• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged A Proof of the Existence of God / Did Someone Create the Universe?

aleCcowaN said:
I agree. I plan to quote some of those forgotten posts at regular intervals to remind everyone they remain unanswered and how Buddha's resembles Dale Carnegie's more than Popper's.

Users like Jabba or Buddha represent a sociological problem and I agree it's our chore to explain their "selling" methods to the general public.

It's a pity his booklet on evolution doesn't even serve such purpose as a result of adding weak and lackadaisical to wrong. I was tempted to start a thread about it in the science section but, what's the use?
Click to expand...

Whatever it is, it sure aint science.

And as I've mentioned I apply a very liberal definition to 'science'!
 
Eagle-eyed readers may notice some posts missing; they have been moved to a new thread here.
Posted By: Agatha
 
P.J. Denyer said:
I like to imagine that our universe is the result of an industrial process in another, greater, universe. The equivalent of the heat in a spot weld on a production line and a super dimensional blue collar worker is eating his transdimensional mega sandwich, picking his nose and scratching his butt while he awaits the entropy death of our universe so he can chip off the slag and pass the part on to the next station on the production line. Little knowing that he is worshiped as all present, all knowing and all powerful by beings so tiny that even their galaxy is submicroscopic to him.

(Note: This may not be an accurate reflection of current views in cosmology, or theology either but who gives a monkeys what they think?!)
Click to expand...

Hey, I like it!!!!!
 
Buddha said:
You say that you learned positivism. Prove it. Name the books written by prominent positivists that you read. Have you read "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" by Wittgenstein?_
Click to expand...

And now we've hit the "not a real fan" stage of the debate. Hipster jokes to the left, Fake-Gamer-Girl memes to the right.

We have a "gatekeeper" folks, and not just a gatekeeper, but a comically ignorant gatekeeper. What we have here is the philosophical equivalent of a "Real Star Wars" fan who's never heard of the Extended Universe books and who thinks the "Star Wars Holiday Special" is an urban legend, despite being able to buy it on Rifftrax.com. We're talking a level of delusion and ignorance comparable to thinking the original Star Wars trilogy came out in the 1990's to cash in on decades of toy sales, and who openly mocks the intelligence of anyone who points out the original movie came out in the 1970's.
 
Buddha said:
There is a philosophical system, the name of which I forgot, whose proponents claim that after creating the universe God removed himself from it. Perhaps, you should ask their opinion on this topic.
If you read my article carefully, you will see that the third scenario doesn't require a videotape.
Click to expand...

Deism. It's called Deism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

A person claiming they can prove the universe was created by a deity, and who claims they can prove said deity is real, doesn't know what deism is.

To go back to my Star Wars analogy, this is a bit like a Real Star Wars FanTM who doesn't know who Han Solo is.

I Am The Scum said:
It's like Jabba, but with hubris.
Click to expand...

And even less comprehension.
 
Buddha said:
Unfortunately I do not have time to answer to all posts. I choose the ones presented by the smartest opponents. I am sorry if you are not one of them.
Click to expand...

BWHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

That's a bald faced lie and I think you know it. You chose to respond to the answers you thought you could spin. You're ignoring a good many substantive posts in what appears to be a rather pathetic attempt to avoid issues you simply don't have answers for.

Buddha said:
If you were immortal you wouldn't have a problem with my proof.
Click to expand...

Being immortal has had no impact upon my viewing your "proof" as lazily excreted, rotting garbage beneath contempt.
 
halleyscomet said:
Deism. It's called Deism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

A person claiming they can prove the universe was created by a deity, and who claims they can prove said deity is real, doesn't know what deism is.

To go back to my Star Wars analogy, this is a bit like a Real Star Wars FanTM who doesn't know who Han Solo is.
Click to expand...
Yeah, how is it that "Deism" is a far distant country to Buddha? I don't know the answer to that. I struggle with the notion that any theist would pretend to be innocent of the concept of deism while also claiming to have studied such concepts.


halleyscomet said:
And even less comprehension.
Click to expand...
Odd that.
 
Buddha said:
Infinite library of videotapes is the best possible scenario that assumes existence of an observer. For a positivist this is the requirement, if there is no observer the theory is false right from the start, one doesn't have to prove it.
Once the first two scenarios are excluded, the third one is automatically true.
Click to expand...

No, really. That's not how evidence works.
 
Buddha said:
For a positivist this is the requirement, if there is no observer the theory is false right from the start, one doesn't have to prove it.
Click to expand...

