Bitcoin Forum
March 29, 2024, 10:09:12 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 [106] 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 ... 523 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Scientific proof that God exists?  (Read 845414 times)
(oYo)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 500


I like boobies


View Profile WWW
October 29, 2014, 10:04:04 PM
 #2101

I find it quite boring and egotistical of a monotheistic god to insist it is the one and only god. Aren't more gods far more interesting and just as likely to be true? Isn't it about time we invented some new gods, anyways? The ones we have to date are so antiquated.  Tongue

1711706952
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711706952

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711706952
Reply with quote  #2

1711706952
Report to moderator
The forum was founded in 2009 by Satoshi and Sirius. It replaced a SourceForge forum.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
Vod
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3654
Merit: 3010


Licking my boob since 1970


View Profile WWW
October 29, 2014, 10:34:37 PM
 #2102

I find it quite boring and egotistical of a monotheistic god to insist it is the one and only god. Aren't more gods far more interesting and just as likely to be true? Isn't it about time we invented some new gods, anyways? The ones we have to date are so antiquated.  Tongue

Agreed.  Even Spaghetti was invented almost a thousand years ago.

I think the next god I worship will be the artificial intelligence that takes over the planet.  I'll have no choice.  Smiley

https://nastyscam.com - landing page up     https://vod.fan - advanced image hosting - coming soon!

OGNasty has early onset dementia; keep this in mind when discussing his past actions.
BitChick
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001


View Profile
October 29, 2014, 11:27:31 PM
 #2103


I know this will be tragic to some to hear this, but the Pope is not God.  Also, the Pope could actually be (gulp) wrong. 

I am now going to be cursed at and called blasphemous by my Catholic friends on here. 

1BitcHiCK1iRa6YVY6qDqC6M594RBYLNPo
Vod
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3654
Merit: 3010


Licking my boob since 1970


View Profile WWW
October 29, 2014, 11:35:38 PM
 #2104


I know this will be tragic to some to hear this, but the Pope is not God.  Also, the Pope could actually be (gulp) wrong. 

I am now going to be cursed at and called blasphemous by my Catholic friends on here. 

As someone else said, we've been telling you that all along.

https://nastyscam.com - landing page up     https://vod.fan - advanced image hosting - coming soon!

OGNasty has early onset dementia; keep this in mind when discussing his past actions.
vokain
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834
Merit: 1019



View Profile WWW
October 30, 2014, 12:21:30 AM
Last edit: October 30, 2014, 01:03:36 PM by vokain
 #2105

I find it quite boring and egotistical of a monotheistic god to insist it is the one and only god. Aren't more gods far more interesting and just as likely to be true? Isn't it about time we invented some new gods, anyways? The ones we have to date are so antiquated.  Tongue

It's just a perspective.

When imagining God, many tend to personify Him or project their own perspective on what they perceive God is (see: people saying that God "insists it is the one and only god" when it is actually people that insist that God insists so—although, the fact that we are alive, to me, is such an insistence, but that's beside the point), but if there was an original point of existence, then that's a bit hard to describe with human qualities, derivatives of that original point. It's like trying to integrate a derivative, there's a bit of information that might come short, hence the "+ C"

There are degrees of Godness, for lack of better wording ("experiencing God"?), that can lead to confusion when we compare religious gods. For example, many view or term Hinduism as a polytheism, but it is actually pantheist.

another Kabbalistic example (of which whose Judaistic origins arised or at least influenced Christianity's perspective of a "One and Only God", which also actually has at least three parts to its "One and Only God"):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ein_Sof


username18333
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 250


Knowledge could but approximate existence.


View Profile WWW
October 30, 2014, 01:04:53 AM
 #2106

The serious side of the voices in the caverns thing is this. Does anyone remember in the Apostles Creed, where it says, "He [Jesus] descended into hell?" This is talking about the 3 days that Jesus was in the grave after he died on the cross, before He arose from the dead.

