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

[Zivan]

I wondered if he were just using "article" to describe a forum post. That is, in context, the forum was down last Saturday for a couple of hours. When it came back up, he remarked that it had been down and said that he had an "article." That could mean simply that he'd been saving a post that he'd edited or otherwise composed during the downtime, and that now the forum was back up again he could post it.

That is what I think too. Prior to his excuse about the forum being down on saturday and having an "article" to post, Buddha repeatedly referred to some of his posts as an "article":

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12367477&postcount=401

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12367486&postcount=402

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12368659&postcount=481

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12368693&postcount=493

Other times he refers to his posts as a "post". He interchanges the two words referencing his own posts, then acts confused when people ask him about the article he said he would post.

It is almost as if the words "post" and "article" are yet more words he has hazy (his own) definitions for.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It would, however, have *all* the porn.

That is essentially the best part of the Library of Babel. Technically it holds some amazingly well written erotic stories about me, Scarlet Johannson and a tube of chocolate syrup.

Just gotta find them is all...

 

[JayUtah]

It is almost as if the words "post" and "article" are yet more words he has hazy (his own) definitions for.

Meh, I don't consider them distinct enough to worry about. I'm just hoping to help clear up one of the many distractions.

 

[Loss Leader]

Buddha -

You're ignoring the problem of uncountably infinite sets.

Since such sets can never be fully observed, by your rules they don't exist.

You're also ignoring the fact that you have yet to define the word "god." At one point you said god could do anything he wanted. At another, you said he wasn't omnipotent. Those two things are incompatible. They cannot both be true.

You also defined god as the observer necessary for the universe to be created. But how does the existence of such an observer show that this god could do anything he wanted? How does it show that such gid even still exists? (You expressed disdain for the idea that the creation of the universe could coincide with god's suicide.)

What I believe is that you have multiple definitions of the word god held simultaneously in your head. I believe you slip from definition to definition depending upon the requirements of your current argument. And the evidence in this thread is that, when an argument of yours is questioned, you slip back into some alternate definition.

You also flat out avoid the questions by nattering on about Popper and dinosaurs and other things that have nothing to do with the topic. And I predict that if you bother to answer my post at all, it will be this last paragraph that you quibble with.

 

[smartcooky]

Could god film a porno so long even he couldn't watch it all?

I almost misread that!

 

[smartcooky]

That is essentially the best part of the Library of Babel. Technically it holds some amazingly well written erotic stories about me, Scarlet Johannson and a tube of chocolate syrup.

Just gotta find them is all...

Well, I would have said Kate Mara or MacKenzie Davis, but essentially, yep!

 

[smartcooky]

As I understand Buddha's logic, in his unique worldview Red = Green.

He then offers the following proof (which he understands others may not agree with)...

One of the following three question marks is green

1. ?
2. ?
3. ?

Since it is not either of the first two, it must the third one, and since that agrees with his worldview, it must be right, and we are expected to accept it.

 

[abaddon]

One of my tasks as a control systems engineer was to build models of semiconductor processes so they could be used to keep the parameters such as the speed of flow of chemicals, temperature, etc., within certain limits. These models were based on sparse experimental data, so my colleagues and I were using inductive methods by making generalizations supported by empirical data. The processes were so complex that we could built only approximate models of them.

Your Amazon blurb for your book states otherwise. There it states...

Walter Friedman is a senior information technology consultant

Linky.

It might seem a fine distinction, but those ARE distinct practices. You are a control systems engineer or a senior IT consultant.

Well, I am running out of time now. I am sitting in my office and getting ready to go to another end of Manhattan to interview one of our clients (I work for a consulting firm). Perhaps some of my critics are retired and I have a deep respect for their past work. The others might be unemployed. Still some might be self-employed and I envy them. I was self-employed for some time, but then my income went down due to competition, and I had to find a regular job.
I will respond to the posts tomorrow
Buddha out.

As it happens, I am self employed. My task du jour this morning was to securely wipe two decommissioned rack mount servers. This afforded copious slack time. In the afternoon, I was up a ladder literally hanging from the rafters in an emergency situation because a customer forgot that if they move their gear, they have to move their network points as well. Being self employed is not all fun and frolics.

Your continued attempts at evasion do not hold any water.

 

[halleyscomet]

It might seem a fine distinction, but those ARE distinct practices. You are a control systems engineer or a senior IT consultant.