Then you're assuming the consequent. The only observer who could have been present at the creation of the universe is the creator. Therefore the existence of a creator is one of the axioms of your proof of the existence of a creator. You're begging the question.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Then you're assuming the consequent. The only observer who could have been present at the creation of the universe is the creator. Therefore the existence of a creator is one of the axioms of your proof of the existence of a creator. You're begging the question.
Click to expand...

Well, in various philosophical traditions the observer can be hypothetical so that he can observe things that otherwise wouldn't be directly observable, such as an Einsteinian "observer" that can right light waves. What they mean in most cases is that there just has to be something to observe. But you're onto something. Buddha's scenarios are carefully contrived to have the exact mix of hypothetical allowances and practical limitations to make his proof seem like it works. Hypothetically speaking, the evidence showing the origin of the universe is set to be analogous to a videotape, limited in other words to sequential playback and subject speed but magically capacious enough to hold all the evidence. Then the punchline of his proof is that such a volume of evidence would be too much for the human observer to review in a lifetime. Now all of a sudden the human observer's limitations become important. The modeling and encapsulation of the evidence can be as hypothetical as it needs to be, but the observer modeled to be able to digest it in the contrived form suddenly has limitations, and those limitations -- i.e., properties of the model, not of the thing being modeled -- are what his proof hangs on. So yes, he's begging the question in a sense, because he's built his thought experiment to have exactly the properties it needs in order to make his proof come out the way he wants.

In the immortality thread Jabba tried to hide his begged questions in math he hoped no one would understand well enough to refute him. Buddha is hiding his begged questions in esoteric philosophy he hopes no one understands well enough to refute him. That's I think why he's clinging so desperately to the gaslighting ploy of making sure his critics know he's so much smarter and better read that they, and that he doesn't have time to go into as much depth as they have.

Now if I remember correctly, in some prototypical forms of positivism the observer was literally limited to the human senses. But for obvious reasons that doesn't lead to a model of knowledge that has much use outside of coffeehouse musings. It's why I asked whether it would take 50 years to prove someone's claim to be 50 years old. In the least useful philosophical models that's what would have to happen. The only way someone could prove he's 50 years old is to cause his entire lifespan to be continuously observed from his birth. In that model, it would be impossible for someone who's only 30 years old to know -- the way these models define knowledge -- that anyone was 50 years old. It would then have to use some sort of testimonial or propositional evidence, which strict positivists reject as a basis for knowledge. This may be what Buddha means when he says not everyone will accept his proof. We would reject it because it relies on the all-too-apparent limitations of the dark dusty corners of some brands of philosophy. And why he correctly notes that some later philosophers have rejected them. To accept such a philosophy to its furthest extent would have to conclude that all modern science is incapable of knowing anything, which is sometimes what claimants at ISF are trying to prove.

And the notion that a proposition is false if it that cannot be verified according to those limitations falls pretty flat. The truth value of the propositions are what those philosophies seek as a matter of knowledge. When knowledge is modeled as only what can be verified by some empiricism, asserting the falsity of an empirically unverifiable proposition is an error. They correctly say that the truth value of such propositions cannot be known -- in effect that the propositions should be regarded meaningless as knowledge. This is what Phiwum and others were trying to get Buddha to see as a contradiction in his proof. The effect of empiricism varies in his proof depending on what role he needs to to play so that it comes out right.

And in the broadest sense this makes Buddha's proof fall into the standard pattern of fringe claimants. They want to prove something they know they can't prove directly. So they try to prove it indirectly by deducing what "must" (or can) hold if the prevailing narrative cannot hold. Then they propose to refute the prevailing narrative by one contrived method and standard of proof, making sure not to hold their desired conclusion to the same standard. A different standard, if any, is proposed instead. Buddha contrives a method to disprove competing explanations for the origin of the universe, but then when we try to hold his deduced finding -- a created universe -- to the same standard, he handwaves it away with some pseudo-philosophy mumbo jumbo he insists his critics aren't smart enough to understand. Then he says "further" proofs are necessary, tailored only to that conclusion.
 
JayUtah said:
Well, in various philosophical traditions the observer can be hypothetical so that he can observe things that otherwise wouldn't be directly observable, such as an Einsteinian "observer" that can right light waves. What they mean in most cases is that there just has to be something to observe. But you're onto something. Buddha's scenarios are carefully contrived to have the exact mix of hypothetical allowances and practical limitations to make his proof seem like it works. Hypothetically speaking, the evidence showing the origin of the universe is set to be analogous to a videotape, limited in other words to sequential playback and subject speed but magically capacious enough to hold all the evidence. Then the punchline of his proof is that such a volume of evidence would be too much for the human observer to review in a lifetime. Now all of a sudden the human observer's limitations become important. The modeling and encapsulation of the evidence can be as hypothetical as it needs to be, but the observer modeled to be able to digest it in the contrived form suddenly has limitations, and those limitations -- i.e., properties of the model, not of the thing being modeled -- are what his proof hangs on. So yes, he's begging the question in a sense, because he's built his thought experiment to have exactly the properties it needs in order to make his proof come out the way he wants.