The word "Hell" has several meanings in the Bible. One of them pertains to a place of torment after the final end - the lake of fire in Revelation. Another is simply the grave. A third is a special "holding cell," where especially virulent and spiritually powerful people are sent, at death, because otherwise they might be able to affect things in THIS life right from the grave!

Saint Paul explains that Jesus went down to this last Hell to preach to the spirits of certain of the dead. The particular dead mentioned, were those who had lived in the days of Noah, but had died in or before the Great Flood.

While we don't, yet, have any conclusive evidence about what these people were doing back at the time before the Flood, they were probably certain people who:
1. Had used quantum entanglement to manipulate people (Consider The Silva Mind Control Method);
2. Were powerful in their use of quantum entanglement;
3. Had built a worldwide network of corrupt trading exchanges (probably the thing we know as Atlantis);
4. Were NOT knowledgeable enough about QE to use it to keep themselves alive in the Flood;
5. Were powerful enough that their spirits just might be able to reach out from the grave if they were not held at bay in the special kind of hell cell they are in.

Jesus went there to preach to them about their big mistake, that they thought that they could find eternal life without the help of God, on their own, using quantum entanglement (QE use, my idea). Jesus, however, is the only one who can use quantum entanglement correctly enough to grant eternal life both, to Himself, and to any of those to whom He decides to grant eternal life.

People attempt to do all kinds of things. There are those of our day who are trying to gain eternal life on their own. There are, of course, many who simply turn their backs on the whole idea, and simply decide to die. Some who try to live forever on their own, will try/are trying the quantum entanglement method (many without realizing that this is what they are using). Some of these might succeed in keeping themselves healthy enough that they could live for several hundred years if the earth lasts that long, yet. Others use their QE to become wealthy, retain riches, by more or less enslaving other people.

Wherever you happen to be in life, if you are inclined to use quantum entanglement for your own benefit, remember to use it in conjunction with the knowledge that you are not good enough at it to live forever by it. Keep your focus on Jesus, use QE only for good, and be ready to freely hand over any QE strength that you have to God, on a moment's notice should He call to you. If you aren't ready to do this, you may lose your very essence to the final dissolution of all material and energy, done in the lake of fire, at the final end of this universe.

The end might be here much sooner than we think.

Smiley

Would you explain how sneezing can be defined with "field theoretic entanglement?"

Escape the plutocrats’ zanpakutō, Flower in the Mirror, Moon on the Water: brave “the ascent which is rough and steep” (Plato).
(oYo)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 500


I like boobies


View Profile WWW
October 30, 2014, 01:17:44 AM
 #2107

It's official. I have found god!



Well, at least one that I can say I believe in with as much faith as any other one. I am a Pastafarian convert now. I just wish I had known about this religion before I got my new driver's license photo taken, so I could've worn the proper religious headgear. (aka - a colander)



I was sold once I learned Heaven is a stripper factory inside a beer volcano! (Hell is the same except the beer is stale and the strippers have STDs. LOL!)



May you be forever touched by His Noodly Appendage.

R'amen!

the joint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020



View Profile
October 30, 2014, 05:13:40 AM
 #2108


The FSM is meant to be an analogue of a polytheistic god, not a monotheistic one.  There's a huge difference between the two.  Same thing goes for the teapot orbiting Venus.

Could you source your argument for me? I couldn't find anywhere that the FSM is a polytheistic god. As a matter of fact, what I found seems to describe it as being a monotheistic one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

This is from the wiki:

Quote
Because of its popularity and exposure, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is often used as a contemporary version of Russell's teapot

Now, referring to the teapot...

Quote
Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.

So, there you go.  Likening FSM to a monotheistic god is stupid because FSM is likened to a teapot, and likening a teapot to a monotheistic god is also stupid.
username18333
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 250


Knowledge could but approximate existence.


View Profile WWW
October 30, 2014, 05:21:43 AM
 #2109


The FSM is meant to be an analogue of a polytheistic god, not a monotheistic one.  There's a huge difference between the two.  Same thing goes for the teapot orbiting Venus.

