Scientific proof that God exists? - page 418.

the joint

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1020

Quote from: My Name Was Taken on October 31, 2014, 01:36:50 PM

Quote from: the joint on October 30, 2014, 11:16:31 PM

Quote from: (oYo) on October 30, 2014, 11:30:57 AM

Using your own argument, that would mean that 'god the father' could not exist since he would first need to make the universe and then his son (to be a father). Regardless, I can equally assert that spaghetti exists only because the FSM created it in his own image, the same way christians insist they are created in god's image. No more contradiction. Bottom line is, that when it comes to god, there's no (scientific) way to (prove or) disprove it's existance, regardless of which god(s) your are talking about, which is the whole premise behind Russell's teapot. (Just for sake of argument, you cannot view the entire solar system through the Hubble telescope at once, nevermind a teapot god that may wish to remain undiscovered.)

With all due respect, this discussion only digressed somewhat to semantics since you were implying these terms mean something they do not. I am not arbitrarily saying anything and have already linked sources to the validity my assertions. If you insist you can arbitrarily give words their meanings, then I suppose I have nothing left say.

I'm hardly arbitrarily giving words meaning when I quote the definition of 'god' from a dictionary reference and then apply that definition in context. But, then again, I'm not attempting to prove the existence of God, I'm simply arguing that the FSM is a bad analogy. It's a bad analogy specifically because analogies only work if the characteristics of the things being compared are similar.

Am I missing the point of the analogy? I thought these things were always brought up in the same abstract vein; that is, you can't prove god exists any more than you can disprove there is a teapot/FSM/whatever-else. The analogy isn't about which mythical creature exists or what properties and powers it may or may not have, it's about the existence of mythical creatures period. From this view, I think the analogy is fine.

It's not fine because god is not a 'creature.' Again, the problem with the analogy is that it tries to back a theist into a corner that doesn't exist by assuming that empiricism is the only means by which you can prove the existence of God when what we're really exploring is a totally abstract concept. It simply doesn't work. Imagine if I likened, for example, the abstract laws of mathematics to a "mythical creature" or the FSM or a space teapot. Would you let me get away with such an analogy?

bl4kjaguar

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: Vod on October 13, 2014, 10:10:10 PM

Why are you guys arguing this? It is the word of God - it cannot be questioned or used out of context!!

It's called the Holy Bible because it is full of holes; it is your responsibility to fill those holes and get at the actual truth being referenced.

My Name Was Taken

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

Quote from: the joint on October 30, 2014, 11:16:31 PM

Quote from: (oYo) on October 30, 2014, 11:30:57 AM

Using your own argument, that would mean that 'god the father' could not exist since he would first need to make the universe and then his son (to be a father). Regardless, I can equally assert that spaghetti exists only because the FSM created it in his own image, the same way christians insist they are created in god's image. No more contradiction. Bottom line is, that when it comes to god, there's no (scientific) way to (prove or) disprove it's existance, regardless of which god(s) your are talking about, which is the whole premise behind Russell's teapot. (Just for sake of argument, you cannot view the entire solar system through the Hubble telescope at once, nevermind a teapot god that may wish to remain undiscovered.)

With all due respect, this discussion only digressed somewhat to semantics since you were implying these terms mean something they do not. I am not arbitrarily saying anything and have already linked sources to the validity my assertions. If you insist you can arbitrarily give words their meanings, then I suppose I have nothing left say.

I'm hardly arbitrarily giving words meaning when I quote the definition of 'god' from a dictionary reference and then apply that definition in context. But, then again, I'm not attempting to prove the existence of God, I'm simply arguing that the FSM is a bad analogy. It's a bad analogy specifically because analogies only work if the characteristics of the things being compared are similar.

Am I missing the point of the analogy? I thought these things were always brought up in the same abstract vein; that is, you can't prove god exists any more than you can disprove there is a teapot/FSM/whatever-else. The analogy isn't about which mythical creature exists or what properties and powers it may or may not have, it's about the existence of mythical creatures period. From this view, I think the analogy is fine.

