I'm only 12.5% sure that God exists...
-
Yet, just because someone wrote a book claiming they didn't - some other 'god' entity really wrote it for them - you think that is a good reason for setting aside laws of nature, common logic and math when it it fits the goals of your religion and yourself. You think that it gives you the right to declare about everybody else that "I guarantee all y'all gonna be singing a different tune when you come near the end of your life" - displaying an extreme disrespect for the integrity of everybody else. And you demand the right to censor everybody who does not unconditionally accept every word in that book someone wrote long ago - or rather: The way you interpret those words, which may be quite different from the literal words. In spite of your readings, you apparently still haven't gotten around to read UDHR-19.
I DO NO ASSOCIATE WITH EVIL. LEAVE ME ALONE.
Jeremy Falcon
-
YOU'VE BEEN REPORTED
Jeremy Falcon
Good thing. You may succeed in having CP respect your right to silence people who disagrees with your opinions, the way you demand. Maybe they don't. Maybe they will even find your attacks against me more harassing than the follow ups I have made in discussion threads where you have participated. I expect CP to make contact with me to explain what makes it a harassment to refer to UDHR-19. Alternately: When you try to unconditionally silence me, why it makes it a 'harassment' when I continue exercising my right to speak.
-
Good thing. You may succeed in having CP respect your right to silence people who disagrees with your opinions, the way you demand. Maybe they don't. Maybe they will even find your attacks against me more harassing than the follow ups I have made in discussion threads where you have participated. I expect CP to make contact with me to explain what makes it a harassment to refer to UDHR-19. Alternately: When you try to unconditionally silence me, why it makes it a 'harassment' when I continue exercising my right to speak.
LEAVE ME ALONE! YOU'VE BEEN REPORTED! GO BACK TO YOUR MISERABLE LIFE AND LEAVE ME ALONE.
Jeremy Falcon
-
I DO NO ASSOCIATE WITH EVIL. LEAVE ME ALONE.
Jeremy Falcon
As you have a couple of times declared that you do not read my responses, I do not consider that a problem. I will upheld my right to speak, based on UDHR-19, but even setting that aside, it would be outright silly to be silenced by someone who doesn't even read what I am writing. My posts go to other readers of this forum. They are available to you as well, and your choice to not read them is yours alone. What I do not understand is why something that you don't read can upset you so badly!
-
LEAVE ME ALONE! YOU'VE BEEN REPORTED! GO BACK TO YOUR MISERABLE LIFE AND LEAVE ME ALONE.
Jeremy Falcon
-
As you have a couple of times declared that you do not read my responses, I do not consider that a problem. I will upheld my right to speak, based on UDHR-19, but even setting that aside, it would be outright silly to be silenced by someone who doesn't even read what I am writing. My posts go to other readers of this forum. They are available to you as well, and your choice to not read them is yours alone. What I do not understand is why something that you don't read can upset you so badly!
LEAVE ME ALONE. I'M NOT READING YOUR POSTS. YOU'RE WASTING MY TIME.
Jeremy Falcon
-
LEAVE ME ALONE. I'M NOT READING YOUR POSTS. YOU'RE WASTING MY TIME.
Jeremy Falcon
Apparently you DO read my posts. If you do not, you are threatening with reporting me to the admins for something that you haven't read. That is strange. Now that you do not read my posts, there is nothing more I can do to save your precious time for you. The one most obvious thing would be for you not to waste time trying to censor and silence me, through a series of censor-demanding, trump case posts. Especially making these outbursts without having read the statements you are trying to suppress sounds like a real waste of time and energy. But as you are not reading my posts, you unfortunately will not see this little piece of advice.
-
Apparently you DO read my posts. If you do not, you are threatening with reporting me to the admins for something that you haven't read. That is strange. Now that you do not read my posts, there is nothing more I can do to save your precious time for you. The one most obvious thing would be for you not to waste time trying to censor and silence me, through a series of censor-demanding, trump case posts. Especially making these outbursts without having read the statements you are trying to suppress sounds like a real waste of time and energy. But as you are not reading my posts, you unfortunately will not see this little piece of advice.
YOU'VE BEEN REPORTED!
Jeremy Falcon
-
YOU'VE BEEN REPORTED!
