 2 October 2020, 09:35:28 PM »
Sounds great!

I actually read most of this old thread the other day when Gerrit reminded me of it. Your mistake, in my view, wasn't trying to prove something with evidence (that's exactly what you should be doing), it was that you were often trying to disprove unrelated, often erroneously cited concepts that had no bearing on the conversation. For pages and pages you set out to disprove (an incorrect version of) the Big Bang theory, but it didn't matter. It had essentially nothing to do with what you claimed to have evidence of; your god.

As for digging yourself into logical loopholes? Yes, I'd call them logical fallacies, and they create eternal conversation loops until they are corrected, unfortunately. It's sometimes hard for someone to recognize when they're stuck in a logical fallacy, but when discovered, it should be helpful for everyone to fix it. As for your approach not being the right one altogether? I suppose I'll just simply agree, and I appreciate your self reflection on that.

I appreciate the appreciation. Hindsight is 20/20 and I've gotten much better about recognizing inherent flaws in debates and discussion since then, with my own comments in the past certainly being no exception.

I just want to be clear here. I think once you define a god specifically, it may be possible to prove or disprove it. Empirical evidence can be used, of course - if something can be observed and tested, we should take it into consideration. I'm not sure what "theoretical evidence" (mentioned in your first paragraph) is referring to, but using established scientific theories is perfectly acceptable if that's what you mean.

So, it's best if you define your god specifically, so we can both be on the same page with what we're talking about when we use that term.

Established scientific theories were what I meant when it comes to theoretical evidence, sorry for not being clearer on that. Regarding the definition of God, let's use the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article on God as a baseline:

"In monotheistic thought, God is conceived of as the supreme being, creator deity, and principal object of faith. God is usually conceived as being omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), omnipresent (all-present) and omnibenevolent (all-good) as well as having an eternal and necessary existence. These attributes are used either in way of analogy or are taken literally. God is most often held to be incorporeal (immaterial). Incorporeality and corporeality of God are related to conceptions of transcendence (being outside nature) and immanence (being in nature) of God, with positions of synthesis such as the 'immanent transcendence'"

For the sake of this discussion, I feel like it'd be best if we prioritized discussing the likelihood of the existence of a god in general before potentially discussing why or why not it would be more likely for God as defined in the Islamic faith in particular to exist as opposed to the view presented in other faiths. That way, it'd help keep the conversation more grounded/clear-cut and less likely to descend into multiple Inception-esque levels of discussion deviating from the original topic.

Playing the incomplete odds to make a solid determination in a universe where we know so little is a problematic game. One could argue the circumstances that allowed for life on Earth are seemingly so slim to have actually worked out that some sort of outside intervention must have taken place. Yet, another could argue the sheer number of solar systems and planets in the universe mean the chances of life popping up somewhere is actually fairly high. At its most base form, life is made up of little chemical protein reactions, and it's conceivable that they can occur in many places in the cosmos.

That is a potential way of looking at it, especially considering the small handful of places in the universe that astronomers have deemed "habitable" if life were to develop on them the same way it did on Earth. However, how replicable do you think the conditions of our little corner of the universe are such that the chance of life developing in a parallel way to our own somewhere else is farily high? Do you also think it's likely that such reactions have already occurred (or are already on the verge of happening) in the universe? I'm all for being open to the possibility, though I also think that with the odds of it being able to occur concurrently elsewhere in the universe, it may have been likely that we would've seen either the remnants of past life or some form of life altogether on at least one of these planets. This is obviously not factoring in that life could be developing an entirely different way on some far away planet (societies filled with amoeba colonies??), and I look forward to Pope Francis baptizing our new alien conquerors when they do eventually show themselves at our doorsteps.

But it doesn't matter. Just because something appears statistically unlikely doesn't mean we can suddenly say some other claim is somehow true; in this case a god / supernatural force intervening to make Earth habitable.
"A is unlikely, therefore B is true." It doesn't work that way. B has to stand on its own merits, otherwise C or D or L could be just as true. We need to operate on a better basis. Let's try "A appears unlikely, perhaps B is true. Let's investigate."

