How much of whatsupyall/musclemans's posts do u comprehend?

[Frencheneesz]

MarkAC:

"I personally consider an attempt at an insult to be one where you describe a characteristic which is untrue of the person."

Ok, well Ill give you my definition of an insult, and you can tell me whether it would be reasonable to avoid doing it: insult is a verbage of truth, untruth, or opinion that is said in a way that connotates disrespect, insolence, or the idea that that truth or untruth is "bad".

"I will not re-articulate anything for anyone. My posts are as clear as day if you readd them in context. You do the same thing with the Bible."

If I ask, you will still not? That is a but bull-headed. And the bible is definately NOT clear as day. I have seen many people that have told me that I can't read the bible litterally, and by that premise, the bible is not straight forward.

"Here again we need to have a consensus on word definitions before we can argue "

Agreed.

"Some religions might claim that for their god French: Not Christianity."

You're telling me that christianity does not believe that god is at least as old as the universe? Then when do they suppose GOD was created?

"So you say science is reliable according to your definition."

You can hardly argue with this. Almost every claimed experiment can be and has been reproduced with near perfect accuracy hundreds or times or more. You can't get more consistent than EVERY TIME.

"Thus when you say you rely on your spouse to be faithful it is due to the statistics? You have no trust in your spouse?"

Reliable means "trustable for the reason of statistical consisancy". TO rely means " to trust for the reason of statistical consisancy". In you're spouce example, you are -technically- using the wrong word, but we all know what you mean. If we are to battle over words, then the personal meaning doesn't matter, while the definition is everything. TECHNICALLY, you cannot rely on you're spouce until it has shown statistical consistancy to be faithful. Perhaps they have been faithful for the past month, then you can rely.

"I open my mind to many possibilities. 'MOST LIKELY' has one meaning; DOESN'T another. I consider this notion strange because we know so little. You state you belive God doesn't exist."

You obviously do not understand the idea of probability. My mind is quite open to many possibilities. There is a possibility that a cat is floating in space right now, and is in the process of dying yet is not dead yet. Ill believe it when you show me proof, until then i'm going to have to doubt it.

"Here you illustrate your faith in the laws of nature. The laws of nature have not come close to explaining many observed phenomena."

Damn, you have definitions screwed up. The laws of nature have not EVER been understood completely. The laws of nature govern ALL OF NATURE. What WE have is laws of SCIENCE, these laws will never be entirely proven and are in the process of becoming more like the laws of nature. Do you understand what the laws of nature are now? Science is there to discover nature, nature does not explain science.

"I would be supernatural [caused by something beyond your reality]. You would've thought that your world was the only thing - but you realise that there is something out there."

In light of my definition of "laws of nature", you should see that I would understand that whatever touched my screen is natural, but it might SEEM supernatural. Something can only SEEM supernatural, not BE it.

"I don't know about other religions but Christianity doesn't attempt to explain anything. It presents the absolute truth."

Can you please agree that IF IF IF god has not talked to me (an if I believe) THEN I have no reason to believe that the bible is absolute truth? The church and you BELIEVE that the bible is absolute truth right? BUT you MUST agree that because you BELIEVE that does not make it true, right? Just because I BELIEVE in my senses, does not mean that there isn the possibility that they are invalid doesn't exist. I believe in my senses because I have no other choice.

 

[Frencheneesz]

"The statement "the scientific method is the only reliable means of obtaining knowledge of the world" is itself a statement which can not be known through the scientific method."

The scientific method is definately NOT the ONLY reliable means of obtaining knowlege, HOWEVER it is ONE way of obtaining it. Therefore, if you refute knolege GAINED by the scientific method, you'd better have some back up evidence yourself!


"To disagree with science, is to disagree with reason itself."

Science = the gaining and categorizing of knowlege. By that equality, that statement is true, do you disagree. By my definition, science encompasses ALL of reason, SO you cannot find reason OUTSIDE science, it simply cannot be. Whatever is reason is in the relm of science. ITs a simple matter of definition.

"None of these things are things that can be verified scientifically, but that does not seem to make any of them any less meaningful or less knowable. "

This is incorrect. We may not NOW be able to tell scientifically whether someone is in love with you, but later we probably will. For the others:

"How do you know that things like racism and the killing of innocent people are wrong? How can you verify scientifically that life is meaningful and worth getting up in the morning for?"