Could you source your argument for me? I couldn't find anywhere that the FSM is a polytheistic god. As a matter of fact, what I found seems to describe it as being a monotheistic one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

This is from the wiki:

Quote
Because of its popularity and exposure, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is often used as a contemporary version of Russell's teapot

Now, referring to the teapot...

Quote
Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.

So, there you go.  Likening FSM to a monotheistic god is stupid because FSM is likened to a teapot, and likening a teapot to a monotheistic god is also stupid.

What is being highlighted by those analogies is the lacking falsifiability of the theory of "God" theists often espouse.

Escape the plutocrats’ zanpakutō, Flower in the Mirror, Moon on the Water: brave “the ascent which is rough and steep” (Plato).
the joint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020



View Profile
October 30, 2014, 05:54:00 AM
 #2110


The FSM is meant to be an analogue of a polytheistic god, not a monotheistic one.  There's a huge difference between the two.  Same thing goes for the teapot orbiting Venus.

Could you source your argument for me? I couldn't find anywhere that the FSM is a polytheistic god. As a matter of fact, what I found seems to describe it as being a monotheistic one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

This is from the wiki:

Quote
Because of its popularity and exposure, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is often used as a contemporary version of Russell's teapot

Now, referring to the teapot...

Quote
Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.

So, there you go.  Likening FSM to a monotheistic god is stupid because FSM is likened to a teapot, and likening a teapot to a monotheistic god is also stupid.

What is being highlighted by those analogies is the lacking falsifiability of the theory of "God" theists often espouse.

But it's not a sound analogy because, first of all, we already know that a monotheistic god is completely off the table as far as empirical study goes; the scope of empiricism doesn't extend that far.  Second of all, there are different types of falsifiability and the empirical kind differs from the logical kind. 

Science yields a posteriori knowledge, i.e. knowledge derived from experience and empiricism.  However, philosophy yields a priori knowledge which is independent of both experience and empiricism.  Scientists often forget this type of knowledge exists, and in fact scientists rely on a priori knowledge upon which the scientific method is founded.

Therefore, the question shouldn't be one in terms of empirical falsifiability, which, while great for the teapot and FSM, cannot be reasonably applied to a monotheistic god.  Instead, the question is whether we have access to enough a priori knowledge to formulate conclusions about the Universe/God. 
username18333
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 250


Knowledge could but approximate existence.


View Profile WWW
October 30, 2014, 06:06:53 AM
 #2111


The FSM is meant to be an analogue of a polytheistic god, not a monotheistic one.  There's a huge difference between the two.  Same thing goes for the teapot orbiting Venus.

Could you source your argument for me? I couldn't find anywhere that the FSM is a polytheistic god. As a matter of fact, what I found seems to describe it as being a monotheistic one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

This is from the wiki:

Quote
Because of its popularity and exposure, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is often used as a contemporary version of Russell's teapot

Now, referring to the teapot...

Quote
Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.

So, there you go.  Likening FSM to a monotheistic god is stupid because FSM is likened to a teapot, and likening a teapot to a monotheistic god is also stupid.

What is being highlighted by those analogies is the lacking falsifiability of the theory of "God" theists often espouse.

But it's not a sound analogy because, first of all, we already know that a monotheistic god is completely off the table as far as empirical study goes; the scope of empiricism doesn't extend that far.  Second of all, there are different types of falsifiability and the empirical kind differs from the logical kind. 

Science yields a posteriori knowledge, i.e. knowledge derived from experience and empiricism.  However, philosophy yields a priori knowledge which is independent of both experience and empiricism.  Scientists often forget this type of knowledge exists, and in fact scientists rely on a priori knowledge upon which the scientific method is founded.

Therefore, the question shouldn't be one in terms of empirical falsifiability, which, while great for the teapot and FSM, cannot be reasonably applied to a monotheistic god.  Instead, the question is whether we have access to enough a priori knowledge to formulate conclusions about the Universe/God. 

So long as a "God" is said to impact "His" world, "His" world will try that impact. If it cannot, "He" was not.