In the immortality thread Jabba tried to hide his begged questions in math he hoped no one would understand well enough to refute him. Buddha is hiding his begged questions in esoteric philosophy he hopes no one understands well enough to refute him. That's I think why he's clinging so desperately to the gaslighting ploy of making sure his critics know he's so much smarter and better read that they, and that he doesn't have time to go into as much depth as they have.

Now if I remember correctly, in some prototypical forms of positivism the observer was literally limited to the human senses. But for obvious reasons that doesn't lead to a model of knowledge that has much use outside of coffeehouse musings. It's why I asked whether it would take 50 years to prove someone's claim to be 50 years old. In the least useful philosophical models that's what would have to happen. The only way someone could prove he's 50 years old is to cause his entire lifespan to be continuously observed from his birth. In that model, it would be impossible for someone who's only 30 years old to know -- the way these models define knowledge -- that anyone was 50 years old. It would then have to use some sort of testimonial or propositional evidence, which strict positivists reject as a basis for knowledge. This may be what Buddha means when he says not everyone will accept his proof. We would reject it because it relies on the all-too-apparent limitations of the dark dusty corners of some brands of philosophy. And why he correctly notes that some later philosophers have rejected them. To accept such a philosophy to its furthest extent would have to conclude that all modern science is incapable of knowing anything, which is sometimes what claimants at ISF are trying to prove.

And the notion that a proposition is false if it that cannot be verified according to those limitations falls pretty flat. The truth value of the propositions are what those philosophies seek as a matter of knowledge. When knowledge is modeled as only what can be verified by some empiricism, asserting the falsity of an empirically unverifiable proposition is an error. They correctly say that the truth value of such propositions cannot be known -- in effect that the propositions should be regarded meaningless as knowledge. This is what Phiwum and others were trying to get Buddha to see as a contradiction in his proof. The effect of empiricism varies in his proof depending on what role he needs to to play so that it comes out right.

And in the broadest sense this makes Buddha's proof fall into the standard pattern of fringe claimants. They want to prove something they know they can't prove directly. So they try to prove it indirectly by deducing what "must" (or can) hold if the prevailing narrative cannot hold. Then they propose to refute the prevailing narrative by one contrived method and standard of proof, making sure not to hold their desired conclusion to the same standard. A different standard, if any, is proposed instead. Buddha contrives a method to disprove competing explanations for the origin of the universe, but then when we try to hold his deduced finding -- a created universe -- to the same standard, he handwaves it away with some pseudo-philosophy mumbo jumbo he insists his critics aren't smart enough to understand. Then he says "further" proofs are necessary, tailored only to that conclusion.
Click to expand...
Spot on.
 
JayUtah said:
Well, in various philosophical traditions the observer can be hypothetical so that he can observe things that otherwise wouldn't be directly observable, such as an Einsteinian "observer" that can right light waves. What they mean in most cases is that there just has to be something to observe. But you're onto something. Buddha's scenarios are carefully contrived to have the exact mix of hypothetical allowances and practical limitations to make his proof seem like it works. Hypothetically speaking, the evidence showing the origin of the universe is set to be analogous to a videotape, limited in other words to sequential playback and subject speed but magically capacious enough to hold all the evidence. Then the punchline of his proof is that such a volume of evidence would be too much for the human observer to review in a lifetime. Now all of a sudden the human observer's limitations become important. The modeling and encapsulation of the evidence can be as hypothetical as it needs to be, but the observer modeled to be able to digest it in the contrived form suddenly has limitations, and those limitations -- i.e., properties of the model, not of the thing being modeled -- are what his proof hangs on. So yes, he's begging the question in a sense, because he's built his thought experiment to have exactly the properties it needs in order to make his proof come out the way he wants.

In the immortality thread Jabba tried to hide his begged questions in math he hoped no one would understand well enough to refute him. Buddha is hiding his begged questions in esoteric philosophy he hopes no one understands well enough to refute him. That's I think why he's clinging so desperately to the gaslighting ploy of making sure his critics know he's so much smarter and better read that they, and that he doesn't have time to go into as much depth as they have.