Jeremy Falcon
-
With moderate success so far, it seems. References to UDHR-19 as a response to cries for censorship seems to be within the acceptable for CP.
LEAVE ME ALONE
Jeremy Falcon
-
LEAVE ME ALONE
Jeremy Falcon
-
I GET IT, YOU GOT NOTHING BETTER GOING ON WITH YOUR LIFE SO YOU NEED THE LAST POST. YOU CAN HAVE IT. GO AWAY.
Jeremy Falcon
-
many assumptions in your discussion of assumptions .
-
thanks for the clarification . it seems i do not know the proper term for my situation . perhaps it is "idonotknowanddonotcareonewayortheother" .
-
And yet perfectly valid for a human to have that view. Yet at least some would claim it is not possible.
Imagine that I am presented for some religion that I have never heard of before, and might never hear about again. "There is this group of a few thousand people down in Brazil (or somewhere) who has this idea that if they lay out colored stones in a specific pattern and show their palms to the sky, the gods will make it rain." If I was presented for some person of this jungle tribe religion, I would of course try to react in a polite manner. But my true reaction would be a shrug, 'You can believe in that if you like to. But I don't care at all; it affects me in no way.' Even when the religion is a big and powerful one, with lots of churches and clergy, my response is the same, a shrug and 'You can believe in that if you like to. But I don't care at all; it affects me in no way.' Any religion has the same value to me, whether a small tribal one or a mighty world religion - zero. As long as it doesn't insist on bothering me, controlling my life. If I were a psychologist, I might want to study religions and beliefs as a mental phenomenon, to try to understand how the human brain works. But the 'religious' content of the religion would be more or less irrelevant; the fascinating part is how a religion, regardless of which one, works on humans.
-
Are you willing to share with us exactly what you reported me for? Which specific statements? Or did you just report that "This guy is not shutting up when I tell him to - he continues making statements that I disagree with"?
trønderen wrote:
Or did you just report that "This guy is not shutting up when I tell him to
If he did so as with me then he claimed that you are 'following' him and responding to his posts specifically to annoy him. For myself I did not even realize he existed, since I respond to posts not people, until he started going off about this.
-
If you take the entire set of laws of nature, both those that we know well and those we do not yet fully understand, and call it "god", that is OK with me. I call them laws of nature. If you say that some entity can tell nature and its laws to bug off, set aside the laws, then I am not with you. Like setting aside math: 1 + 1 is no longer 2. Or logic: true OR false is not necessarily true. If you dead serious present an entity that can cancel math, logic and laws of nature, then you make me stall. (Well, not actually - to me it is so far out that I do not care to spend the effort of stalling). If math, logic and laws of nature are absolute, then there is no need for an entity that can_not_ set them aside. If there really was such an entity, it would be noticeable, in ways that left no doubt. Like math: If I got this many: *** and this many: ** and add them together, I obviously have this many: *****. Noone in their right senses would argue that. If someone says: I've got a god that can make *** + ** to be **** or ******! then I consider that person not to be in his right senses, even if he refers to something he calls 'god'. As long as that god is not willing to really show his ability to set my addition aside (without stealing one * away, or let an extra one roll out of his sleeve), then I tend to think that this 'god' entity only exists in the fantasy of the person promoting the belief. I will not be willing to cease believing in math, logic and laws of nature even on my dying day, no matter what you "know". (Jeremy: Don't forget UDHR Article 19 this time!)
trønderen wrote:
Like setting aside math:
You can believe that of course. But logically it is not true given a general description/definition of 'God' (judeo-christian.) That definition holds that 'God' is outside the universe. That is the definition. Now if someone attempts to prove using a logical proof that 'God' is outside the universe then you can logically refute it. But you cannot logically refute a definition. One can only accept it or refuse it (or as I suggested elsewhere just ignore the question entirely.)
trønderen wrote:
If there really was such an entity, it would be noticeable,
That however is you attempting to prove it. And that simply is not possible. How do I refute your general proof? By the very definition of 'God' (all knowing, seeing, powerful.) Any way in which you could 'notice' him would have or could have been already accounted for because of the very attributes that the definition provides.
trønderen wrote:
I tend to think that this 'god' entity only exists in the fantasy of the person promoting the belief.
Certainly one can hold that as a belief. But proving it is quite a bit different.
trønderen wrote:
I will not be willing to cease believing in math, logic and laws of nature
Noting of course that all of those do require belief. Excluding of course the hypocrisy of humans and example would be that someone could just dismiss logic itself. You cannot prove the logic itself exists. Not even if you accept logic. It can only be 'believed' in (to some matter of degree.) Same applies to the others that you mentioned. Keep in mind that I am not claiming that 'God' exists. But rather just pointing out that there is nothing that one can logically state as an absolute. But one can believe in many things.
-
trønderen wrote:
Like setting aside math:
You can believe that of course. But logically it is not true given a general description/definition of 'God' (judeo-christian.) That definition holds that 'God' is outside the universe. That is the definition. Now if someone attempts to prove using a logical proof that 'God' is outside the universe then you can logically refute it. But you cannot logically refute a definition. One can only accept it or refuse it (or as I suggested elsewhere just ignore the question entirely.)
trønderen wrote:
If there really was such an entity, it would be noticeable,
That however is you attempting to prove it. And that simply is not possible. How do I refute your general proof? By the very definition of 'God' (all knowing, seeing, powerful.) Any way in which you could 'notice' him would have or could have been already accounted for because of the very attributes that the definition provides.
trønderen wrote:
I tend to think that this 'god' entity only exists in the fantasy of the person promoting the belief.
Certainly one can hold that as a belief. But proving it is quite a bit different.
trønderen wrote:
I will not be willing to cease believing in math, logic and laws of nature
Noting of course that all of those do require belief. Excluding of course the hypocrisy of humans and example would be that someone could just dismiss logic itself. You cannot prove the logic itself exists. Not even if you accept logic. It can only be 'believed' in (to some matter of degree.) Same applies to the others that you mentioned. Keep in mind that I am not claiming that 'God' exists. But rather just pointing out that there is nothing that one can logically state as an absolute. But one can believe in many things.
jschell wrote:
That definition holds that 'God' is outside the universe. That is the definition. Now if someone attempts to prove using a logical proof that 'God' is outside the universe then you can logically refute it. But you cannot logically refute a definition.
Well ... "Outside the universe" relates it to the universe, which has its own definition which precludes anything "outside". Claiming something "outside" implies that you reject the definition of the universe. Similarly, you cannot define a god that existed "before Big Bang", because time itself started at BB. There cannot be any "before BB", not even for a god. To make it easier to grasp: Think of speed. You are driving your car, braking, and it stops. It stands completely still. It cannot be more still than completely still. You can make some definition of an entity that says that stands more than than still. It is far below zero on the scale of absolute speed. Defining something to stand 100 km/h more still than absolute still makes no sense in the mathematical apparatus defining speeds. Such a definition just isn't valid. That is like claiming anything like "before BB" or "outside the universe". They make no sense in the "standard model" (the BB model commonly accepted by cosmologists today). You may of course make definitions in other concepts, unrelated to the standard model, but then they do not relate to those concepts of space and time; you cannot talk about "outside the universe" or "before BB".
-
trønderen wrote:
Like setting aside math:
You can believe that of course. But logically it is not true given a general description/definition of 'God' (judeo-christian.) That definition holds that 'God' is outside the universe. That is the definition. Now if someone attempts to prove using a logical proof that 'God' is outside the universe then you can logically refute it. But you cannot logically refute a definition. One can only accept it or refuse it (or as I suggested elsewhere just ignore the question entirely.)
trønderen wrote:
If there really was such an entity, it would be noticeable,
That however is you attempting to prove it. And that simply is not possible. How do I refute your general proof? By the very definition of 'God' (all knowing, seeing, powerful.) Any way in which you could 'notice' him would have or could have been already accounted for because of the very attributes that the definition provides.
trønderen wrote:
I tend to think that this 'god' entity only exists in the fantasy of the person promoting the belief.