Escape the plutocrats’ zanpakutō, Flower in the Mirror, Moon on the Water: brave “the ascent which is rough and steep” (Plato).
(oYo)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 500


I like boobies


View Profile WWW
October 30, 2014, 06:27:27 AM
Last edit: October 30, 2014, 06:44:04 AM by (oYo)
 #2112


The FSM is meant to be an analogue of a polytheistic god, not a monotheistic one.  There's a huge difference between the two.  Same thing goes for the teapot orbiting Venus.

Could you source your argument for me? I couldn't find anywhere that the FSM is a polytheistic god. As a matter of fact, what I found seems to describe it as being a monotheistic one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

This is from the wiki:

Quote
Because of its popularity and exposure, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is often used as a contemporary version of Russell's teapot

Now, referring to the teapot...

Quote
Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.

So, there you go.  Likening FSM to a monotheistic god is stupid because FSM is likened to a teapot, and likening a teapot to a monotheistic god is also stupid.
That argument is a logical fallacy. First of all, using your argument, there is no need to differentiate between monotheistic or polytheistic gods, since your argument is simply to state that "it's stupid". Second, if anything, Russell's Teapot and the FSM are true examples of monotheistic gods, whereby those theologies make no mention of there being any other gods in existance. On the other hand, the chistian god (which I assume you are using as your example) is actually a fine example for a polytheistic god, as it is made up of a Holy Trinity, being the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, the majority of god worshipping people on this planet would agree that the chirstian god is a false god, since they believe the real one to be a different god such as Allah or Buddha. (Actually Buddha is not seen as being a god, but you get my meaning.)

the joint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020



View Profile
October 30, 2014, 06:38:50 AM
 #2113


The FSM is meant to be an analogue of a polytheistic god, not a monotheistic one.  There's a huge difference between the two.  Same thing goes for the teapot orbiting Venus.

Could you source your argument for me? I couldn't find anywhere that the FSM is a polytheistic god. As a matter of fact, what I found seems to describe it as being a monotheistic one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

This is from the wiki:

Quote
Because of its popularity and exposure, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is often used as a contemporary version of Russell's teapot

Now, referring to the teapot...

Quote
Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.

So, there you go.  Likening FSM to a monotheistic god is stupid because FSM is likened to a teapot, and likening a teapot to a monotheistic god is also stupid.

What is being highlighted by those analogies is the lacking falsifiability of the theory of "God" theists often espouse.

But it's not a sound analogy because, first of all, we already know that a monotheistic god is completely off the table as far as empirical study goes; the scope of empiricism doesn't extend that far.  Second of all, there are different types of falsifiability and the empirical kind differs from the logical kind. 

Science yields a posteriori knowledge, i.e. knowledge derived from experience and empiricism.  However, philosophy yields a priori knowledge which is independent of both experience and empiricism.  Scientists often forget this type of knowledge exists, and in fact scientists rely on a priori knowledge upon which the scientific method is founded.

Therefore, the question shouldn't be one in terms of empirical falsifiability, which, while great for the teapot and FSM, cannot be reasonably applied to a monotheistic god.  Instead, the question is whether we have access to enough a priori knowledge to formulate conclusions about the Universe/God. 

So long as a "God" is said to impact "His" world, "His" world will try that impact. If it cannot, "He" was not.

There's no need to make the unnecessary assumption that God "says" anything at all.  First, we need to establish a method of exploring the God concept to determine whether it must exist by logical necessity. You took it a step further by invoking a secondary characteristic.  

But truly, there is really only one good starting point from which you can begin to explore the God concept, and that is to start working on a theory of theories themselves.  Absolutely every single definition that we have for anything is actually a theory of that thing.  For example, if you look up "apple" in the dictionary, that is essentially a theory of the apple...of the things that gives an apple its apple-ness that allows it to be distinguished from everything else.  So, it's only logical that we must start with a theory of theories so that we can know how the theories we create in our minds are related to the things we form theories about.
username18333
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 250


Knowledge could but approximate existence.


View Profile WWW
October 30, 2014, 06:48:45 AM
Last edit: October 30, 2014, 07:11:00 AM by username18333
 #2114


The FSM is meant to be an analogue of a polytheistic god, not a monotheistic one.  There's a huge difference between the two.  Same thing goes for the teapot orbiting Venus.

Could you source your argument for me? I couldn't find anywhere that the FSM is a polytheistic god. As a matter of fact, what I found seems to describe it as being a monotheistic one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

This is from the wiki:

Quote
Because of its popularity and exposure, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is often used as a contemporary version of Russell's teapot

Now, referring to the teapot...

Quote
Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.

So, there you go.  Likening FSM to a monotheistic god is stupid because FSM is likened to a teapot, and likening a teapot to a monotheistic god is also stupid.
That argument is a logical fallacy. First of all, using your argument, there is no need to differentiate between monotheistic or polytheistic gods, since your argument is simply that "it's stupid". Second, if anything, Russel's Teapot and the FSM are true examples of monotheistic gods, whereby those theologies make no mention of there being any other gods in existance. On the other hand, the chistian god (which I assume you are using as your example) is actually a fine example for a polytheistic god, as it is made up of the Holy Trinity, being the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, the majority of god worshipping people on this planet would agree that the chirstian god is a false god, since they believe the real one to be a different god such as Allah or Buddha. (Actually Buddha is not seen as being a god, but you get my meaning.)

I would imagine you are familiar with "1 = 1"; however, it would seem you are unfamiliar with the following:

Code:
∀x∀y∀z[Father(x, Christianity) ∧ Jesus(y, Christianity) ∧ Spirit(z, Christianity) ⇒ God(x, Christianity) ∧ God(y, Christianity) ∧ God(z, Christianity) ∧ x ≢ y ≢ z]
(That is to say, every member of the Christian Trinitarian "God" is each individually that "God" and not each other.)

Escape the plutocrats’ zanpakutō, Flower in the Mirror, Moon on the Water: brave “the ascent which is rough and steep” (Plato).
the joint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020



View Profile
October 30, 2014, 06:51:28 AM
 #2115


The FSM is meant to be an analogue of a polytheistic god, not a monotheistic one.  There's a huge difference between the two.  Same thing goes for the teapot orbiting Venus.

Could you source your argument for me? I couldn't find anywhere that the FSM is a polytheistic god. As a matter of fact, what I found seems to describe it as being a monotheistic one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

This is from the wiki:

Quote
Because of its popularity and exposure, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is often used as a contemporary version of Russell's teapot

Now, referring to the teapot...

Quote
Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.

So, there you go.  Likening FSM to a monotheistic god is stupid because FSM is likened to a teapot, and likening a teapot to a monotheistic god is also stupid.
That argument is a logical fallacy. First of all, using your argument, there is no need to differentiate between monotheistic or polytheistic gods, since your argument is simply to state that "it's stupid". Second, if anything, Russel's Teapot and the FSM are true examples of monotheistic gods, whereby those theologies make no mention of there being any other gods in existance. On the other hand, the chistian god (which I assume you are using as your example) is actually a fine example for a polytheistic god, as it is made up of a Holy Trinity, being the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, the majority of god worshipping people on this planet would agree that the chirstian god is a false god, since they believe the real one to be a different god such as Allah or Buddha. (Actually Buddha is not seen as being a god, but you get my meaning.)

What exactly do you mean that my argument implies that there is no need to differentiate between mono- and polytheistic gods?  Of course you need to differentiate between the two, which is exactly why using space teapots and flying noodles as analogues to a monotheistic god is invalid.  My argument wasn't that it's stupid, it's that the FSM is likened to a teapot (i.e. a conditional event) which is then likened to a monotheistic god (i.e. a unconditionally necessary event).  I'm not just using the word 'stupid' without explaining why.

