Introduction
Offline I would like to say hello, to everyone at the RR Squad. This is my very first post although I've read a few other peoples introductions. I originally heard about this website when a number of representatives went on youtube to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. I must admit that I thought it was very bold and provocative but simultaneously misguided. I grew up going to a Catholic Church and although no religion has me now, I am quite sure that neither the Bible nor the Holy Spirit are what you mean to be condeming. I have studied quite a few Sacred Texts and the Bible is the most truthful of them all. If you are as rational as you all claim or believe, then perhaps you just haven't read it correctly. I don't particularly blame anyone for condeming members of Christian religions as they often haven't been very prudent about the placement of their faith, but the Bible is beyond reasonable doubt as truthful as it gets. So, that is my introduction message and I hope I can get to understand exactly where you hearts are in relation to the Bible and also Religion and perhaps I'd also like to know whether or not you all believe that Atheism and Rational thinking are synonymous? It seems like they go hand and hand on this website.
Til next post..
1-24
- Login to post comments
I did not make the claim that one must have a sense that you do not have to see the evidence. I claimed that you would have to suspend your other faculties for coming about evidence in order to realize the merit in what I had been speaking. It is more than possible that you can realize the evidence. You just don't want to.
The argument WAS summarized into a single sentence at the end of the argument. Shows how much you even attempted to comprehend it.
The proof is there. In short. I don't know how many times it must be said. It is there. Everything that you ask for in terms of more evidence or a clearer picture - all this is just dodging the truth in it. Mr.Atheist, I think you just showed that you had been misinterpreting what I said all along. You said that I claimed you could not see the evidence because you didn't have a particular way to sense it. I did not say that. Instead, I said that you do have a way to sense it, but you do not use that faculty so you do not sense it.
Then you have simply failed to clarify your own evidence and I after 12 pages of your bullshit I am not going to go out of my way to try to interpret your mangling of the language.
Either find a better way to communicate your argument or concede that you are incapable of providing your own evidence. I am not asking you to admit that you don't have it, just that you are incapable of demonstrating or providing the evidence due to a complete lack of ability to communicate your evidence in a convincing fashion.
I have no reason to believe that there is a faculty to which I could find this evidence as you have not provided evidence for it. So, essentially, your evidence is reliant on a faculty to which you must first prove exists prior to providing your actual evidence.
No, you are the one who misinterpreted me. If you look back at what I wrote, you will see that everything I said in this message above is exactly what I said in the 9 page argument. And now, you are saying its my fault that you read something else out of it. HOW CAN IT BE MY FAULT?!?! You have twisted my language. And now you are saying that I am incapable of providing my own evidence. YOU are incapable of reading what is explicitly written.
Now you are saying you have no reason to believe that there is a faculty to which you could find the merit in what I was saying in my argument to be valid. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT! You are not supposed to believe it. Your answer to the statement at the end would have determined it valid. No faculty exists for you to determine your belief in it. It exists because it does. There's nothing more to it. I was just showing you that it does exist. Because it does.
You think it is something for you to believe in. Whether or not you believe you can see, if it exists, sight is going to happen. Whether or not you believe you can hear, if it exists, hearing is going to take place. Stop worrying about your belief in it. Just accept the fact that seeing exists, or that hearing exists and that they are happening concurrently. OF COURSE YOU HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE!
I will only answer here the things I can answer quickly as I am about to head out. Later I will explain to you why a philosophical argument cannot be proof.
The reasons why you believe in God are inconsequential; the only point that is considered when judging if you are religious is if you believe. Even if it is in a roundabout way you have come to the conclusion that God exists. You believe that God exists therefore you are religious.
The word religion is used to define a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the Universe as the dictionary says. What you believe in has led you to believe in God, so it is your belief that God exists. It really is that simple, if you believe God exists (even through if its belief through proxy) you are religious.
So humble yourself and admit you are wrong.
You make up the most inane bullshit so that you do not have to admit you are wrong. Here are some quotes I found in just 2 min of reading your posts:
May favourite has to be:
You yourself said you believe in God, if belief in God equals religion you are by definition religious. You also said you have a religion and now all of a sudden you say you don't. How much more can you lie?
Humble yourself now and stop making crap up, humble yourself!
If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
As I have said before I can demonstrate through testing that these senses exist by using the other senses. The faculty to which you describe does not exist and you have NOT demonstrated that it does. You have merely provided a set of statements that would suggest that a faculty may exist that we are unable to perceive with our other senses but provide no evidence that such a faculty actually exists.
It is your fault because you muddy your own explanation with mountains of drivel.
And, to be honest, I think I do understand what you have said but I in no way view anything that you have said as actual evidence. You have failed to provide something tangible to which there is to discuss which is why you are not receiving a counter-argument. As far as anyone here can tell, you have not actually provided a "proof". You have merely presented the idea of the existence of something that may or may not exist to which you have no way of confirming without the use of a faculty to which people do not know they have and you can not prove exists.
You have not convinced a single person. That is a pretty big failure based on your original claim.
Hahahabahahahaha bwahahahhaa
I nearly pissed myself...that's priceless.
