News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Quest for Truth

Started by Absolute_Agent, June 16, 2019, 09:02:36 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Mike Cl

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 14, 2019, 04:01:13 PM
The most ignorant is he who doesn't see their own ignorance.

Deus summus
Once again, look in the mirror when you say that.  What I see from you is ignorance but you do seem to revel in it.  Your rejection of empirical data and testable data is proof you simply want to rely on wishful beliefs, where little to no actual thinking and reasoning is required--in fact, discouraged.  Yes, I do understand you.  You are simply just another theist who is willfully ignorant and is proud of that fact.   
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

josephpalazzo

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 14, 2019, 04:57:47 PM
Ha ha ha. Pathetic.

Deus summus



For once the truth seems to hurt you. But you're still irredeemable. I pity your god for having such a loser like you. No wonder he is so silent and refuses to give you any evidence of its own existence - he wants no part with a shameful person as yourself.

Unbeliever

God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

Hydra009

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 14, 2019, 04:56:47 PMOh I would love it too dearest Hydra.  [emoji38]
If only the talents matched the ego...

Minimalist

Every asshole thinks that his god is real.  It is a defining characteristic of assholes.
The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails.

-- H. L. Mencken

Baruch

Quote from: aileron on August 14, 2019, 02:55:35 PM
I think, therefore I am... Okay where do we go from here? Crap... Apparently that's all science can tell us since it solely relies on deduction... Or at least that's all science can tell ME. Y'all are probably demons or I'm a Boltzmann brain or something.

Deduction from a model validated by experimental data.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

Quote from: Minimalist on August 14, 2019, 06:14:18 PM
Every asshole thinks that his god is real.  It is a defining characteristic of assholes.

You don't have an asshole too?  You are a department store dummy with a steel pole up a bottom orifice?
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

aileron

Quote from: Baruch on August 14, 2019, 06:21:21 PM
Deduction from a model validated by experimental data.

So there's no place for induction, speculation, wild ass guesses? Karl Popper thought he found the road leading to the scientific method. You may be thinking I telegraphed it was a dead end, but it was more entertaining than that. He was carjacked and jumped by a bunch of scientists who left him bleeding on the curb.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room! -- President Merkin Muffley

My mom was a religious fundamentalist. Plus, she didn't have a mouth. It's an unusual combination. -- Bender Bending Rodriguez

Mr.Obvious

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 14, 2019, 09:37:23 AM
I re-read your post and allow me to rephrase my previous response to clear things up.  First I'll quote you:

"I'm open to finding the suitcase, but people never can quite tell or agree on where it will be exactly, nor what color or shape it is, nor the kind of bills are in it. It doesn't seem likely that it exists, therefore. So I won't get into debt just yet, under the probably false assumption that I'll be ablo to pay back my loans tomorrow. Still: show me the money! Enrich my life."

Now the only thing holding you back from being a theist is that there seems to be a lot of disagreement among religions and sects of those religions about exactly how to get the good stuff.  Secondly you don't want to make a risky investment. 

So, using your hypothetical example, I come along and tell you I've spent my life digging through all these suitcases and I've found the genuine article.  Only difference is, it's no 100 million euros.  It's 8,000 cubic metres of solid gold.  Then I tell you it's free for the asking.  Then I tell you you already own it, you just need to claim it.  No payment due.  Then I say, do you wish to retain your claim, or defer it?  It's that simple.  "Why not just hand it to me?" You say.  We there's a lot of legal red tape and you can't take possession until you legally acknowledge ownership, being as your grandfather had retained it in custody and died while you were still too young to assume responsibility for such mind boggling wealth.  Otherwise it will continue to remain in your grandfather's estate.  Then you say, "That's rubbish." And I say no problem, it will be available if and when you should choose to claim it in the future.

Capisce?

Deus summus

Well, actually: no. That's not true. What's holding me back from becoming a theist (again) is that I don't believe the idea. You asked how one being without the belief could possibly not be against the idea itself. I explained it to you. I'm still not anti the idea on its own. It is just that the lack of evidence keeps me from believing it. 

And yes: I have other gripes with how people are indoctrinated into living as if the idea is true, without there being any evidence for it. But that's not against the idea itself. Because the idea is just that: an idea. Be it the idea of 'god' or the idea of the '100 million suitcase' or your 'granddaddy 8000 cubic meter gold'.