Oh no no, I'm fully aware of that. I was trying to follow the "A appears unlikely, perhaps B is true" format. I was proposing that since there may not be a likelihood of everything coming to develop by chance in the universe, perhaps there was some outside input that went into it. Given my personal worldview ("According to my personal worldview" could've prefaced the sentence better than "I believe it does", as the latter is less subjective), I personally see it as said input being limited to one God (perhaps we can discuss this in conjunction with the belief system laid out in other faiths at a future date), but following the "A is false so therefore B is true" format is not my intention.

You used the word "supernatural". As far as I can tell, this means "not natural", as in not of the natural world, not observable, and beyond scientific understanding, observation and testing. I don't know what this even means, then. If something isn't natural, then surely it doesn't exist? If it is natural, and does exist, and does influence the natural universe, then we should be able to observe it and test it, right? If I'm misunderstanding "supernatural", then let's fix that now.

Let's go back to the Wikipedia definition and replace the word "supernatural" with "incorporeal". I'm not sure if we can strictly say that existence is limited to things that exist "naturally" within the bounds of natural universal space-time. Technically speaking, abstract objects (like numbers and the concept of something like fairness/justice) are something most philosophers tend to agree exist, even though they're not concrete objects physically represented by a collection of matter. To go off of this, to find empirical, solid evidence of a deity existing using nothing but that of which is from the natural world would be inherently paradoxical and categorize a god as a physical entity, which does not fit the definition of God we're using. So I was most definitely flawed when I initially claimed that I had evidence of the existence of God when that's something that can't necessarily be done using strictly material evidence in isolation.

Thanks for the welcome back. I don't think I'll ever be as active as I once was, but it certainly doesn't hurt to pay VC a visit every once in a while. If it weren't for Scroogles, I would've never been fortunate enough to find VC and join the community as I did.

Offline Akomine

  • Staff Member | Administrator
  • Cheese
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Llamas: 666
  • Meep Meep
    • View profile
Re: #PrayforIstanbul
« Reply #554 on: 5 October 2020, 03:16:31 PM »

So, it's best if you define your god specifically, so we can both be on the same page with what we're talking about when we use that term.

Established scientific theories were what I meant when it comes to theoretical evidence, sorry for not being clearer on that. Regarding the definition of God, let's use the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article on God as a baseline:

"In monotheistic thought, God is conceived of as the supreme being, creator deity, and principal object of faith. God is usually conceived as being omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), omnipresent (all-present) and omnibenevolent (all-good) as well as having an eternal and necessary existence. These attributes are used either in way of analogy or are taken literally. God is most often held to be incorporeal (immaterial). Incorporeality and corporeality of God are related to conceptions of transcendence (being outside nature) and immanence (being in nature) of God, with positions of synthesis such as the 'immanent transcendence'"

For the sake of this discussion, I feel like it'd be best if we prioritized discussing the likelihood of the existence of a god in general before potentially discussing why or why not it would be more likely for God as defined in the Islamic faith in particular to exist as opposed to the view presented in other faiths. That way, it'd help keep the conversation more grounded/clear-cut and less likely to descend into multiple Inception-esque levels of discussion deviating from the original topic.

Ok, you want to discuss the likelyhood that a single generic god exists. I posit that there is a low likelyhood, given so many years of this claim going on and no evidence to support it. Where's the evidence? We've had thousands of years now, why is there nothing concrete we can point to? Why is it that the best anyone can do is provide subjective notions and/or worse; faith - the belief in something without proof.

How can this god be omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), omnipresent (all-present) and omnibenevolent (all-good) all at the same time? This seems to be self-contradictory. Take an innocent, disadvantaged African child with aggressive bone cancer as our example. I suppose this god put this into motion then. Paraphrasing Epicurus, Hume, Heinlein, Hawking, etc:
Is it willing to give this child a fair chance at life, but not able? Then it is not omnipotent.
Is it able, but not willing? Then it is not omnibenevolent.
Is it both able and willing? Then why do innocent African children die of aggressive bone cancer? Why is there so much unnecessary evil?
Or is this god neither able nor willing? Then it's not a god, is it? Certainly not one to revere.