How is a space teapot or the FSM like a monotheistic god?  I'm not sure why you think this would be the case.  Monotheistic gods are often described as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.  If that's the case, it would be akin to being a fly on an elephant such that, no matter which empirical angle you select, you will never be able to observe the whole elephant in it's entirety.  This is why monotheistic gods are beyond the scope of empirical study.  A space teapot/FSM, however, is not.  Point the Hubble towards the sun's orbit and you will conclusively be able to determine whether a teapot exists there (same goes for FSM).

And I'm not specifically talking about the Christian god.  I don't belong to any religion.  I'm mostly going by the "omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent" definition of God which I find to be most common.
username18333
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 250


Knowledge could but approximate existence.


View Profile WWW
October 30, 2014, 06:54:06 AM
 #2116


The FSM is meant to be an analogue of a polytheistic god, not a monotheistic one.  There's a huge difference between the two.  Same thing goes for the teapot orbiting Venus.

Could you source your argument for me? I couldn't find anywhere that the FSM is a polytheistic god. As a matter of fact, what I found seems to describe it as being a monotheistic one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

This is from the wiki:

Quote
Because of its popularity and exposure, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is often used as a contemporary version of Russell's teapot

Now, referring to the teapot...

Quote
Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.

So, there you go.  Likening FSM to a monotheistic god is stupid because FSM is likened to a teapot, and likening a teapot to a monotheistic god is also stupid.

What is being highlighted by those analogies is the lacking falsifiability of the theory of "God" theists often espouse.

But it's not a sound analogy because, first of all, we already know that a monotheistic god is completely off the table as far as empirical study goes; the scope of empiricism doesn't extend that far.  Second of all, there are different types of falsifiability and the empirical kind differs from the logical kind. 

Science yields a posteriori knowledge, i.e. knowledge derived from experience and empiricism.  However, philosophy yields a priori knowledge which is independent of both experience and empiricism.  Scientists often forget this type of knowledge exists, and in fact scientists rely on a priori knowledge upon which the scientific method is founded.

Therefore, the question shouldn't be one in terms of empirical falsifiability, which, while great for the teapot and FSM, cannot be reasonably applied to a monotheistic god.  Instead, the question is whether we have access to enough a priori knowledge to formulate conclusions about the Universe/God. 

So long as a "God" is said to impact "His" world, "His" world will try that impact. If it cannot, "He" was not.

There's no need to make the unnecessary assumption that God "says" anything at all.  First, we need to establish a method of exploring the God concept to determine whether it must exist by logical necessity. You took it a step further by invoking a secondary characteristic.  

But truly, there is really only one good starting point from which you can begin to explore the God concept, and that is to start working on a theory of theories themselves.  Absolutely every single definition that we have for anything is actually a theory of that thing.  For example, if you look up "apple" in the dictionary, that is essentially a theory of the apple...of the things that gives an apple its apple-ness that allows it to be distinguished from everything else.  So, it's only logical that we must start with a theory of theories so that we can know how the theories we create in our minds are related to the things we form theories about.

My criticism speaks to what "is said" about "God," not what could be said thereabout.

Escape the plutocrats’ zanpakutō, Flower in the Mirror, Moon on the Water: brave “the ascent which is rough and steep” (Plato).
the joint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020



View Profile
October 30, 2014, 07:02:33 AM
 #2117


The FSM is meant to be an analogue of a polytheistic god, not a monotheistic one.  There's a huge difference between the two.  Same thing goes for the teapot orbiting Venus.

Could you source your argument for me? I couldn't find anywhere that the FSM is a polytheistic god. As a matter of fact, what I found seems to describe it as being a monotheistic one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

This is from the wiki:

Quote
Because of its popularity and exposure, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is often used as a contemporary version of Russell's teapot

Now, referring to the teapot...

Quote
Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.

So, there you go.  Likening FSM to a monotheistic god is stupid because FSM is likened to a teapot, and likening a teapot to a monotheistic god is also stupid.

What is being highlighted by those analogies is the lacking falsifiability of the theory of "God" theists often espouse.

But it's not a sound analogy because, first of all, we already know that a monotheistic god is completely off the table as far as empirical study goes; the scope of empiricism doesn't extend that far.  Second of all, there are different types of falsifiability and the empirical kind differs from the logical kind. 

Science yields a posteriori knowledge, i.e. knowledge derived from experience and empiricism.  However, philosophy yields a priori knowledge which is independent of both experience and empiricism.  Scientists often forget this type of knowledge exists, and in fact scientists rely on a priori knowledge upon which the scientific method is founded.

Therefore, the question shouldn't be one in terms of empirical falsifiability, which, while great for the teapot and FSM, cannot be reasonably applied to a monotheistic god.  Instead, the question is whether we have access to enough a priori knowledge to formulate conclusions about the Universe/God. 

So long as a "God" is said to impact "His" world, "His" world will try that impact. If it cannot, "He" was not.

There's no need to make the unnecessary assumption that God "says" anything at all.  First, we need to establish a method of exploring the God concept to determine whether it must exist by logical necessity. You took it a step further by invoking a secondary characteristic.  

But truly, there is really only one good starting point from which you can begin to explore the God concept, and that is to start working on a theory of theories themselves.  Absolutely every single definition that we have for anything is actually a theory of that thing.  For example, if you look up "apple" in the dictionary, that is essentially a theory of the apple...of the things that gives an apple its apple-ness that allows it to be distinguished from everything else.  So, it's only logical that we must start with a theory of theories so that we can know how the theories we create in our minds are related to the things we form theories about.

My criticism speaks to what "is said" about "God," not what could be said thereabout.

To clarify, are you referring to the problem of putting the cart before the horse, i.e asserting a definition before exploration (which is similar to the scientific limitations resulting from the problem of induction)?
username18333
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 250


Knowledge could but approximate existence.


View Profile WWW
October 30, 2014, 07:06:21 AM
 #2118


The FSM is meant to be an analogue of a polytheistic god, not a monotheistic one.  There's a huge difference between the two.  Same thing goes for the teapot orbiting Venus.

Could you source your argument for me? I couldn't find anywhere that the FSM is a polytheistic god. As a matter of fact, what I found seems to describe it as being a monotheistic one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

This is from the wiki:

Quote
Because of its popularity and exposure, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is often used as a contemporary version of Russell's teapot

Now, referring to the teapot...

Quote
Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.

So, there you go.  Likening FSM to a monotheistic god is stupid because FSM is likened to a teapot, and likening a teapot to a monotheistic god is also stupid.

What is being highlighted by those analogies is the lacking falsifiability of the theory of "God" theists often espouse.

But it's not a sound analogy because, first of all, we already know that a monotheistic god is completely off the table as far as empirical study goes; the scope of empiricism doesn't extend that far.  Second of all, there are different types of falsifiability and the empirical kind differs from the logical kind. 

Science yields a posteriori knowledge, i.e. knowledge derived from experience and empiricism.  However, philosophy yields a priori knowledge which is independent of both experience and empiricism.  Scientists often forget this type of knowledge exists, and in fact scientists rely on a priori knowledge upon which the scientific method is founded.

Therefore, the question shouldn't be one in terms of empirical falsifiability, which, while great for the teapot and FSM, cannot be reasonably applied to a monotheistic god.  Instead, the question is whether we have access to enough a priori knowledge to formulate conclusions about the Universe/God. 

So long as a "God" is said to impact "His" world, "His" world will try that impact. If it cannot, "He" was not.

There's no need to make the unnecessary assumption that God "says" anything at all.  First, we need to establish a method of exploring the God concept to determine whether it must exist by logical necessity. You took it a step further by invoking a secondary characteristic.  

But truly, there is really only one good starting point from which you can begin to explore the God concept, and that is to start working on a theory of theories themselves.  Absolutely every single definition that we have for anything is actually a theory of that thing.  For example, if you look up "apple" in the dictionary, that is essentially a theory of the apple...of the things that gives an apple its apple-ness that allows it to be distinguished from everything else.  So, it's only logical that we must start with a theory of theories so that we can know how the theories we create in our minds are related to the things we form theories about.