My suspicion is "IT Consultant" prone to assigning grandiose labels to themselves online.

As an aside, I've worked with some Manhattan based IT consulting firms. Most my employers, past and present, have or had clients in Manhattan. Merely being in Manhattan or having clients in Manhattan is no reason to be impressed with someone or their company. I only mention that I've worked with Manhattan firms to point out it's no big deal. Buddha is engaging in some particularly sad and vague name dropping.

She or he has reminded me of a Weird Al song.

 

[Loss Leader]

Well, I would have said Kate Mara or MacKenzie Davis, but essentially, yep!

Good gosh, man. Turn off The Martian and spend some time outdoors.

 

[Mojo]

I'd heard people mention that, but I'd not seen it linked to. It's interesting that he gives 3 contradictory possibilities for how sexual reproduction could have evolved: 1) the penis evolved first and then a million years later the vagina evolved, 2) the vagina evolved first and then a million years later the penis evolved, 3) the vagina and the penis evolved at the same time. He then points out that 1 & 2 must be false because if they evolved separately they would be unlikely to be compatible.

As I understand logic, this means that option 3 must be correct and therefore his book proves evolution true.

Congrats, Buddha, you have proved evolution true.

If only someone could combine the two arguments. Oh, hang on...

 

[jrhowell]

It might seem a fine distinction, but those ARE distinct practices. You are a control systems engineer or a senior IT consultant.

Buddha previously wrote:

In the beginning of my career I, as a control system engineer, was using inductive methods to analyze technological processes. Currently I work as a data analyst for a consulting company; I do statistical analysis of commercial data for our clients, here I also use inductive methods only.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Let's wait for our daily load of evasive tosh, should the forum web server be up and running (I don't know if that's the case this very moment )

 

[Buddha]

Several opponents wrote that I use circular logic – according to them, I stared with the axiom that God exists and used it to prove God’s existence. Really? This is a mistake that almost all theologians make, but this is their problem, not mine. I am not a theologian, I am a former control systems engineer and a current data analyst.

I didn’t use any axiom, I just listed 3 possibilities and concluded that only one of them is true. The argument that the opponents came up with is extremely weak, I am not going to waste my time anymore responding to it.

Only one of my opponents raised a very strong contra-argument, he wrote that some processes do not require presence of an observer. I replied to his post, but now I am going to elaborate more on this important topic by putting it in a historic perspective.

There was a big argument, which started in 1930s, between the positivists and their critics; it was not about the Creation, it was about the pre-historic species. Critics contended that, since there were no intelligent observers during pre-historic times, the positivists cannot tell with certainty that the pre-historic animals existed.

This argument was a sticking point for many positivists, although not for Wittgenstein – for him God was the observer who existed in pre-historic times.

Russell, Carnap and several others chose another response by developing a concept of indirect observer, who lives in modern times but can examine the traces of pre-historic species such as their bones, shells, tree trunks, etc. This response was inadequate; for example, there are no traces of micro-organisms such as the bacteria, ameba, etc,. There are logical inconsistences in the concept of indirect observer as well.

As the result, in 1950s positivism lost its leading position in several branches of science.

Moving on to another topic – there is another contra-argument that vast majority of the theologians cannot address properly, it comes in the form of the Occum razor. I was expecting the razor but, to my surprise, none of my opponents tried to cut me with it. I am still waiting.

 

[Buddha]

Apparently some of my opponents have no idea what scientific realism is. One of them even wrote that scientific realism is an equivalent of empiricism. That is real funny!

Here is the link to an excellent article about scientific realism. Please read it, it will help you avoid embarrassing mistakes.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/

This is all for today. It's a wonderful day in the Big Apple. A man has to take his girlfriend to the beach sometimes, doesn't he?
I'll be back on Monday. Have a great weekend!

 

[Nay_Sayer]

Apparently some of my opponents have no idea what scientific realism is. One of them even wrote that scientific realism is an equivalent of empiricism. That is real funny!

Here is the link to an excellent article about scientific realism. Please read it, it will help you avoid embarrassing mistakes.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/

This is all for today. It's a wonderful day in the Big Apple. A man has to take his girlfriend to the beach sometimes, doesn't he?I'll be back on Monday. Have a great weekend!

This is a very arbitrary and needless thing to point out. Overcompensating?

Anyway It appears where stepping foot into 'The definitions game' today's grand prize will be a trip to space camp

 

[JayUtah]

Several opponents wrote that I use circular logic – according to them, I stared with the axiom that God exists and used it to prove God’s existence. Really? This is a mistake that almost all theologians make, but this is their problem, not mine. I am not a theologian, I am a former control systems engineer and a current data analyst.

Non sequitur. It doesn't matter what you call yourself or what someone else calls themselves. Your argument is circular on its face and for that reason it cannot hold.

I didn’t use any axiom, I just listed 3 possibilities and concluded that only one of them is true.

You assumed the existence of God -- in the role of observer in your third case -- as a premise to prove the existence of that selfsame God. That's textbook circularity. There are other logical problems with your argument which you don't even address, such as sufficiency of your hypotheses.

The argument that the opponents came up with is extremely weak, I am not going to waste my time anymore responding to it.

Obvious evasion. You have time below to pontificate as usual on irrelevant history, but you don't have time to give the refutation for a "weak" argument that undercuts your central syllogism. No, until you show what makes it weak, it isn't weak.

Only one of my opponents raised a very strong contra-argument, he wrote that some processes do not require presence of an observer. I replied to his post, but now I am going to elaborate more on this important topic by putting it in a historic perspective.

No. There is no "historical perspective" that fixes the simple problem with your proof. As usual, you can't address what's really wrong with your argument, so you try to look smart by reciting irrelevant facts.

Moving on to another topic – there is another contra-argument that vast majority of the theologians cannot address properly, it comes in the form of the Occum razor. I was expecting the razor but, to my surprise, none of my opponents tried to cut me with it. I am still waiting.

We are not interested in what the "vast majority of theologians" say or do. We are interested in your proof and whether you can defend it. You don't get to sidestep the refutation that was given and demand a different one. Your opponents get to choose what their argument consists of. You should be ashamed to remember that Occam's Razor was one of the very first counterarguments posted to the first statement of your proof. As usual, you ignored it.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by Buddha
Several opponents wrote that I use circular logic – according to them, I stared with the axiom that God exists and used it to prove God’s existence. Really? This is a mistake that almost all theologians make, but this is their problem, not mine. I am not a theologian, I am a former control systems engineer and a current data analyst.

I didn’t use any axiom, I just listed 3 possibilities and concluded that only one of them is true. The argument that the opponents came up with is extremely weak, I am not going to waste my time anymore responding to it.

<tosh snipped>

You're a funny man!


You departed from the assertion that "god/devil" exists, you made up 3 non exhaustive possibilities, placed ridiculous conditions on two for them to "fail", saved your pre-approved third condition of passing similar scrutiny and declared victory based on some loosely argumentation related to science that you previously had deemed "was not designed to solve these kind of questions".


Now, you're summarizing the shards of your argumentation that don't look scorched and presenting them as a victorious conclusion, and refusing to engage in any discussion, as you did previously, AS THEY CERTAINLY WILL ADD TO YOUR MONUMENTAL FAILURE IN THIS TOPIC. Your attempt to block the sunlight with the hand is puerile and obviously noticeable.


Do you have any other trick? What is what we're going to see from you in the future? Lots of puny assorted arguments emerging ceaselessly from the tiny clown car?

 

[JayUtah]

Apparently some of my opponents have no idea what scientific realism is. One of them even wrote that scientific realism is an equivalent of empiricism. That is real funny!

Irrelevant. This is not a discussion of comparative philosophy in which you get to berate your critics for their supposed ignorance as a substitute for the task you set yourself. You are not a philosophy master teaching a class. You are supposed to be presenting and defending a proof for the existence of God, a task which you cannot seem to stick to.

This is all for today. It's a wonderful day in the Big Apple. A man has to take his girlfriend to the beach sometimes, doesn't he?

We don't care about your private or professional life. You graced us with two posts today, one calling your critics ignorant for no reason, and the other clumsily sidestepping the major problem with your proof and begging to change the subject. You've wasted you precious time here in nothing but irrelevant posturing. Do what you want whenever you want, but while you're here please have the courtesy to do more than just stroke your own ego at us.

This is not at all impressive. You clearly cannot prove the existence of God by any means.

 

[JayUtah]

Let's wait for our daily load of evasive tosh, should the forum web server be up and running (I don't know if that's the case this very moment )

Yep, you called it. I'm still chuckling over the syllogism

Theologians make circular arguments.
I am not a theologian, therefore
My argument is not circular.​

Maybe his time really is better spent at the beach because logic is certainly not his strong suit.