I-Mockery Forum - Reply to Topic

Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options Automatically parse links in text

Oct 13th, 2003 06:35 PM

Perndog

Quote:

"Welcome aboard, Mr Pilgrim," said the loudspeaker. "Any questions?"

Billy licked his lips, thought a while, inquired at last: "Why me?"

"That is a very Earthling question to ask, Mr Pilgrim. Why you? Why us for that matter? Why anything? Because this moment simply is. Have you ever seen bugs trapped in amber?"

"Yes." Billy, in fact, had a paperweight in his office which was a blob of polished amber with three ladybugs embedded in it.

"Well, here we are, Mr Pilgrim, trapped in the amber of this moment. There is no why."

So it goes.

Oct 13th, 2003 06:08 PM

Immortal Goat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sethomas

I've witnessed god at work several times in my life, and so I made an effort to rationalize his existence to myself.

Just one question. Why do you HAVE to rationalize it? I mean, faith SHOULD be enough, right? Why try to prove it for everyone else. You believe, that is enough.

Oct 13th, 2003 05:15 PM

KellyGayos

Oct 13th, 2003 04:35 PM

kellychaos

Quote:

Oct 13th, 2003 04:02 PM

CaptainBubba

Quote:

I won't define what god actually is because I have never claimed to actually know that.

Then what the fuck are you trying to prove?

Oct 13th, 2003 01:55 PM

Helm

Quote:

Being a pretentious dork is a suitable position to do so, n'est-ce pas? If you'd like to actually contradict such a point, be my guest.

No I don't want to contradict that point. I will laugh at you again though.

Quote:

"clear," "succint," and "believable" are all highly subjective terms and so do not rightly belong in a claim to common sense unless they are given a standard of comparison.

Those terms are not subjective in science. If you believe so, you know even less that I thought you did, and clearly quite more than you ever suspected.

Clear in that which is attempted, clear in the methods employed, and clear in the presentation of axioms and arguments. Succint as in not 4.500 words (many a time a weak argument has been shielded in sheer amount of academia and by deliberate bureocratic obscurity) and believable as in logical and if possible, verifiable by experimentation as well as fact. Your 'proof' of god's existence was not clear in what was attempted, since what you're trying to prove existent was not clearly defined. Your methods were, while possibly clear under question (where you base your assumptions on, mainly) but hey, at least the presentation was clear and to-the-point. Like paint-by-numbers books. Cudos on that. As for it being believable, seeing the lack of foundation, the questionable method and apparent bias, I think I would be wary of you and your explanation even if I was a theist.

Quote:

How is that any different than Newton witnessing rainbows and consequentially striving to explain the defraction of light?

Third person perception. I've yet to meet two theists that agree on the the whole of their beliefs. Also, when Newton witnessed gravity, he did not say "ah! let's call this gravity (with everything that clings to to such a definition) Now let's prove it being so!" what he did was to work from the ground up with no assumptions, and by logic and experimentation arrived at a definable effect, which interfaced with it's physical context. Can you say you're doing the same? Haven't you already fleshed out your god well beyond wishful moderation or provable fact? I think so.

Quote:

Bullshit, since time does not pass in eternity.

Wouldn't eternity classify as 'the whole of time?' Ah! Welcome to the zany land of logical fallacy! Stay a while. Stay forever...

If anything, I hope this delightful discussion we're having at least hints on the fact that you're well underequipped to prove the existence of the divine via scientific means. But don't feel bad about it. If you weren't, you'd be certifiably insane.

Oct 13th, 2003 01:29 PM

Perndog

Boethius did like music, he was the foremost authority on it in his time. And as the foremost authority, he said that a person of any class should only criticize and analyze music and never perform it because that was for the common folk. This is a ridiculous point of philosophy, and thus any other philosophy from him or his contemporaries may be sound but has the chance at being equally ridiculous, therefore you can't appeal to them as authorities.

Oct 13th, 2003 02:05 AM

Sethomas

You think what would god think and why would god think thusly. You are in a position to do so, why? *groan*

Being a pretentious dork is a suitable position to do so, n'est-ce pas? If you'd like to actually contradict such a point, be my guest.

No you see not believing in something until a clear succint believable attempt towards proving it has been made is not a bias; it's common sense.

"clear," "succint," and "believable" are all highly subjective terms and so do not rightly belong in a claim to common sense unless they are given a standard of comparison.

And you ARE biased, because apparently you've sat down and said "A god MUST exist! Now, let's try to prove it!" and as the aristotle which you've understood since you were eight would have told you, that's a flawed foundation in a epistemoligical attempt.

I've witnessed god at work several times in my life, and so I made an effort to rationalize his existence to myself. How is that any different than Newton witnessing rainbows and consequentially striving to explain the defraction of light?

But to go with what you're saying if you're willing to accept that there's such a thing as eternity, then the universe could just as well be eternal.

Bullshit, since time does not pass in eternity.

Your naive demand of a god is superfluous.

Only in that I only believe in a god for personal reasons. Playing with Occham's razor, I should be dead too many times over for my life to really make sense. I don't have to prove God's existence to myself. I won't define what god actually is because I have never claimed to actually know that. He seems to have a design, which would imply a will and thus sentience, but I'm not altogether committed to that idea.

Perndog, so what if Boethius didn't like music. Where do you get that he thought the world was flat? He and his contemporaries speculated on the existence of antipodals, which requires a round planet. More importantly, so the fuck what? He was a philosopher, not a cartographer.

Oct 12th, 2003 06:51 PM

Helm

My position is that an all-powerful, omnipresent eternal god cannot logically exist (the law of exclusion of the middle for example voids the possibility of allpowerfulness, as demostrated by the 'rock that cannot lift' sophism). Final terms create logical fallacy that has to be taken into account.

I do not deny the possibility of higher intelligence or beings that could be substantially stronger than us, but I deny myself the baseness to attribute divine nature to any such. I am an agnostic, meaning that I do not know either how the universe became, or if it was by someone's (divine or otherwise) design. I look to science to provide clues to the origin of the world, and philosophers to present theories as to the design behind it. I am critical of both and I have no agenda other than the persual of truth. But I do oppose those that have the audacity to claim their 'god' is logically the one true god because simply the concept of (at least the judeochristian god, but any allpowerful, eternal god applies) god topples over under logical inspection. I think of faith, as Achimp put it once, as intellectual bankruptcy, but I see it as anyone's right to have their personal faith, even as misguided I might find it. But to have someone claim that by logic his god is the true right one, that's just shoving it right down my throat and I don't like it.

If Sethomas said something in the lines of "God exists 'cause I feel him deep inside when I am at prayer" eventhough there's a rebuttal to that too, I'd hardly consider it worth the effort to challenge his faith. But to claim in a pseudo-epistemological manner that god exists, just is too objective a claim not to challenge. Because if it was the former scenario, it might as well be true for him, but not to anybody else that presumably doesn't feel said god in prayer. But in the latter scenario, if it's true for him, it's true for everybody (that stands by reason) and that just begs for further scrutiny.

Oct 12th, 2003 04:00 PM

Perndog

That's because the people who invented God have the sole right to describe him in detail.

Oct 12th, 2003 03:56 PM

kahljorn

a baked potatoe is God, duh!

So is my shoe.

You guys limit "God's power" more than any atheist does.

Oct 12th, 2003 03:44 PM

Perndog

If an antitheist firmly denies the existence of a god or gods, he shares the burden of proof. I don't know if you're in this category, Helm. But if you are, please show me every corner of the universe where a god could possibly be and then I will be satisfied.

Oct 12th, 2003 12:21 PM

Helm

Quote:

Is that really all you have to say? Assuming you really did have a point, are you saying that if there were a god, he would want his existence to be an undisputed fact? Giving him sentience, I don't think he'd want that at all. <obligatory>dumbass.</obligatory>

You think what would god think and why would god think thusly. You are in a position to do so, why? *groan*

Moron.

Quote:

How the fuck does the term "dork" have any weight on an internet message board, exactly? We're both fish in the same goddamn school. I'm not biased in having a concept of an existing god any more than you're biased for being antitheist. Unless you greeks somehow have a transcending omniscience of the ethereal, you're just a very black pot calling the other kitchenwares names.

No you see not believing in something until a clear succint believable attempt towards proving it has been made is not a bias; it's common sense. To call me a biased 'antitheist' (hahahahahahah) is to call a man that doesn't believe in the existance of quadridimensional space clowns biased. The burden of proof is on you theists. And you ARE biased, because apparently you've sat down and said "A god MUST exist! Now, let's try to prove it!" and as the aristotle which you've understood since you were eight would have told you, that's a flawed foundation in a epistemoligical attempt. Dork.

Quote:

I never said you were incapable, you ever-presumptuous twat. The article to which I was refering is not nearly close to completion and currently is at over 4,500 words. Then I'm probably going to rewrite the whole thing in a deist perspective. Still interested?

Seeing how your far-less wordy replies in this thread are fairing, I indeed think I'll pass.

Quote:

I'm surprised at your apparent ignorance of Thomist metaphysics.

Switch ignorance with lack of respect towards and don't be so suprised. If THAT'S where you're coming from, I don't think we have much more to discuss.

Quote:

God is an eternal being. Time does not exist in eternity.

Wee! There we go with ultimate terms! Omnipotence! Omniescence! Did you know that every such ultimate term contributes towards a logical fallacy? Remember the old sophist argument of the rock that god can't lift? I find it very amusing that you're using final axiomatic terms AND claim to do thusly in an epistemoligic context while keeping a straight face.

But to go with what you're saying if you're willing to accept that there's such a thing as eternity, then the universe could just as well be eternal. Your naive demand of a god is superfluous. And biased. And very funny for a man with such a high IQ.

Quote:

You are right in thinking that it's *sniff* akward to conceive of action in the absence of time, and this *sob* is the subject I'm dealing with now *whipe* in my writings on *sniff* coeternalism.

There, there.

Oct 12th, 2003 11:58 AM

CaptainBubba

I believe you have to answer my question to have a viable thesis Seth. Do you not have to define something before you set out to specifically prove that thing?

If you were merely conducting science and discovering what is responsible for the Big Bang and not how god was responsible for it that would be understandable. However you insist on saying that your thesis is proving "god's" existence. I could just as easily say it proves "a baked potatoe's" existence with what you've provided so far regarding the actual definition of god.

edit: A baked potatoe in the sense that this baked potatoe is "special". Obviously unlike any baked potatoe we are accustomed to. At first i thought that went without saying, but I realize it doesn't and makes me sound stupid. :/

Oct 12th, 2003 04:45 AM

Perndog

Boethius also said it was common and vulgar to be a performer of music later than childhood, and that the only worthy course of musical study as an adult was criticism. Tell me and all of the world's orchestras he wasn't full of bullshit. And if he was (on this point if not many others), then nothing precludes any of his contemporaries from being as equally full of shit. Oh, and he also thought the world was flat, and everyone agreed with him. Go figure.

In short: appeals to authority, ESPECIALLY when debating physics and metaphysics, are VERY WEAK arguments bordering on LOGICAL FALLACIES.

Just thought you'd like to know where you're not quite covering your bases, you are one of those logical types...

Oct 12th, 2003 03:15 AM

Sethomas

Sethomas wrote:
Wouldn't that take away the fun of it?

Moron.

Is that really all you have to say? Assuming you really did have a point, are you saying that if there were a god, he would want his existence to be an undisputed fact? Giving him sentience, I don't think he'd want that at all. <obligatory>dumbass.</obligatory>

In other words, you mean to say that you're a biased and pretentious dork with no actual solid concept on what you're discussing, right?

How the fuck does the term "dork" have any weight on an internet message board, exactly? We're both fish in the same goddamn school. I'm not biased in having a concept of an existing god any more than you're biased for being antitheist. Unless you greeks somehow have a transcending omniscience of the ethereal, you're just a very black pot calling the other kitchenwares names.

"Look forward to my next article which you will not be able to read". Right.

I never said you were incapable, you ever-presumptuous twat. The article to which I was refering is not nearly close to completion and currently is at over 4,500 words. Then I'm probably going to rewrite the whole thing in a deist perspective. Still interested?

If you say god did not set the universe in motion in a specific point in time, then you're logically saying that god did not set the universe in motion. How this is beyond you I fail to understand.

I'm surprised at your apparent ignorance of Thomist metaphysics. God is an eternal being. Time does not exist in eternity. Creation did not take place in time, as Creation was the inception of time itself. This is not stuff that I'm making up, such an idea has been around since Boethius.

You are right in thinking that it's akward to conceive of action in the absence of time, and this is the subject I'm dealing with now in my writings on coeternalism.

Oct 12th, 2003 03:15 AM

kahljorn

What about going out to an open field in the middle of nowhere? I'd come with you.

Oct 12th, 2003 12:26 AM

Perndog

Wouldn't YOU like to know?

Oct 12th, 2003 12:22 AM

Zhukov

What DO you do?

Oct 12th, 2003 12:05 AM

Perndog

I live in a small apartment with a roommate at a Christian college, so no. For one, I have no space for rituals, for two, my roommate is around to often for me to want to get into that sort of thing (privacy is kind of important), three, I can't afford props (in Satanism, it's all about psychodrama, like fancy roleplaying, so props and often costumes are important), and four, I don't want everyone to hear me and start telling stories about how I was chanting and yelling demonic names and weird languages.

When I live by myself or in a house with a room to myself, then yes. No summoning demons, though, they don't exist either. (I don't think...)

Oct 11th, 2003 08:56 PM

kahljorn

Do you ever summon demons or cast spells or do ritual things, perndog?

Serious.

Oct 11th, 2003 08:32 PM

Perndog

Wrong Satan, FS.

Oct 11th, 2003 07:39 PM

shyeah. I think Satan's the LAST person who should be denying the existence of God.

Oct 11th, 2003 01:07 PM

Perndog

It's Satan's turn to speak now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Satan

GOD IS A FAIRY TALE. THE END. YOU HAVE WASTED YOUR 70 YEARS PRAYING AND SEARCHING FOR MEANING IN ALL THE WRONG PLACES. I HOPE YOU'RE HAPPY. YOU CAN ALL GO HOME NOW. GOODNIGHT. THERE IS NOTHING TO SEE HERE.

Oct 11th, 2003 09:57 AM

Helm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sethomas

Wouldn't that take away the fun of it?

Moron.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sethomas

I never said he did it in a linear manner of cause and effect, that was your own assumption. I actually believe something quite different, which was vaguely described in the other two articles I have online. I'm currently working on a longer piece to that end, but I doubt you'd have the patience to read it.

In other words, you mean to say that you're a biased and pretentious dork with no actual solid concept on what you're discussing, right? That's what I got from this amazing reply of yours. "Look forward to my next article which you will not be able to read". Right.

If you say god did not set the universe in motion in a specific point in time, then you're logically saying that god did not set the universe in motion. How this is beyond you I fail to understand.

So come on then, answer nothing and be sarcastic again. God knows that's something we never see around here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sethomas

OMG, I was OWNED by your concise rebuttal!

Hahaha

This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

About Us |

Store |

Advertising |

Contact

Features

Shorts

Editorials

Games

Comics

Blogs

Forum

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads You may post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts vB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off