Decksperiment

sr. member

Activity: 630

Merit: 250

it's shit like this that spoils the internet, it's kinda like searchin google for a fix.. not one result has the answer, cause whilst OP's ask, there's always numpty attention seeker's who are so distracting that the topic is probably closed for going off topic.. when I say this is a pile of shit, it really is, I mean, arguing points is one thing, but that fuckin idiot wi his fantastical lunacy takes mair than the fuckin cake.. am surprised he does'nt realise we see him and think.. fuck, we'll come back in another week when his dribbble runs out.. nope, still gotta come back and fuck up some damn interesting stuff.. with nothing more than a lunatic's perspective of well, was gonna say life, but he's clearly dead.. (brain)

the joint

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1020

Quote from: (oYo) on October 30, 2014, 11:34:33 PM

Quote from: the joint on October 30, 2014, 11:16:31 PM

Quote from: (oYo) on October 30, 2014, 11:30:57 AM

Using your own argument, that would mean that 'god the father' could not exist since he would first need to make the universe and then his son (to be a father). Regardless, I can equally assert that spaghetti exists only because the FSM created it in his own image, the same way christians insist they are created in god's image. No more contradiction. Bottom line is, that when it comes to god, there's no (scientific) way to (prove or) disprove it's existance, regardless of which god(s) your are talking about, which is the whole premise behind Russell's teapot. (Just for sake of argument, you cannot view the entire solar system through the Hubble telescope at once, nevermind a teapot god that may wish to remain undiscovered.)

With all due respect, this discussion only digressed somewhat to semantics since you were implying these terms mean something they do not. I am not arbitrarily saying anything and have already linked sources to the validity my assertions. If you insist you can arbitrarily give words their meanings, then I suppose I have nothing left say.

I'm hardly arbitrarily giving words meaning when I quote the definition of 'god' from a dictionary reference and then apply that definition in context. But, then again, I'm not attempting to prove the existence of God, I'm simply arguing that the FSM is a bad analogy. It's a bad analogy specifically because analogies only work if the characteristics of the things being compared are similar.

You cannot simply substitute one for the other in the same way that you're criticizing my suggestion to arbitrarily slap the term "absolute truth" onto "God," which, by the way, was more of a rebuttal against your original position which wields the FSM as the counterargument to the assertion that God exists. However, I can slap "absolute truth" onto "God" more easily than you can slap FSM onto God.

The FSM has 'spaghetti' and 'monster' in its title, both of which are forms, thereby invoking constraint and eliminating the possibility of omnipresence. Same thing goes for the space teapot. Both of these are things that are assumed to be capable of being observed, but for which we simply have no idea where to look. Conversely, 'god,' whose title invokes no form or condition -- but does invoke omnipotence -- would be able to place constraints upon itself and become an FSM, for example. This is also why God is referred to as 'infinite,' and it's because infinite quite literally means "a lack of definition." God as a whole, by definition, is incapable of being observed, which again would refer to a posteriori knowledge. Instead, God's existence can only be argued for/against based upon a priori knowledge, or knowledge that is independent of observation and experience. As a result, invoking the FSM and space teapot is irrelevant because they're simply inapplicable -- a priori knowledge tells us that invoking an analogue of god requires invoking a formless entity, so you might as well just stick with the word 'god' and argue against that (else you're the one making arbitrary, irrelevant word substitutions).

You mention semantics, and a semantic argument is not necessarily unsound. The reason is because language is not only a descriptor, but it is also that which is descripted -- always. Absolutely anything that is described with language is also a language unto itself as it meets all criteria of the algebraic structure of language (i.e rules of syntax/law, content, and grammar that mediates between the two to make information meaningful). Semantic arguments are simply a different type of argument, and they remain valid if consistent and applied in the appropriate context.

To this end, again, you would be better off not trying to find an analogy to the 'god' concept at all. Also, remember that all of this is only an argument for why the FSM and teapot are poor counterarguments to the assertion God exists, and not an argument for God's existence itself.