Now if I remember correctly, in some prototypical forms of positivism the observer was literally limited to the human senses. But for obvious reasons that doesn't lead to a model of knowledge that has much use outside of coffeehouse musings. It's why I asked whether it would take 50 years to prove someone's claim to be 50 years old. In the least useful philosophical models that's what would have to happen. The only way someone could prove he's 50 years old is to cause his entire lifespan to be continuously observed from his birth. In that model, it would be impossible for someone who's only 30 years old to know -- the way these models define knowledge -- that anyone was 50 years old. It would then have to use some sort of testimonial or propositional evidence, which strict positivists reject as a basis for knowledge. This may be what Buddha means when he says not everyone will accept his proof. We would reject it because it relies on the all-too-apparent limitations of the dark dusty corners of some brands of philosophy. And why he correctly notes that some later philosophers have rejected them. To accept such a philosophy to its furthest extent would have to conclude that all modern science is incapable of knowing anything, which is sometimes what claimants at ISF are trying to prove.

And the notion that a proposition is false if it that cannot be verified according to those limitations falls pretty flat. The truth value of the propositions are what those philosophies seek as a matter of knowledge. When knowledge is modeled as only what can be verified by some empiricism, asserting the falsity of an empirically unverifiable proposition is an error. They correctly say that the truth value of such propositions cannot be known -- in effect that the propositions should be regarded meaningless as knowledge. This is what Phiwum and others were trying to get Buddha to see as a contradiction in his proof. The effect of empiricism varies in his proof depending on what role he needs to to play so that it comes out right.

And in the broadest sense this makes Buddha's proof fall into the standard pattern of fringe claimants. They want to prove something they know they can't prove directly. So they try to prove it indirectly by deducing what "must" (or can) hold if the prevailing narrative cannot hold. Then they propose to refute the prevailing narrative by one contrived method and standard of proof, making sure not to hold their desired conclusion to the same standard. A different standard, if any, is proposed instead. Buddha contrives a method to disprove competing explanations for the origin of the universe, but then when we try to hold his deduced finding -- a created universe -- to the same standard, he handwaves it away with some pseudo-philosophy mumbo jumbo he insists his critics aren't smart enough to understand. Then he says "further" proofs are necessary, tailored only to that conclusion.
Click to expand...

hammer-animation.gif


As I said earlier, Buddha sets up a framework, within which...

1. unverifiable theories are false.
2. only three propositions are allowed and if two are false the third must be true.
3. there are limitations on the observer's ability to observe.

Then his proof works within the boundaries of that framework, because of the nature of that framework.

Its like a game of Monopoly. In the game (the framework) you can own streets, properties, houses and hotels and pieces of paper that act as high value currency. It all works within the rules of the game. Take the game away and those things are just worthless pieces of plastic and paper.

In Buddha's case, when you remove the framework, the proof collapses.
 
Last edited:
Buddha’s own philosophy means they cannot prove to us that they are not a dog.

Let’s take three possibilities:

1. Buddha is a talking dog.

2. Buddha is a dog but they can only speak, not type.

3. Buddha is a regular dog who can neither speak nor type.

According to Buddha’s framework we can verify that #2 and #3 are false because we’ve read words that appear to have been typed. Therefore Buddha, by his own logic MUST be a dog.

Of course we cannot allow for the possibility that #2 is accurate but Buddha uses speech to text software without having observed Buddha dictating their past posts.
 
And the proof of the existence of an entity that can do anything it wants is ...


<Loss Leader waits quietly>
 
JayUtah said:
In the immortality thread Jabba tried to hide his begged questions in math he hoped no one would understand well enough to refute him.
Click to expand...

I would pay money to see the two of them arguing against each other. I'd like to see if they could recognize their own fallacies in each other's argument.
 
Loss Leader said:
And the proof of the existence of an entity that can do anything it wants is ...


<Loss Leader waits quietly>
Click to expand...
To be fair, creator of the universe would be close to omnipotent, assuming he wanted to create it and it wasn't mere accident.

Which, you know, that's a possibility.
 
Isn't 'creator of the universe' even oxymoron ? IMHO universe means 'everything'. For any x, x is part of universe. With such definition you can't have anything outside. You can't have anything before, or after. You can't have creator, you can't have multiverse. You can have beginning and end, but that's about it.
 
phiwum said:
To be fair, creator of the universe would be close to omnipotent, assuming he wanted to create it and it wasn't mere accident.

Which, you know, that's a possibility.
Click to expand...


So the Universe was created accidentally by the Great Green Arkleseizure when he sneezed it into existence, and we should all be waiting for The Coming of The Great White Handkerchief




Makes sense to me.




Norm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom