Support NeoGAF

[Dead Man]

You can believe that but there's absolutely no proof for it. Your statement is no different from people that follow a religion proclaiming their faith.

Yeah, but there is no proof that ghosts don't exist, or that aliens haven't visited earth, does that make it reasonable to believe in them?

 

[Anaxagoras]

You should know that Daracktuny wants a PM discussion because he fears that what he will post may get him banned.

I didn't know that speaking the truth will get you banned.

 

[Souldriver]

You can believe that but there's absolutely no proof for it. Your statement is no different from people that follow a religion proclaiming their faith.

No it's not. If I claim there is a green rabbit with wings that can speak all languages in the world and that he says we should all eat more corn and let our hair grow, and you don't believe me, there is not a 50/50 percent chance of me being right and you wrong, or the other way around. My claim has so many assumptions, backed up by no evidence at all, that the actual chance of me being right is approaching 0.

Nizar put it best a few posts above, using some simple statistical reasoning.

Think of it this way:

Zero evidence that supports god's existence is available and the possibility of anythings existence is infinite, given that there is an endless amount of possibilities and zero evidence, so from a rational point of view (and to rationalize is to weight the ratios and balance the different possibilities) it would be 1/infinity which is approximately zero.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Yeah, but there is no proof that ghosts don't exist, or that aliens haven't visited earth, does that make it reasonable to believe in them?

I suppose that there is nothing that proves that Obama is not Osama so I might just as well go a head and believe that.

 

[crazy monkey]

I didn't know that speaking the truth will get you banned.

It will some times. This is in the end private forum. We both are talking on someones private property.

 

[Dead Man]

I suppose that there is nothing that proves that Obama is not Osama so I might just as well go a head and believe that.

:lol Why not?

 

[Anaxagoras]

:lol Why not?

I always had a bad feeling about that guy anyway, its good to finally know the truth.

 

[Anaxagoras]

It will some times. This is in the end private forum. We both are talking on someones private property.

Its good to see that you are putting your reasoning skills to use.

 

[slidewinder]

You should know that Daracktuny wants a PM discussion because he fears that what he will post may get him banned.

Wasn't he just going to take the acceptance of Mohammed saying "Hell awaits..." and continue that people should therefore accept, given the same sort of attribution chain, that Mohammed split the moon, and all that? That's what it looked like to me, anyway, particularly when he backed off so easily.

 

[GSG Flash]

Think of it this way:

Zero evidence that supports god's existence is available and the possibility of anythings existence is infinite, given that there is an endless amount of possibilities and zero evidence, so from a rational point of view (and to rationalize is to weight the ratios and balance the different possibilities) it would be 1/infinity which is approximately zero.

It's quite easy to flip that argument around:

Zero evidence that supports god's inexistence is available and the possibility of anythings inexistence is infinite, given that there is an endless amount of possibilities and zero evidence, so from a rational point of view (and to rationalize is to weight the ratios and balance the different possibilities) it would be 1/infinity which is approximately zero.

That statement still makes sense when you switch around "existence" and "inexistence" for a good reason.

Also, you are not only claiming that god exists, you claim to know what he wants us to do and what not to do, and you treat all of this as facts, it is you that is making the claims here, not us, so it is you who have to prove your claims to be true if you want s to treat them as if they are true.

I specifically said "strictly talking about higher beings(ie. god)" because I knew you would bring up the argument of religious rules. However, let's try to stick to the basics first before delving head first into the complicated and messy subject that is religion.

Yeah, but there is no proof that ghosts don't exist, or that aliens haven't visited earth, does that make it reasonable to believe in them?

Sure. You may not believe it's reasonable, but if the other person does believe it and I have no proof to refute them, they can knock themselves out for believing whatever they want. Nothing actually is a certainty without proof, who's to say that ghosts don't exist or that aliens haven't visited earth?

No it's not. If I claim there is a green rabbit with wings that can speak all languages in the world and that he says we should all eat more corn and let our hair grow, and you don't believe me, there is not a 50/50 percent chance of me being right and you wrong, or the other way around. My claim has so many assumptions, backed up by no evidence at all, that the actual chance of me being right is approaching 0.

Nizar put it best a few posts above, using some simple statistical reasoning.

See my answer above

Obviously you have to apply logic to some beliefs and logic, especially when it comes to something like belief of god, changes from person to person. My logic is that I can't see the world, as it is, just suddenly becoming true one day, and the laws of life, to me, just seem too perfect to happen by chance. Obviously you guys believe otherwise and that's fine with me because neither side has critical evidence to completely dismantle the other side's beliefs.

As for the rabbit example, it's a poor one because that can be proven by science to be impossible

edit:

Also, I have to continue studying for my exam, but I look forward to seeing your responses tomorrow afternoon after this shitty exam is done

 

[Dead Man]

Sure. You may not believe it's reasonable, but if the other person does believe it and I have no proof to refute them, they can knock themselves out for believing whatever they want. Nothing actually is a certainty without proof, who's to say that ghosts don't exist or that aliens haven't visited earth?

It's not about what you can prove to NOT have happened, it about what you can prove that HAS happened. If you don't think the difference is important, you better believe in every single thing that has not been proven false.

As for the rabbit example, it's a poor one because that can be proven by science to be impossible

Not really, science just does not know of a mechanism for that. If you want to say that means it is impossible, then science says God is impossible too.

 

[Souldriver]

As for the rabbit example, it's a poor one because that can be proven by science to be impossible

No it's not. It's a rabbit only I have seen, so who are those scientists to claim that it doesn't exist! They can't falsify it. In a way I'm like Mohamed, preaching the truth to you all. THE RABBIT EXISTS and it wants you to grow your hair!

 

[Thunder Monkey]

No it's not. It's a rabbit only I have seen, so who are those scientists to claim that it doesn't exist! They can't falsify it. In a way I'm like Mohamed, preaching the truth to you all. THE RABBIT EXISTS and it wants you to grow your hair!

I'm convinced.

 

[GSG Flash]

It's not about what you can prove to NOT have happened, it about what you can prove that HAS happened. If you don't think the difference is important, you better believe in every single thing that has not been proven false.

*sigh*

You don't really understand what I'm saying, or you do but are trying to twist it to be something other than what I'm saying. Everyone has a right to believe whatever they want to, including myself and yourself, even if that belief is that your belief is wrong, but until I have actual proof contrary to your belief, not just an opinion, than I can't actually mock you for your belief without being a hypocrite, even if logic dictates that your belief is wrong (but like I said before, deep logic such as this changes from person to person).

As for proving that has happened vs proving what has not happened, that depends on your perspective of it, who's to say that it is I that has to prove to you that god exists and not the other way around?

Not really, science just does not know of a mechanism for that. If you want to say that means it is impossible, then science says God is impossible too.

But science doesn't say that, how do you know that it wasn't god that created science? You don't, and neither do I for 100%(though I personally believe that he did), that's what I'm saying. Whereas science does conclusively tell us that it's not possible for a rabbit to speak or grow wings without some sort of intervention into its genetic code.

Anyways, that was my last response for the night, I swear :lol

 

[Pandaman]

It's quite easy to flip that argument around:

Zero evidence that supports god's inexistence is available and the possibility of anythings inexistence is infinite, given that there is an endless amount of possibilities and zero evidence, so from a rational point of view (and to rationalize is to weight the ratios and balance the different possibilities) it would be 1/infinity which is approximately zero.

That statement still makes sense when you switch around "existence" and "inexistence" for a good reason.

Entertaining such an idea would invalidate any worth or meaning there could be to a discussion, so I'm a tad bit skeptical that you hold true to this worldview on principle.

 

[Furcas]

Even the most generic god concept has a prior probability much lower than 50%, because it takes more than a single bit of data to get from a description of a reality without a god to a description of a reality with a god. Strong atheism, not agnosticism, is the default position.

You can believe that but there's absolutely no proof for it. Your statement is no different from people that follow a religion proclaiming their faith.

Of course there's "proof for it", I've just given it to you. You just don't understand it.

What Nizar said in his post right after mine amounts to the same thing: Believing that possibility A is true means believing that all the possibilities that contradict A are false, and the fraction of possibility space occupied by the possibilities that contradict A is a lot bigger than the fraction occupied by A.

For example, suppose you're playing a dice game with your friends and you inadvertently throw one of the dice under the table where none of you can't see it, and one of your friend says, "I think it came up as a 5!", what should you think about your friend's belief? Should you be agnostic and believe that he's just as likely to be wrong as to be right? No, you're going to believe he's probably wrong, because '5' represents less than one sixth of the possibilities.

Well, there are a lot more than six possibilities when it comes to the origin of our universe. There's even the possibility that it doesn't even have an origin in any meaningful sense of the word. A supernatural designer is only one of these possibilities, and it's dwarfed by all the possibilities it contradicts, which means it's very, very unlikely.

Believing that the universe wasn't designed by a god is no different than believing it wasn't caused by natural selection acting on blackhole-generating universes. They're both amusing hypotheses, but without evidence they're nothing more.

 

[Furcas]

how do you know that it wasn't god that created science? You don't, and neither do I for 100%(though I personally believe that he did), that's what I'm saying.

Quoted to expose your insanity.

 

[Masenkame]

The concept of a deity seems to be unfalsifiable, and this shows the weakness of the argument. Burden of proof tends to rely on person making the positive claim, especially in the case of people making that claim for thousands of years yet never showing anything for it.

 

[GSG Flash]

Last response of the night so that I don't forget it tomorrow

Of course there's "proof for it", I've just given it to you. You just don't understand it.

What Nizar said in his post right after mine amounts to the same thing: Believing that possibility A is true means believing that all the possibilities that contradict A are false, and the fraction of possibility space occupied by the possibilities that contradict A is a lot bigger than the fraction occupied by A.

For example, suppose you're playing a dice game with your friends and you inadvertently throw one of the dice under the table where none of you can't see it, and one of your friend says, "I think it came up as a 5!", what should you think about your friend's belief? Should you be agnostic and believe that he's just as likely to be wrong as to be right? No, you're going to believe he's probably wrong, because '5' represents less than one sixth of the possibilities.

Well, there are a lot more than six possibilities when it comes to the origin of our universe. There's even the possibility that it doesn't even have an origin in any meaningful sense of the word. A supernatural designer is only one of these possibilities, and it's dwarfed by all the possibilities it contradicts, which means it's very, very unlikely.