So, I don't really like the idea of this thing existing, but since you want to discuss the likelihood, I still say I want to hear reasoning or evidence for why I should even consider it likely.


Quote
Playing the incomplete odds to make a solid determination in a universe where we know so little is a problematic game. One could argue the circumstances that allowed for life on Earth are seemingly so slim to have actually worked out that some sort of outside intervention must have taken place. Yet, another could argue the sheer number of solar systems and planets in the universe mean the chances of life popping up somewhere is actually fairly high. At its most base form, life is made up of little chemical protein reactions, and it's conceivable that they can occur in many places in the cosmos.

That is a potential way of looking at it, especially considering the small handful of places in the universe that astronomers have deemed "habitable" if life were to develop on them the same way it did on Earth. However, how replicable do you think the conditions of our little corner of the universe are such that the chance of life developing in a parallel way to our own somewhere else is farily high? Do you also think it's likely that such reactions have already occurred (or are already on the verge of happening) in the universe? I'm all for being open to the possibility, though I also think that with the odds of it being able to occur concurrently elsewhere in the universe, it may have been likely that we would've seen either the remnants of past life or some form of life altogether on at least one of these planets. This is obviously not factoring in that life could be developing an entirely different way on some far away planet (societies filled with amoeba colonies??), and I look forward to Pope Francis baptizing our new alien conquerors when they do eventually show themselves at our doorsteps.

Finding and designating potentially habitable moons and planets in the universe is a very new exercise. Astronomers have only been doing it for a few years now. The list is only dozens long so far, but the mathematical potential for habitable places in the universe is essentially infinite when you consider the size of it. It's certainly possible that lifeforms and civilizations have already come and gone countless times, or that plenty are just growing now alongside us at various stages. There could be life elsewhere in our solar system, in the soils of Mars or the atmosphere of Venus, or elsewhere for all we know. Unfortunately the Solar System is massive, and the universe beyond it is almost incomprehensibly massive, so the chances of us detecting life with our technology are unlikely at this stage. Regardless, we have evidence of rudimentary protein synthesis in certain conditions, so just on the basis of chemistry and physics, these things could certainly occur in countless places in the universe. It makes extraterrestrial life seem likely. Finding it is the incredibly hard part.


Quote
But it doesn't matter. Just because something appears statistically unlikely doesn't mean we can suddenly say some other claim is somehow true; in this case a god / supernatural force intervening to make Earth habitable.
"A is unlikely, therefore B is true." It doesn't work that way. B has to stand on its own merits, otherwise C or D or L could be just as true. We need to operate on a better basis. Let's try "A appears unlikely, perhaps B is true. Let's investigate."

Oh no no, I'm fully aware of that. I was trying to follow the "A appears unlikely, perhaps B is true" format. I was proposing that since there may not be a likelihood of everything coming to develop by chance in the universe, perhaps there was some outside input that went into it. Given my personal worldview ("According to my personal worldview" could've prefaced the sentence better than "I believe it does", as the latter is less subjective), I personally see it as said input being limited to one God (perhaps we can discuss this in conjunction with the belief system laid out in other faiths at a future date), but following the "A is false so therefore B is true" format is not my intention.

Proposing an outside (all-powerful incorporeal) input is interesting, but I see no evidence or necessity for one. It's a curious concept, but I can't put belief into it. Since you do seem to believe in this outside input, why do you think it's the case? And perhaps more importantly, why specifically one god? Why not 2 or 43? That's the problem with these claims, they seem equally as (in)plausible as just about any random claim I can make up. Can you establish why you at least find it likely?


Quote
You used the word "supernatural". As far as I can tell, this means "not natural", as in not of the natural world, not observable, and beyond scientific understanding, observation and testing. I don't know what this even means, then. If something isn't natural, then surely it doesn't exist? If it is natural, and does exist, and does influence the natural universe, then we should be able to observe it and test it, right? If I'm misunderstanding "supernatural", then let's fix that now.

