Believer vs. Believer

[epix]

Not to get lost with the OP subject...

There has been a mutual interest involving both the theist (Christians) and the atheists to stay away from Kurt Gödel as far as the implication his incompleteness theorem could have on the ontological argument regarding God. The atheists were sort of expected to shake the claimed omniscience of God via Kurt's discovery. When any theorem is proven, then the proof is final; there has been no instance of any well-reviewed theorem whose proof would be found later a false conclusion. In a very, very broad sense, the incompleteness theorem takes away the notion that for every well-conceived logical system a proof of any statement within that system can be found. Does that also apply to the omniscient mind of God? If it does, then God is not omniscient.

The Christians, as a whole, would answer predictably claiming that God is above the product of the human mind. But some of the Christians have earned a Th.D. and they don't have the option to respond this way.

But the most controversial aspect of Kurt's activities is his ontological argument for the existence of God, which he never published. It comes in the form of proof and the implication are not favorable to the Christians and the atheists alike. Here is a very important never-mentioned detail:

Statement: Göd is a God-like word. (A similar word to God)

Kurt's argument (in modal logic) deals with the existence of God-like being - not explicitly with the monotheistic God of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. That means, the argument also supports the existence of Zumba, The Sovereign Master God of the Pancake Galaxy, if he is "more almighty" then God.

Kurt's proof is formally correct beyond any doubt, but heavily relies on definitions. That's where the goodies are . . .

The proof got nothing to do with the material evidence or the absence of evidence of God - that's an entirely separate issue.

It's the history and circumstances of his, Liebnitz's and Anselm's (of Cantenbury) proofs where very suspicious links can be found. But the subject is too difficult to follow. I like some of the details, but the whole construct relies on substantial knowledge of the theorems and the axioms that God (interim name - identity unknown) came up with to secretly point to his existence.

The implication of Kurt's argument sends the philosophy of strict atheism straight to the garbage bin, but that's not a surprise to the agnostics.

 

[bruto]

No, that's a short process - you would make a poor prophet. God did give man a certain degree of freedom. When the freedom is exercised by an atheists, then "the gratuitious comma" and "careless spelling" often gracefully emerges to bless the hard drive. Since we both are more or less concerned about the issue of existing or not existing God, there is no reason for me, or anyone else with 'set focus' enabled, to strawman the thread back to the cretaceous period or beyond by paying attention to man-made artifacts. But...! The source of the comma right after HELL is an open question. There are folks out there who may not be that quick to trace God's hacking job and so the comma serves as a label: Pause right here. That means there must be a comprehensive link between HELL and the comma. If there is none, the decision of placing the comma lies solely with the writer. If the link does exist, it was meant to be the label and God is responsible.

Now I give you the first call. Is there a comprehensive link between the capitalized word HELL and the comma that follows it? I give you a strong clue by making a narrow description of what "comprehensive link" means. Most often, comprehensive link means an equation - we use them a lot to form and support theories. Try to think about it. First, you will not know where and how to start, what to look for. And then... an idea suddenly materializes! You check on it and you have it. That's the routine hacking job. Good luck.

I think it's a great waste of time and effort to analyze the content of internet posts, considering how often they are hasty, unedited and often (as we see here in many instances) the product of persons whose sanity or literacy are in doubt.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Statement: Göd is a God-like word. (A similar word to God)

You got something correct. God(s) are made up just like words.

The implication of Kurt's argument sends the philosophy of strict atheism straight to the garbage bin, but that's not a surprise to the agnostics.

The implication of a lack of evidence for any god(s) sends the philosophy of any theism straight to the garbage can but that's no surprise to the rational.

 

[deaman]

No, that's a short process - you would make a poor prophet.

Epix - No one here is trying to be a prophet, because there are no such things as prophets, in the biblical sense. Why do you think people would want to be an imaginary thing?

God did give man a certain degree of freedom. When the freedom is exercised by an atheists, then "the gratuitious comma" and "careless spelling" often gracefully emerges to bless the hard drive.

Human beings have the freedom to do anything they want, but there are consequences connected to actions. What in the hell does "the gratuitious comma" even mean? No one is concerned with the "the gratuitious comma" except you. Do you realize this?

Since we both are more or less concerned about the issue of existing or not existing God, there is no reason for me, or anyone else with 'set focus' enabled, to strawman the thread back to the cretaceous period or beyond by paying attention to man-made artifacts.