Believing that the universe wasn't designed by a god is no different than believing it wasn't caused by natural selection acting on blackhole-generating universes. They're both amusing hypotheses, but without evidence they're nothing more.

You would have a point, but you just kind of destroyed your own argument. Let's take your dice example, yes you would believe that your friend is more likely to be wrong than he is to be right because he only has a 1 in 6 chance of being correct, but when talking about believing in god (no religion, just god) you have two choices: You either believe in god or you don't, which would effectively give you a 1 in 2 chance that you're right. A coin example would have been better suited for this argument.

Entertaining such an idea would invalidate any worth or meaning there could be to a discussion, so I'm a tad bit skeptical that you hold true to this worldview on principle.

Be as skeptical as you want, I don't really care. I've already made my point quite clear.

edit:

Quoted to expose your insanity.

:lol

That doesn't expose anything, all it does is expose your lust for undermining me in any way you can

 

[Dead Man]

*sigh*

You don't really understand what I'm saying, or you do but are trying to twist it to be something other than what I'm saying. Everyone has a right to believe whatever they want to, including myself and yourself, even if that belief is that your belief is wrong, but until I have actual proof contrary to your belief, not just an opinion, than I can't actually mock you for your belief without being a hypocrite, even if logic dictates that your belief is wrong (but like I said before, deep logic such as this changes from person to person).

As for proving that has happened vs proving what has not happened, that depends on your perspective of it, who's to say that it is I that has to prove to you that god exists and not the other way around?

Wot? You seem to be arguing that everything which has not been proved false is a valid belief. Is that correct? If that is the case, how do you determine those things in which you personally believe?

But science doesn't say that, how do you know that it wasn't god that created science? You don't, and neither do I for 100%(though I personally believe that he did), that's what I'm saying. Whereas science does conclusively tell us that it's not possible for a rabbit to speak or grow wings without some sort of intervention into its genetic code.

Anyways, that was my last response for the night, I swear :lol

People created science. God may or may not have created the universe, but if people have free will, then it was people that created science. Given that, all science can say about an unexplained phenomenon is that it is unexplained. Science does not say it is impossible for such a rabbit to exist, only that there is none known. There could be a very rare breed on an island somewhere. Prove me wrong. Can't? There you go.

 

[Pandaman]

Be as skeptical as you want, I don't really care. I've already made my point quite clear.

well the point is that you seem incapable of understanding the differences between ideas you subjectively hold to be true and ideas that can be meaningfully communicated between individuals.

To entertain the idea that an infinite amount of subjective experiences can be held as equivalent would invalidate the very basis of human communication. If you truly 'believed' what you are saying you would have no grounds to believe that any of the words you are typing are being defined in the same fashion that you are using them, which would mean that it would be quite impossible for you to make your point 'clear'.

 

[Verano]

so nizar and GSG glash can agree that a religious god doesn't exist for crap since most religious books are fallible and subjective to one's interpretation of the passages as well as certain truths within the holy scriptures but a secular god triumphs since there's no books made by man, people don't have to die while spreading the word of God and the believers have to martyr themselves for beliefs or have any symbolic representation nor have any gender specific qualities that distinguishes itself as a man or woman.

 

[Atrus]

Be as skeptical as you want, I don't really care. I've already made my point quite clear.

It may seem attractive to lump belief under an umbrella where 'it's all perfectly legitimate', but really... you're forgetting that you've just lowered the preception of it to the lowest common denominator under that umbrella.

I have no problems with you equating religious belief to the ramblings of raving madmen. I don't see how it helps your position all that much, but I certainly am not going to stop you from digging that hole.

It's like Kirk Cameron's Croco-Duck. The very argument becomes so self-defeating, it becomes a point for the opposition.

 

[GSG Flash]

I'm only going to reply to this one before I head to bed because this particularly annoys me, but I have already written up replies for the other posts that I'll post tomorrow.

well the point is that you seem incapable of understanding the differences between ideas you subjectively hold to be true and ideas that can be meaningfully communicated between individuals.

To entertain the idea that an infinite amount of subjective experiences can be held as equivalent would invalidate the very basis of human communication. If you truly 'believed' what you are saying you would have no grounds to believe that any of the words you are typing are being defined in the same fashion that you are using them, which would mean that it would be quite impossible for you to make your point 'clear'.

It seems like quite a few people here don't even know the definition of the word "belief". Your statement would hold true if I had neutral beliefs for everything that exists in this world (in other words, I don't believe in one thing or another), fortunately for me I don't so I don't have to get lost in a world of nothingness.

And by the way, the only point anyone here is incapable of understanding is politeness(or just not being rude) and you're the one incapable of it. It's like you can't go a post without getting a personal dig in on me (and this goes back to that dogs vs cats thread), I don't know what I've done to get this kind of response, but I apologize for it.

 

[Furcas]

You would have a point, but you just kind of destroyed your own argument. Let's take your dice example, yes you would believe that your friend is more likely to be wrong than he is to be right because he only has a 1 in 6 chance of being correct, but when talking about believing in god (no religion, just god) you have two choices: You either believe in god or you don't, which would effectively give you a 1 in 2 chance that you're right. A coin example would have been better suited for this argument.