Let's go back to the Wikipedia definition and replace the word "supernatural" with "incorporeal". I'm not sure if we can strictly say that existence is limited to things that exist "naturally" within the bounds of natural universal space-time. Technically speaking, abstract objects (like numbers and the concept of something like fairness/justice) are something most philosophers tend to agree exist, even though they're not concrete objects physically represented by a collection of matter. To go off of this, to find empirical, solid evidence of a deity existing using nothing but that of which is from the natural world would be inherently paradoxical and categorize a god as a physical entity, which does not fit the definition of God we're using. So I was most definitely flawed when I initially claimed that I had evidence of the existence of God when that's something that can't necessarily be done using strictly material evidence in isolation.

Thanks for the welcome back. I don't think I'll ever be as active as I once was, but it certainly doesn't hurt to pay VC a visit every once in a while. If it weren't for Scroogles, I would've never been fortunate enough to find VC and join the community as I did.

Fine, incorporeal, tho it seems largely synonymous with supernatural in this case. We only have evidence of things that exist "naturally". Everything is made of matter and energy by our observations. And yes, we can think of and assign descriptors and concepts like numbers and justice, but they aren't agents intervening in the natural world like the god claim. If they were, we could measure it - and to the best of our knowledge, that means it would exist in the natural universe. So, does your god intervene? Do you have evidence - what is it? Do you just find it likely - why?

Cheers


Ako is gay and has superaids - Air

NotEnder

  • Guest
Re: #PrayforIstanbul
« Reply #555 on: 6 October 2020, 11:34:16 PM »
Ok, you want to discuss the likelyhood that a single generic god exists. I posit that there is a low likelyhood, given so many years of this claim going on and no evidence to support it. Where's the evidence? We've had thousands of years now, why is there nothing concrete we can point to? Why is it that the best anyone can do is provide subjective notions and/or worse; faith - the belief in something without proof.

How can this god be omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), omnipresent (all-present) and omnibenevolent (all-good) all at the same time? This seems to be self-contradictory. Take an innocent, disadvantaged African child with aggressive bone cancer as our example. I suppose this god put this into motion then. Paraphrasing Epicurus, Hume, Heinlein, Hawking, etc:
Is it willing to give this child a fair chance at life, but not able? Then it is not omnipotent.
Is it able, but not willing? Then it is not omnibenevolent.
Is it both able and willing? Then why do innocent African children die of aggressive bone cancer? Why is there so much unnecessary evil?
Or is this god neither able nor willing? Then it's not a god, is it? Certainly not one to revere.

So, I don't really like the idea of this thing existing, but since you want to discuss the likelihood, I still say I want to hear reasoning or evidence for why I should even consider it likely.

Finding and designating potentially habitable moons and planets in the universe is a very new exercise. Astronomers have only been doing it for a few years now. The list is only dozens long so far, but the mathematical potential for habitable places in the universe is essentially infinite when you consider the size of it. It's certainly possible that lifeforms and civilizations have already come and gone countless times, or that plenty are just growing now alongside us at various stages. There could be life elsewhere in our solar system, in the soils of Mars or the atmosphere of Venus, or elsewhere for all we know. Unfortunately the Solar System is massive, and the universe beyond it is almost incomprehensibly massive, so the chances of us detecting life with our technology are unlikely at this stage. Regardless, we have evidence of rudimentary protein synthesis in certain conditions, so just on the basis of chemistry and physics, these things could certainly occur in countless places in the universe. It makes extraterrestrial life seem likely. Finding it is the incredibly hard part.

I don't think it can be reasonably posited that there's a low likelihood for a single God to exist on the merit of a few thousand years of history and inherent subjectivity when it comes to interpreting evidence that may or may not suggest said God's existence alone. In the two quotes above, you're suggesting (correct me if I'm misinterpreting) that within the same period of time, it's reasonable that humans have only just begun to find new habitable planets (relevant new article!), but unreasonable that they haven't found "concrete" evidence of a deity's existence. In our lifetime, I don't believe that we'll be able to physically find irrefutable proof that something in the natural world demonstrates the undeniable existence of God, with absolutely zero room for speculation or hypothesizing. Something I am suggesting (and this once again relates to my personal worldview but cannot be completely and objectively grounded without room for counterarguments) is that we may be able to infer the existence of a God based on the cosmological argument and principle of sufficient reason. While they may not put all counterclaims to rest, I don't think it's illogical to factor them in when contemplating whether or not it's possible that God exists. And although it is certainly true that some "evidence" is more compelling than others, when it comes to whether or not a piece/pieces of evidence can reasonably point to God existing, there will always be scholarly debate as to what can be considered more concrete. Given that I am neither a philosophical nor a religious scholar, and that in this discussion I carry the much bigger burden of having to suggest something exists (when in cases like these it's a lot easier to not have to prove something if you don't believe it exists in the first place), I cannot physically show indisputable "proof" without inherent doubt and bias surrounding it.

Based on the definition of God we put forth earlier, I don't think it's inherently self-contradictory that God can be omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), omnipresent (all-present) and omnibenevolent (all-good) all at the same time. For what you paraphrased regarding what disqualifies a deity from being considered as having the first three attributes, I agree. It's the omnibenevolence counterpoint you highlighted that I don't know if it can be stated with absolute certainty. Obviously, an impoverished, sick child living in poor conditions sucks. In my personal worldview, the same omnibenevolent deity would have already accounted for this fact by giving said child the appropriate benefits/compensation in an afterlife after they die on Earth. The judgement required to determine what sort of compensation/accountability is fair would presumably be at the same magnitude of ability to be omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent in the first place, and as such we as humans would not be able to properly consider/make a judgement of whether or not each case was fair due to not having the ability to compensate/empathize/impartially judge in the first place. There is practically no way to justify this with scientifically grounded evidence, as such a concept revolves entirely around a realm/place outside of the natural world as we know it and generally believe that the moral arc of the universe is long, but bends towards justice (thanks MLK). What are your general thoughts on the concept of an afterlife/heaven and people believing as such?

Proposing an outside (all-powerful incorporeal) input is interesting, but I see no evidence or necessity for one. It's a curious concept, but I can't put belief into it. Since you do seem to believe in this outside input, why do you think it's the case? And perhaps more importantly, why specifically one god? Why not 2 or 43? That's the problem with these claims, they seem equally as (in)plausible as just about any random claim I can make up. Can you establish why you at least find it likely?

I personally think it's the case simply because, as I mentioned earlier, I find it more plausible that the conditions of our world existing within the universe as we know it and having just the right conditions to sustain life (also as we know it) to have had outside input rather than statistically coming to be through chance (as well as the fact that the universe and/or the initial singularity of the Big Bang [collectively "the natural world"] may have had to have had come into existence somehow rather than simply spawning from utter nothingness). As far as why I think it's a single God and not two or twenty, I simply just think on a fundamental level it's far less problematic. If you were to have two gods, for instance, designing and having input on everything ever created, this would both be self-contradictory as you paraphrased earlier (if they meet the definition of a god, then how come they need to co-create and consider the other's input in the first place?) as well as the fact that it's a lot easier to mull over that causality stems from a sole source rather than multiple sources having to work together in tandem. While I'm still clearly believing the conceptually very-significant-to-consider idea that a God exists, it becomes way easier on a logarithmic-esque scale to rationalize a single God.

Fine, incorporeal, tho it seems largely synonymous with supernatural in this case. We only have evidence of things that exist "naturally". Everything is made of matter and energy by our observations. And yes, we can think of and assign descriptors and concepts like numbers and justice, but they aren't agents intervening in the natural world like the god claim. If they were, we could measure it - and to the best of our knowledge, that means it would exist in the natural universe. So, does your god intervene? Do you have evidence - what is it? Do you just find it likely - why?

As we both know, there are countless "documented" stories throughout history of people claiming divine intervention has occurred at a specific instance/instances, and given that the vast majority of these stories haven't necessarily been factually verified or had potential alternative causes dissuaded from contention, it's borderline (if not outright) impossible to prove a god intervenes with indisputable "concrete" evidence as you put it. I personally do believe God intervenes in certain situations, whether it's potentially influencing a decision or even real-life deus ex machina scenarios (on a technical level, the term had to originate from somewhere/some belief) in rare instances. Can I point to specific instances being more likely than others? Not really. Do I think it's something to potentially consider if order is to be maintained in the universe? I definitely (from a personal standpoint) think it's possible to consider.

Offline gerrit70

  • Member of Parliament
  • Cheese
  • *
  • Posts: 482
  • Llamas: 9
  • U all succ
    • View profile
Re: #PrayforIstanbul
« Reply #556 on: 13 December 2020, 02:13:20 AM »

I don't think it can be reasonably posited that there's a low likelihood for a single God to exist on the merit of a few thousand years of history and inherent subjectivity when it comes to interpreting evidence that may or may not suggest said God's existence alone. In the two quotes above, you're suggesting (correct me if I'm misinterpreting) that within the same period of time, it's reasonable that humans have only just begun to find new habitable planets (relevant new article!), but unreasonable that they haven't found "concrete" evidence of a deity's existence. In our lifetime, I don't believe that we'll be able to physically find irrefutable proof that something in the natural world demonstrates the undeniable existence of God, with absolutely zero room for speculation or hypothesizing. Something I am suggesting (and this once again relates to my personal worldview but cannot be completely and objectively grounded without room for counterarguments) is that we may be able to infer the existence of a God based on the cosmological argument and principle of sufficient reason. While they may not put all counterclaims to rest, I don't think it's illogical to factor them in when contemplating whether or not it's possible that God exists. And although it is certainly true that some "evidence" is more compelling than others, when it comes to whether or not a piece/pieces of evidence can reasonably point to God existing, there will always be scholarly debate as to what can be considered more concrete. Given that I am neither a philosophical nor a religious scholar, and that in this discussion I carry the much bigger burden of having to suggest something exists (when in cases like these it's a lot easier to not have to prove something if you don't believe it exists in the first place), I cannot physically show indisputable "proof" without inherent doubt and bias surrounding it.

This is disgustingly verbose, but what I gleaned from this paragraph (Forgive me if I'm mischaracterizing your argument) is that there can be no absolute proof that a god exists. All existing evidence is subjective and there is no evidence which is completely immune to other explanations will be produced in any reasonable amount of time. Therefore the only way we can deduce the existence of a god is through logic.

I don't know if I totally agree with that, but I'm not really here to refute it. I find the logic behind your assumption severely flawed. (Hilariously, the cosmological argument was devised before the widespread use of deductive reasoning in Medieval Europe.) The concept of principle reason is strong enough, and makes sense when you apply it here. However, when you add the cosmological argument as further deduction from that point it doesn't work. The main tenet of the cosmological argument is that if you trace every single cause far enough back, there must have been one starting or universal cause- in your argument this would be god. The issue is that if you take that cause (god) one more step back then that cause is without cause which would violate the principle of sufficient reason.

The other significant issue is that beyond the flaws of that specific reasoning. I think Ako touched on this but I wanted to go a little more in depth. When you break everything down to the absolute base of logic (I exist and that something created me) there is obviously the potential to say that the thing which created you was a god, but how can you be sure? IIRC you are of the Muslim faith. How do you rationally transition from something created me to this specific god which has these rules and spoke these prophets created me?

I'm trying to not be very argumentative because I genuinely want to see how you look at the stuff outlined above. I also wont try to refute or reply to any of the other paragraphs in your post for now, because I think Ako and you were having an interesting discussion. So I'll leave that to you guys if you decide to continue it. Also this thread now has over 100k views lol
Guh

I'm a huge faggot and I love sucking airs cock.

It is abysmal that any one person would take try to limit the happiness that Gerrit70 has brought to this dull place.

Free Gerrit70 from his chains!

holy fuck gerrit you're autistic.

Offline OctoGamer

  • Staff Member | Forum Mod
  • Cheese
  • *****
  • Posts: 1286
  • Llamas: 22
  • #vc4lyfe
    • View profile
Re: #PrayforIstanbul
« Reply #557 on: 13 December 2020, 01:09:44 PM »
anniversary is approaching again