Religion

[chenGOD]

Debunking William Lane Craig

Debunking WLC

WLC's ontological argument debunked (personally I think this is the weakest site - but it's still worthwhile)

[SR4]

ah thanks for those links.

 

 

Ive seen too many theists prop William Craig up as some sort of genius philosopher on the level of Aquinas or something when in reality he just parrots and slightly altered an argument over one thousand years old.

[chenGOD]

He argues at like a high school level.

[azatoth]

Ugh, William Lane Craig such a smarmy bastard. He just obfuscates a simple argument with a lot of philosophical jargon and nonsense which makes it a hell to untangle and breakdown.

[SR4]

Ugh, William Lane Craig such a smarmy bastard. He just obfuscates a simple argument with a lot of philosophical jargon and nonsense which makes it a hell to untangle and breakdown.

 

Yeah. I watched the Hitchens debate and after Hitchen's rebuttals, he would continue on his original premises as if Hitchens hadn't said a word. Guy is too well rehearsed for his own good.

[azatoth]

I never understood how the different variations of the ontological argument has had traction for almost a millennia. It's just so dumb that even a child with some critical thinking skills could see through it.

[gmanyo]

Apparently my dad accidentally insulted the guy at a dinner table when he started talking to some guy about different things he liked and disliked about William Lane Craig, and it turned out that he was talking to William Lane Craig.

[Guest Babar]

You have an incredibly loose interpretation of religion then. Science and research therein is held to an ethical standard BECAUSE THOSE ETHICAL STATEMENTS ARE ARRIVED AT THROUGH OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE. There is no observable evidence for God...if you consider abstract wordplay a proof for God, all you have "proved" is that the concept of God exists, which is the most fucking useless claim anyone could ever make (IIRC, goDEL addressed this a few pages back). If you wish to abide by solipsist doctrines, that's one thing, but I'll be damn sure you don't have a say in any rational body that makes up my life.

 

I didn't say I have a proof for the existence of God. Maybe because God does not exist_yours (= what you mean when you use the word exist).

 

And your "Great Fractal" argument is likewise nonsense. When you use the word "fractal", I understand the concept and also the observable evidence of this concept actually existing independently of my own thought processes (fractals in art, mathematical equations, etc.). The word "Great" is simply a modifier suggesting its perceived superiority or importance of purpose vs. another of its kind. This modifier can be debated in of itself based on other observable evidence that would suggest there is either not a great fractal, or that the claim of a fractal being "great" is falsifiable.

 

Absolutely. I pushed forward the notion of a great fractal - let's call it fractal_1 - and you placed aside a fractal_2 that is not encompassed by the first one. From this, it appears that fractal_1 and fractal_2 are into a fracture relationship. That's where the idea of fractal_3 arises : a fractal where both fractal_1 and fractal_2 would be present. Hastily, I'd call it the Great Fractal, underline the fact it's (auto) similar to fractal_1, waiting for you to do your next move and so on. Saussure once said : the truth is between the words. that's what I mean, and that's why I'm not that attached to proofs and truths. I believe in technology though.

 

as for the great fractal... i've thought about it before too. it makes a lot of sense if you relate it to this.

I wasn't thinking about fractals, but was fractaling about my thinking. This can seem like a wordplay to you - it is in some way - but it is not. I think I have a different approach : instead of focusing on concepts, I get interested in signifiers : see how I discriminated the word fractal by using indices/exponents. To understand what this great fractal is about, maybe I could step out from he plan of ideas and describe what really happens to you when the "great fractal deploys under your feet". First, you're arguing about some random matter (with someone else or with yourself). Then an idea that is its very cause (causal Sui) strikes your mind. That's from that moment on you experience what I call a dissolution of the argumentative level : you change your mind every ten seconds. for example you say "Nature comes before nurture" then shortly after "nurture comes before nature". Your discourse becomes contradictory, but the "interpretant" that allows you to sustain it is very coherent. Even "it's not fractal" is part of the great fractal. That word, fractal, is just a convenient tool although it does not perfectly pinpoint what the trip,really is about.

This really is a different mind state. If I were to have MRI whilst"fractal-tripping, I'm pretty sure a specialist could conclude my brain is not functioning normally. You mentioned the notion of OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE. There is one thing you can observe and that does not belong to the realm of science : your own mind. When you manage someone to enter the same fractal mind state as you, when you start using symbols to discriminate signs(like I did with fractal_1, fractal_2, fractal_3) geometry arises. You observe ideas as geometric elements, sometimes in spaces with more than 3 dimensions, and what is really mind-bending is when you realize your friend sees the same shapes. Joy, euphoria, pleasure ensue.

This is maybe a bit abstract to you, so I'll try to give you a more concise idea of what this all means.

A) what does the most irregular curve looks like ? I'm not an expert in this area (actually I'm not an expert in anything) but I guess mathematicians have already wrapped their head around this question, for a certain form of irregularity can be concisely described. For example, if you say the evolution of the Nasdaq for the past 5 months is the most irregular curve, I can append a straight line at the end of it and state that it's regularity comes as an irregularity to the irregularity of the Nasdaq curve.

B) Another related idea is that of the set of all sets which has been proven not to,exist. Although I don't understand the demonstration nor the way you must interpret it, it does not surprise me since their is no end to the "Great fractal". It's SOME KIND OF theory that does not lead to any conclusion. Buddhists say "the path is the destination" and I understand them.

C) A few words about semantics : what's fascinating about semantics is that any semantic theory (the expression of it) can be studied by semantics. Saussure's signifier/signified, Frege 's sinn/bedeutung/zeichen, Pierce's symbol/reference/referent, Moris' sign vehicle/designatum/produced effect/interpreter etc, all of these typologies can be studied as semantic embodiments. You can build meta semantic theories on top of which you can build metametatheories etc ...

 

Now a few words about people who adopts Godel as their hero and still maintain God does not exist. You're missing the most of Godel here. Godel without God wouldn't have been Godel. He would have been a mere "El". A lot of young science-ists say Hofstadter's Godel echer Bach... Book is THE book to read, that it will give you great insights and change the ways you see at the world. I was very "suspicious" when I opened this book since I don't like their conceptualo-absolutist philosophy (Like if concepts existed on their own, like mine raft-block or Lego bricks). This book did not gave me any insight, nor changed my life because I already had these insights. In ten minutes I could say : this guy knows what the fractal way of thinking is about, he's one of us. A few years ago I tried to explain what was the fractal trip on here. I tried to translate words describing its core-concepts : fond vs forme, and I think I end up translating them with form vs background. Hofstadter uses the terms form vs ground.

The main critic that has been opposed to this book is that it's hard to see where the author wants to lead us to. It looks like an enumeration of more or less related concepts. That's what people say on the Internet, in blogs and forums. Well, if you are not able to perceive that One thing he talks about, consider you have not understood what he tries to convey.

[sheatheman]

we should just start a synchronicity thread.

[Hoodie]

i don't understand anything you're saying babar. sorry man.

[magdog]

I would like those people who don't believe in creation to take a good look around them and then make a list of all the things that you have real proof of which have not been created.

[Hoodie]

I would like those people who don't believe in creation to take a good look around them and then make a list of all the things that you have real proof of which have not been created.

 

first provide your definition of creation.

[sheatheman]

ah magdog, a fellow lollard.

[Guest RandySicko]

oh god.. this thread again

 

[azatoth]

I would like those people who don't believe in creation to take a good look around them and then make a list of all the things that you have real proof of which have not been created.

 

How do you prove a negative?

[magdog]

I would like those people who don't believe in creation to take a good look around them and then make a list of all the things that you have real proof of which have not been created.

 

first provide your definition of creation.

opposite to chance.

 

Has anything that you see around you just appeared from nowhere, nothing (thin air) or has someone made it. We live in a world of created objects right?

[gmanyo]

I wish I could just think that all of the Christian arguments were right and go ALL OUT 4 JESUS. I don't really even care if they're right or not, I just know that Christianity would make me happier on a personal level.

[magdog]

I would like those people who don't believe in creation to take a good look around them and then make a list of all the things that you have real proof of which have not been created.

 

How do you prove a negative?

How do you prove creation is a negative?

[magdog]

I wish I could just think that all of the Christian arguments were right and go ALL OUT 4 JESUS. I don't really even care if they're right or not, I just know that Christianity would make me happier on a personal level.

Amen.

 

Hebrews 11:1

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

[azatoth]

I would like those people who don't believe in creation to take a good look around them and then make a list of all the things that you have real proof of which have not been created.

 

How do you prove a negative?

How do you prove creation is a negative?

I thought you asked for proof of things that have not been created.

[Candiru]

I wish I could just think that all of the Christian arguments were right and go ALL OUT 4 JESUS. I don't really even care if they're right or not, I just know that Christianity would make me happier on a personal level.

Amen.

 

Hebrews 11:1

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

 

And this is why I truly believe that the original Star Wars trilogy is a historical biopic of the universe's savior.

 

I mean look how popular those movies are. There's gotta be something to it. I FEEL it.

[gmanyo]

I think that passage in Hebrews has more to do with showing that the people in the Old Testament were under the same system as Christians (being saved by Christ's forgiveness) than it is about having evidence. According to the stories, those people had seen like, pillars of fire leading them in the sky and shit, and had God actually talk to them and had crazy miracles happen, so I don't think that their belief was reasonless*.

 

*To clarify: I am not claiming that the stories are true, merely that they do not necessarily say that one should believe without evidence.

[Guest theSun]

f lol magdog

[Guest Babar]

I would like those people who don't believe in creation to take a good look around them and then make a list of all the things that you have real proof of which have not been created.

 

first provide your definition of creation.

 

Pragmatically I agree, but in the end, it won't solve anything. Because you'll define creation by using words which themselves can or need to be defined etc ... Language is not a formal system. It needs vagueness. There are no Semantic atoms.

What I'm pointing the finger at is that there is a strong formalist-positivist ideology pervading American science. Just to give you an example, as I was chatting with a professor of linguistics (he was American) I figured out he only had very vague notions about what had been done in linguistics on the European continent. That would be like if a cognitive psychologist ignored what was psychoanalysis. Moreover, there really are two kinds of linguistics (the boundaries are no that thick). One that is closer to cognitive science, maths and computer science, the other being rather linked to literature analysis. The former is mainly practiced in north America, the UK and (probably northern Europe), while the latter comes from western, central and eastern Europe as well as South America. Capitalism vs socialism.

 

Another example : you know I WANT to believe in UFOs. Once I wanted to have a video analyses. I post on some science forum, and the guys laugh at me, telling me it's not something that has been filmed in space, but under a microscope. I do some deeper search, stumble upon some mega thread which oppose an ex-expert from the NASA to believers. I contact the guy, tell him I'm a believer, and ask him if the movie really has been shot in space. He answered positively, but more importantly, he was shocked I presented myself as a believer. To me the shortest path to objectivity is to state your own subjectivity. But that's not what most of people think. THEY ARE objective. All of them. So they don't need to list their bias, since truth spring out of their mouth like a funtain. Objectivity is more a posture than a genuine objectivity.

 

Anyway here is good definition of GOD I found in hofstadter's book

 

 

Fuck,it.. You're just an bunch of boring unoriginal posing gaping fungus-invaded cunts. I loath you and your absolutist postures you roaring undilatated assholes. You're just monkeys mimicking monkeys and your rigor and your pretention to access immortal truths is just a one thousands years reich. If I could I'd just drill a hole on the left side of your head, this way we'd see how you cope with your grandiloquent theorems and formalism and espistemoloshit of pacotille. Bande de grow caca avariés,,

 

And you, yeah you, you believers, you that have faith. This is the last time I defend you, vain turds. Keep praying, that won't help you, weak beans. Eat the bible before it eats you ! That's my last advice.

 

You know what I think ? we need a nuclear apocalypse. I , I, need a nuclear apocalypse. Go go Kim Jung un. You can do it ! We, I, are all behind you. May the force be granted to the people of north Korea.

 

*last post*

*escapes through kaen's drywall hole, in search of lost time*

 

Fuck it.

 

 

I would like those people who don't believe in creation to take a good look around them and then make a list of all the things that you have real proof of which have not been created.

 

How do you prove a negative?

[lumpenprol]

*golf claps*