Certainly one can hold that as a belief. But proving it is quite a bit different.
trønderen wrote:
I will not be willing to cease believing in math, logic and laws of nature
Noting of course that all of those do require belief. Excluding of course the hypocrisy of humans and example would be that someone could just dismiss logic itself. You cannot prove the logic itself exists. Not even if you accept logic. It can only be 'believed' in (to some matter of degree.) Same applies to the others that you mentioned. Keep in mind that I am not claiming that 'God' exists. But rather just pointing out that there is nothing that one can logically state as an absolute. But one can believe in many things.
(I frequently accidentally hit some key that cause what I have written to be posted before I have completed it. So maybe it is better taking it piece by piece :-))
jschell wrote:
trønderen wrote:If there really was such an entity, it would be noticeable, That however is you attempting to prove it. And that simply is not possible.
I do not need to neither prove nor disprove the existence of a god. All I say is that throughout my life, this god hasn't shown up. I meet a few people whose null hypothesis is 'if it cannot be disproved, God exists'. My null hypothesis is that any sort of god resembling the god of Abraham does not exist. It takes reliable evidence for me to accept another conclusion. Not having seen any trace of reliable evidence for my entire lifetime, until now, makes me suspect that there won't come up much evidence for the rest of my life, either. Remember that if you go a couple hundred years, it was sufficient to show the existence of irrational numbers to conclude "Ergo Deus Est!" Further back, thunderstorms was a proof of the existence of Thor. Today, it takes a lot more. You can't just say "Look, all animals have four legs! That shows that there must be a god, creating them with four legs. Ergo Deus Est!" ... Sorry. Camera people use tripods, not quadropods, for a good reason. So what was proved? I see no more "real" evidence than I see from astrologers. Expecting me to bow to Abraham's god on my dying day is like expecting me to bow to astrologers.
-
trønderen wrote:
Like setting aside math:
You can believe that of course. But logically it is not true given a general description/definition of 'God' (judeo-christian.) That definition holds that 'God' is outside the universe. That is the definition. Now if someone attempts to prove using a logical proof that 'God' is outside the universe then you can logically refute it. But you cannot logically refute a definition. One can only accept it or refuse it (or as I suggested elsewhere just ignore the question entirely.)
trønderen wrote:
If there really was such an entity, it would be noticeable,
That however is you attempting to prove it. And that simply is not possible. How do I refute your general proof? By the very definition of 'God' (all knowing, seeing, powerful.) Any way in which you could 'notice' him would have or could have been already accounted for because of the very attributes that the definition provides.
trønderen wrote:
I tend to think that this 'god' entity only exists in the fantasy of the person promoting the belief.
Certainly one can hold that as a belief. But proving it is quite a bit different.
trønderen wrote:
I will not be willing to cease believing in math, logic and laws of nature
Noting of course that all of those do require belief. Excluding of course the hypocrisy of humans and example would be that someone could just dismiss logic itself. You cannot prove the logic itself exists. Not even if you accept logic. It can only be 'believed' in (to some matter of degree.) Same applies to the others that you mentioned. Keep in mind that I am not claiming that 'God' exists. But rather just pointing out that there is nothing that one can logically state as an absolute. But one can believe in many things.
(Third partial reply to compensate for my uncontrolled fingers posting before it was intended :-))
jschell wrote:
Keep in mind that I am not claiming that 'God' exists. But rather just pointing out that there is nothing that one can logically state as an absolute. But one can believe in many things.
Sure, if you go into the philosophical parts of science theory, there is very little we can know - even that 1 + 1 = 2. (I am serious; that is not a joke.) Very little is 100,000% certain and absolute. So I admit that in my world, I consider 1 + 1 = 2 to be a fact. Some argue about numeric representation and numeric abstractions, and I have to explain it as so many: *, and so many: *, makes so many: **. Philosophers may argue that I cannot be sure of that, but I must say that I feel quite certain. I guess lots of us seniors must admit that things we held up as truths in our youth are no longer as certain as they used to be. For me, a lot of what I thought might be at least evidence, although not necessarily proof, of something supernatural - all that has crumbled over the years. It takes more than pointing to irrational numbers to convince me "ergo deus est". If there is an almighty god, he can use his almight to save my soul. If his almight is incomplete so that he needs my help to succeed, he must convince me, and he hasn't been very successful at that yet. If he really is almighty, then I assume that he can handle it without my assistance.