RE: Atheist Becomes Catholic
October 9, 2013 at 11:34 pm
(This post was last modified: October 10, 2013 at 12:37 am by Creed of Heresy.)
http://i.imgur.com/MDJeYK4.gif
If it is a claim, it is only a claim (B) in response to a claim made prior (A).
A: This is real.
B: Prove it.
A: No. I can neither prove nor disprove it is real.
B: It doesn't exist.
A makes the initial claim. B makes the responding claim. The initial claimant must show that their claim is factual. It does not go in reverse order that B must provide proof before A does. What logic is it that you follow that you think this is rational?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assumption
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar...ord=assume#
So it's OK when YOU think that something is true or probably true without knowing that it is true, but when an atheist makes an assumption in reaction to your claim being an assumption, it's irrational? Nice, the double-standard fallacy, and also outright bullshit.
Yeah we can, actually. Read up on the Turing Test. And for the love of fuck don't bring up zombies; if you think you must, just consider that you would be arguing that zombies exist.
We know what we are experiencing right now and every thing else is inferred. "Everything else" includes your god. You infer god. My axiom is that what we experience right now is testable through the input of our consciousness, which is to say our senses, via the scientific method. It may only be one sense, or all of them, but I can achieve sensory input in that way. Your axiom is that because everything must come from something and that something must come from something and so on and so forth that therefore it must be so. God is unprovable but so are fairies, and there are people who claim to have seen them. Consciousness is unprovable but yet I can test mine and you can test yours. I assume other people have consciousness, and I can work with them to test what I consciously experience by using sensory input, and so can you.
Can you work with others to consciously test your experiences with god? Can you work with others to consciously test their experiences with god? And will you come to a conclusion that can be consciously tested in like ways between you to a detailed extent?
Given the enormous number of conflicting religions and "spiritual" accounts, I'm going to say no. But me? Going by my logic, I can test what others have found to be true, if I am being genuine to my desire to test it and see what conclusions I come to. And if I am going by the set axioms of logic, that which science has shown to be true will end up true to me as well. I can reject it, sure, but on what basis what I do so? What would my conscious argument entail? That even though I experience it with all my senses, I still reject it because it does not hold to a preconceived notion? Well, if I do that, then clearly I am not being true to my desire to test my consciousness, now am I?
So, I ask again, can you test the existence of god? Like, at all? With all your senses? Or even one of them? No, you cannot. Because you are not testing your consciousness, you are not receiving any conscious input. You are assuming that your consciousness must be correct because others have claimed to have experiences similar to your own and because you have a preconceived bias that you are not unwilling to test, but rather are incapable of testing. Can either you or others who "share" your "experiences" test with your senses, that which is the input for your consciousness, the existence and/or experience of god?
No, you cannot. You are consciously inverted, not testing the nature of reality, but assuming the nature of reality. Assuming, as in taking something to be true without knowing it is true...after all, how can you know for sure beyond any reasonable doubt that something is true if you aren't even testing it?
Nice attempt at philosobabble, though.
Really? Got any way you and me can consciously test this? Or are you just assuming?
Shall we consciously test that? Do you have any reason to believe that? Or are you just using the thing where "everything must have a beginning?" Because if that is the case, god must have a beginning to. If god is the context for why reality exists, then he must be capable of reality himself, for how can something that is Not actually Be? Unless you are stating that god is not real, at which point we would actually be agreeing on something, here. So either god is real, therefore a part of reality, or he is not real, which is the only way to not be a part of reality. Your logic is reaching a critical fail state. Maybe you should try consciously testing the world to come up with logical answers, huh?
Ahh...the "idea." Yeah, that pretty much sums up what god is. An idea...and nothing more.
Except that the historical "evidence" is untestable and when it is testable it turns out that it isn't evidence supporting the claims. Tell me, where is the historical evidence that the earth was created in seven days? I'll tell you; the historical evidence is the age of the world itself, which we have tested...and come to find out that it is billions of years old, that the square will not fit the circle in any context. The very initial claim of god's work already proven false. With the axiom disproven via conscious input, the rest of the claim is hereby dismissed as false.
So tell me, does anyone else share your view of god to the letter without your own input on their view? And how old were you when you were introduced to the notion of god?
As for myself, I have consciously tested the universe and found no reason to believe there was an intelligent entity responsible for its existence. It is vast and complex and wondrous, no doubt. And yet its fate is a cold and bleak one. If god is not a part of reality, he cannot affect it, not without becoming a part of it in some way. And, again, the universe is vastly complex, but instead of seeing order, I see chaos. I see universal dice being rolled, so many of them that there is no name for the number. At this point, I become enamored instead with quantum theory than the idea of an intelligent designer or creator of everything. A googolplex of possibilities with nothing but chance having any say in them. They all lead back to one possibility, however; the possibility of the universe existing.
So it started at 0. At nothing. And since math exists, it had to become 1.
0 was Nothing. No god, no speck of matter...just nothing. No reality. Math is the only thing that is true, remember. Absolutely, provably true. And if 0 is Nothing...then there was nothing. God included. Especially by your claim that the universe was shaped around god. Because that would mean the universe was shaped around math, which is true...but then, there was 0. Which means there was no entity. It only became an entity at 1. The big bang. The possibility that spawned an uncountable number of random possibilities. Because that is how the sequence works. 0, 1, 2, 3... "Nothing" is a mathematical fact. So when theists tell me "everything must come from something," I laugh. It may seem absurd, but math itself is the only thing that is unwaveringly true...and math shows that everything starts at nothing.
Everything came from nothing. The only reason that there is no longer any way for something to come from nothing is because in order for that to be the case, we'd have to be back at 0. The numerical chain is way too far down the line for that. But, one "day," everything will reset back to either 0, or 1. Everything will subtract to 0, or it will become on single possibility from which the rest of possibility will begin again.
OR. ALTERNATIVELY...
Everything came from something. 0 is nothing. Either it was that there was nothingness at all, and that BECAUSE there had to be something, there become 1, or...1 is the constant. The single possibility of existence itself. The big bang. Without the point of matter, there is no possibility. It is the point that is there, the one existence. Only one possibility; matter existed. And then there were two possibilities. It exploded, or it did not. And it did. From there came the rest of the possibilities.
Then what happens? When all the possibilities have played out, what happens then? Does everything become 0? Nothing? Or does it become one? A single possibility? Does the entire universe collapse in on itself, time itself folding backwards in a rush...only to begin again? And this time, do the dice roll in different directions?
This is why quantum theory fascinates me more. virtually limitless possibilities. Either multiverse, or a single universe on an infinite loop simply because it must be so.
The theories of the beginning of the universe are disturbing in their complexity and implication...and in all of them, in all their mindblowing wonder...I see no actual reason for a god to be there. Indeed, with the concept of 0, I see a reason for there NOT to be a god...because if everything must come from something...then god must have come from something if god existed, because the context in which the universe is built is mathematics, meaning god would have to be mathematics. And in such a case...there is the possibility of god's absence.
Just think about that. You begin to understand why I find the man-made religions of the world so pathetic and unsatisfying in the face of considerations like this.
(October 9, 2013 at 7:49 am)Sword of Christ Wrote: Atheism is a claim as well. At least if you want to argue against the belief or faith in God in favor of what would be material scientific naturalism.
If it is a claim, it is only a claim (B) in response to a claim made prior (A).
A: This is real.
B: Prove it.
A: No. I can neither prove nor disprove it is real.
B: It doesn't exist.
A makes the initial claim. B makes the responding claim. The initial claimant must show that their claim is factual. It does not go in reverse order that B must provide proof before A does. What logic is it that you follow that you think this is rational?
(October 9, 2013 at 7:49 am)Sword of Christ Wrote: You don't need to make a claim when you're making an assumption. Some people may simply assume God exists though that isn't necessarily the right idea either.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assumption
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar...ord=assume#
Quote:3: the act of laying claim to or taking possession of something <the assumption of power>
4: arrogance, pretension
5a: an assuming that something is true
b: a fact or statement (as a proposition, axiom, postulate, or notion) taken for granted
...
: to think that something is true or probably true without knowing that it is true
So it's OK when YOU think that something is true or probably true without knowing that it is true, but when an atheist makes an assumption in reaction to your claim being an assumption, it's irrational? Nice, the double-standard fallacy, and also outright bullshit.
(October 9, 2013 at 7:49 am)Sword of Christ Wrote: The part of reality we can observe, detect and test. Though you'll think we can observe, detect and test everything no doubt. Can we even observe, detect and test consciousness? No, but we know it exists.
Yeah we can, actually. Read up on the Turing Test. And for the love of fuck don't bring up zombies; if you think you must, just consider that you would be arguing that zombies exist.
(October 9, 2013 at 7:49 am)Sword of Christ Wrote: Prove to me you're a conscious being not some kind of automation or simulation of one that acts as though it is. By your logic I'll consider myself to be the only consciously aware being in existence as I will only believe what can be proven and demonstrated as a certain fact. Sure I can see you, via a scan I could see your brain and neurological activity but I don't see your consciousness.
We know what we are experiencing right now and every thing else is inferred. "Everything else" includes your god. You infer god. My axiom is that what we experience right now is testable through the input of our consciousness, which is to say our senses, via the scientific method. It may only be one sense, or all of them, but I can achieve sensory input in that way. Your axiom is that because everything must come from something and that something must come from something and so on and so forth that therefore it must be so. God is unprovable but so are fairies, and there are people who claim to have seen them. Consciousness is unprovable but yet I can test mine and you can test yours. I assume other people have consciousness, and I can work with them to test what I consciously experience by using sensory input, and so can you.
Can you work with others to consciously test your experiences with god? Can you work with others to consciously test their experiences with god? And will you come to a conclusion that can be consciously tested in like ways between you to a detailed extent?
Given the enormous number of conflicting religions and "spiritual" accounts, I'm going to say no. But me? Going by my logic, I can test what others have found to be true, if I am being genuine to my desire to test it and see what conclusions I come to. And if I am going by the set axioms of logic, that which science has shown to be true will end up true to me as well. I can reject it, sure, but on what basis what I do so? What would my conscious argument entail? That even though I experience it with all my senses, I still reject it because it does not hold to a preconceived notion? Well, if I do that, then clearly I am not being true to my desire to test my consciousness, now am I?
So, I ask again, can you test the existence of god? Like, at all? With all your senses? Or even one of them? No, you cannot. Because you are not testing your consciousness, you are not receiving any conscious input. You are assuming that your consciousness must be correct because others have claimed to have experiences similar to your own and because you have a preconceived bias that you are not unwilling to test, but rather are incapable of testing. Can either you or others who "share" your "experiences" test with your senses, that which is the input for your consciousness, the existence and/or experience of god?
No, you cannot. You are consciously inverted, not testing the nature of reality, but assuming the nature of reality. Assuming, as in taking something to be true without knowing it is true...after all, how can you know for sure beyond any reasonable doubt that something is true if you aren't even testing it?
Nice attempt at philosobabble, though.
(October 9, 2013 at 7:49 am)Sword of Christ Wrote: You have it the wrong way around, reality itself fits God he created it he is the reason why it exists at all. Though you don't think there is a reason for it.
Really? Got any way you and me can consciously test this? Or are you just assuming?
(October 9, 2013 at 7:49 am)Sword of Christ Wrote: God isn't a part of reality God is context for why reality exists in the first place.
Shall we consciously test that? Do you have any reason to believe that? Or are you just using the thing where "everything must have a beginning?" Because if that is the case, god must have a beginning to. If god is the context for why reality exists, then he must be capable of reality himself, for how can something that is Not actually Be? Unless you are stating that god is not real, at which point we would actually be agreeing on something, here. So either god is real, therefore a part of reality, or he is not real, which is the only way to not be a part of reality. Your logic is reaching a critical fail state. Maybe you should try consciously testing the world to come up with logical answers, huh?
(October 9, 2013 at 7:49 am)Sword of Christ Wrote: That's fine reasoning if God was ever meant to be physical object in this universe we could observe but that was never the idea.
Ahh...the "idea." Yeah, that pretty much sums up what god is. An idea...and nothing more.
(October 9, 2013 at 7:49 am)Sword of Christ Wrote: Theists do an opinion regarding nature of reality, they have what they consider to be the historical evidence to back this opinion up and they have what they believe to be experiential evidence to reaffirm their stance. Atheists have an opinion aaand...*gesticulates*... they have an opinion. Alright but why is that opinion more likely to be factually true than the alternative? Because it's you personally who has this opinion therefore it's the true one and any opinion that differs from this has to be untrue unless proven otherwise?
Except that the historical "evidence" is untestable and when it is testable it turns out that it isn't evidence supporting the claims. Tell me, where is the historical evidence that the earth was created in seven days? I'll tell you; the historical evidence is the age of the world itself, which we have tested...and come to find out that it is billions of years old, that the square will not fit the circle in any context. The very initial claim of god's work already proven false. With the axiom disproven via conscious input, the rest of the claim is hereby dismissed as false.
(October 9, 2013 at 7:49 am)Sword of Christ Wrote: I'm not particularly limited to the Bible, note how I described myself. But certainly the Biblical view of God does fit my general concept of what God is and his relationship to ourselves. In any case I think I've demonstrated by now that I have given this a bit of thought, I'm not believing anything I'm told. The question is whether you have or not.
So tell me, does anyone else share your view of god to the letter without your own input on their view? And how old were you when you were introduced to the notion of god?
As for myself, I have consciously tested the universe and found no reason to believe there was an intelligent entity responsible for its existence. It is vast and complex and wondrous, no doubt. And yet its fate is a cold and bleak one. If god is not a part of reality, he cannot affect it, not without becoming a part of it in some way. And, again, the universe is vastly complex, but instead of seeing order, I see chaos. I see universal dice being rolled, so many of them that there is no name for the number. At this point, I become enamored instead with quantum theory than the idea of an intelligent designer or creator of everything. A googolplex of possibilities with nothing but chance having any say in them. They all lead back to one possibility, however; the possibility of the universe existing.
So it started at 0. At nothing. And since math exists, it had to become 1.
0 was Nothing. No god, no speck of matter...just nothing. No reality. Math is the only thing that is true, remember. Absolutely, provably true. And if 0 is Nothing...then there was nothing. God included. Especially by your claim that the universe was shaped around god. Because that would mean the universe was shaped around math, which is true...but then, there was 0. Which means there was no entity. It only became an entity at 1. The big bang. The possibility that spawned an uncountable number of random possibilities. Because that is how the sequence works. 0, 1, 2, 3... "Nothing" is a mathematical fact. So when theists tell me "everything must come from something," I laugh. It may seem absurd, but math itself is the only thing that is unwaveringly true...and math shows that everything starts at nothing.
Everything came from nothing. The only reason that there is no longer any way for something to come from nothing is because in order for that to be the case, we'd have to be back at 0. The numerical chain is way too far down the line for that. But, one "day," everything will reset back to either 0, or 1. Everything will subtract to 0, or it will become on single possibility from which the rest of possibility will begin again.
OR. ALTERNATIVELY...
Everything came from something. 0 is nothing. Either it was that there was nothingness at all, and that BECAUSE there had to be something, there become 1, or...1 is the constant. The single possibility of existence itself. The big bang. Without the point of matter, there is no possibility. It is the point that is there, the one existence. Only one possibility; matter existed. And then there were two possibilities. It exploded, or it did not. And it did. From there came the rest of the possibilities.
Then what happens? When all the possibilities have played out, what happens then? Does everything become 0? Nothing? Or does it become one? A single possibility? Does the entire universe collapse in on itself, time itself folding backwards in a rush...only to begin again? And this time, do the dice roll in different directions?
This is why quantum theory fascinates me more. virtually limitless possibilities. Either multiverse, or a single universe on an infinite loop simply because it must be so.
The theories of the beginning of the universe are disturbing in their complexity and implication...and in all of them, in all their mindblowing wonder...I see no actual reason for a god to be there. Indeed, with the concept of 0, I see a reason for there NOT to be a god...because if everything must come from something...then god must have come from something if god existed, because the context in which the universe is built is mathematics, meaning god would have to be mathematics. And in such a case...there is the possibility of god's absence.
Just think about that. You begin to understand why I find the man-made religions of the world so pathetic and unsatisfying in the face of considerations like this.