TL;DR: In a sentence, the FSM and teapot are invalid despite what you think of Russel because the proposition depends solely on observation, i.e. being able to prove the thing exists through empiricism, a method that's off-the-table for exploring the concept of God.

The semantic debate began over your definition of mono/polytheistic, but unfortunately you keep bastardizing and broadening your misuse of terminologies and concepts over the course of this debate to further your argument, therefore I decline to debate this any further.

Disappointing, for I'm sure you'll continue to use your invalid cliches far into the future.

(oYo)

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 500

I like boobies

Quote from: the joint on October 30, 2014, 11:16:31 PM

Quote from: (oYo) on October 30, 2014, 11:30:57 AM

Using your own argument, that would mean that 'god the father' could not exist since he would first need to make the universe and then his son (to be a father). Regardless, I can equally assert that spaghetti exists only because the FSM created it in his own image, the same way christians insist they are created in god's image. No more contradiction. Bottom line is, that when it comes to god, there's no (scientific) way to (prove or) disprove it's existance, regardless of which god(s) your are talking about, which is the whole premise behind Russell's teapot. (Just for sake of argument, you cannot view the entire solar system through the Hubble telescope at once, nevermind a teapot god that may wish to remain undiscovered.)

With all due respect, this discussion only digressed somewhat to semantics since you were implying these terms mean something they do not. I am not arbitrarily saying anything and have already linked sources to the validity my assertions. If you insist you can arbitrarily give words their meanings, then I suppose I have nothing left say.

I'm hardly arbitrarily giving words meaning when I quote the definition of 'god' from a dictionary reference and then apply that definition in context. But, then again, I'm not attempting to prove the existence of God, I'm simply arguing that the FSM is a bad analogy. It's a bad analogy specifically because analogies only work if the characteristics of the things being compared are similar.

You cannot simply substitute one for the other in the same way that you're criticizing my suggestion to arbitrarily slap the term "absolute truth" onto "God," which, by the way, was more of a rebuttal against your original position which wields the FSM as the counterargument to the assertion that God exists. However, I can slap "absolute truth" onto "God" more easily than you can slap FSM onto God.

The FSM has 'spaghetti' and 'monster' in its title, both of which are forms, thereby invoking constraint and eliminating the possibility of omnipresence. Same thing goes for the space teapot. Both of these are things that are assumed to be capable of being observed, but for which we simply have no idea where to look. Conversely, 'god,' whose title invokes no form or condition -- but does invoke omnipotence -- would be able to place constraints upon itself and become an FSM, for example. This is also why God is referred to as 'infinite,' and it's because infinite quite literally means "a lack of definition." God as a whole, by definition, is incapable of being observed, which again would refer to a posteriori knowledge. Instead, God's existence can only be argued for/against based upon a priori knowledge, or knowledge that is independent of observation and experience. As a result, invoking the FSM and space teapot is irrelevant because they're simply inapplicable -- a priori knowledge tells us that invoking an analogue of god requires invoking a formless entity, so you might as well just stick with the word 'god' and argue against that (else you're the one making arbitrary, irrelevant word substitutions).

You mention semantics, and a semantic argument is not necessarily unsound. The reason is because language is not only a descriptor, but it is also that which is descripted -- always. Absolutely anything that is described with language is also a language unto itself as it meets all criteria of the algebraic structure of language (i.e rules of syntax/law, content, and grammar that mediates between the two to make information meaningful). Semantic arguments are simply a different type of argument, and they remain valid if consistent and applied in the appropriate context.

To this end, again, you would be better off not trying to find an analogy to the 'god' concept at all. Also, remember that all of this is only an argument for why the FSM and teapot are poor counterarguments to the assertion God exists, and not an argument for God's existence itself.

TL;DR: In a sentence, the FSM and teapot are invalid despite what you think of Russel because the proposition depends solely on observation, i.e. being able to prove the thing exists through empiricism, a method that's off-the-table for exploring the concept of God.

The semantic debate began over your definition of mono/polytheistic, but unfortunately you keep bastardizing and broadening your misuse of terminologies and concepts over the course of this debate to further your argument, therefore I decline to debate this any further.