God does not exist, and many, many people here, are not only "unconcerned" with this question, but feel this question has been answered sufficiently, by the complete lack of evidence of such a being. You may be concerned, but the average athiest is completely unconcerned with this issue.

But...! The source of the comma right after HELL is an open question. There are folks out there who may not be that quick to trace God's hacking job and so the comma serves as a label:

What in the hell are you talking about?

Pause right here.

For goodness sakes, why?

That means there must be a comprehensive link between HELL and the comma. If there is none, the decision of placing the comma lies solely with the writer.

You are seeing links between unrelated things, and making up connections, out of complete thin air!

If the link does exist, it was meant to be the label and God is responsible.

What are you talking about!?!?

Now I give you the first call. Is there a comprehensive link between the capitalized word HELL and the comma that follows it? I give you a strong clue by making a narrow description of what "comprehensive link" means. Most often, comprehensive link means an equation - we use them a lot to form and support theories.

Nobody cares about this, except you.

Try to think about it. First, you will not know where and how to start, what to look for. And then... an idea suddenly materializes! You check on it and you have it. That's the routine hacking job. Good luck.

Nobody cares about this, except you.

In an effort to undertsand what is the hell you are talking about, this last line leads me to believe you are talking about inspiration.

Is that what all this is about!!???!!??

 

[epix]

The implication of a lack of evidence for any god(s) sends the philosophy of any theism straight to the garbage can but that's no surprise to the rational.

That's the staple of hard atheism: an absolute detachment from sound reasoning. You obviously don't have the slightest idea how to use properly the terms proof and evidence. Btw, there is no evidence which would satisfy the mind of a hard atheist, apart from lay manifestation of God. In comparison to hard atheism, even the Roman Catholic Church appears to be an open-minded think tank. Only hard atheism accepts the implications of lack of evidence due to provable ignorance.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

That's the staple of hard atheism: an absolute detachment from sound reasoning. You obviously don't have the slightest idea how to use properly the terms proof and evidence. Btw, there is no evidence which would satisfy the mind of a hard atheist, apart from lay manifestation of God. In comparison to hard atheism, even the Roman Catholic Church appears to be an open-minded think tank. Only hard atheism accepts the implications of lack of evidence due to provable ignorance.

Nothing about that sentence was even remotely correct

 

[epix]

Human beings have the freedom to do anything they want, but there are consequences connected to actions. What in the hell does "the gratuitious comma" even mean? No one is concerned with the "the gratuitious comma" except you. Do you realize this?

Do you realize that I'm not the one who got concerned with your grammar. It was bruto and his buddy strawman:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9073622&postcount=8
Is that enough for evidence?

God does not exist, and many, many people here, are not only "unconcerned" with this question, but feel this question has been answered sufficiently, by the complete lack of evidence of such a being. You may be concerned, but the average athiest is completely unconcerned with this issue.

There have been folks who never accepted complete lack of evidence due to ignorance as such, otherwise we would be still in the Stone Age. But you are surely free to assert anything that you wish. You are free to ignore Kurt Gödel as well as anything else that stands between you and your assertion. Hard atheism exercises this type of freedom to the fullest.

 

[epix]

I think it's a great waste of time and effort to analyze the content of internet posts, considering how often they are hasty, unedited and often (as we see here in many instances) the product of persons whose sanity or literacy are in doubt.

Are you serious? That's pretty insensitive toward deaman.

I can show that the comma was well-placed. It had to go after HELL.

Do you really believe that God will satisfy the requirement of hard atheism and manifest itself this way?
Don't you think that the time has changed since the Biblical times?

 

[bruto]

Are you serious? That's pretty insensitive toward deaman.

I'm sometimes insensitive. Deaman's post was careless as to punctuation and spelling. I suspect he's man enough to admit it, and sane enough to realize that analyzing errors is stupid.

I can show that the comma was well-placed. It had to go after HELL.

You can show what you like, but it does not mean it's sensible.

Do you really believe that God will satisfy the requirement of hard atheism and manifest itself this way?
Don't you think that the time has changed since the Biblical times?

Obviously if I am an atheist I do not think any god will manifest itself in any way, and the thing you call God is included.

I'm not home to find the reference, but recall that the poet John Ciardi once defined a pedant as a person who precisely analyzes a vacuum.

 

[RoboTimbo]

That's the staple of hard atheism: an absolute detachment from sound reasoning.

Explain. You seem to be talking as nonsensically as usual. There is a complete lack of evidence for magical beings so you think sound reasoning is to make believe they exist and carry on a made up conversation with them?

You obviously don't have the slightest idea how to use properly the terms proof and evidence.

Apparently, "obviously" to you means something entirely different than it does to rational people.

Btw, there is no evidence which would satisfy the mind of a hard atheist, apart from lay manifestation of God.

BTW, if you have compelling, extra-biblical, non-fallacious evidence for such magical beings, please present it here. Otherwise, it's just typical theist sour grapes.

In comparison to hard atheism, even the Roman Catholic Church appears to be an open-minded think tank. Only hard atheism accepts the implications of lack of evidence due to provable ignorance.

No, I don't disbelieve in gods because of provable theistic ignorance. I disbelieve in them due to lack of evidence. You seem to be saying that a person would have to be an outright idiot to believe in things for which there is no evidence?

 

[RoboTimbo]

There have been folks who never accepted complete lack of evidence due to ignorance as such, otherwise we would be still in the Stone Age.

I'm with you here, brother. The typical theist simply will not accept the complete lack of evidence due to their ignorance and are mentally still stuck in the stone age.

Don't you think that the time has changed since the Biblical times?

Yes, we're more sophisticated now and aren't as gullible as the slack jawed bronze age goat herders who made up a god. Well, some of us aren't.

 

[epix]

I'm sometimes insensitive. Deaman's post was careless as to punctuation and spelling.

I can prove that it wasn't his fault. I can't prove it easily to an atheist due to the ingrown prejudice, as much as I can't prove it to a Bible-thumping Christian, because God is busy loving us all and have no time hacking into deaman's mind. Actually, I cannot really prove it using the language logical arguments are made of - I can only establish the probabilities that support my hypothesis. I just employ the means that basic science has been using to accept or reject hypothesis. I cannot really do it here, because it would get deleted, as the key posts have already been, because heresy is not tolerated around here. But it's understandable: religion-like philosophies behave that way.

I suspect he's man enough to admit it, and sane enough to realize that analyzing errors is stupid. You can show what you like, but it does not mean it's sensible.

Your definition of "sensibility" surely greatly differs from what it is normally understood by this term, judging by your statement that finds analyzing errors stupid. Lots of Homo sapiens find it sensible to learn from mistakes to prevent their repeTITIon. I guess you are not one of them.

 

[deaman]

I felt so incensed by the complete nonsense of epix posts that I just started typing, and perhaps should have taken more care with my punctuation and wording.

Big whoop.

I don't care how much you try to side-track, your posts epix, are complete and utter praddle and babble.

You, acting the misunderstood mystic, is nothing but a laugh. In fact, it is the entertainment of your feigning, as if you have some actual meaning, or gravity to your posts, that is delightfully frustrating.

Fun to watch, though.

Why do you think so many people keep pointing this out to you? It is not because you are in some "exclusive club" called "understanding". It's because people can tell ridiculousness when they read it.

I ask again. Can you actually state what you are talking about in one complete, coherent sentence?

 

[epix]

I'm with you here, brother. The typical theist simply will not accept the complete lack of evidence due to their ignorance and are mentally still stuck in the stone age.

The Christians are smart enough to know that they are living under Catch 22. Religion doesn't supply a theory but belief. Once you drop the belief and assume that God is real, the theory of God existence comes right after and cannot be accepted only by a fool. But the theory would greatly conflict with the purely religious view of God and would strip the clergy of any remnants of influence they still hang on. The church has enough evidence for making such an assumption, but it's all locked water-tight. God's existence didn't make them rich; the twisting of the word of God did.

Yes, we're more sophisticated now and aren't as gullible as the slack jawed bronze age goat herders who made up a god. Well, some of us aren't.

I think it's the opposite. We are gullible more than ever being bombarded by crap through global media. The promise of heaven after death is now replaced by the promise of heaven before death.
http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/01.09/scams.html
The priests just wear different clothe.

Btw, there is no evidence that "bronze age goat herders" made up gods. It's just one of the fairy-tales for the gullible.

 

[AdMan]

Btw, there is no evidence that "bronze age goat herders" made up gods. It's just one of the fairy-tales for the gullible.

No, the gods were made up long before the bronze-age goat herders came along, simply as a way for humans to attempt to understand and explain their universe. The bronze-age goat herders just embellished the stories and wrote them down, as other cultures did before and after. It's unfortunate that some still buy that crap even today, though, don't you think?

 

[RoboTimbo]

The Christians are smart enough to know that they are living under Catch 22. Religion doesn't supply a theory but belief. Once you drop the belief and assume that God is real, the theory of God existence comes right after and cannot be accepted only by a fool.

I'll grant you that only fools would accept the existence of something for which there is no evidence.

But the theory would greatly conflict with the purely religious view of God and would strip the clergy of any remnants of influence they still hang on. The church has enough evidence for making such an assumption, but it's all locked water-tight.

I'll grant you that also, if anyone has evidence of god(s), they've not shared it with any rational people.

God's existence didn't make them rich; the twisting of the word of God did.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster's existence didn't make anyone rich either. Guess which characteristic of The Flying Spaghetti Monster is shared with all other gods?

I think it's the opposite. We are gullible more than ever being bombarded by crap through global media. The promise of heaven after death is now replaced by the promise of heaven before death.

No, heaven (for Christians) is still promised after death. So if we're more gullible (collectively speaking) than the bronze age goat herders, do you believe me if I tell you that a god speaks to me? Not metaphorically but in person in actual words?

The priests just wear different clothe.

Btw, there is no evidence that "bronze age goat herders" made up gods. It's just one of the fairy-tales for the gullible.

No, there is an entire novel called the bible based on the god they made up. Every believer seems to make up their own god to suit their own whims.

Look at the one you've made up and then made up conversations with.

 

[bruto]

I can prove that it wasn't his fault. I can't prove it easily to an atheist due to the ingrown prejudice, as much as I can't prove it to a Bible-thumping Christian, because God is busy loving us all and have no time hacking into deaman's mind. Actually, I cannot really prove it using the language logical arguments are made of - I can only establish the probabilities that support my hypothesis. I just employ the means that basic science has been using to accept or reject hypothesis. I cannot really do it here, because it would get deleted, as the key posts have already been, because heresy is not tolerated around here. But it's understandable: religion-like philosophies behave that way.


Your definition of "sensibility" surely greatly differs from what it is normally understood by this term, judging by your statement that finds analyzing errors stupid. Lots of Homo sapiens find it sensible to learn from mistakes to prevent their repeTITIon. I guess you are not one of them.

Of course you can learn from analyzing mistakes, by noting what the mistake was, and acknowledging that it was a mistake. The more attention you pay to the content of the mistake the stupider you're likely to be. Once you open a box and discover that it is empty, the quest is over. People waste a lot of effort analyzing things that should not be analyzed and coming up with theories that are not only utterly spurious but misleading.

Given the tenor of this thread and its inherent silliness, I should probably let this go, but it is not a principle of hard atheism. Anything but. I learned some of it from some prominent theologians and philosophers whose work I respect, with whom I actually studied long ago, and whose memories I will briefly serve by dilating a bit on the stupidity and perniciousness of nonsense masquerading as thought.

 

[deaman]

Given the tenor of this thread and its inherent silliness, I should probably let this go, but it is not a principle of hard atheism. Anything but. I learned some of it from some prominent theologians and philosophers whose work I respect, with whom I actually studied long ago, and whose memories I will briefly serve by dilating a bit on the stupidity and perniciousness of nonsense masquerading as thought.

KA-BOOM!

Look epix, I have no problem admitting I made mistakes. I still may be making mistakes, because I am a human being. I am not a being of perfect understanding, or who has the inside track to some god somewhere who is giving me the answers to the universe.

I am what I am.

I would appreciate if someone would point out my mistakes that I may learn from them.

In this demonstration, I find a big diffeence between myself and epix.

I admit my weakness and therefore learn from it. epix has placed himself in a position of, "I cannot make mistakes, nor can I admit them, for god is telling me the truth." He cannot see the truth because his mind is focused on jumbles of important sounding words, which have no meaning. (But, they sound important.) This is called being delusional.

Another point I would bring forth is that I don't take myself so seriously. So, I made mistakes, good! I am alive and learning.

I have a point and the point is: The nonsense epix is posting is unworthy of review.

One coherent sentence.

 

[dafydd]

The vowels AEIOUY can be arranged to spell the synonyms AYE and OUI. I had a chat with God and he said it was just a joke.

 

[bruto]

Just for completeness, when I got home today I looked up the John Ciardi quote I'd referred to earlier, which goes: "a pedant is a man who studies a vacuum through instruments that allow him to draw cross-sections of the details." (Taken from his long-ago column in The Saturday Review)