You're hiding a prodigious number of possibilities behind those words. I can do the same when talking about a die. Look:

"You have two choices: You either believe that 5 will come up, or you don't."

That you can use the English language to hide the possibilities 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 behind the words "or you don't" doesn't make them vanish.


I've already mentioned the cosmological natural selection hypothesis. That's one possibility. Another is that the universe was caused by an uncaused quantum fluctuation. That's two possibilities. Another is that the universe is eternal. That's three possibilities. Another is that there is no true difference between mathematics and physics, so that all mathematical objects exist; we just happen to live in one of the many mathematical objects that allow for the evolution of self-aware beings. That's four possibilities. Another is that the basic level of reality is a kind of cellular automaton which has been generating lots of different universes since forever. That's five possibilities. Another is that our universe has been designed, not by a "higher being", but by beings very similar to us who evolved in another universe and who have much more advanced technology and science. That's six possibilities. And there's the supernatural designer hypothesis. That's seven possibilities.

Since you've admitted that someone who picks '5' as the number that turned up when there are five other possibilities is more likely to be wrong than to be right, I'm sure you're also going to admit that someone who picks 'God' as the origin of the universe when there are six other possibilities is more likely to be wrong than to be right, too. You're going to admit this because you care about the truth, rather than about dogmatically protecting your faith from criticism.

Spoiler

Of course, there are more than seven possible origins of our universe. There are many that scientists and philosophers have proposed and that I haven't mentioned above, but most importantly, there are many many more that no one has thought of yet.

 

[Pandaman]

It seems like quite a few people here don't even know the definition of the word "belief". Your statement would hold true if I had neutral beliefs for everything that exists in this world (in other words, I don't believe in one thing or another), fortunately for me I don't so I don't have to get lost in a world of nothingness.

its because you don't that your argument is inconsistent. You cant suppose a closeted worldview that only applies to 'god' and deny it for everything else.

Well, i suppose you can but you aren't going to convince anyone other than yourself.

It does seem that I was correct in my judgement that you are incapable of distinguishing between ideas that can be held and ideas that can be meaningfully communicated though.

try to remember that i am not able to peer into your brain and experience whatever it is that internally justifies your belief in god. nor is there anything wrong with having an internally subjective point of view on a topic. the problem only emerges when you attempt to communicate because [remember people are incapable of peeking into each others brains] beliefs can only be meaningfully communicated and shared if they are supported by an external objective experience that both parties can agree on.

if your beliefs aren't supported in such a fashion then there is no meaningful way for one person to distinguish your argument from any other and thus no meaning in the attempt to communicate the idea beyond the crapshoot chance the other person takes everything on faith. skepctism is just the natural default position to take in the absence of evidence for a positive claim.

And by the way, the only point anyone here is incapable of understanding is politeness(or just not being rude) and you're the one incapable of it. It's like you can't go a post without getting a personal dig in on me (and this goes back to that dogs vs cats thread), I don't know what I've done to get this kind of response, but I apologize for it.

For you, the day I graced you with my knowledge was the most important day of your life. But for me, it was Tuesday.


the joke is that I've since forgotten something so insignificant while you seem a bit hung up on it. then again, you wouldn't be the first person incapable of distinguishing between disagreement and some absurd internet hate campaign.

 

[wRATH2x]

Very interesting read Nizar.

Although I like to point out, not all muslims cheered for Osama Bin Laden. I hated that fuck for years and years for ruining Islam and the arab worlds reputation. My family were all sad that day, we lived in america for a long time. We love america. I want to live in America nad raise a family there.

Most of the Saudi's and Muslims I encountered share the same sentiment my family does, we all hate Osama Bin Laden. We all hate Terrorist's, and we all hate what happened to other countries and ours due to terrorism.

The people who cheered for Osama are what we call a "Muttawa'a", who claim to know Islam more than anybody yet they change and twist Islam to fit their agenda.

I have friends who are christian, jewish, gay, lesbian, transsexuals, bi, metro, etc. I've been with women of different race and religion, I've stood up for them. And never once did I hate them for who they are.

At one point I did hate Gays and jews. But since I like to inform myself of everything that didn't last long.

Nizar, I understand that what you have gone through. And I'm happy for you for choosing what you truly believe in and sticking with it. But you don't seriously think all muslims are bad? Or that what the muttawa'a's preach is the true message of Islam?

 

[Anaxagoras]

It's quite easy to flip that argument around:

Zero evidence that supports god's inexistence is available and the possibility of anythings inexistence is infinite, given that there is an endless amount of possibilities and zero evidence, so from a rational point of view (and to rationalize is to weight the ratios and balance the different possibilities) it would be 1/infinity which is approximately zero.

That statement still makes sense when you switch around "existence" and "inexistence" for a good reason.

The degree of confidence we should have in a proposition should modulate with the amount of evidence we have.

If we have 0 evidence, then we should have 0 degree of belief in any proposition, and since we have an endless amount of possibilities, then all these possibilities are as likely to be true.

That is why it is rational not to accept any of these propositions to be true in such a situation.

Doing the opposite won't work in your case since it is still as unlikely to be true as the existence of anything.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Very interesting read Nizar.

Although I like to point out, not all muslims cheered for Osama Bin Laden. I hated that fuck for years and years for ruining Islam and the arab worlds reputation. My family were all sad that day, we lived in america for a long time. We love america. I want to live in America nad raise a family there.

Most of the Saudi's and Muslims I encountered share the same sentiment my family does, we all hate Osama Bin Laden. We all hate Terrorist's, and we all hate what happened to other countries and ours due to terrorism.

The people who cheered for Osama are what we call a "Muttawa'a", who claim to know Islam more than anybody yet they change and twist Islam to fit their agenda.

I have friends who are christian, jewish, gay, lesbian, transsexuals, bi, metro, etc. I've been with women of different race and religion, I've stood up for them. And never once did I hate them for who they are.

At one point I did hate Gays and jews. But since I like to inform myself of everything that didn't last long.

Nizar, I understand that what you have gone through. And I'm happy for you for choosing what you truly believe in and sticking with it. But you don't seriously think all muslims are bad? Or that what the muttawa'a's preach is the true message of Islam?

I am glad you liked and I really wish that more people share your mentality in the muslim world.

Just a question though, what is their agenda and how do they benefit from it?

 

[Anaxagoras]

As for the rabbit example, it's a poor one because that can be proven by science to be impossible

If science will be able one day to prove that there are no green rabbits in existence then they would be able to prove too that there is no God in existence.

 

[Dead Man]

The degree of confidence we should have in a proposition should modulate with the amount of evidence we have.

If we have 0 evidence, then we should have 0 degree of belief in any proposition, and since we have an endless amount of possibilities, then all these possibilities are as likely to be true.

That is why it is rational not to accept any of these propositions to be true in such a situation.

Doing the opposite won't work in your case since it is still as unlikely to be true as the existence of anything.

If science will be able one day to prove that there are no green rabbits in existence then they would be able to prove too that there is no God in existence.

Quoting for correctness.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Obviously you have to apply logic to some beliefs and logic, especially when it comes to something like belief of god, changes from person to person. My logic is that I can't see the world, as it is, just suddenly becoming true one day, and the laws of life, to me, just seem too perfect to happen by chance. Obviously you guys believe otherwise and that's fine with me because neither side has critical evidence to completely dismantle the other side's beliefs.

The universe being fine tuned to allow our existence in no way means that it was designed for us or created by someone, it only means that it is fine tuned to allow our existence, nothing more.

Also, I have to continue studying for my exam, but I look forward to seeing your responses tomorrow afternoon after this shitty exam is done

Good luck man!

 

[Tim the Wiz]

Should these words ever appear in the same sentence next to each other?

Well, since the Muslim world was once the font of science and medicine, while Europe stagnated in Medieval barbarism...

It's a shame about the majority of modern Islamic states, though. Too many have had their culture devolve, and move backwards, rather than evolve, to meet the promise they once had.

 

[wRATH2x]

I am glad you liked and I really wish that more people share your mentality in the muslim world.

Just a question though, what is their agenda and how do they benefit from it?

Their Agenda is basically to rule the earth, they are bitter over the muslims losing Spain and Portugal. And how Muslims aren't the most sought after scholars or the strongest army's like they once were.

One Sheik once told me that you can only be nice to "infidel's" when they rule the world, when we take over you can't treat them well and should probably kill them.

Basically bearded Nazi's.

 

[freethought]

You can believe that but there's absolutely no proof for it. Your statement is no different from people that follow a religion proclaiming their faith.

Why the hell would we need any proof that this man-made concept doesn't exist when there has never ever a single scrap of evidence in the whole of human history to suggest otherwise? That's a thoroughly ridiculous idea.

And no, scripture is not evidence of the existence of gods, only men.

 

[zon]

Well, since the Muslim world was once the font of science and medicine, while Europe stagnated in Medieval barbarism...

It's a shame about the majority of modern Islamic states, though. Too many have had their culture devolve, and move backwards, rather than evolve, to meet the promise they once had.

Not true. The "dark ages" that many speak about is almost pure fiction. The problem Europe faced was when the Roman Empire crashed and burned, the Europeans lost the access they previously had to the knowledge of the ancient Greeks/Romans. The Byzantine Empire still had this knowledge however, and when large portions of the Empire was lost to the Muslims, the Muslims appropriated this knowledge and spread/developed it. Europe finally got access to all this knowledge again when Granada was conquered by the Spanish King/Queen. It had "trickled down" thanks to Christian scholars who travelled to Granada and translated the arabic texts to latin before the fall of Granada. When Granada fell the amount of knowledge that was spread throughout Europe increased by a large margin.

 

[Dead Man]

Not true. The "dark ages" that many speak about is almost pure fiction. The problem Europe faced was when the Roman Empire crashed and burned, the Europeans lost the access they previously had to the knowledge of the ancient Greeks/Romans. The Byzantine Empire still had this knowledge however, and when large portions of the Empire was lost to the Muslims, the Muslims appropriated this knowledge and spread/developed it. Europe finally got access to all this knowledge again when Granada was conquered by the Spanish King/Queen. It had "trickled down" thanks to Christian scholars who travelled to Granada and translated the arabic texts to latin before the fall of Granada. When Granada fell the amount of knowledge that was spread throughout Europe increased by a large margin.

Which I am sure is what he was referring to. Western Europe did experience a 'dark age'. The classical Greek and Roman knowledge was kept, of course, by the Byzantines and the Muslims as well, but there is no denying Western Europe suffered a loss of knowledge after the fall of the Roman Empire.

 

[zon]

Which I am sure is what he was referring to. Western Europe did experience a 'dark age'. The classical Greek and Roman knowledge was kept, of course, by the Byzantines and the Muslims as well, but there is no denying Western Europe suffered a loss of knowledge after the fall of the Roman Empire.

Maybe he did. I reacted to the word barbarism which is, to me, a fairly harsh word in this context. Especially when the Europeans were still trying to recover as much knowledge as they could (and scholars still existed who did research). Most people still have a very negative view of that period of time.

 

[Dead Man]

Maybe he did. I reacted to the word barbarism which is, to me, a fairly harsh word in this context. Especially when the Europeans were still trying to recover as much knowledge as they could (and scholars still existed who did research). Most people still have a very negative view of that period of time.

Yeah, they do. And certainly there were scholars in Western Europe during the 'dark ages', notably some of the orders of monks in the later period.

 

[Instigator]

You should know that Daracktuny wants a PM discussion because he fears that what he will post may get him banned.

Good God, mods, give Daracktuny guaranteed immuty in this thread so he can finally provide the evidence that might save us all.

 

[GSG Flash]

Don't really want to open this can of worms again, but I did promise a response so I'm going to stick to my word, although this will be my last response on this since I fear that I'm going to sound like a broken record based on the direction some of you are taking this, not to mention that my final two exams are really important and this thread almost screwed me over for the one today :lol

Good luck man!

Belated thanks! :lol

I think it went ok, funny thing though, while I was driving out of the university, I happened to catch the start of a cat fight, it was so random :lol

Alright, now for the responses, where do I start?

Wot? You seem to be arguing that everything which has not been proved false is a valid belief. Is that correct? If that is the case, how do you determine those things in which you personally believe?

Sure it's a valid belief, but just because it's a valid belief doesn't mean that it's true or that you should believe in it yourself. Maybe you should go check up on the definition of "belief".

People created science. God may or may not have created the universe, but if people have free will, then it was people that created science. Given that, all science can say about an unexplained phenomenon is that it is unexplained. Science does not say it is impossible for such a rabbit to exist, only that there is none known. There could be a very rare breed on an island somewhere. Prove me wrong. Can't? There you go.

Like the space around us, science can't be created by people, scientific method can though, and scientific method can exploit science but that's a different discussion. Science can explain that such a rabbit can't exist, and if it did then it's not a rabbit, it's that simple.

You're hiding a prodigious number of possibilities behind those words. I can do the same when talking about a die. Look:

"You have two choices: You either believe that 5 will come up, or you don't."

That you can use the English language to hide the possibilities 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 behind the words "or you don't" doesn't make them vanish.


I've already mentioned the cosmological natural selection hypothesis. That's one possibility. Another is that the universe was caused by an uncaused quantum fluctuation. That's two possibilities. Another is that the universe is eternal. That's three possibilities. Another is that there is no true difference between mathematics and physics, so that all mathematical objects exist; we just happen to live in one of the many mathematical objects that allow for the evolution of self-aware beings. That's four possibilities. Another is that the basic level of reality is a kind of cellular automaton which has been generating lots of different universes since forever. That's five possibilities. Another is that our universe has been designed, not by a "higher being", but by beings very similar to us who evolved in another universe and who have much more advanced technology and science. That's six possibilities. And there's the supernatural designer hypothesis. That's seven possibilities.

Since you've admitted that someone who picks '5' as the number that turned up when there are five other possibilities is more likely to be wrong than to be right, I'm sure you're also going to admit that someone who picks 'God' as the origin of the universe when there are six other possibilities is more likely to be wrong than to be right, too. You're going to admit this because you care about the truth, rather than about dogmatically protecting your faith from criticism.

Spoiler

Of course, there are more than seven possible origins of our universe. There are many that scientists and philosophers have proposed and that I haven't mentioned above, but most importantly, there are many many more that no one has thought of yet.

I don't understand why you can't keep it as simple as god vs no god, but regardless this argument is just as flawed as your original dice argument (and it actually helped me realize a flaw in Nizar's post about infinite possibilities leading to zero, but more on that later).

"You have two choices: You either believe that 5 will come up, or you don't."

Yes you can ask that question, and yes the possibility of 5 coming up will still be less than the possibility that it doesn't. Does this analogy apply to the god vs no god question? Absolutely not. The reason being that both choices in your dice analogy have a finite number of possibilities and there is evidence of that, so you can conclude with 100% confidence that the possibility of 5 coming up is less than the possibility of 5 not coming up. With god vs no god, there is no evidence yet that either side has a finite number of possibilities (infinite number of religions vs infinite number of godless scientific theories), of course this would effectively mean that we're arguing a 0 vs 0 possibility, but we're not and I'll explain why later on in this post.

the joke is that I've since forgotten something so insignificant while you seem a bit hung up on it. then again, you wouldn't be the first person incapable of distinguishing between disagreement and some absurd internet hate campaign.

That's good to know, for a moment there I thought that you were still pissed off that you got owned in that cat vs dog thread

Also, just wondering, but why do you insist on talking like you do? It's the same tactic Darackutny and APF use when they want to look smarter by putting together uncommon and rarely used words and phrases to confuse the hell out of you so that they don't actually have to argue with you or so that they get an artificial upperhand in the debate.

The degree of confidence we should have in a proposition should modulate with the amount of evidence we have.

If we have 0 evidence, then we should have 0 degree of belief in any proposition, and since we have an endless amount of possibilities, then all these possibilities are as likely to be true.

That is why it is rational not to accept any of these propositions to be true in such a situation.

Doing the opposite won't work in your case since it is still as unlikely to be true as the existence of anything.

Yes I realized that when I was thinking of a response to furcas's post and I'm guessing that's what Pandaman was alluding to in his posts, though I don't understand why he didn't just say it outright rather than alluding to it and sounding like a total dick, but I refuse to take the blame for that overlook since it was you that overlooked it when you mentioned that infinite possibilities lead to 0. When you first made that statement, you completely disregarded the possibility that there is a god or made the assumption that if god's existence is proven 100% people will continue to make up religions, giving an infinite possibility of gods. The fact that you failed to take notice of these things in your original statistical analysis makes your 0% possibility conclusion invalid. Of course, when I flipped the statement, it was also invalid because of the things you originally overlooked.

So let's agree on one thing, one of the two sides has a finite number of possibilities (effectively making the non-finite number infinite, which will be 0), or else we would come to a conclusion that the universe and life has no beginning and is infinite, which is just too much of a headache to think about :lol

Since I'm an engineering student, the easiest way for me to put this would be into a logic statement:

(and we're going to assume that absolute proof of either side of the argument will result in a halt of new possibilities for the side that was proven)

Let X be the absolute certain existence of god
Let Y be the absolute certain existence of godless scientific theory
Let F be the final result

So we get the logical equation:

X xor Y = F

(For anyone that doesn't know what an exclusive or is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_or)

With the variable that contains the Truth value being equal to the final value that was proposed (ie. the number of the last religion or the number of the last godless scientific theory that was proposed).
And the variable that contains the False value being equal to infinity or 0 (infinity being that the losing side refuses to believe, and 0 being that the losing side accepts defeat leading to a possibility of 0/0)

Now how many ways can we get the final result to be True?

1. X = T, Y = F, F = T
2. X = F, Y = T, F = T

Now what do you notice about that? If you guessed that there are two even possibilities, then you are absolutely correct! If there are two even possibilities, that effectively gives us a 50/50 chance for either side of the argument, not this ridiculous 1/6 vs 5/6 possibilities that some of you were saying. Of course, there may be other factors that come in to play, but if you're looking at god vs no god with only one conclusive evidence to prove one side correct once and for all, this is about as mathematical as you can get.

If science will be able one day to prove that there are no green rabbits in existence then they would be able to prove too that there is no God in existence.

The universe being fine tuned to allow our existence in no way means that it was designed for us or created by someone, it only means that it is fine tuned to allow our existence, nothing more.

I disagree on both counts, but that's the beauty of the right to believe whatever we want and having free thought, I don't have to believe what you believe (although it does seem like some of you guys are against that).

Also, one word of advice to a lot of you who have been arguing with me, you guys need to take a step back and take a long hard look at yourselves in the mirror. A lot of you have essentially become the very people you love to hate. The vibe I got from a lot of you was equivalent to "No! You're wrong, I'm right! I'm not listening la la la la la", which sounds an awful lot like what religious people do. Nowhere in this thread was I propagating my beliefs, all I was doing was challenging this absurd notion(which obviously came out of bias) that there is anything other than a 50% chance of there being a god vs no god without any concrete proof for either side, but yet some of you were attacking me like I was propagating my beliefs simply because I disagreed with your beliefs.

You have to remember, this all started when I said that you're a hypocrite if you mock people for believing in something without evidence, when you yourself don't have any evidence for what you believe in. It seems like that struck a nerve with some of you, and I apologize for that, but, no matter how much you don't want it to be, it's the truth and that's not some kind of rule I made up, it's the very definition of a hypocrite. That is exactly the reason why I don't propagate my beliefs to people, and the only time I tell people about my religion is when they ask themselves.

Anyways, that's all I really wanted to say in this thread, to anyone who actually read my posts and paid attention to them, thanks! :lol

Good God, mods, give Daracktuny guaranteed immuty in this thread so he can finally provide the evidence that might save us all.

I would like to see this too, although I firmly believe Darackutny is Hadji's alt account so maybe he's playing it safe the second time around.

The problem with Darackutny's arguments is that he doesn't know how to debate with apostates or other non Muslims in general. He's good at putting down Muslims, but falls flat on his face when arguing with non Muslims because he always takes the position that the person opposing him believes in Prophet Muhammad as a Prophet, when they obviously don't or else they would be Muslims.

edit:

One thing I forgot to cover, people have been mentioning why it's not the religious person's job to provide proof for the existence of god, if you want my own opinion, I personally believe it should be the person who's propagating their belief's job to prove that they are right, whether that belief is in god or no god.