(oYo)

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 500

I like boobies

Decksperiment, This place is for serious discussion of "Scientific proof that God exists". Please stay on topic and make your own thread to pander your music (career), you hypocrite.

Quote from: Decksperiment on October 30, 2014, 03:55:06 PM

I'm very sceptical of anyone who think's it's cool to talk about God, but wont acknowledge him, in the form of 'G-d', yet you use the full word 'Devil'.. why dont you's who do this say the word GOD?

Why are you so afraid of 'O'?

This is more than a valid question, for there are many religious 'sect's', or 'cult's' who are nothing more than religion's. To be a member of a religion, you must believe in god or his/her opposing factor. What are you afraid of, creating the 'graven image'? Answer - YES. This 'graven image' is not the letter O, the number 0, but the LOOP, where life repeat's itself in all it's guise's, this would be the EVIDENCE of god full stop. But no-one will accept this. It's like, not quite a donut shape, or a toroid, but akin to these shape's, it's more like a loop where we discover everything in existance... blah, blah, blah.

Correction - The "o" in 'god' resembles a Holy Meatball which is of the great and almighty Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Source:

Quote

In August 2005, in response to a challenge from a reader, Boing Boing announced a $250,000 prize—later raised to $1,000,000—of "Intelligently Designed currency" payable to any individual who could produce empirical evidence proving that Jesus is not the son of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was modeled as a parody of a similar challenge issued by young-earth creationist Kent Hovind.

BTW, both of these prizes are equally impossible to claim in case anyone was wondering. The first one being obvious I would think, but second one has become (by design) impossible to claim, since...

Quote

Hovind has gone, in the course of presenting his offer, from promising money to anyone who can present any scientific evidence for evolution; to demanding scientific evidence of a strawman version of evolution covering numerous branches of science; to demanding not merely evidence, but proof beyond a reasonable doubt; to demanding proof beyond a reasonable doubt that God didn't do everything; to demanding proof beyond a reasonable doubt that God couldn't do anything and, ultimately, to demanding proof beyond a reasonable doubt that God does not exist. At the very least, Hovind's claim that he will pay $250,000 for "any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution" can be said to be deeply deceptive.

the joint

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1020

Quote from: (oYo) on October 30, 2014, 11:30:57 AM

Using your own argument, that would mean that 'god the father' could not exist since he would first need to make the universe and then his son (to be a father). Regardless, I can equally assert that spaghetti exists only because the FSM created it in his own image, the same way christians insist they are created in god's image. No more contradiction. Bottom line is, that when it comes to god, there's no (scientific) way to (prove or) disprove it's existance, regardless of which god(s) your are talking about, which is the whole premise behind Russell's teapot. (Just for sake of argument, you cannot view the entire solar system through the Hubble telescope at once, nevermind a teapot god that may wish to remain undiscovered.)

With all due respect, this discussion only digressed somewhat to semantics since you were implying these terms mean something they do not. I am not arbitrarily saying anything and have already linked sources to the validity my assertions. If you insist you can arbitrarily give words their meanings, then I suppose I have nothing left say.

I'm hardly arbitrarily giving words meaning when I quote the definition of 'god' from a dictionary reference and then apply that definition in context. But, then again, I'm not attempting to prove the existence of God, I'm simply arguing that the FSM is a bad analogy. It's a bad analogy specifically because analogies only work if the characteristics of the things being compared are similar.

You cannot simply substitute one for the other in the same way that you're criticizing my suggestion to arbitrarily slap the term "absolute truth" onto "God," which, by the way, was more of a rebuttal against your original position which wields the FSM as the counterargument to the assertion that God exists. However, I can slap "absolute truth" onto "God" more easily than you can slap FSM onto God.