So let's see where I am in your adaption of my metaphore. Because, while you change a few things, nothing really changes for me. Not of importance.
You see, while in real life I would indeed not legally acknowledge ownership of something like this because you would most likely be a scammer of sorts... In this example, I can and I will. Because I don't mind the idea. That, however, does not mean I believe you actually have 8000 cubic meters of my grandfather's goldto share with me. But hey, there is no loss yet. I don't mind the idea. I accept ownership.

Now what happens in the example? As it always does. We go to my granddad's house. We go into the basement and you show me zilch. There is no gold. 
You however, insist there is. And what many then follow up with, is this. 'The gold will become clear to you, when you believe it is there."
But you see: believing a claim like that, is indeed a bridge too far. I'm not going to be able to do that. Not even if you grab me by the shoulders and point as hard as you can shouting 'There it is! Can't you see it! It's so goddamn beautiful! So shiny! So marvelous! Gold! Gold! Gold! 8000 cubic meters of pure solid, smooth gold! So Precious... Yessh my precious! Gollum! Gollum!'
See: I can't believe it's there without seeing at least the tiniest bit of evidence. But that's not the same as being anti the idea itself. And you'd do well not to conflate those terms. Especially as you were the one to bring them up in the first place.

So why don't I just go along with you and believe in the 8000 cubic meters of gold in my grandpa's basement that will reveal itself to me as soon as I believe? Well, apart from the fact that my grandfathers are both still alive. The fact that neither of them are rich. The fact that there is no way that 8000 cubic meters of gold could possibly fit in either of my grandfather's basements (One doesn't even have one.) And the fact that there is no measurable reading of gold to find in the empty basement. ... In short, apart from'the facts' which don't support there being a large sum of gold, I can't choose to believe anything. I need to be convinced. It's not that I can just pull a switch because I have nothing to lose. (Which I do, coincidentally. Believing there is gold there while there isn't any is a good way to empoverish my life.)
"If we have to go down, we go down together!"
- Your mum, last night, requesting 69.

Atheist Mantis does not pray.

Baruch

Quote from: aileron on August 14, 2019, 06:28:57 PM
So there's no place for induction, speculation, wild ass guesses? Karl Popper thought he found the road leading to the scientific method. You may be thinking I telegraphed it was a dead end, but it was more entertaining than that. He was carjacked and jumped by a bunch of scientists who left him bleeding on the curb.

Computers don't do those.  Choosing something pseudorandomly from a human supplied list, isn't speculation.  But induction is a rigorously defined process.  Apples vs oranges.  Yes, Karl Popper isn't G-d.  But neither was Lysenko.  Your analogy betrays anti-Fa leanings.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

aileron

Quote from: Baruch on August 14, 2019, 07:06:27 PM
Computers don't do those.  Choosing something pseudorandomly from a human supplied list, isn't speculation.  But induction is a rigorously defined process.  Apples vs oranges.  Yes, Karl Popper isn't G-d.  But neither was Lysenko.  Your analogy betrays anti-Fa leanings.

Nobody proposed that computers do science, but Agent did propose that deduction is all that's allowed in science. That's simply not the case. You proposed that deduction from accepted empirical starting points is a better description, but it's incomplete. Simply put, there is no scientific method.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room! -- President Merkin Muffley

My mom was a religious fundamentalist. Plus, she didn't have a mouth. It's an unusual combination. -- Bender Bending Rodriguez

Baruch

Quote from: aileron on August 14, 2019, 07:18:37 PM
Nobody proposed that computers do science, but Agent did propose that deduction is all that's allowed in science. That's simply not the case. You proposed that deduction from accepted empirical starting points is a better description, but it's incomplete. Simply put, there is no scientific method.

Shooting fish in a barrel again.  What about Abduction?  Is that even in your dictionary?  It should be, from the AI section of the library.  And yes, induction from empirical data has its problems.  But mathematical induction is rock solid.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

aitm

I believe it is time for this experiment to end. 2 months of jibberish is enough.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Cavebear

Quote from: aitm on August 14, 2019, 09:23:32 PM
I believe it is time for this experiment to end. 2 months of jibberish is enough.

Yeah, and I propose several decision-gates...

If any posts end in "Deus Summus" or other religious claptrap, ignore them.

If any posts suggest that science is a religion, ignore them. 

If any posts refer to "scientists" who got their degree from a religious university, ignore them.

Etc...  I'm tired of these idiots.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Unbeliever

You know that once this one goes away there'll be another lone to slide right in and start the whole rigmarole over again. Same old lame "arguments," same old trite and unresponsive posts.

But sometimes a bit of entertainment can be had, for a while...
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman