• 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?

JayUtah said:
More broadly, I think Buddha wants us to respond in the words of a philosopher -- any philosopher -- so long as we follow his distractive lead. He'll "school" us on Popper if he thinks we're invoking Popper. He'll "school" us on Kuhn if we might invoke Kuhn. He's trying to tell us all we're responding (or should, or maybe not) according to scientific realism, even though I highly doubt that's true or a conscious pursuit. All that pigeonholing happens only so he can transform the thread into a battle of "-isms" he thinks he can do better at than defending a comically bad proof for God. He can't make headway fixing his proof, so he figures he can score brownie points by making his critics look ignorant on irrelevant topics. "See! They don't understand all these obscure '-isms' that I do, therefore they can't know that my proof is wrong."
Click to expand...
It's a well known tactic so he can google his way through the debate.


But I think he particularly wants to dip his bread in the yolk of scientific realism because he somewhat misconstrued it as a way to assert anything he likes about some unobservables like "god" and "souls" (--maybe copro-Buddha-- or whatever **** reincarnates) and so on.


JayUtah said:
Another term in the equation is when the claimant really can't get the esoteric knowledge right either. Jabba was a self-taught statistician who refused to accept that one of his errors was in misunderstanding statistics. A year or so ago there was a self-taught physicist who claimed Apollo re-entry wouldn't work, and refused to accept that the problem in his proof was the result of his ignorance of the relevant engineering and principles he simply didn't know existed. Here we have a self-taught philosopher/theologian who refuses to accept that he doesn't understand the principles of philosophy. He invokes Karl Popper's earliest works (probably, as you suggest, because it's really the only book he's ever read) and then proceeds to completely misunderstand the demarcation principle, one of that author's key concepts.
Click to expand...


Most probably "Buddha" thought Popper was his friend until he realized the demarcation principle left his ruminations on the wrong side of the border, hence Popper suddenly becoming démodé.


He may have read more authors, but it's obvious he has a bad memory and he's looking for things that serve his purposes, so he misunderstand frequently and remember things the wrong way or just remember things that are unimportant. It's the curse of the self-appointed geniuses: they skim text and elevate what they gather to the category of "essential". They are like those who say their dogs are well trained and obey them, and show that by ordering the dog "scratch those fleas ... now go and smell that dog's arse... see how he obeys my commands!"


But I'm afraid "Buddha" is going to apply Jabba's Razor here. Remember? The one Jabba machine translated into wrong Italian to give it an air of "only for the cultured among us".



JayUtah said:
So yes, even if we indulge him and follow him on his journey through the fields he's just discovering, he gets it wrong there too. This is "fractal" wrongness -- wrong on whatever level you choose to examine his claims. His argument is conceptually wrong, wrong according to the philosophical systems he has invoked, and wrong at the fundamental level of categorical reasoning.
Click to expand...

"Fractal wrongness". That's quite descriptive. I'm gonna use it without paying royalties.



JayUtah said:
This is why I think you all are right in characterizing this as Debate Theatre, not just to attempt to make his proof seem valid, but to establish by some empirical illusion that he really is the genius he thinks he is. Most of these claimants think they've mastered so many different fields and can take the specialized experts to task. But the exercise always turns into framing their little smidgen of additional knowledge in a giant frame of poorly-executed social engineering, with little more as their goal than delusions of grandeur.
Click to expand...


That's why I say Dale Carnegie's are their only bedside books. For them, he's never out of fashion.
 
aleCcowaN said:
But I'm afraid "Buddha" is going to apply Jabba's Razor here. Remember? The one Jabba machine translated into wrong Italian to give it an air of "only for the cultured among us".
Click to expand...

...and all the while not realising that there are people on this forum who are fluent in Italian and for whom it is their native language.
 
aleCcowaN said:
"Fractal wrongness". That's quite descriptive. I'm gonna use it without paying royalties.
Click to expand...

I didn't coin the term. I learned it here when someone used it to describe Jabba's proof for immortality.

In any case, it's been yet another day without Buddha lifting so much as a finger to deal with on-topic issues. He's complained about shabby treatment, offered to participate in new threads on various subjects, (mis)quoted Popper again, berated me condescendingly once again for an argument I never made while ignoring the ones I did, and repeated his "omnipotence" hairsplit. At least he's not yet resorting to emphasizing those side quests with all kinds of distracting (yet purportedly meaningful) punctuation.

- he'll be back
 
I found the proof of the creator to be entertaining, with all of many things he was able to get wrong.

I think it will be fun to analyze his proof of reincarnation, if it is ever presented.
 
This is my last post at this thread. I have reached my objective, now I know what I have to do to convey my ideas in a clear fashion. I would like to thank everyone for participation in the discussion. I wish I could have debates with proponents of scientific realism but it didn’t happen.

My next topic is the reincarnation. According to Buddha, in the afterlife a person faces 3 possibilities: the heaven, the hell and the reincarnation. The first two possibilities are accepted on faith alone. However, I can provide empirical data showing that the reincarnation exists. It will take me couple of days to prepare materials for a new thread.

We could discuss Popper’s doctrine and his views on religion at my new thread, if my opponents wish so.

In an interview that Popper gave in 1969 with the condition that it should be kept secret until after his death, he summarised his position on God as follows: "I don't know whether God exists or not. ... Some forms of atheism are arrogant and ignorant and should be rejected, but agnosticism—to admit that we don't know and to search—is all right. ... When I look at what I call the gift of life, I feel a gratitude which is in tune with some religious ideas of God. However, the moment I even speak of it, I am embarrassed that I may do something wrong to God in talking about God." He objected to organised religion, saying "it tends to use the name of God in vain", noting the danger of fanaticism because of religious conflicts: "The whole thing goes back to myths which, though they may have a kernel of truth, are untrue. Why then should the Jewish myth be true and the Indian and Egyptian myths not be true?" In a letter unrelated to the interview, he stressed his tolerant attitude: "Although I am not for religion, I do think that we should show respect for anybody who believes honestly” Wikipedia

I do not see atheists as the enemy, although some of them may see me as such. Roughly 1/3 of my friends are atheists. I jokingly tell them, “You are not good enough to go to heaven, and you are not bad enough to go to hell, the remaining option is reincarnation.”
I see the Christians who want to overturn Roe vs. Wade as my ideological adversaries. The idiots cannot understand the simple fact that, according to the Bible, the fetus is not a human being.

I know my enemies well, they are the members of various cults (Scientology, Hare Krishna etc.,). My 4-months encounter with Scientology that resulted in my 50-day incarceration taught me a lot about the nature of cults and devastating psychological impact that they have on their members (to experience that impact you would have to spend at least 4 years in a cult, as some of my acquaintances did)
 
Buddha said:
If you don't know what you call "natural details" you cannot chose a correct hypothesis among the competing ones. If you are a scientific realist, this situation is totally acceptable to you. As I said in the beginning, not everyone will accept my proof.
Click to expand...

If your proof was accurate, then the number of people who believe in your proof would not matter one way or the other.

But in your case, your proof is quite inaccurate, so it does not matter how many people believe in your proof.
 
jrhowell said:
I found the proof of the creator to be entertaining, with all of many things he was able to get wrong.

I think it will be fun to analyze his proof of reincarnation, if it is ever presented.
Click to expand...



Don't worry. That's a tangent he will be forced to use to escape, eventually.

Now, let's wait for our daily dose of Dunning-Krugerness.

EDIT: Ninja'd by "Buddha"
 
Last edited:
Buddha said:
This is my last post at this thread. I have reached my objective, now I know what I have to do to convey my ideas in a clear fashion. I would like to thank everyone for participation in the discussion. I wish I could have debates with proponents of scientific realism but it didn’t happen.

My next topic is the reincarnation. According to Buddha, in the afterlife a person faces 3 possibilities: the heaven, the hell and the reincarnation. The first two possibilities are accepted on faith alone. However, I can provide empirical data showing that the reincarnation exists.[u/] It will take me couple of days to prepare materials for a new thread.

We could discuss Popper’s doctrine and his views on religion at my new thread, if my opponents wish so.

In an interview that Popper gave in 1969 with the condition that it should be kept secret until after his death, he summarised his position on God as follows: "I don't know whether God exists or not. ... Some forms of atheism are arrogant and ignorant and should be rejected, but agnosticism—to admit that we don't know and to search—is all right. ... When I look at what I call the gift of life, I feel a gratitude which is in tune with some religious ideas of God. However, the moment I even speak of it, I am embarrassed that I may do something wrong to God in talking about God." He objected to organised religion, saying "it tends to use the name of God in vain", noting the danger of fanaticism because of religious conflicts: "The whole thing goes back to myths which, though they may have a kernel of truth, are untrue. Why then should the Jewish myth be true and the Indian and Egyptian myths not be true?" In a letter unrelated to the interview, he stressed his tolerant attitude: "Although I am not for religion, I do think that we should show respect for anybody who believes honestly” Wikipedia

I do not see atheists as the enemy, although some of them may see me as such. Roughly 1/3 of my friends are atheists. I jokingly tell them, “You are not good enough to go to heaven, and you are not bad enough to go to hell, the remaining option is reincarnation.”
I see the Christians who want to overturn Roe vs. Wade as my ideological adversaries. The idiots cannot understand the simple fact that, according to the Bible, the fetus is not a human being.

I know my enemies well, they are the members of various cults (Scientology, Hare Krishna etc.,). My 4-months encounter with Scientology that resulted in my 50-day incarceration taught me a lot about the nature of cults and devastating psychological impact that they have on their members (to experience that impact you would have to spend at least 4 years in a cult, as some of my acquaintances did)
Click to expand...


Note: the emphasis is mine.

And I predict that you will fail to provide any empirical evidence for reincarnation just like you have continually failed to provide any empirical evidence for the existence of god.
 
Buddha said:
This is my last post at this thread. I have reached my objective, now I know what I have to do to convey my ideas in a clear fashion....
Click to expand...

If your objective was to illustrate that your proof is full of ridiculous holes, yes. Or did you even read the critical responses to your posts?
 
[Indiana Jones Theme Song]
[Grandpa Simpson Story]

Buddha said:
I know my enemies well, they are the members of various cults (Scientology, Hare Krishna etc.,). My 4-months encounter with Scientology that resulted in my 50-day incarceration taught me a lot about the nature of cults and devastating psychological impact that they have on their members (to experience that impact you would have to spend at least 4 years in a cult, as some of my acquaintances did)
Click to expand...

[/Grandpa Simpson Story]
[/Indiana Jones Theme Song]
 
Last edited:
Buddha said:
This is my last post at this thread.
Click to expand...

I predicted the flounce yesterday. Just saying.

I have reached my objective, now I know what I have to do to convey my ideas in a clear fashion.
Click to expand...

"In a clear fashion?" Your proof, as restated, is riddled with logical errors that you simply don't care about and doesn't even prove the thing you said you could prove. Where else do you think such a proof is going to get any more or better attention?

I would like to thank everyone for participation in the discussion.
Click to expand...

You can do that by conceding that your critics prevailed in their refutation of your proof. Have you the intellectual honesty to admit that before asking people to follow you on some other topic? If you're unable or unwilling to recognize the value of informed criticism, then are you really very grateful? Can you really expect people to engage you as anything but a chew toy?

I wish I could have debates with proponents of scientific realism but it didn’t happen.
Click to expand...

Indeed, your attempt to script Debate Theatre failed, as did your proof. No one stepped up to your insistence that they behave as scientific realists and give you the battle of the -isms you thought you could have. No, in fact they took your "proof" for God and showed you all the very simple things that were wrong with it, without having to resort to esoterica.

We could discuss Popper’s doctrine and his views on religion at my new thread, if my opponents wish so.
Click to expand...

You don't understand Popper. You're not a philosopher, or even a good facsimile of one. And your on-again, off-again obsession over Popper fairly derailed this thread. The only things you ever used him/it for is as a club to bludgeon your opponents or a pulpit from which to pontificate. It certainly never had a thing to do with you proving the existence of God.

(Rest of irrelevant pontifical and biographical spew deleted unanswered.)
 
The Sparrow said:
Buddha said:
This is my last post at this thread. I have reached my objective, now I know what I have to do to convey my ideas in a clear fashion....
Click to expand...

If your objective was to illustrate that your proof is full of ridiculous holes, yes. Or did you even read the critical responses to your posts?
Click to expand...


Most probably his goal was going through it staying in character, keeping a straight face and an authoritative image to be shown to the doodah pudnackers from Dorkville who are likely to become the only public that wouldn't spot his mistakes.
 
Again not to be "that guy" but Buddha's rambling nonsense isn't any more bereft of intellectual meat than any other religious apologetics.

The acting is worse, but the plots the same. The only difference between him and Aquinas is diction and character work.

We can point and laugh at his performance art routine all we want, but there's no point in laughing at his actual arguments while given any more respect to literally any other religious argument ever.
 
Crossbow said:
If your proof was accurate, then the number of people who believe in your proof would not matter one way or the other.

But in your case, your proof is quite inaccurate, so it does not matter how many people believe in your proof.
Click to expand...

Phrasing it as "Not everyone will accept my proof" suggests that it's the audience's fault for not being convinced. It downplays the possibility that people won't accept his proof because it's obviously wrong -- which in this case, it is. Now all we get is Papa Popper saying we need to be nice to people who believe in God. A nice subtle way to shame people away from challenging attempts to prove there's a God.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Why? By what metric?
Click to expand...

By his metric, by the standards of academic understanding of philosophy. He's getting the basics wrong about the author he's quoted from most often. And, as we previously discussed, by the broader standard of philosophy as primarily a dialectical exercise. He's foisting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom