Faith is not "without evidence" argument

[Dutch Uncle]

Mantra 50 -- Public Masturbation

LOL

I❤Irony

Mantra 48 Psychotic Buffoonery

Mantra 1a.

Mantra 4a.

One of the "miscellaneous" documents on that site is Into the Night's mantra list.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

They are the same person. It's just one fucked up head.

I❤Irony

Mantra 50 Public Masturbation

Mantra 1a.

Mantra 4a.

One of the "miscellaneous" documents on that site is Into the Night's mantra list.

 

[IBDaMann]

Way too funny. I asked you legitimate questions that are as easy to answer as they are straightforward, and you were still compelled to flee to the hills with your tail between your legs.

You made the comment that the inductive method is arguably the most powerful intellectual tool ever invented by humans. Either that is your conclusion because you feel you can argue that point, or you simply regurgitated someone else's opinion as your own. I then asked you how you would argue your point. Guess what you did? That's right, you told us that you simply regurgitated someone else's opinion as your own.
Didn't you insist that you don't do that?

Let's give you a do-over. How would you argue that the inductive method is the most powerful intellectual tool ever invented by humans? Does your best argument involve utilizing the method? That is the best you can do, right?

Too funny.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Either there are multiple universes and we are in the one that fluked into being tuned for matter and life, or there is one universe that is curiously finely tuned and organized for matter and life.

The monkeys typing Shakespeare is just a thought experiment that doesn't work out when you do the math. Even with trillions of monkeys and quadrillions of years of time, the chances are vanishingly small a Shakespeare play would be typed out. I think it is supposed to come down to people just underestimating exponential function and probability theory.

Isn't that the crux of Infinite? LOL

100 people die in a collapsed building. One kid lives. Miracle or just the odds in a thousand+ building collapses per year because most of the world's 8 billion people live in shitty buildings?

 

[Cypress]

I love masturbation!

Bulverism
Incel loserism

hint: energy and matter are not interchangeable

The Theory of the Big Bang is just a nonscientific theory

Wave-Particle duality is classical physics.

There is no such thing as an accelerating reference frame!!

There is no such thing as an 'accelerating frame of reference'.

Darwin's theory of evolution is not science

Axioms are not postulates!

The Nazis were also socialists.

Bulverism fallacy. Bigotry.

Bulverism. Bigotry. False Authority.

bigotry, bulverism

 

[Cypress]

Isn't that the crux of Infinite? LOL

100 people die in a collapsed building. One kid lives. Miracle or just the odds in a thousand+ building collapses per year because most of the world's 8 billion people live in shitty buildings?

The thing is, we only have evidence of one universe. And that universe is finely tuned.

The conservative scientific assumption, absent any additional evidence, is that this is the only universe.


At this point, a multiverse is sheer speculation.

 

[Into the Night]

So, 2+2 may not actually equal 4?

False equivalence fallacy. Mathematics is a closed functional system, not facts.

Oh, and 2+2 might equal 10, in a base 4 numbering system, or 11 in a base three numbering system.

You can think of the axioms of a Domain of mathematics as the set of rules for the game. Change one, and you are playing a different game. You are in a different mathematics Domain. Ignore the rules entirely, and you are not talking about mathematics at all.

Because mathematics is a closed functional system, it has the power of the proof, and with it, the power of prediction. Some branches of mathematics (such as probability and statistical mathematics) lose that power of prediction due to importing from another Domain (such as importing the use of random numbers).

 

[NiftyNiblick]

As I have mentioned, that god seems to me to be a cartoon god...much like the gods of the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans and Norse.

If you want to assert that god cannot possibly exist...okay with me. But if someone demands that you bear the burden of proof, you are in trouble. In the meantime, I agree that it seems that god does not exist...and that would be my guess...if I made guesses on this issue...which I do not.

I only know for sure that the "described god" cannot exist,
simply because such a deity would be an outrageous paradox.
Paradoxes are inherently illogical.

As for another kind of god,
one that we'd have no reason to worship [or to love back, as it were],
I just never considered that possibility as something that I would need to consider.

 

[Into the Night]

I would bet the farm that the writers of the Bible absolutely and unequivocally believed in a literal heaven and hell.

...annnnnnd here comes the literal interpretation of something written in another language and translated to English. Idioms, however, don't translate.

They believed that Noah built a cruise ship with no power tools,

Who knows what tools he used? Power tools maybe?
And what a lousy 'cruise ship'. No engines, no sails, and a ship stuffed with but a few people and a lot of animals. No, this is NOT the first class section.

people talked to animals

People still talk to animals. Animals sometimes even listen to them. Haven't you ever seen someone train a dog to come when called, for example?

and bushes,

While people still talk to bushes, it's a rather boring one sided conversation.

There are Christians today who still believe the Bible is the literal and inerrant word of God, despite a laundry list of contradictions, errors and inconsistencies contained within.

Consider: These 'errors' are often the result of translation problems, and people taking the English working literally, as if it was the original language, and the Bible was some kind of formal legalese.

There are books dedicated to explaining away all of the "oopsies" in the Bible and, no matter how silly the explanations, if you want to believe the Bible left the hands of god and floated down from heaven, those explanations do the job.

It didn't. It was written by various prophets of God, each according to their own writing style in in their own language. Later, portions of the Bible was translated to English (not the idioms, which don't translate), and some has been changed or mistranslated.

There are fewer and fewer of those dogmatic Christians today.

Trying to speak for all Christians now? Omniscience fallacy.

Polling shows

Polls show nothing. They are random number generators, nothing more.

that more believe in a literal heaven than a literal hell, which is odd because, again, the Bible writers absolutely believed in them...

Again, you are taking the English version as legalese. That's a mistake.

of course, they also buried animals under buildings for good luck and couldn't explain where the sun went at night.

There is no council from God or Jesus Christ to bury animals under buildings. The Bible doesn't describe the Sun or the Moon, other than that they exist.
Egyptians, however, DID describe as the Sun passing beneath the Earth (what they called the Underworld)...a remarkably accurate description, considering the point of view they had (a terracentric system). You should study the religion of Ra.

OTOH, there are Christians who acknowledge the Bible is anything but inerrant or divine, was written by man, is full of errors and made up stories but they still believe that the "God" of the Bible exists.

There is no proof possible that any god or gods exist. There is no proof possible that no god or gods exist. All you are showing is that you belong to the Church of No God, a fundamentalist style religion.

The Bible is clear that you have to believe in the Christian God to be saved,

Satan believes Jesus Christ exists. Satan believes God exists. After all, he tried to tempt both of them. Does this mean Satan is saved?

heaven and hell are real

Again mistranslations and failure of idioms to translate. The word 'hell' comes from Norse mythology.

and God is going to return one day to judge mankind.

He judges mankind all the time. He doesn't have to wait for a particular day to do that!

Those who don't pass will be condemned to the eternal lake of fire.

Quite probably a figure of speech. The 'lake of fire' could very well be a description of the misery of the condemned, rather than a physical place.

 

[Into the Night]

I only know for sure that the "described god" cannot exist,
simply because such a deity would be an outrageous paradox.
Paradoxes are inherently illogical.

As for another kind of god,
one that we'd have no reason to worship [or to love back, as it were],
I just never considered that possibility as something that I would need to consider.

God, as described in the Bible, does not create any paradox by His existence.

 

[IBDaMann]

The thing is, we only have evidence of one universe. And that universe is finely tuned.

This viewpoint that the the universe is finely tuned ... whose is it? I see that you are regurgitating it as your own but we both know that you are simply repeating what someone else told you to say.

I see the universe as being a random dustball of which 99.9999999999999999% is totally hostile to human life. If that is your idea of "finely tuned" then your idea of an intelligent designer is one of a sadistic torturer who created a "finely tuned" deathtrap to keep humanity imprisoned on an infinitesimal speck, fighting each other in a death-struggle over limited resources, and it would appear to be for his amusement.

You have a strange religious view.

The conservative scientific assumption, absent any additional evidence, is that this is the only universe.

Why is your assumption somehow a "scientific" assumption? Whose opinion are you regurgitating that holds that his opinion is thettled thienth?

There are no scientific opinions and thus there are no scientific assumptions. There are only opinions and assumptions.

At this point, a multiverse is sheer speculation.

... as is only one, sole, lonely universe only sheer speculation. All sheer speculation is sheer speculation. Am I the first person to teach you this?

 

[Into the Night]

This viewpoint that the the universe is finely tuned ... whose is it? I see that you are regurgitating it as your own but we both know that you are simply repeating what someone else told you to say.

I see the universe as being a random dustball of which 99.9999999999999999% is totally hostile to human life. If that is your idea of "finely tuned" then your idea of an intelligent designer is one of a sadistic torturer who created a "finely tuned" deathtrap to keep humanity imprisoned on an infinitesimal speck, fighting each other in a death-struggle over limited resources, and it would appear to be for his amusement.

, but not much of a dustball. There's hardly anything in it!

You have a strange religious view.

That he does.

Why is your assumption somehow a "scientific" assumption? Whose opinion are you regurgitating that holds that his opinion is thettled thienth?
There are no scientific opinions and thus there are no scientific assumptions. There are only opinions and assumptions.

Remember, The Sock is like other illiterate idiots. They believe using the word 'science' or 'scientific' somehow augments their argument, even though they can't name any theory of science that does so. To them, it's a magick adjective that acts as a 'proof' or 'Universal Truth'.

... as is only one, sole, lonely universe only sheer speculation. All sheer speculation is sheer speculation. Am I the first person to teach you this?

Here I must take exception to this statement for the following reason:

If a multiverse exists, there is no universe, since such a 'universe' is by definition not universal.
If it's a universe, than no multiverse can exist, since a universe is universal. There is no 'outside'.

It's got to be one or the other. The two are mutually exclusive.

Given that, if as many claim, that God created the 'verse', a multiverse gives some place for God to be, when creating the version of the multiverse that we observe.
God could not have created a universe since there is no outside for such a God to exist in.

Of course, that presumes the 'verse was created at all. It may very well be the case that it has always existed, and always will. It has no beginning, and no end.
God still has a place in the Theory of Creation. He created Earth and put life upon it, but He did not create the universe, since it has always existed, like God, and has no end, like God.

I realize that you are an atheist, and you don't care either way, but I do make the point here because you commented on The Sock's view on the Theory of Creation which somehow includes the 'verse being created with it.

 

[IBDaMann]

Quite probably a figure of speech. The 'lake of fire' could very well be a description of the misery of the condemned, rather than a physical place.

Those of us who are proud Americans can cite many contributions that our country has made to the world. The list is long. One of them is the prominence of "fire and brimstone" imagery of Hell. Yes, imagery of fire had been used before, but American Christianity grabbed ahold of Revelation and totally ran with the "Lake of Fire" imagery. Because of that, all over the globe today Hell is synonymous with sinners being roasted for eternity, ... but English speakers are still the only ones who use the phrase "a snowball's chance in Hell" or refer to taking a lot of heat as "catching Hell for something."

Nonetheless, my point is that it is stupid to speak about primitive peoples thinking this way. They thought of the "heavens" as the sky (which is why the word for the color sky-blue in many languages is the word for heaven/celestial) and there was no place "Hell." They equated the devil's home as being a proverbial deep pit. Even today some Christians refer to Hell as "the deepest pit." Just as certain Muslim countries throw homosexuals off of roofs, primitive peoples threw people off of cliffs or, if there were no mountains around, into a deep pit of their making, as their way of exacting Climate Justice or whatever they were trying to accomplish.

The concept of the Lake of Fire emerged in the KJV. Primitive peoples were simply trying to cope with nature and survive beyond their 40th birthdays.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The thing is, we only have evidence of one universe. And that universe is finely tuned.

The conservative scientific assumption, absent any additional evidence, is that this is the only universe.


At this point, a multiverse is sheer speculation.

Consider life on Earth. Miracle or just lucky? Out of trillions of stars in the Universe, we happen to be on a planet with life. Go figure. LOL

 

[IBDaMann]

They believe using the word 'science' or 'scientific' somehow augments their argument, even though they can't name any theory of science that does so.

Correct. It is human nature to want one's ideas to be respected, even better, revered. When one is referring to one's religion, one will use certain modifiers that tell others which things are to be revered, e.g. the holy scripture, the sacred text, the scientific paper on Global Warming, IBDaMann's view on life, etc ... This is what Terry and Cypress do. They are both desperate to be revered themselves, but realize that they are too stupid for anything but mockery. So they go with magic formula of: 1. quote someone famous; whatever he said should work for them if they say it, 2. get some material off of Quora, with some paraphrasing of Wikipedia to fill in any holes, pretending it is their original thought, and 3. Use whenever someone responds.

I should ask them how that's working out for them. Better yet, I should ask of JPP who now reveres them.

Here I must take exception to this statement for the following reason:

There's no need. I apologize for the careless use of wording. I was not implying that your belief was incorrect in any way. I will state for the record that your view absolutely could be correct. I was merely commenting on Cypress' statement that the idea of a multiverse is sheer speculation. That statement is correct, but expressed as is, it implies that there being only one expandiverse is somehow not sheer speculation. But then your view enters the discussion and your view is a religious one which takes exception to being referred to as "speculation" ... I totally get it. So I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place. How do I point out, from an unbiased, rational adult's point of view that Cypress' view is not somehow more rational than any other? ... although I suppose I could write what I just wrote right now. Hmmmm.

Perhaps a better way to put it is that Cypress' view is just as religious as yours. I really don't know what the best way to express it would be. I'm open to suggestions.

If a multiverse exists, there is no universe,

I still think you're playing word games here, specifically prefix games. There is no reason your belief of one universe can't include many expandiverses within the one universe. You don't have a problem with there being many solar systems within your universe. You don't have a problem with there being many galaxies in your universe. I fail to see why multiple expandiverses somehow causes a problem. I think an infinite number of expandiverses would fit inside an infinitely large universe.

I just don't see the idea of multiple expandiverses within your infinite universe as somehow being contradictory. However, if you say your religious view stops at galaxies, then great! I'll drink to your view while listening to some Outlaws ... yes ... Green Grass and High Tides Forever! I certainly don't have any problem with your view; you aren't asking for homeowners to pay a starlight tax per visible star. Ummmm, you don't project doing so in the near future do you?

 

[Cypress]

Consider life on Earth. Miracle or just lucky? Out of trillions of stars in the Universe, we happen to be on a planet with life. Go figure. LOL

That's the 64,000 dollar question. Why is life seemingly so rare, and why does advanced intelligent life seem inexplicably practically absent from the galaxy.

 

[Cypress]

I have delusions of grandeur

^^ Incel

hint: energy and matter are not interchangeable

The Theory of the Big Bang is just a nonscientific theory

Wave-Particle duality is classical physics.

There is no such thing as an accelerating reference frame!!

There is no such thing as an 'accelerating frame of reference'.

Darwin's theory of evolution is not science

Axioms are not postulates!

The Nazis were also socialists.

Bulverism fallacy. Bigotry.

Bulverism. Bigotry. False Authority.

bigotry, bulverism

 

[IBDaMann]

The monkeys typing Shakespeare is just a thought experiment that doesn't work out when you do the math.

I have done the math and it works out. Could you show me your math? Oh wait, you are mathematically incompetent. You haven't the vaguest idea what you're talking about. Sorry. Nevermind.

Even with trillions of monkeys and quadrillions of years of time, the chances are vanishingly small a Shakespeare play would be typed out.

Yeah, you have no clue. Here you are imposing a limitation that doesn't exist in the original math. I'm sorry, but we have some nice parting gifts for you on your way out.

I think it is supposed to come down to people just underestimating exponential function and probability theory.

Nope, it comes down to morons not understanding "infinite" and "unlimited."

 

[Dutch Uncle]

you are mathematically incompetent. You haven't the vaguest idea what you're talking about. Sorry. Nevermind.

Yeah, you have no clue."

Mantra 42 Small Dick Syndrome (SDS)

Mantra 1a.

Mantra 4a.

One of the "miscellaneous" documents on that site is Into the Night's mantra list.

 

[IBDaMann]

Why is life seemingly so rare, and why does advanced intelligent life seem inexplicably practically absent from the galaxy.

Why should any rational adult believe that intelligent life is somehow absent from the galaxy? Why do you claim to know that life is "inexplicably practically absent" from the galaxy ... whatever that means?