These are both oppinions and have no relevance whatsoever to truth. Killing "innocent" people is NOT NECCESSARILY WRONG! It is a matter of opinion, and majority vote does not change that it is opinion. Opinions are not reason, they are not in science. You can explain WHY someone might have the oppinion using science, but the opinion itself is outside of science. Arguing opinions is not relevant at all.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Originally posted by inspector
this is maybe why we would consider science to be the most logical explanation and religion the most illogical.
----------------------



Second, this position is false because it contradicts many things in our own experience. How do you know that you are in love with someone or that someone genuinely loves you? How do you know that things like racism and the killing of innocent people are wrong? How can you verify scientifically that life is meaningful and worth getting up in the morning for? None of these things are things that can be verified scientifically, but that does not seem to make any of them any less meaningful or less knowable.



><>

the questions you raise here are not about the nature of the world around us, but about the nature of the human brain and human social conditioning. Some scientist do actually research these things.

 

[MarcAC]

French

A Timeline

"the cat was actually created after the universe... unless of course you are going to tell me that the age of the universe is the age of the cat? - oh brother."

That is exactly what you claim for god. Oh brother is right

That is blatantly incorrect. Oh brother! Some religions might claim that for their god French: Not Christianity.

You're telling me that christianity does not believe that god is at least as old as the universe? Then when do they suppose GOD was created?

Now
Do you see your error French? God is infinite. No beginning - no end.

You can hardly argue with this. Almost every claimed experiment can be and has been reproduced with near perfect accuracy hundreds or times or more. You can't get more consistent than EVERY TIME.

Really? Hundreds of times with near perfect 'accuracy'? Well wow, I didn't know that [I guess I'm not God who knows everything]. If that were the case science wouldn't be in the fragmented state it is in now my dear friend.

Reliable means "trustable for the reason of statistical consisancy". TO rely means " to trust for the reason of statistical consisancy". In you're spouce example, you are -technically- using the wrong word, but we all know what you mean. If we are to battle over words, then the personal meaning doesn't matter, while the definition is everything. TECHNICALLY, you cannot rely on you're spouce until it has shown statistical consistancy to be faithful. Perhaps they have been faithful for the past month, then you can rely.

You should have a very interesting relationship with your spouse French.

You obviously do not understand the idea of probability. My mind is quite open to many possibilities. There is a possibility that a cat is floating in space right now, and is in the process of dying yet is not dead yet. Ill believe it when you show me proof, until then i'm going to have to doubt it.

So here are you going to say no a cat isn't floating in space as you say God doesn't exist? Or are you going to say it is possible but I don't know? Here I see a hint of dogmatism IF you are going to say you doubt it so no it can't be - and dogmatism illustrates a narrow mind.

Anything that exists has its own laws. Those are the laws of nature. In the laws of nature, anything can be defined. The laws of nature encompass EVERYTHING that can exist.

Damn, you have definitions screwed up. The laws of nature have not EVER been understood completely. The laws of nature govern ALL OF NATURE.

Fine, if you say so. I misunderstood your previous post. You seem to assert a lot about something not completely understood. Well as a Christian I know God controls the 'laws of nature' by your definition - thus God is supernatural. The inadequacy of our system of explanation [science which is so reliable] is manifest in the occurence of what are labelled as supernatural phenomena. Anyway, I understand and respect your position - please attemp to do likewise.

BUT you MUST agree that because you BELIEVE that does not make it true, right?

If I believe the Bible is absolute truth the corollary is that I have to accept it as true, right? Hope you see the futility in arguing this point. I cannot believe in my senses. I merely trust them. And there are many choices, but that's for another forum

 

[Frencheneesz]

MarcAC:

"Do you see your error French? God is infinite. No beginning - no end. "

The only reason I argue definitions is because I either think that you do not understand me, OR that I do not understand you. I'm pretty sure you could understand what I meant. I meant that god WAS THERE when the universe started just as my cat WAS THERE when the universe started in my pseudo-proposition. Lets just say I said that the cat was "infinite" as you say, would there be more evidence for god or for the cat?

"Really? Hundreds of times with near perfect 'accuracy'?"

Please don't do that. If you understand what I mean, don't insult me, thank you very much. I meant precision. Can't you be a little understanding?

"If that were the case science wouldn't be in the fragmented state it is in now my dear friend"

What fragmented state is science in right now my "dear friend"?

"You should have a very interesting relationship with your spouse French. "

Insults and quibs. Great and more great. If I ever say something like this, it serves to illustrate a point. You seem to just want to insult me here. And no its not in my head, YOU give the connotation of me having some kind of bizzare phycology. I don't need this.

"no a cat isn't floating in space as you say God doesn't exist? Or are you going to say it is possible but I don't know?"

I'm going to have to say I don't know, but you seem to miss the point I am making about probability. Probability connects "I don't know" with "I know for certain". any % probability means that you don't know exactly, but you know a bit about it. I can say that PROBABLY a cat isn't floating in space. To illustrate the reasoning behind this would probably take me through much of my entire library of knowlege and most of my way of reasoning. In other words, It would take forever. My brain is ready to connect new sights with old memories, giving me quick decisions based on past experiences. From past experience I have learned that If a cat goes into space, most likely many people have heard about it. If something dies while on such important errands, most people will likely hear about it. I haven't heard about it, and If I try to ask people, they don't think so, SO I can safely say taht PROBABLY the cat did not go in space and is dying right now. VERY improbable.

"IF you are going to say you doubt it so no it can't be"

I don't use that logic, I merely doubt and thats it. God most certainly CAN be, yet the probabilty is low. Thus my doubt is high.

"God controls the 'laws of nature' by your definition - thus God is supernatural."

By the definition of nature and laws of nature, god CANNOT control the laws of nature. He may use them to control the world, but not the laws of the world. God can be explained by scientific means, even if you have to accept that the laws governing god may be infinite. Surely you can understand the possibiltiy for an infinity of laws governing an infinite creature.

"I cannot believe in my senses. I merely trust them."

Don't get me wrong, but "believe in" and "trust" are synonyms... Perhaps you mean you cannot rely in your sense by you can trust them?

 

[whatsupyall]

God, its the giant purple squid monkey and fuzzy pink elephant argument again. Prove to me that fuzzy cat monkey dont exist, and that has the same amount of evidence as for God very very stupid kids..
O my God, MarkAc, please deal with this child swiftly and smoothly, this kid needs to learn...Giant purple squid monkey... No wonder why they are atheist, no solid arguments.......

 

[Maia]

whatsup with you and blandly ignoring arguments you can't refute? You're so bad it's almost like an antichristian acting out a stereotype.

 

[whatsupyall]

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13476&pagenumber=3

Miai, child, read the post I typed there, it answers that pathetic "prove my unicorn dont exist and giant purple squidmonkey thingy" argument......LOL, which is by the way is atheism's BEST argument, how lame...

 

[Maia]

Still eluding arguments you can't stand against. Look, it's not that hard. Mount a decent logical argument. And can't you spell my name right?? Miai?? It's four friggin letters. Ah, senility.

 

[Voodoo Child]

I looked at the thread, tragic though it was.

Your arguments:

1) weeping statues, faith healing, testimony

First, you have prove the statues are not weeping because of some naturalistic reason. Secondly, hindu and buddhist statues weep so you're screwed. Faith healing falls to the same arguments, basically. Also you have to prove that it isn't super intelligent aliens, other Gods, Satan who are doing this.

Testimony is bollocks as well. Firstly, they have no actual proof so its basically argumentum ad populum. Besides, a minority of the world's people believe in the Christian God. Since the majority don't it follows that he can't exist right?

The second bit is confusing: you seem to be misapplying the principle of causality to an abstract idea like intelligence. My intelligence has increased throughout my life without violating cause and effect. By following your "logic" you might say that the cause of man is apes. Apes are less intellligent than humans, but the evolutionary process didn't violate causality.

This was an enjoyable exercise in absurdity.

 

[Xelios]

"whatsupyall
12-06-02 02:50 AM This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click [here] "

Aww man, I was beginning to think he left

 

[Xelios]

hmm, that sounds a lot like:

ARGUMENT FROM SPAGHETTI
(1) A few people saw something weird in a bowl of spaghetti.
(2) Some Catholics believe that it is the Virgin Mary.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

and

ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES
(1) My aunt had cancer.
(2) The doctors gave her all these horrible treatments.
(3) My aunt prayed to God and now she doesn't have cancer.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

oh and here's one whatsupyall uses quite a bit

ARGUMENT FROM UPPERCASE ASSERTION
(1) GOD EXISTS! GET USED TO IT!
(2) Therefore, God exists.

 

[ThatJerk]

ARGUMENT FROM SPAGHETTI
(1) A few people saw something weird in a bowl of spaghetti.
(2) Some Catholics believe that it is the Virgin Mary.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

Uh oh... does this mean the Holy Virgin I saw in my bowl of KD is a deception of Satan? I can almost smell the brimstone already...

 

[whatsupyall]

hmm....

ARGUMENT FROM STUPIDITY.
(1) A few people realized their life sucks.
(2) Some of them believe that God dont exist.
(3) Therefore, God dont exists.

and

ARGUMENT FROM "CHANCE"..
(1) My aunt had incurable cancer.
(2) The doctors gave her all these modern medical treatments, but my aunt is still sick and was given few days to live.
(3) My aunt prayed to God and now she doesn't have cancer.
(4) Therefore, God dont exists, and her cancer dissappeared by "chance".

oh and here's one atheists uses quite a bit

ARGUMENT FROM UPPERCASE ASSERTION
(1) GOD DONT EXISTS! GET USED TO IT!
(2) Therefore, God dont exists.

 

[Maia]

ARGUMENT FROM STUPIDITY.
(1) A few people realized their life sucks.
(2) Some of them believe that God dont exist.
(3) Therefore, God dont exists.

Or you could fill "God don't exist" with "God exists" and the stupidity wouldn't change. Shows shaky faith, someone who changes faith during crisis.

ARGUMENT FROM "CHANCE"..
(1) My aunt had incurable cancer.
(2) The doctors gave her all these modern medical treatments, but my aunt is still sick and was given few days to live.
(3) My aunt prayed to God and now she doesn't have cancer.
(4) Therefore, God dont exists, and her cancer dissappeared by "chance".

No...that's not chance...that's an effect of the interaction of psychology and the body that current medicine does not know about yet. And no, you can't stick god into it. There must be reproduceable experimental results for it to be considered scientific and therefore be accepted.

oh and here's one atheists uses quite a bit

ARGUMENT FROM UPPERCASE ASSERTION
(1) GOD DONT EXISTS! GET USED TO IT!
(2) Therefore, God dont exists.

Or..."god exists! Get used to it! Therefore god exists." Sound vaguely familiar there, grumpy old man?

 

[MarcAC]

When you look for evidence you will find it...

Lets just say I said that the cat was "infinite" as you say, would there be more evidence for god or for the cat?

There would be overwhelming evidence for the mortal nature of the cat. This is a bad comparison. Let's not continue it. Please - for your own good and mine.

Please don't do that. If you understand what I mean, don't insult me, thank you very much. I meant precision. Can't you be a little understanding?

What fragmented state is science in right now my "dear friend"?

Here French you insulted yourself, that was not meant as an insult. O.k.? Science is becoming more precise. The disparities in astrnomical measurements sometimes vary by a factor of 2. Dating methods by a factor of two although it is becoming more precise. There are many rival theories concerning our entire cosmogony. Varying notions are inherrent within logic itself. Scientists are still working on their models which will unify astrphysics and quantum physics. <----- That fragmented state French.

Insults and quibs. Great and more great. If I ever say something like this, it serves to illustrate a point. You seem to just want to insult me here. And no its not in my head, YOU give the connotation of me having some kind of bizzare phycology. I don't need this

What??? You see an insult in the word interesting right? Well you are the pundit on definitions. Please use your expertise there. Here again you insult yourself with your notion of your idea. But yes it was to illustrate how impractical your definition is outside of the scientificc realm. You have obviously realised that. No insult intended.

I can say that PROBABLY a cat isn't floating in space. To illustrate the reasoning behind this would probably take me through much of my entire library of knowlege and most of my way of reasoning.

SO I can safely say taht PROBABLY the cat did not go in space and is dying right now. VERY improbable.

How vast is your library of knowledge French? Very improbable according to your guess - but still possible. Do you see how unwise it is to 'not believe' as opposed to being 'open to the possibility'?

God most certainly CAN be, yet the probabilty is low. Thus my doubt is high.

So you don't believe He exists. As you yourself illustrated many things "didn't exist" 2000 years ago. And yet they do now. Now IF [to humour you] God exists and you die before you can muster the courage and faith to believe in Him you are going to an eternal hell. And to scare you more [for Hindus you might return as a cat so that someone can run their car over you nine times and make your tongue stick out your butt or send you into space and make your lungs hang out of your mouth like the tongue of a panting dog]. This is where I have a higher probability of avoiding that than you do.

By the definition of nature and laws of nature, god CANNOT control the laws of nature. He may use them to control the world, but not the laws of the world. God can be explained by scientific means, even if you have to accept that the laws governing god may be infinite. Surely you can understand the possibiltiy for an infinity of laws governing an infinite creature.

The only elements of the paragraph I agree with is the spelling god. About infinite laws governing an infiinite creature - I'm 'agnostic' there. I just know that omnipotence means nothing governs God

Don't get me wrong, but "believe in" and "trust" are synonyms... Perhaps you mean you cannot rely in your sense by you can trust them?

Let's not get too technical. Belief is a complete trust. I merely trust my senses. I don't believe in them. [COLOR=orange-red]God is there. He will not 'force Himself on you'. He requires that you seek Him. When you seek Him with the proper motives - you will find Him. Then you will find your proof.[/COLOR]

Matthew 7:7-11Ask and you will recieve. Search and you will find. Knock and the door will be opened for you. Everyone who asks will recieve. Everyone who searches will find. And the door will be opened for everyone who knocks. Would any of you give your hungry child a stone if the child asked for some bread? Would you give your child a snake if the child asked for a fish? As bad as you are, you still know to give good gifts to your children. But your heavenly Father is even more ready to give good things to people who ask.

 

[MarcAC]

Quite Relevant!

No...that's not chance...that's an effect of the interaction of psychology and the body that current medicine does not know about yet. And no, you can't stick god into it. There must be reproduceable experimental results for it to be considered scientific and therefore be accepted.

Thus they don't know about it yet but they know that it has to do with psychology. Such faith in their suppositions. When you stick the supernatural into it is when it cannot be explained by medicine - yet. Until medicine explains it the supernatural is quite relevant.

 

[Maia]

'Supernatural' is only relevant in the sense that 'supernatural' is simply another word for something not yet understood by science. It is most certainly NOT relevant when we use 'supernatural' to mean something caused by divine means.

 

[Frencheneesz]

"The disparities in astrnomical measurements sometimes vary by a factor of 2."

what do you mean by a "factor of 2"?

"Scientists are still working on their models which will unify astrphysics and quantum physics. <----- That fragmented state French."

Right right. But this in no way shows any evidence for god, it only shows that we obviously do not have perfect understanding of the laws of nature. If you have ever taken calculus, then you might remember that the derivitive of x^a "is" ax^(a-1). But this is the imprecise definition, because it only works sometimes. Other times we might say more precisely that x^a = a/x + a'(ln(x)) which works in many more cases. When a is not a constant the first assertation is wrong. Whether a is not a constant or a constant, however, the second one works fine. This is the more complicated yet more precise laws of nature that we have not discovered yet. And this is why some laws do not correlate between theories, yet still work in their own sense.

"Here again you insult yourself with your notion of your idea. But yes it was to illustrate how impractical your definition is outside of the scientificc realm."

That is precisely why I take it as an insult. It shows that YOUR opinion is that something about me is bad. That is an insult. I don't know where you get your definitions but if you are going to show-your-opinion-that-you-think-something-about-me-is-bad, i.e. insult, to me then please please give some supporting evidence for that.

"Do you see how unwise it is to 'not believe' as opposed to being 'open to the possibility'?"

I see what you are saying. HOWEVER, I can not believe AND be open to the possibility at the same time. I am not going to believe it just because the possibility is open. A cat could very well be in space right now, but I don't believe that, do you? Like I said, ill believe it when I see it (or am proven about it).

"This is where I have a higher probability of avoiding that than you do."

I know how you are thinking about this. BUT if you really look at all the possibilities, there are just as many possibilities that god sends people who believe in him to eternal damnation as there are possibilities that god only sends people who don't believe in him. I suppose that just by the sheer numbers of people who believe in a "good" god, that there is just a smidgen more evidence of that than a god we might consider to be less so. But the idea of a "good" god seems to be quite fuzzy. He does stuff that is "good" yet we might or might not consider it so.

"I just know that omnipotence means nothing governs God"

If that is your definition, than omnipotence cannot exist. If nothing governs god, then he is random, which would actually make sense according to quantum mechanics. But in that case, he would cease to be intelligent and be analogous to nature itself.

"I merely trust my senses. I don't believe in them."

How is that? I think I trust my senses quite completely. If you do not trust your senses completely than you cannot trust completely in god. Only through your senses can you gain knowlege and alter yourself like that.

"Thus they don't know about it yet but they know that it has to do with psychology. Such faith in their suppositions."

Correct, we do not know. But we cannot say that it is god, can we? We can believe that it is one or the other, but that is not evidence of anything. The reason we believe that it could be phychology is because we know THAT exists and so it is a probability. The reason we reject something about god, is because we have no conclusive evidence of his existance and so he is not a probability, only, so far, a possibility.

 

[MarcAC]

Originally posted by Maia
It is most certainly NOT relevant when we use 'supernatural' to mean something caused by divine means.

How so?