I'm only 12.5% sure that God exists...
-
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.
-
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:
"Outside the universe" relates it to the universe, which has its own definition which precludes anything "outside".
Good try, but no. Again humans are hypocrites. They can believe contradictory things. And the definition of the universe it wrapped up in science. Science itself is a specific system which is always based on beliefs (for example that one can measure something multiple times and get the same result.)
trønderen wrote:
because time itself started at BB. There cannot be any "before BB"
Which is something that I myself stated in another thread. But that requires that one only and exclusively believes in science. But by doing that you are, by definition, denying the possibility of God. You are certainly not proving it. You cannot prove science. You can only accept it and believe in it.
trønderen wrote:
To make it easier to grasp:
Sorry but no I do not need you to explain the concept to me. I already understand it and even referred to exactly that recently in another thread.
trønderen wrote:
They make no sense in the "standard model"
What you seem to be failing to understand is that very concept is one that belongs to science. Science is not logic. Science is not Christianity (or all of the other deity/spiritual variants.) Logically (not scientifically) if I start with the standard general definition of God then I can make any claim that I want. For example I can state that the entire universe was created yesterday. Every atom, sub-atomic particle, their position and speed exactly specified. Pulsars, stars, my mind and yours all created yesterday. Logically you can refute that in a number of ways - The assumption of God is invalid or the attributes are wrong. - It was not created yesterday but instead 6,000 or 14 billion years ago. - God didn't create it but rather something else did and it happened last week. - You could claim you only speak spanish or klingon and thus we cannot communicate. But you cannot prove it wrong. Not with science and not with logic. And you cannot prove it right either. You can however believe that you can do so.
-
trønderen wrote:
"Outside the universe" relates it to the universe, which has its own definition which precludes anything "outside".
Good try, but no. Again humans are hypocrites. They can believe contradictory things. And the definition of the universe it wrapped up in science. Science itself is a specific system which is always based on beliefs (for example that one can measure something multiple times and get the same result.)
trønderen wrote:
because time itself started at BB. There cannot be any "before BB"
Which is something that I myself stated in another thread. But that requires that one only and exclusively believes in science. But by doing that you are, by definition, denying the possibility of God. You are certainly not proving it. You cannot prove science. You can only accept it and believe in it.
trønderen wrote:
To make it easier to grasp:
Sorry but no I do not need you to explain the concept to me. I already understand it and even referred to exactly that recently in another thread.
trønderen wrote:
They make no sense in the "standard model"
What you seem to be failing to understand is that very concept is one that belongs to science. Science is not logic. Science is not Christianity (or all of the other deity/spiritual variants.) Logically (not scientifically) if I start with the standard general definition of God then I can make any claim that I want. For example I can state that the entire universe was created yesterday. Every atom, sub-atomic particle, their position and speed exactly specified. Pulsars, stars, my mind and yours all created yesterday. Logically you can refute that in a number of ways - The assumption of God is invalid or the attributes are wrong. - It was not created yesterday but instead 6,000 or 14 billion years ago. - God didn't create it but rather something else did and it happened last week. - You could claim you only speak spanish or klingon and thus we cannot communicate. But you cannot prove it wrong. Not with science and not with logic. And you cannot prove it right either. You can however believe that you can do so.
Sure, I am talking science. Math and logic. The Universe and Time, in a scientific sense. You are talking about non-science. Fine with me, but then I would prefer that you stay outside the realm of science. If you talk about "outside the universe", you relate it to the universe, which is a concept of science. If you talk about "before time", you relate it to time, which is a concept of science. I am perfectly fine with you creating your own world of concepts, completely unrelated to science. To me, it is like astrology: I might want to see what kind of constructions they have made, but only at an intellectual level. I know that it doesn't relate to the scientific, physical world. The physical, real world that you can touch and hear and see, is the scientific world: Science grew out of a desire to describe it. Today's advanced science is an extension of thousand years and more of observing and describing the real, physical world. Breaking science away from the real, physical world is impossible. So you have a different set of concepts, like the astrologists. Fine. But if you want me to study them, I will view them as mental constructions completely unrelated to scientific concepts. "Outside the Universe" or "Before Big Bang" are meaningless references, as these religious mental constructions have no relationships to neither the universe nor to physical time. I see science as a description, not as the real world. I find it a reasonably good, reliable description. Yet it is not something that I 'believe in', in a religious sense. If someone finds a better description, I am happy with that. Einstein found a better description than Newton; I know that the world remains unchanged, but he made a better description. Acknowledging that has nothing to do with religious beliefs; it is just realizing that it matches observations of the real world better. The currently best scientific model, often called the 'Standard Model', makes both 'outside the universe' and 'before big bang' impossible concepts. Claiming anything outside the universe and/or before big bang is a complete rejection of the Standard Model. Then you have to come up with something that describes the real, physical world just as well, yet allows for those 'outside' and 'before'. If even better descriptions of the real world comes up, I will of course acknowledge them. If we are to stick to the Standard Model, your concepts must describe something else than the real, physical world (given that your concepts are not related to the real world). Y