The FSM has 'spaghetti' and 'monster' in its title, both of which are forms, thereby invoking constraint and eliminating the possibility of omnipresence. Same thing goes for the space teapot. Both of these are things that are assumed to be capable of being observed, but for which we simply have no idea where to look. Conversely, 'god,' whose title invokes no form or condition -- but does invoke omnipotence -- would be able to place constraints upon itself and become an FSM, for example. This is also why God is referred to as 'infinite,' and it's because infinite quite literally means "a lack of definition." God as a whole, by definition, is incapable of being observed, which again would refer to a posteriori knowledge. Instead, God's existence can only be argued for/against based upon a priori knowledge, or knowledge that is independent of observation and experience. As a result, invoking the FSM and space teapot is irrelevant because they're simply inapplicable -- a priori knowledge tells us that invoking an analogue of god requires invoking a formless entity, so you might as well just stick with the word 'god' and argue against that (else you're the one making arbitrary, irrelevant word substitutions).

You mention semantics, and a semantic argument is not necessarily unsound. The reason is because language is not only a descriptor, but it is also that which is descripted -- always. Absolutely anything that is described with language is also a language unto itself as it meets all criteria of the algebraic structure of language (i.e rules of syntax/law, content, and grammar that mediates between the two to make information meaningful). Semantic arguments are simply a different type of argument, and they remain valid if consistent and applied in the appropriate context.

To this end, again, you would be better off not trying to find an analogy to the 'god' concept at all. Also, remember that all of this is only an argument for why the FSM and teapot are poor counterarguments to the assertion God exists, and not an argument for God's existence itself.

TL;DR: In a sentence, the FSM and teapot are invalid despite what you think of Russel because the proposition depends solely on observation, i.e. being able to prove the thing exists through empiricism, a method that's off-the-table for exploring the concept of God.

Decksperiment

sr. member

Activity: 630

Merit: 250

Sure, but would get busted turnin on my system here it's 1:30am, the scum would love nothing better than to tear this place apart.. just to take the decks for 3 months.. I never post my music online due to copyright and the fact that no matter where I post them, I'd probably lose said right's to my own material.. I can however set up an ftp or sumat so ya can get a blast Wink

Edit: Incidently, for those searching google for me, my email is evidence that I own the copyright to the name deckperiment, as does dj magazine, eternity magazine, and a few radio stations, etc etc, but online, I can only be found on certain so called 'pirate' radio site's.. make no mistake, anyone else using this name in music will get sued for copyright if I ever make it as a dj..

vokain

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1019

Ohh, can I hear?

Decksperiment

sr. member

Activity: 630

Merit: 250

Quote from: vokain on October 30, 2014, 09:16:57 PM

Quote from: Decksperiment on October 30, 2014, 09:11:13 PM

I get them all the time.. never read it though..

Ask away, and test my 'god' given knowledge Wink

What's up with your name and avatar? i.e. what do they mean?

And sound is just motion/vibration, right?

I been a scratchmaster playing hardcore dance music for at least 35 years, and am fluent at keepin orbit's in time.. lol.. hence I Decksperiment on decks.. I do have a lovely collection of mixes for sale in any chosen format, which I record in my own studio..

As for the Avatar, twas an interesting story.. on a priv visit to roslin chapel with my kid' mum, (she was baptised/christened in an episcopalian church lol) there is this really old massive wardobe/cupboard, ornatly decorated, and me being inquisitive, decided to see if there was a door behind it lol, and carved in the wall so deep, was the sign of baphomet, I suspect done by crowley, or at least, when I searched the image in google, it came up in one of his books, which incidently had the astrological signs assigned to each of the sacred 5 point's of the star of atlantis, so I created the avatar to show that I know a little of what I'm talking about.. god know's where it's all coming from hough, probably the thousands of books I've read when not mixing Wink

vokain

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1019

Quote from: Decksperiment on October 30, 2014, 09:11:13 PM

I get them all the time.. never read it though..

Ask away, and test my 'god' given knowledge Wink

What's up with your name and avatar? i.e. what do they mean?

And sound is just motion/vibration, right?

Decksperiment

sr. member

Activity: 630

Merit: 250

I get them all the time.. never read it though..

Ask away, and test my 'god' given knowledge Wink

Edit:

And be sure, everything I type is from my head, I do not use the net or books to answer ever.. unless necessary.. Wink

but then it would be stated..

vokain

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1019

Thank you friend

What's your reasoning with Revelations?

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: vokain on October 30, 2014, 08:28:31 PM

Quote from: Decksperiment on October 30, 2014, 08:23:36 PM

Look's interesting, but unless you know the ACTUAL event's involved in the initiations..?

So on the 'Eve' of woman learning the truth, by biting from the tree of knowledge, she learnt a truth she could not handle. Hence the aftermath. This is the significance of the cat. The apple is the PASSWORD that, if you survive the test, get's you your gold star.

I've only experienced a derivative initiation, so my knowledge here is short. Care to point me in the right direction?

an image I just ran into:

Get a copy of the Bible in your native language. Get as modern of a translation as you can, one that emulates the language that you use. Read the Gospels, the first 4 books of the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Then read Genesis, the first book of the Old Testament. Then read the whole New Testament except the Revelation.

Get all of the above firmly set in your mind. Then read the whole Bible over several times, reading the Gospels more frequently.

Decksperiment

sr. member

Activity: 630

Merit: 250

Not heard of it until now, science fiction, or (magic) science?

vokain

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1019

Book of the Devil Valley Master?

Decksperiment

sr. member

Activity: 630

Merit: 250

Quote from: BADecker on October 30, 2014, 08:28:16 PM

Quote from: Decksperiment on October 30, 2014, 08:23:36 PM

Look's interesting, but unless you know the ACTUAL event's involved in the initiations..?

So on the 'Eve' of woman learning the truth, by biting from the tree of knowledge, she learnt a truth she could not handle. Hence the aftermath. This is the significance of the cat. The apple is the PASSWORD that, if you survive the test, get's you your gold star.

No, she learned that there are consequences for disobeying God. But she also learned that God was willing to take care of her, and fix the consequences. But she would have to do it God's way... through pain in this life, and death.

She will be raised to a new life with God in the new heavens and new earth He will create.

And got sent to the kitchen.. At one point they blamed man for this. They get rid of the man, but are still stuck in the kitchen.. this is why you should'nt argue with a woman, the truth men know, most woman cannot comprehend, for it makes no sense, in that they are reminded of 'eve's mistake. Not in a literal sense.. thay just cant handle when they tell a wee white lie (honest adam, it was you who bit from the apple, look, it's stuck in your throat) and you correct them with the truth, that eve swallowed..

This post is just takin the piss by the way Wink

Decksperiment

sr. member

Activity: 630

Merit: 250

Cool pic, shame the auld git did'nt know darkness IS conciousnous, as stated, there are 9 above (flame, form and mind, then the 7 planet's, and 14 below. These are level's of consciousnous, we only know of how many?) In another thread I mentioned woman does not have the faculty for the truth.. someone asked what book I got that from.. agrippa.. that's how long this has been known. The same book that talks of the lodestone crossing land to get to iron.

Badecker, you can argue the significance of the tree of igdrasil, the djed pillar, apprentice pillar, or apple tree, the 'may' pole to the totem pole all ya want, but until you accept the PASSWORD to get passed your current level of knowledge is 'apple', you probably need that book Wink

See, at one point, man was the builder.. woman did the woman thing's.. until one bit from the tree of knowledge.. strange how everyone hate's mason's, but no man talks of the sisters? Strange how when women dump their husband's, they STILL sit i the kitchen huh? Cause they were gobsmacked when Eve found the password herself.

vokain

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1019

Quote from: Decksperiment on October 30, 2014, 08:23:36 PM

Look's interesting, but unless you know the ACTUAL event's involved in the initiations..?

So on the 'Eve' of woman learning the truth, by biting from the tree of knowledge, she learnt a truth she could not handle. Hence the aftermath. This is the significance of the cat. The apple is the PASSWORD that, if you survive the test, get's you your gold star.

I've only experienced a derivative initiation, so my knowledge here is short. Care to point me in the right direction?

an image I just ran into:

Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 418. (Read 845565 times)