This is the extent to which I believe in God, as I stated. I am not taking this back. I do not believe in God, under your simple characterization of belief. So also, I only have a religion insofar as your understanding deduces, as I stated. I am not admitting that I have a religion, I am saying according to deductions made from your understanding of religion, I have a religion. Context buddy. Understand it. I love how your trying to make up for the error that you made so long ago that I exposed you for. I really hadn't brought that up in such a long time, it suits me to speak of it here. That humble yourself line, really got to you didn't it? I'll not apologize for that. It is pretty amusing. Just answer the philosophical proof question that I asked you to answer please. Stop trying to find a contradiction so you can be a winner. The fact still remains that you have no reason to doubt the argument that I made evidencing God. In fact, even if you do find something about how a philosophical proof cannot provide as valid evidence, it still will not give you reasonable doubt from anything written within the proof. You would only be rejecting the proof based on something I said about the nature of the proof, not by any malcontent within the proof.
Wow 1 -24 , Please give me a dictionary style definition of GAWD ???
Here's one of mine , Gawd is Awe , and so my proof as well ! What is with your "eye of reason" ? It is a dogmatic wall in your way ..... Pluck it out ! You are god as I, now what ? Save GOD ! yeah , awaken the AWE ! All is ONE ..... We are great !
Ummm , the bible ? Well "Jesus rocks the Bible sucks" . "Jesus" said 'IAMGODASYOU , one with father, this is the kingdom/heaven' ...... does that ring any bells in your head ?
Atheism Books.
O, what a tangled web we weave..........
You yourself said you have a religion, now to win an argument you are trying to develop some kind of work around. You said you believe in God and you have a religion; however a short time later you say you are not religious. I catch you out in a lie and you cannot admit it. Instead you try to shine the spotlight on me and then change the subject.
This is entertaining to watch, you are making a complete fool of yourself. I love to see apologetics squirm when their own bullshit catches up to them.
The problem with lying is when you do too much of it; it becomes hard to keep track.
You are a sad, pathetic, little man.
Congratulations, you have officially become a walking cliché.
If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
I have followed this for days and studied your presentation. In my opinion there is a flaw from the beginning.
As you have been told already this is not a possibility by definition. Truth and the infallible have to agree if one goes by definition. I personally have no experience in the area of infallibility. I have no proof that this concept exists. I would argue that it does not, therefore you begin with an error. I require the presentation of an individual or entity to demonstrate they are infallible. I will not accept the poorly translated writings of a time long ago as evidence infallibility exists. Have the infallible person or entity present himself to prove he is infallible. But wait, how will I know? I am but an error ridden mortal, I will no doubt accept wrongly that he is infallible. Of course! It all depends on perspective! Since I exist in a 3D time based dimension of reality I clearly cannot comprehend that which may exist in dimensions beyond my ability to observe. This means of course that I can never know unless said entity decides to appear and demonstrate his abilities in my time space dimension. I would as well as most of those in scientific studies require from said entity proof that I could validate to the best of my error ridden mortal ability. Since, I’ve never had such an offer, I’ll continue to dismiss infallible as not possible in our dimension of reality.
I submit that you proof fails from the very beginning for the above reasons. If infallible cannot be proven in our known time space dimension then you have no point in your statement.
Since your argument used infallibilty and this cannot be proven to exist in our time space dimension how can it be evident?
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
first off, let it be known that I didn't set out to convince anyone. I set out to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God does exist. So far you have not provided any reason to doubt the content of my argument. Thus I have succeeded.
Now you say you can demonstrate through testing that these senses exist, but you cannot demonstrate the manner in which the faculty I outline exists. Open and close your hand. This is a test. If you did this, successfully and YOU opened and closed your hand, then this faculty exists. There is your test. You DO KNOW you have the faculty that allows YOU to open and close your hand right?
Okay, so now you do understand what I'm saying but you're too stubborn to admit to the truth in it since there is 'nothing to discuss' about it. In other words, you can't hit the fast pitch but you're not going to admit to it because I didn't give you a changeup to hit. Get outta here dude. That is the most miserable argument for someone to make. Your pride's hurt. I know it. I'm only making you defend your right to be hurt more and more with every post. You think you have the right to be offended. But I've done what I set out to do, and you have nothing you can say against this. So you resort to your miserable argument to defend your pride. Isn't that a little sad?
Pauljohntheskeptic, thank you for your post. You have used your empirical evidence to deduce that I was confused. Refer back to the portion of the argument when I talk about a person who dismisses an argument based on the empirical evidence they have readily available and deem the person "CONFUSED".
1-24
What I said was you first must show that infallibility exists to even make the statement that truth is at odds with it. Therefore I said you were in error with a flawed argument. I sincerely doubt that you will find support that this concept exists yet be able to prove it does.
1-24 Wrote 1-24 wrote:I have followed this for days and studied your presentation. In my opinion there is a flaw from the beginning.
As you have been told already this is not a possibility by definition. Truth and the infallible have to agree if one goes by definition. I personally have no experience in the area of infallibility. I have no proof that this concept exists. I would argue that it does not, therefore you begin with an error. I require the presentation of an individual or entity to demonstrate they are infallible. I will not accept the poorly translated writings of a time long ago as evidence infallibility exists. Have the infallible person or entity present himself to prove he is infallible. But wait, how will I know? I am but an error ridden mortal, I will no doubt accept wrongly that he is infallible. Of course! It all depends on perspective! Since I exist in a 3D time based dimension of reality I clearly cannot comprehend that which may exist in dimensions beyond my ability to observe. This means of course that I can never know unless said entity decides to appear and demonstrate his abilities in my time space dimension. I would as well as most of those in scientific studies require from said entity proof that I could validate to the best of my error ridden mortal ability. Since, I’ve never had such an offer, I’ll continue to dismiss infallible as not possible in our dimension of reality.
I submit that you proof fails from the very beginning for the above reasons. If infallible cannot be proven in our known time space dimension then you have no point in your statement.
1-24 wrote:Since your argument used infallibilty and this cannot be proven to exist in our time space dimension how can it be evident?
I do not suggest at all that you are confused in your argument. I suggest you can't use infallible without proving it is an ability in our observable dimesnsion of reality. If you cannot then you have no phenomenon of truth at odds with it and fail at the gate.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
pretty cool reading that pauljohntheskeptic I AM freaking on this thread too !
Hey 1 - 24 , do you pray and if so how ???? Or what do you suggest ? GAWD AWE ?, of course ...... what to do with this life ? .... this semi-consciousness ???
What is your point ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Atheism Books.
I imagine you have done what you set out to do.
You manage to waste hundreds of posts on an idea that has no merit. You convinced nobody of your argument. You failed to recognize the flaws in your own argument that are littering this thread and have refused to respond to many of the questions presented to you. Your ability to explain your ideas made your ideas incomprehensible and you required a translator to even explain some of the more basic word manipulations you were attempting to execute. The only thing that you manage to accomplish here was wasting a lot of peoples times, and making sure that everyone here thought you were full of yourself and drunk on your own delusions of grandeur.
My pride is hurt? I wasn't the one that laid a giant brown egg of an idea all over these forums and claimed it to be factual.
You've attacked me from the get-go, as well as others, despite a great time investment in trying to figure out what exactly you were trying to say. You took questions asking for clarification an explanation as attacks and avoided answering them.
You have failed. You have provided no useful insight to anyone here, and you continue to produce worthless posts which say nothing. Your posts have resorted to simple attacks on peoples character and lack any substance. You are bordering on simply being a troll. If you take your own idea seriously I recommend you try to find another way to convince people of your argument or simply go away acknowledging the fact that your argument did not succeed with a single person which should be an indication that either your idea is not evidence, your evidence is not good enough, or your are incapable of explaining your own evidence. Either you have failed, or your idea has failed.
Actually, how can one be hurt when one has to utilize their mind? It helps to exercise, even if it may be with a very determined opponent. If it was easy, who would want to debate the hard core believer. It's for more than being proven right or wrong. It's about eradicating belief in mythical friends. 1-24 claims he did not set out to convince anyone. No, he set out to "to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God does exist." There is a difference in his mind what that may mean probably. I personally see convince and prove in the light of his statements to be esentially the same. But that's me. As you have said Mr. Atheist, he has proven nothing as far as I can determine, but I am of course not privy to the knowledge of what I cannot see or understand. Which is of course the whole point of it isn't it?
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
1-24;
I'd like to request a post about my questions. I know this thread has gotten huge, but it looks like you're still paying attention to new posts, so I hope you'll do me the courtesy of responding. It's post 296, on page 10.
I'll take this opportunity to correct a mistake I noticed in my post. I said:
which is incorrect. An infallible entity could indeed say things that were not the truth; it's just that this entity could never accidentally or mistakenly speak untruths; it's perfectly conceivable that it could lie. I still stand by my statement that saying truth and infallibility are at odds is a category error, however.
{edit: changed "unwillingly" to "mistakenly" in the clause starting "it's just that this entity..."}
--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.
Honestly, responding to 1-24 is putting yourself between a rock and a canard place. His original "proof" was like a giant defenition of the phrase "red herring" with the additional bonus that it leads you nowhere. The more Eloise deciphers it (yes, I was poking fun in my responses) the more ridiculous it gets. There's nothing there. Trust me. Or hey, go ahead and read it if you like, but you're wasting your time. That may indeed be the point.
Summing up:
"I am made of frosting! I can prove it!"
"What? Why do you think you're -"
"The frostology of the sensory ability of omnipotence from simple ability from the holy frostiness GOD!"
"Um ... sorry, could you repeat that? I didn't understand."
"You have not refuted me! I win!"
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Paul John , a biblically named skeptic.
Well Paul John you have missed clearly how I demonstrated that the Truth and the Infallible are at odds. As your discontent suggests, it is because you have no concept of the Infallible.
Well Paul John, to understand the difference in the truth and the infallible observe these statements:
1: All Tigers are felines
2: All felines are Tigers
One of the above two statements is not valid. It is the second one. If you could not see this, then God help you. A feline could be a great different variety of cat. It could be a jaguar, a cheetah, a lion, a panther, a lynx, a bobcat, a tiger - the list goes on. A feline can be any of these and not only one of these. So what is accurate to say about the relationship between Tigers and felines is this:
1: All Tigers are felines
2:Not All felines are necessarily Tigers
Now the 'necessarily' is important. If every other type of feline was extinct, then there would only be Tigers left. Then the statement 'not all felines are tigers' would be inaccurate. In truth, all felines would be tigers since those are the only felines left. With the qualification of 'necessarily', there is room for us to validly claim that there may exist an animal such that it is not a tiger, and that it is a feline.
Now substitute, "infallible statement" for tiger and substitute "true statement" for feline. Then you will understand how the truth and the infallible are at odds. Their relationship is like a venn diagram.
That was right on cue.
Could I ever present a better argument for "wasting your time" than this? 1-24 has turned wasting your time into an olympic sport, and is now getting the gold by a large margin.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
You seem to be enjoying your time in this thread.
Shikko, what I sent to Paul John a moment ago should help you with understanding the argument. If you can regurgitate the point there, you should be able to understand the argument.
Only as long as we use your definitions of "true" and "infallible". Using the commonly accepted definitions can't lead me through your writing.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
This statement isn't true.
true
/tru/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[troo] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, tru·er, tru·est, noun, adverb, verb, trued, tru·ing or true·ing. –adjective
in·fal·li·ble
/ɪnˈfæl
ə
bəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-fal-uh-buh
l] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective
True statement: under the condition that every other feline is extinct, it is true to say that 'all felines are tigers'. It is a statement in accord with the actual conditions.
Now is this statement infallibly true? No. Another species of feline could conceivably evolve from the tiger thus making two different kinds of felines. This event would make the previous statement untrue.
Infallible statement: Not all felines are necessarily tigers. This is the case under all circumstances. This statement can not be false under any circumstance. This statement accounts for the possibility that another type of feline could evolve from the tiger. Thus whether or not there are tigers, or whether or not there are only tigers, this statement holds regardless.
Not valid gadfly?
I'm sorry I didn't make myself more clear - Benadryl head is taking over.
For this argument, the standard definitions work.
Unfortunatly, for your original argument, you use these definitions.
"Truth is:
truthfully, that which is made evident by discovery.
infallibly, it is that evidence with the capacity to be otherwise."
"The Infallible
Is, truthfully, that which is made evident by revelation - uncovering.
It is, infallibly, that evidence that endures changelessly."
The conventional definitions you use to prove your point about felines and tigers don't work in your original argument so you had to make up these.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
It's not my fault I'm named after Saints due to religious parents.
As to you misdirection, I disagree that infallible exists, I asked you to provide such proof. You have not.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Oxford is clear on infallible: "incapable of making mistakes or being wrong." Since I have never met such an entity nor has such entity made itself available for examination for verification of such an ability, I conclude that it does not exist in our time space dimension. Of course 1-24 that does not mean it cannot exist in another, such as in Fantasyland or the Dimension of Never was.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
I did not miss how you used smoke and mirrors in your demonstration, nor did I miss where you took your proof. I said which you seem to not comprehend, that human mortals have not observed such a thing as infallible in our reality. Since we have not so observed, the conclusion must be drawn that in our reality such does not exist. I clearly do not have a concept of the infallible, if you do please bring him that has this ability to my lab for analysis. I will be glad to analyze and dissect him.
I may have been in error in my reading of infallible: it may have actually said that 1-24 is, no actually it doesn't.
Later, have a good time with your deluded proof.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
I believe I see your point in the difference between two kinds of statements, one being either true or false and the other always being true by virtue of construction. However, I fail to see how there being both falsifiable and tautological statements implies that some higher entity must necessarily exist, and I cannot find support for that argument in your essay. Can you point me to its rough location? To be certain, I just skimmed your essay again and can find nothing like a deductive argument with that premise.
Secondly, can you answer some of the points and questions I raised in the post I mentioned above? I'd appreciate it.
--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.
"Infallible" refers to a presumed attribute of some entity which is a source of assertions, statements, judgements, pronouncements, information, etc, which is presumed to be incapable of being mistaken in its claims. It is a hypothetical attribute, which may not actually be possible in such a universal sense. We certainly can never 'prove' tor truly know that any actual entity is or even could be 'infallible'.
"Truth" refers to the actual ultimate nature and state of things.
So you have expressed things in a clumsy way, making a category error, as already pointed out.
"Infallibility is not an attribute which can meaningfully be applied to any real entity" would be a more concise way to state the only coherent interpretation of what you were trying to say.
It is very close to the idea of 'omniscience', long since demonstrated to be a problematic idea.
Re your thing about tigers:
1. All tigers are felines. - BY DEFINITION;
2. All felines are tigers - AMBIGUOUS
A couple of ways to resolve the ambiguity:
2a. All felines known to currently exist are tigers - conditionally true assertion;
2b. All felines that have ever or ever may exist are tigers - in combination with (1) would imply that 'feline' is a synonym' for 'tiger'.
If we can point to any creature that fits the actual definition of 'feline' but not that of 'tiger', then 2b would be factually untrue.
Since the actual definition of 'feline' allows for attributes that are not consistent with the definition of 'tiger', then 2b is 'untrue', but in a different sense, ie it is confusing the relationship between the set [tiger] and the set [feline], namely that [tiger] is a sub-set of [feline].
So if you are asserting that "infallible statement" is a sub-set of "true statement", then if you mean by the first term a statement by a hypothetical 'infallible' authority, then yes.
In the sense that "infallible statements" would be a sub-set of "true statements", namely "true statements" generated by a particular kind of source, ie an entity imagined to be 'infallible'. In this case, your initial statement that "The Truth and The Infallible are at odds" is explicitly inconsistent with your own argument, IOW "Infallible statements" ARE also "true statements", but not all "true statements" are "infallible statements".
So the hypothetical distinction your statement is making is that a statement by a 'mere mortal' may happen to be actually TRUE. but not necessarily, whereas statements from an 'infallible' source must be true, by definition. This is a trivial point.
Now the substantive point to be discussed is whether it is any way to establish that there actually exists an 'infallible' source of knowledge, and how would we be able to 'prove' that any particular source of information was actually infallible. Unless you can identify without error a source of infallible statements, which would require YOU to make an 'infallible' judgement, namely that a particular source is 'infallible', you are no closer to accessing absolute truth.
Actually there is a source of infallible knowledge: it is the subject of science, ie reality and nature itself. Unfortunately, it requires interpretation to express its truth in useful form to our minds, just like the ancient Oracle of Delphi.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I see that 1-24 seems to be using 'infallible statement', at least sometimes, to refer to statements that are actually definitional, or tautological, or whose conclusions are implicit in their initial assumptions. Simple examples would be
"Squares have four corners and four straight sides";
"If this object is blue, then it is not red";
"Infallible authorities cannot make mistakes";
Now we need to distinguish this class of statements like:
"There are tigers in India";
"Objects that reflect light mainly at the longer wavelength end of the visible spectrum of electromagnetic radiation will be perceived by individuals with normal vision as having the visible attribute of color we refer to as 'red'";
"The earth is in orbit around the sun";
are in a different category, subject to verification by observation and testing.
We require a whole set of 'truths' of the first category, ie definitions, laws of logic and mathematics, etc, to investigate and judge the 'truth value', the degree of confidence we may have in the second class of statements.
Now, no amount of manipulation of statements in the first category can, by itself, lead to contingent 'proof' of statements in the second category. They can disprove them by revealing contradictions and inconsistencies, but not 'prove' them, only show that they are not inconsistent with other statements in either category. This is the sense in which I understand the limitations of Philosophical arguments.
To establish the likelihood of truth of any of the second category of statements requires observation and testing against reality, ie 'Science' in the broadest sense, rather than Philosophy.
To forestall an objection, I know Science originated as an aspect of Philosophy, ie 'Natural Philosophy', but I think that Science has grown so much that when we refer to 'Philosophical' arguments, we refer to those not fitting into the category of scientific, ie based on actual observational and, if possible, experimental results. There is an overlap of course, Philosophy may of course use observation of physical evidence, but not necessarily, whereas science must start from observation of external reality, ie external to the observer.
Seems to me one 'interpretation' of 1-24's 'proof' is that he is spending a lot of effort to make some version of this distinction between two classes of statements, in an unnecessarily convoluted and confusing way.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
er.. why am I thinking that 1-24 is actually asserting the opposite to this?
It may be that I'm still working from the hearing analogy rather than this one on tigers. In the sense that Hearing continues to be true when you're not hearing something, or that 'hearing' encompasses any conditionally true event of 'having heard' - hearing is the 'infallible'. one event of hearing is a truth.
Then in terms of the argument put forth originally - a true statement of potential (ie a ball can bounce) is not infallible it's only conditionally true, while an 'infallible' statement might be - a ball can x where x is an element of the set of all potential. A true statement then, is one selected from the set of infallible statements:
a. A ball can x : A ball can bounce
b. where x is an element of all potential : x= Bounce is an element of say {physical properties} ;subset of {physical potential} ;subset of {all potential} & hence x is an element of {all potential}
At this point, I think 1-24's God is the same as Cpt Pineapple's, the 'infallible' God entity is the universally encompassing tautological 'potential'. Captain's God concept is something like mine which, initially, looks a bit like this - Set G : {{{{{{g can b} can c}can x} can... }..}..} ; G=g
I've seen this point alluded to by a few people here, in various ways, and I am not sure why. Has 1-24 claimed to have a magical or supernatural faculty that non-theists do not possess? I skipped a couple of pages and on the pages I have read I haven't seen that claim.
To the extent that I have understood this argument 1-24's claim is that a truth which is not sensed directly by persons due to a deficit of some faculty can be uncovered by deduction from other senses. I don't see how 1-24 is implying there that he is hearing-abled and atheists are deaf, it's not direct enough for me to assume that. I think the intended implication here is the statement that it is possible for people to not be using an available faculty and discover its existence indirectly, by whatever cause that faculty is not in use is irrelevant the implication is that it is possible that such a faculty could exist. I don't think 1-24's argument rests on this statement, but if it does that is a flaw in it, it should not rely on a vague statement of possibility.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
He has claimed that everyone has it, but he is the only that has successfully used this faculty. His evidence for a deity is reliant on the faculty to recognize him though I get blocked on requiring evidence that such a faculty exists beyond his own mind.
The use of 'infallible' to refer to statements which are intrinsically true, such as definitions 'like blue is a color' or 'deaf people cannot directly perceive sound', or people who are not deaf can hear things' is distracting. The word has so many other connotations which are inappropriate in such contexts. This sort of quirky use of words is one of the things which makes his argument so hard to unpick.
The 'infallibility' of such definitional statements is entirely irrelevant to discussion of statements about some contingent event or state of affairs, ie something which is not necessarily or inevitably true. If an 'infallible' oracle only came out with statements like 'rectangles have four corners', which is unarguably true, we would not have cause to be impressed. Even statements such as 'The world will one day cease to exist' are also unimpressive, altho not absolutely known to be true, just almost certainly true.
Statements which amount to
'Some object has attributes';
Its attributes are a subset of all possible attributes for that category of object"
"Attributes applicable to that category of object are a subset of all conceivable attributes"
are, while true, not particularly relevant or interesting to any substantive argument for the existence of God, so I am curious what if anything is the point of his argument? It looks to me as we dig down into his 'proof', his points evaporate into irrelevant banalities, at best.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Exactly. This is why I said I am not sure of the means by which 1-24 is holding that the sub-categories are insubstantial. The argument I saw put forward to support it was the one from latency, ie a latent potential that has been made manifest is not qualitatively different from one which has not been. I don't think 1-24 has made a full case for that, but the partial case was an interesting point, to me. There seems to be some essence of the problem of induction in 1-24's thinking too. To identify potential via a subcategory, per above, is inductive, which makes it not necessarily a truth.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
That's what I have been saying from the start.
- He went through thesaurus.com to find some big words in an attempt to make his most look intelligible.
- He fills his post up with these rarely used words.
- He the words completely out of context.
- He unnecessarily wraps some sections in quote tags (wtf did he do that for?)
- He does not bother to structure it properly.
- He says ‘refute it’
How can anybody refute what he has written when nobody can understand it? He then claims victory because nobody has properly refuted his argument. 20 or more people read it and only 1 of them understood it. Even though Eloise understood it I am sure she had to read it more than once to derive meaning from that drivel.
If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
Thanks Mr Atheist. I agree with you that as a bald assertion this statement has no impact. To assert that it is possible for everyone have an unknown faculty, and that its identity must be deducible is a fair premise, though, and I presumed that 1-24 was framing it that way.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
I've been following this thread for the past few days, and have tried to stay out of the "line of fire" thus far, but I feel compelled to bring up a few points related to this whole proof thing.
Ok, first let me say, I am a biology major, and I am used to reading papers from scientific journals for assignments; these papers are usually between 7 and 15 pages long, and are tedious to get through because they are so packed with info. The thing is, the way that the papers are presented, anyone who reads them must necessarily come to the same conclusion as the authors by reading the information given. After the fact, you can say that the results of one experiment may not have been as clear cut, and you can always recreate the experiments for yourself to verify or refute the information. But you can't completely deny everything said in the article, because the results and evidence are right there. You should be able to read the paper and summarize it in a few concise points.
For example, here is my summarization of a paper from the journal "Cell" that I had to read for a recent assignment:
1) The protein Myc transforms cells into super-competitors.
We know this because:
a) Cells with mutations that cause them to produce less Myc are systematically killed & basally extruded when in the presence of cells with normal amounts of Myc.
b) But if the mutant cells are not surrounded by any cells with comparatively higher levels of Myc, they are able to thrive just fine.
c) If cells with mutations that cause them to produce abnormally high levels of Myc are in the same area as "wild type" cells with normal levels, the wild type cells will be killed off.
2) Myc is a known transcription factor, which promotes the transcription of genes involved with cell growth and metabolism.
3) The increased metabolism helps cells survive in the face of competition, because these cells can produce higher levels of Rab5
4) Rab5 helps internalize ligands that would otherwise mark the surface of the cell for apoptosis
Then there's stuff about how overexpression of Myc can lead to overgrowth, which can lead to cancer, etc. but you get my drift. There are experiments to support all of these statements, and explanations of how the authors interpreted the results. Everybody in my class who read that paper came to the same conclusion from reading it.
If you're going to write 9 pages, every sentence and figure should be necessary and essential to your argument. I didn't really see that with 1-24's argument... it just seemed like a lot of mumbo jumbo that ultimately led nowhere. Now I understand that with matters concerning god, you can't exactly conduct experiments or provide figures. But nonetheless, any argument should be as clear and concise as possible, statements should be backed up, and everybody who reads it should come to the same conclusion. (By the way, the Bible fails at this, because people come to many different conclusions reading it. I know it wasn't being presented as evidence, but rather as a "witness," whatever the hell that means, but I don't understand how you can get any truth out of this.)
And 1-24, please answer shikko's argument. Shikko put forth some good questions, and you just ignored them for 3 pages. Typical.
Regarding the "god" of 1- 24 , I want it killed .... Looking for some damn creator deity is silly and worse.
Geezz, "created in his image" ? ...... You can take that few ways. That creator is an obvious prick fucking with us , or yeah we are GAWD ....
The god of 1 -24 is so stupid or mean, that it can't or won't communicate to it's very creation, you and me ????
Grown ups still doing this god debate ??? Buddha laughed long ago. The screwy TV and media is a big part of why we still must do this .... and why is that ? Sue the TV and the church too. Jesus would insist ....
You are the devil 1 - 24 by my "definition". "Get behind me Satan" , Jesus scolded Peter ....
There is no such thing as a "Higher Power" etc etc, all is ONE.
Do you pray ? How so ? What does meditate mean ?
I - 24 ignores me, why would that be? Am I un-save-able?
I AM GOD loves you 1 -24 ..... the best I can .....
Atheism Books.
I agreed with everything I AM GOD AS YOU said, but I thought this line was a particularly stellar.
Thanks Mr. Atheist, I needed that. Just trying to help the best way I can think of. Yeah I'm slow ..... been a long time coming, so how how? and old is the cosmos?
btw , where was that pic of you taken?, you is an earth water fan? , I love my sea doo, etc, godly fun ! Me is a camping fool ..... earth is me !
I need more "smilelys" ..... I can't find the right one .....
something about fun recreation ....
Atheism Books.
I agree, completely with you I am God as you. He is worse than silly in his pursuit.
1-24 ignores all, until he can concoct more spin. Perhaps he works for Fox News, since he seems adept at taking pages to express himself in foggy smoke enhanced way.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
YEAH , what is wrong with this whole picture?, seems "GAWD of AWE" has us all in a trance, hypnotized.
Who should OWN the >> Media << ? .... no Group ...... We the people must take over the controllers and masters, or forever be puppets. Fuck them, yeah, "Master of Puppets" no more. ( Metalica ! 
We are ONE earth, One people ..... sheezzzz ..... why war ? ..... LACK of World Communication .....
Atheism Books.
Mexico, not far from Peurto Vallarta. Was on a tour boat heading down (or up) the coast.
{this is for Eloise, and anyone who will not complain about tedious writing}
I brought up the tiger example because Paul John had no concept of the infallible. He believed that Truth and the Infallible meant the same thing. The tiger example was used to demonstrate that a truthful statement (i.e. all felines are tigers) could be misleading if the essential property of the word feline was lost in translation. In other words, the property of the word feline, that makes it justifiably a tiger, is that a feline is any type of cat. Any abstraction of this word from its intrinsic character can create ambiguity. We have seen such abstraction, for example, in the word ‘apology’ where the meaning of the word has changed over time. Sure, we understand what people mean by it, but in a sense, there is no standard meaning for it.
Now, why is this distinction between the truth and the infallible significant in any way? Well, in terms of words, the infallible/essential property is what gives communication a standard – a foundation. We do not have to try and make out what people mean by a word; we would know what a person means simply by the essential character of that word.
Quite possibly, you are thinking – ‘why did you redefine so many words in your argument then? Isn’t that going against the infallible?’ Well, yes, you are correct I suppose.
My intent, though, was to expose an even higher distinction between the infallible and the truth; a distinction concerning the manner in which one seeks as opposed to the foundation that is to be sought. The manner in which one seeks is a foundation of its own – it also must be judged, and understood in terms of its intrinsic value as a manner of pursuit.
What I have all along been trying to elucidate is that there are only two manners of pursuing and only one of them is rooted in the infallible. Now , the power that established each of the two upsprings is the same. However, the manifestation of each upspring is unique in its own right. Moreover, any entity concurrently reliant on some end is a manifestation of one of these upsprings.
Now, you can know which upspring has established you in a number of ways. One has to do with your stance on an issue like, say, the essential property of knowing. If your lack of knowing is presupposed by the conception that the reason for your lack of knowing is because you just haven’t acquired that data yet – then you are established by the upspring of [for our intents and purposes] truth. Understood in terms of the posted argument, what needs to take place is knowledge needs to be sought in the present that is hidden. Thus, what is to be pursued is not readily available and must be found out.
On the other hand, if your lack of knowing is presupposed by the conception that any reason for your lack of knowing is contingent on a world that one may already be skeptical of anyway – then that lack won’t be considered a lack at all. Thus what needs to take place is absolutely nothing. This is the upspring of the infallible.
The question might then be raised, ‘how can one say that such an entity relies on an end if it doesn’t need to seek anything?’ Well, quite simply, the end that it relies on is its own identity – its very own upspring. An entity would decide that there is nothing to be sought because what is to be attained will be a crime against its own identity. This is in contrast to the upspring of ‘truth’ which would believe that not seeking out what is hidden in the present is a crime against its own upspring. Therefore, it pursues because pursuing is consistent with its own identity.
But this is inaccurate to say. The causal force is more often than not, absent when the choice to pursue is made for the upspring of truth. In other words, it does not pursue because pursuing is consistent with its own identity; it’s identity is pursuing and it is its identity. In terms of the upspring of the infallible, it doesn’t not pursue because not pursuing is consistent with its identity; its identity is not to pursue and it is its identity. The main reason in pointing out the inaccuracy of the statement in the previous paragraph is to point out that no individual begins with an understanding of the upspring she is given. Moreover, she may find herself giving justice to the decisions ‘she’ makes because she thinks those decisions to be her choice.
And the great paradox arises; those choices are only hers when she finally understands that those choices are not hers. In other words, all the justice that she gives to ‘her’ decisions justify her decisions insofar as ‘her’ is not who she is. Therefore, any ‘reason’ for a decision has no merit at all; that is if that reason is to justify one’s self.
Now as to the ‘good’ of all this. In understanding that you yourself are an upspring, this is by no means good. It is an abomination – an abomination that causes desolation. You realize that you live in a world amidst others who are essentially distinct from you. There are people who are utterly foreign to you and you to them. However, insofar as an upspring is able to meet its match, its ‘other’, and that other recognizes that s/he is not ‘her/himself’, then the two upsprings can coexist with each other and make up for each other’s inadequacies. Such a relationship is the epitome of altruism. It is to literally give up one’s self for the sake of the other.
1-24 several things about this statement.
1- I absolutely said that I have no concept of the infallible or infallibity. I said it does not exist in known observations by humans. I said it is not possible for an entity to have such an ability. If such a possibility exists, I said, produce the entity. I asked for proof that one existed and you never responded.
2-I NEVER SAID I thought Truth and the infallible were the same. You miscontrued what you read! Don't add content that wasn't there. If you read that in my intent, you misunderstood.
If I take the position that infallible is possible then truth and infallible can be at odds.
Truth in our reality can be varied by perspective and observations of error ridden humans. Since I know of no perfect humans that make perfect observations, their observed Truth will not be the same.
5 witnesses see a light in the sky.
#1 It's a light in the sky.
#2 It's a UFO.
#3 It's an alien space ship.
#4 It's an airplane.
#5 It's swamp gas.
Here all 5 tell the truth as they have interpreted it. Though none of them may know the Truth.
Actually everone is an island unlike the old saying. Ever person has their own CPU that is configured with all the knowledge they have learned, observed, and reasoned. All people view everything from their own perspective. It is difficult to grasp what another's motivations seek and especialy why. Over thousands of years man has learned that cooperation is needed in order to survive. Communication with each person is required in order for the desires and goals of each to be met. We coexist and gain as you say, but it's not as you say due to inadequacies but rather synergy.
You wouldn't even have this forum or technology if it were not for science and the work people like me and others did in the past. I did my R & D for knowledge and of course cash. Perhaps my challenge to you results from the years of proving technology in those environments, where abstractions are accepted but proof is required. An abstract concept will not make a hard disk seek time faster without demonstrated results. Your claim to proof in the environment of science and engineering fails.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
You're sounding very Buddhist here, to me, 1-24.
Okay, so the disconnect between truth and infallibility is akin to what, in Buddhist philosophy, could be termed as the disconnect between egotism and inner peace, am I following you ? And truth is sought by the ego insofar as the ego's identity is a truth seeker, while the infallible is not sought insofar as the identity of inner peace is non-seeking.
So in terms of the hearing analogy, aural abilities are a metaphor for non-seeking disposition, the hearing person is nirvanic in terms of the capacity to hear and seeks not there, which is at odds with the truth of hearing, specifically demonstrable in the terms of the deaf person who identifies with the faculty of hearing as a seeker.
I'm still not quite getting an entire context for the supposition that frameworks between truth and infallibility are non-substantive from this. Basically the counterargument is that if the identity is sufficiently large it need not be absolutely large to approximate infallible. A disconnect between a structured ego that identifies with finite proportions and a non-ego which, without identity to restrict it, can perceive all, is a valid and IMHO incredibly insightful philosophy, but I don't think it argues strongly to conclusion of itself. I mean, it is one thing to shake the ego at it's foundations and cause it to relocate it's boundaries with respect to new truths, but another to demonstrate from this approach that everything beyond any nominally substantive boundary is equally valid. To do the latter you have your work well cut out for you.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
I'm not sure that I understand what the counterargument is. I don't quite understand what is meant by 'large' in your characterization of it.
What I mean to say is that in light of specific situations (e.g.lack of knowing), there are two different stories told about it. Each story does not tell anything 'valid' about not knowing. Rather each story tells something about the identity that is confronted with the situation of not knowing. One story tells, in short, that lack of knowing is presupposed by nothing. Therefore, that identity provokes the inquiry 'who's to tell me that I don't know?' The other story tells, in short, that lack of knowing is presupposed by a world in which the lack exists somewhere out in space and only need to be found. Therefore, that identity concludes 'I have to find the lack so that it won't be a lack'. The first identity wishes nothing further to be known. The second wishes that there is something to be known. For this reason, the first identity is not a seeker of anything because it is presupposed by the idea that no answers exist apart from it. The second identity is a seeker because it is presupposed by the idea that answers do exist apart from it. Neither identity does what it does because it is 'only right'. Now, due to their presuppositions, what they do IS 'only right'. But, if they never find out that they are simply their presuppositions, each identity will be doing their own 'right' and each will think the other to be doing 'wrong' since the others presupposition is not its own.
Now to find out the presupposition of one's identity; this is not necessarily to know the other presupposition. Nietzsche, for example, thought that everyone was the will to power. From such a conception of reality, we can conclude that he himself was a seeker. In a very broad sense, yes, both identities are the will to power. But what Nietzsche suspected was that every will wanted to conquer and that every message relayed was simply a tactic to conquer. Thus the weak would use a slave morality in order to elevate themselves above stronger types. But this conception does not make sense with the, let's call it, homeostatic identity. Power for this identity is not power for the other. This identity does not wish to conquer. Rather, it wishes to not be thrust into the chaotic life of seeking. So, in a sense, it defends itself from the seeker with such 'truths' as -one cannot know that she doesn't know. Such a statement is used to help the seeker realize that the reason that seeker has for the pursuit is not ultimately valid.
Now, I am the first to admit that science is not my forte. But, if you think about an oxygen ion that is stable in having extra electrons, then you think of certain cyanobacteria that break up those electrons (in H20) for their own nourishment, you will see this same story of a homeostatic entity being thrust out of its stability by a bacteria that thrives on this pursuit of electrons.
The story of the oxygen ion does not have to be told. But, with the introduction of the bacteria that destabilizes it, the story of the oxygen ion becomes relevant. It's identity is compromised by a power outside of itself. The bacteria's identity is not compromised by the oxygen ion and so it has no 'reason' to be concerned about that ion. Thus there is initially only one victim of the events that transpire.
In terms of the hearing analogy, everything that is heard is presupposed by hearing. But, no one who hears things has to know that what is heard is presupposed by hearing. The reason for this distinction was to show that what is heard is not the only story to be told. The world from which you hear things is not the only world. It is only the world from which you do the work that your identity is made to do. Should you ever not do the work your identity is made to do? No. You were made to do the work of that identity. But there are inadequacies in this identity that can only be solved by the other identity. And there are inadequacies in the other identity that can only be solved by this identity. Thus, these two identities can compliment each other if each identity allows the other to do the work it is not particularly built for.
I'm not sure how far this has strayed from your initial skepticism. I'm not sure I understood your initial skepticism. I have attempted to show the distinction between two identities whose existences are afforded in light of the same end. Each identity is only one of two and while each are as 'right' as can be, neither is more 'right' than the other. Hope this is more clear.
1-24
Buddha laughed 3,000 agos ago. He has since stopped laughing. Do you pray GOd? What do you pray for? Do you ever pray for TWO? How come? Am I king of spin? Is anyone worth listening to? All questions for you GOd.
1-24