My criticism speaks to what "is said" about "God," not what could be said thereabout.

To clarify, are you referring to the problem of putting the cart before the horse, i.e asserting a definition before exploration (which is similar to the scientific limitations resulting from the problem of induction)?

I'm speaking to the difficulties of evidencing one's fiction.

Escape the plutocrats’ zanpakutō, Flower in the Mirror, Moon on the Water: brave “the ascent which is rough and steep” (Plato).
Decksperiment
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 30, 2014, 07:07:49 AM
 #2119

Omg.. I really need to be around here more.. I kinda tried catching up, and thought, wtf?

What does religion have to do with 'GOD'?

More importantly, what does religion have to do with the scientific proof of said 'GOD'?

Since religion itself would actually prevent us finding any such evidence, should it exist, then I think it fair to say that religion should be kept out of it, since if religious folks found the evidence, they would deny it anyway.. as this thread clearly show's.


the joint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020



View Profile
October 30, 2014, 07:17:50 AM
 #2120


The FSM is meant to be an analogue of a polytheistic god, not a monotheistic one.  There's a huge difference between the two.  Same thing goes for the teapot orbiting Venus.

Could you source your argument for me? I couldn't find anywhere that the FSM is a polytheistic god. As a matter of fact, what I found seems to describe it as being a monotheistic one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

This is from the wiki:

Quote
Because of its popularity and exposure, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is often used as a contemporary version of Russell's teapot

Now, referring to the teapot...

Quote
Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.

So, there you go.  Likening FSM to a monotheistic god is stupid because FSM is likened to a teapot, and likening a teapot to a monotheistic god is also stupid.

What is being highlighted by those analogies is the lacking falsifiability of the theory of "God" theists often espouse.

But it's not a sound analogy because, first of all, we already know that a monotheistic god is completely off the table as far as empirical study goes; the scope of empiricism doesn't extend that far.  Second of all, there are different types of falsifiability and the empirical kind differs from the logical kind. 

Science yields a posteriori knowledge, i.e. knowledge derived from experience and empiricism.  However, philosophy yields a priori knowledge which is independent of both experience and empiricism.  Scientists often forget this type of knowledge exists, and in fact scientists rely on a priori knowledge upon which the scientific method is founded.

Therefore, the question shouldn't be one in terms of empirical falsifiability, which, while great for the teapot and FSM, cannot be reasonably applied to a monotheistic god.  Instead, the question is whether we have access to enough a priori knowledge to formulate conclusions about the Universe/God. 

So long as a "God" is said to impact "His" world, "His" world will try that impact. If it cannot, "He" was not.

There's no need to make the unnecessary assumption that God "says" anything at all.  First, we need to establish a method of exploring the God concept to determine whether it must exist by logical necessity. You took it a step further by invoking a secondary characteristic.  

But truly, there is really only one good starting point from which you can begin to explore the God concept, and that is to start working on a theory of theories themselves.  Absolutely every single definition that we have for anything is actually a theory of that thing.  For example, if you look up "apple" in the dictionary, that is essentially a theory of the apple...of the things that gives an apple its apple-ness that allows it to be distinguished from everything else.  So, it's only logical that we must start with a theory of theories so that we can know how the theories we create in our minds are related to the things we form theories about.

My criticism speaks to what "is said" about "God," not what could be said thereabout.

To clarify, are you referring to the problem of putting the cart before the horse, i.e asserting a definition before exploration (which is similar to the scientific limitations resulting from the problem of induction)?

I'm speaking to the difficulties of evidencing one's fiction.

Okay, then yes, you are referring to the problem of induction.  I agree, it's a problem because it implies you already know what something is before you've explored it.

There's a better approach.  It's described here: http://ctmu.org/

Click on the link, and then click "here" in the first bullet point that says, "Christopher Langan's article on the Theory of Theories, can be viewed here."
Pages: « 1 ... 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 [106] 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 ... 523 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!