Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
personreal

Proof of Heaven?

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Zaro said:

Yes I do. We will look like Italy does now

 

Oh yeah? Well look in your crystal ball and ask it what your lungs will look like in 20 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, SixShooter said:

 

Oh yeah? Well look in your crystal ball and ask it what your lungs will look like in 20 years.

She mostly focuses on her feet...she lets foot pervs beat off on them.  That's her job.

 

Her words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Zaro said:

Yes your Lardship

 

Haha! Never fitter mother. You'd do well to find a hard .... working loyal man like me. Git goin before those bat wings get any floppier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, CrimeaRiver said:

She mostly focuses on her feet...she lets foot pervs beat off on them.  That's her job.

 

Her words.

 

I know. Weird ain't it? Never got the foot fetish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SixShooter said:

 

I ain't clicking on that, get out of here with your virus bait.

you all and Trump going to pay for killing all these Americans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, SixShooter said:

 

Haha! Never fitter mother.

^^ tremendous fumes, gasses spewing into the atmosphere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Zaro said:

^^ tremendous fumes, gasses spewing into the atmosphere

 

Haha oh yeah, the first couple weeks of The Cleanse. That all passed though, I'm fit as a fiddle now.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SixShooter said:

I know.

So why do you keep reverting back to things that can only be relied upon AFTER they've been observed?

 

Quote

Now you sound like an agnostic again. Or a religious atheist. You cannot know, but you believe. Actually you're a believer, like me. 😉

Yes. 

 

Quote

Totally agree.

The "I know it all about God" people are even more obnoxious and arrogant. Way more.

Let's just put this semantic part of the argument to bed: the definitions of atheist, agnostic, gnostic, deist, Christian, Muslim, etc....they are not descriptions of facts, they are descriptions of one's beliefs. And since philosophy will never really find rock-bottom, let's just stick to beliefs and WHY we hold them (without having to qualify every sentence with "it seems to me" or "I think that"-type phrases). 

 

Quote

Yes I'm aware. Many of them are also ID believers. 🙂

Correct. 

 

Quote

No I can't go there. If no humans ever existed, but birds did, birds are still symmetrical. Humans would not observe it or define it, but it still is.

Birds are observers! We're talking about whether there can exist a concept of symmetry before it was ever observed. And the answer is no.

 

Quote

Is this dead horse ever going to tire of being beaten?

I'LL SAY WHEN THE HORSE IS DEAD!

 

Quote

That I would like.

I agree. I don't believe God is governing day-to-day happenings. 

There's only so much a person can articulate on a text forum with delayed feedback. Realizing this after a decade of debating it, I'm a firm atheist online from a materialist perspective and realize that a believer and a non-believer rarely reach each other through text exchanges. 

 

Quote

Yeah I would go along with that too. There's too much diversity in the universe for that.

...or that humans were designed FOR the universe. Same issue of the "intention" behind the alleged design.

 

Quote

Well said. But you're going to have to be careful because you're beginning to express a concept that might convince yourself.

On the one hand you pitch ID as impossible because it's without evidence in the natural realm, but then you postulate ideas of a "wisdom" that infinitely transcends human understanding. I don't think you meant to say that, but you definitely implied it. What was the source of this ancient wisdom? 

Oh, I meant to say it alright. Part of the last several years spent debating young-adult Christian traditionalists has, I'll admit, softened my view. It's made me a little more appreciative of the things that are bigger than ourselves; things not quite measurable in a material sense. When people who know I'm an atheist ask me why I wear a pendent of St. Vladimir, I say it's because I'm an atheist Christian apologist: I dispute much of the doctrine, but the overarching concept and its effect on a society and a family is the greater good, and "the greater good" is a surprisingly robust indicator of the truth of something (but that's yet another discussion to add to our list). 

 

Quote

Ultimately, we're programmed to function a certain way. Decisions like having a thought or which finger types which key become so automatic they don't register. My question is only concerned with the conscious thought that we're aware of. Want to take a stab at answering the question now? 

I saw that move coming. Key difference; humans act on intelligent rational thought. Animals act on instinct.

This is incorrect. It's one of the main trunks of the free will debate and it is not supported by the scientific evidence. This is why I asked earlier: what happens first, a thought or the thought of having a thought? Because if humans are capable of thinking rationally and with will, what immediately precedes the initial notion of "hey, I'm going to have a thought"?

 

Quote

I have no empirical data to support it but my opinion is that nurturing has been declining much longer than that. And of course birthrates are tied to the strength of the nuclear family.

Yes, so mothers will always be - IN GENERAL - more nurturing than non-mothers because the trait of nurturing better facilitates raising young to an age at which they can pass along their genes than the trait of un-nurturing. If mothers stop being nurturing, the long-term effect is lower birthrates and a therefore a decline in population.

 

Quote

My point is that you questioned ID on the basis of pain and suffering, then when I asked if the "evils" of the world have a positive side, you said yes. So I was just asking...

Yes, there's a positive side. And a negative side. And those characterizations can be flipped and twisted and swapped based on the perspective of the observer. This, then, renders the whole concept of a benevolent creator either moot or false. Now, I'm not saying ID requires a benevolent creator, but most people who believe in ID also believe that God is benevolent. So let's just nip that modern heresy in the bud right now. 

 

Quote

Who was it that said something's purpose depends on the user?? :lol: :lol:

Sure...in the sense that the bikini model there could say, "I've always known that my purpose was to be photographed and then jerked off to. I'm so glad I found my calling." But that's a bit of a trivialization of a single human's life, IMHO.

 

Quote

Because it can be known from all the past experiences what happens, even when no one is around. Isn't that elementary? You're going to have to come right out and explain how something we know happens the same every time is different just because no one is there.

I'm not asserting that it's silent, I'm only saying that we can't assert with certainty that it makes a sound without observing/detecting it. And since we were originally talking about a world before any observers existed, we are assuming an undetected falling tree makes a sound because all of the DETECTED falling trees made a sound. It's a safe and not irrational assumption, but an assumption nonetheless. Same with the dead symmetrical horse, (even though the horse itself is an observer). 

 

Quote

I know! Stop shouting! 

BUT HOW ELSE WILL YOU KNOW THAT I'M MAKING A POINT?

 

Quote

I wasn't clear there. Of course, all we have are natural means. What I meant was we have to use our natural means of reckoning to consider something outside of those natural constraints. I'm not saying we can arrive at a full knowledge of that truth, in fact I argue we cannot and never will while within our natural constraints. We may never rise to that level of understanding, even in another higher state of existence. But that doesn't stop us from being able to imagine something beyond human intelligence.

Preach brother!

 

Quote

Look, I'm fully aware this is like unicorns and fortune telling to you. But to me it's perfectly reasonable to think there's a more powerful intelligence out there than human or even any other more advanced mortal being in our universe. If such an infinite omniscience exists capable of creating this universe at a word, I cannot begin to grasp that and it would be arrogant, foolish of me to think I could with my puny brain. And atheism tries to contain the idea of something infinitely superior to humans within simple human understanding, which is simply dismissive. Typically the reason is because of pride and egotism; people want to believe they're the pinnacle of evolution, and don't like to think there's anything anywhere smarter than themselves.

This is true. Atheists are trapped in the real, material world. And the thing about consciousness is that it presents, from the cradle to the grave, the distorted perspective that the world revolves around ME. To quote David Foster Wallace:

 

"Everything in my own immediate experience supports my deep belief that I am the absolute centre of the universe; the realest, most vivid and important person in existence. We rarely talk about this natural, basic self-centredness because it's so socially repulsive, but it's pretty much the same for all of us. It is our default setting, hardwired into our boards at birth. Think about it. There is no experience you have had that you were not the absolute centre of. The world, as you experience it, is there in front of you. Or behind you. To the left or right of you...other people's feelings have to be communicated to you somehow, but your own are so immediate, urgent, and real."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, kking said:

So why do you keep reverting back to things that can only be relied upon AFTER they've been observed?

 

Yes. 

 

Let's just put this semantic part of the argument to bed: the definitions of atheist, agnostic, gnostic, deist, Christian, Muslim, etc....they are not descriptions of facts, they are descriptions of one's beliefs. And since philosophy will never really find rock-bottom, let's just stick to beliefs and WHY we hold them (without having to qualify every sentence with "it seems to me" or "I think that"-type phrases). 

 

Correct. 

 

Birds are observers! We're talking about whether there can exist a concept of symmetry before it was ever observed. And the answer is no.

 

I'LL SAY WHEN THE HORSE IS DEAD!

 

There's only so much a person can articulate on a text forum with delayed feedback. Realizing this after a decade of debating it, I'm a firm atheist online from a materialist perspective and realize that a believer and a non-believer rarely reach each other through text exchanges. 

 

...or that humans were designed FOR the universe. Same issue of the "intention" behind the alleged design.

 

Oh, I meant to say it alright. Part of the last several years spent debating young-adult Christian traditionalists has, I'll admit, softened my view. It's made me a little more appreciative of the things that are bigger than ourselves; things not quite measurable in a material sense. When people who know I'm an atheist ask me why I wear a pendent of St. Vladimir, I say it's because I'm an atheist Christian apologist: I dispute much of the doctrine, but the overarching concept and its effect on a society and a family is the greater good, and "the greater good" is a surprisingly robust indicator of the truth of something (but that's yet another discussion to add to our list). 

 

This is incorrect. It's one of the main trunks of the free will debate and it is not supported by the scientific evidence. This is why I asked earlier: what happens first, a thought or the thought of having a thought? Because if humans are capable of thinking rationally and with will, what immediately precedes the initial notion of "hey, I'm going to have a thought"?

 

Yes, so mothers will always be - IN GENERAL - more nurturing than non-mothers because the trait of nurturing better facilitates raising young to an age at which they can pass along their genes than the trait of un-nurturing. If mothers stop being nurturing, the long-term effect is lower birthrates and a therefore a decline in population.

 

Yes, there's a positive side. And a negative side. And those characterizations can be flipped and twisted and swapped based on the perspective of the observer. This, then, renders the whole concept of a benevolent creator either moot or false. Now, I'm not saying ID requires a benevolent creator, but most people who believe in ID also believe that God is benevolent. So let's just nip that modern heresy in the bud right now. 

 

Sure...in the sense that the bikini model there could say, "I've always known that my purpose was to be photographed and then jerked off to. I'm so glad I found my calling." But that's a bit of a trivialization of a single human's life, IMHO.

 

I'm not asserting that it's silent, I'm only saying that we can't assert with certainty that it makes a sound without observing/detecting it. And since we were originally talking about a world before any observers existed, we are assuming an undetected falling tree makes a sound because all of the DETECTED falling trees made a sound. It's a safe and not irrational assumption, but an assumption nonetheless. Same with the dead symmetrical horse, (even though the horse itself is an observer). 

 

BUT HOW ELSE WILL YOU KNOW THAT I'M MAKING A POINT?

 

Preach brother!

 

This is true. Atheists are trapped in the real, material world. And the thing about consciousness is that it presents, from the cradle to the grave, the distorted perspective that the world revolves around ME. To quote David Foster Wallace:

 

"Everything in my own immediate experience supports my deep belief that I am the absolute centre of the universe; the realest, most vivid and important person in existence. We rarely talk about this natural, basic self-centredness because it's so socially repulsive, but it's pretty much the same for all of us. It is our default setting, hardwired into our boards at birth. Think about it. There is no experience you have had that you were not the absolute centre of. The world, as you experience it, is there in front of you. Or behind you. To the left or right of you...other people's feelings have to be communicated to you somehow, but your own are so immediate, urgent, and real."

Isn't that a bummer - being trapped in the real world. But isn't it all about truth? And it just so happens that fact and truth belong together. Fact established truth and religion unfortunately is short on facts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Zaro said:

Isn't that a bummer - being trapped in the real world.

Trapped in the material world.

 

Quote

But isn't it all about truth? And it just so happens that fact and truth belong together. Fact established truth and religion unfortunately is short on facts

Religion may be short on material facts, but the material world is not all of existence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, kking said:

So why do you keep reverting back to things that can only be relied upon AFTER they've been observed?

 

Yes. 

 

Let's just put this semantic part of the argument to bed: the definitions of atheist, agnostic, gnostic, deist, Christian, Muslim, etc....they are not descriptions of facts, they are descriptions of one's beliefs. And since philosophy will never really find rock-bottom, let's just stick to beliefs and WHY we hold them (without having to qualify every sentence with "it seems to me" or "I think that"-type phrases). 

 

Correct. 

 

Birds are observers! We're talking about whether there can exist a concept of symmetry before it was ever observed. And the answer is no.

 

I'LL SAY WHEN THE HORSE IS DEAD!

 

There's only so much a person can articulate on a text forum with delayed feedback. Realizing this after a decade of debating it, I'm a firm atheist online from a materialist perspective and realize that a believer and a non-believer rarely reach each other through text exchanges. 

 

...or that humans were designed FOR the universe. Same issue of the "intention" behind the alleged design.

 

Oh, I meant to say it alright. Part of the last several years spent debating young-adult Christian traditionalists has, I'll admit, softened my view. It's made me a little more appreciative of the things that are bigger than ourselves; things not quite measurable in a material sense. When people who know I'm an atheist ask me why I wear a pendent of St. Vladimir, I say it's because I'm an atheist Christian apologist: I dispute much of the doctrine, but the overarching concept and its effect on a society and a family is the greater good, and "the greater good" is a surprisingly robust indicator of the truth of something (but that's yet another discussion to add to our list). 

 

This is incorrect. It's one of the main trunks of the free will debate and it is not supported by the scientific evidence. This is why I asked earlier: what happens first, a thought or the thought of having a thought? Because if humans are capable of thinking rationally and with will, what immediately precedes the initial notion of "hey, I'm going to have a thought"?

 

Yes, so mothers will always be - IN GENERAL - more nurturing than non-mothers because the trait of nurturing better facilitates raising young to an age at which they can pass along their genes than the trait of un-nurturing. If mothers stop being nurturing, the long-term effect is lower birthrates and a therefore a decline in population.

 

Yes, there's a positive side. And a negative side. And those characterizations can be flipped and twisted and swapped based on the perspective of the observer. This, then, renders the whole concept of a benevolent creator either moot or false. Now, I'm not saying ID requires a benevolent creator, but most people who believe in ID also believe that God is benevolent. So let's just nip that modern heresy in the bud right now. 

 

Sure...in the sense that the bikini model there could say, "I've always known that my purpose was to be photographed and then jerked off to. I'm so glad I found my calling." But that's a bit of a trivialization of a single human's life, IMHO.

 

I'm not asserting that it's silent, I'm only saying that we can't assert with certainty that it makes a sound without observing/detecting it. And since we were originally talking about a world before any observers existed, we are assuming an undetected falling tree makes a sound because all of the DETECTED falling trees made a sound. It's a safe and not irrational assumption, but an assumption nonetheless. Same with the dead symmetrical horse, (even though the horse itself is an observer). 

 

BUT HOW ELSE WILL YOU KNOW THAT I'M MAKING A POINT?

 

Preach brother!

 

This is true. Atheists are trapped in the real, material world. And the thing about consciousness is that it presents, from the cradle to the grave, the distorted perspective that the world revolves around ME. To quote David Foster Wallace:

 

"Everything in my own immediate experience supports my deep belief that I am the absolute centre of the universe; the realest, most vivid and important person in existence. We rarely talk about this natural, basic self-centredness because it's so socially repulsive, but it's pretty much the same for all of us. It is our default setting, hardwired into our boards at birth. Think about it. There is no experience you have had that you were not the absolute centre of. The world, as you experience it, is there in front of you. Or behind you. To the left or right of you...other people's feelings have to be communicated to you somehow, but your own are so immediate, urgent, and real."

 

they say a million monkeys will eventually type the entire works of shakespeare.

 

any proof of that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jerra- said:

 

they say a million monkeys will eventually type the entire works of shakespeare.

 

any proof of that?

No hard proof, obviously, but laws of probability suggest so, since the complex relationship between complex forces actually DID create the works of Shakespeare, against worse odds too. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kking said:

No hard proof, obviously, but laws of probability suggest so, since the complex relationship between complex forces actually DID create the works of Shakespeare, against worse odds too. 

 

 

 

and we are to accept this even though there is no hard proof?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jerra- said:

 

and we are to accept this even though there is no hard proof?

If you want to get into the weeds about what constitutes "hard proof," we can. But I think that will be much more troublesome to a believer than to a non-believer.

 

But let's see:

1. Do the works of Shakespeare exist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kking said:

No hard proof, obviously, but laws of probability suggest so, since the complex relationship between complex forces actually DID create the works of Shakespeare, against worse odds too. 

 

 

 

The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type any given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare. In fact, the monkey would almost surely type every possible finite text an infinite number of times.

 

actually we are to believe that one monkey will type the entire works of shakespeare.

 

even with spell check i find this impossible, and I doubt a monkey can use spellcheck.

 

there is no proof, or scientific evidence.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jerra- said:

 

The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type any given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare. In fact, the monkey would almost surely type every possible finite text an infinite number of times.

 

actually we are to believe that one monkey will type the entire works of shakespeare.

 

even with spell check i find this impossible, and I doubt a monkey can use spellcheck.

 

there is no proof, or scientific evidence.

You're not even attempting to understand probabilities. 

 

Do the works of Shakespeare exist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, kking said:

If you want to get into the weeds about what constitutes "hard proof," we can. But I think that will be much more troublesome to a believer than to a non-believer.

 

But let's see:

1. Do the works of Shakespeare exist?

 

I think what is troublesome is for a non believer to back up claims.

 

the existence of shakespeare is a known fact.

 

monkeys typing the works of shakespeare is purely the conjecture of someone's imagination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, kking said:

You're not even attempting to understand probabilities. 

 

Do the works of Shakespeare exist?

 

there is nothing probable about it,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, kking said:

You're not even attempting to understand probabilities. 

 

Do the works of Shakespeare exist?

 

probabilities are common and known results of certain situations-

 

--if an apple fell from a tree, it will probably hit the ground---

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...