 

[Dever]

One thing I forgot to cover, people have been mentioning why it's not the religious person's job to provide proof for the existence of god, if you want my own opinion, I personally believe it should be the person who's propagating their belief's job to prove that they are right, whether that belief is in god or no god.

Proving a negative is impossible, especially when it comes to the supernatural. If the supernatural being doesn't operate according to any laws, it's impossible to falsify. Consider this claim:

God always answers prayers.

I pray, nothing happens. God disproven, right?

"Sometimes God's answer is 'no'"

"You weren't sincere enough"

"He did answer but in a way you couldn't understand"

Wrong, apparently. But I'll let someone far more amazing than me explain further: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWJTUAezxAI&feature=player_embedded

 

[Anaxagoras]

Good luck man!

Belated thanks! :lol

I think it went ok, funny thing though, while I was driving out of the university, I happened to catch the start of a cat fight, it was so random :lol

Pics or didn't happen
funny though how what I just said is relevant to what we are discussing.

I will believe you if you provide evidence, but I won't believe you simply because there is no evidence that proves that that didn't happen.

The degree of confidence we should have in a proposition should modulate with the amount of evidence we have.

If we have 0 evidence, then we should have 0 degree of belief in any proposition, and since we have an endless amount of possibilities, then all these possibilities are as likely to be true.

That is why it is rational not to accept any of these propositions to be true in such a situation.

Doing the opposite won't work in your case since it is still as unlikely to be true as the existence of anything.

Yes I realized that when I was thinking of a response to furcas's post and I'm guessing that's what Pandaman was alluding to in his posts, though I don't understand why he didn't just say it outright rather than alluding to it and sounding like a total dick, but I refuse to take the blame for that overlook since it was you that overlooked it when you mentioned that infinite possibilities lead to 0.

Just to be clear before we move on to discuss what you have brought up on the table, do you agree with me that it is irrational accept something to be true when there is 0 evidence that supports it? since the likeliness (ratio) of it being true is just ass possible as anything else to exist?

You either take all the possibilities to be as true or as false, accepting one of the possibilities to be true and all the other possibilities to be false when they are all as likely to be true is irrational since you are not sticking to the ratio of possibility.

That is to take anything that is not supported by evidence to be true, such as dragons, aliens, monsters, harry potter, god, unicorns, ghosts, green rabbits and 7 eyed purple birds that breath fire and shit gold.

When you first made that statement, you completely disregarded the possibility that there is a god or made the assumption that if god's existence is proven 100% people will continue to make up religions, giving an infinite possibility of gods. The fact that you failed to take notice of these things in your original statistical analysis makes your 0% possibility conclusion invalid. Of course, when I flipped the statement, it was also invalid because of the things you originally overlooked.

I agree that I could have worded it better, what I meant by 0 is the ratio of possibility of it being true according to what we have, and that is shared by all the other possibilities, what I forgot to mention is that this doesn't prove it to be or false, its just the possibility.

The rational response to take all the possibilities to be as true or as false, the irrational is to take one to be true and not the other when they are all as likely/unlikely to be true.

So let's agree on one thing, one of the two sides has a finite number of possibilities (effectively making the non-finite number infinite, which will be 0), or else we would come to a conclusion that the universe and life has no beginning and is infinite, which is just too much of a headache to think about :lol

I didn't really understand what you meant here.

Since I'm an engineering student, the easiest way for me to put this would be into a logic statement:

(and we're going to assume that absolute proof of either side of the argument will result in a halt of new possibilities for the side that was proven)

Let X be the absolute certain existence of god
Let Y be the absolute certain existence of godless scientific theory
Let F be the final result

So we get the logical equation:

X xor Y = F

(For anyone that doesn't know what an exclusive or is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_or)

With the variable that contains the Truth value being equal to the final value that was proposed (ie. the number of the last religion or the number of the last godless scientific theory that was proposed).
And the variable that contains the False value being equal to infinity or 0 (infinity being that the losing side refuses to believe, and 0 being that the losing side accepts defeat leading to a possibility of 0/0)

Now how many ways can we get the final result to be True?

1. X = T, Y = F, F = T
2. X = F, Y = T, F = T

Now what do you notice about that? If you guessed that there are two even possibilities, then you are absolutely correct! If there are two even possibilities, that effectively gives us a 50/50 chance for either side of the argument, not this ridiculous 1/6 vs 5/6 possibilities that some of you were saying. Of course, there may be other factors that come in to play, but if you're looking at god vs no god with only one conclusive evidence to prove one side correct once and for all, this is about as mathematical as you can get.

If you think of it this way then you are right, God either exists or doesn't exists, but the difference here is that you and him are not really discussing the same thing, he is discussing with you the different possibilities that the universe might have been created while you are discussing the different possibilities of God's existence.

One more time:
The different possibilities of God's existence. (exists or doesn't exist)(0.50 for each)
The possibility of God's existence. (approximately 0)

Example:
The different possibilities of a green rabbits existence. (0.50 each possibility)
The possibility of a green rabbits existence. (approximately 0)

Another example:
The different possibilities of a cat falling down. (on it's feet most likely , on its back, on its head or on its ass).
The possibility of a cat falling down. (not very likely but it happens from time to time).

If science will be able one day to prove that there are no green rabbits in existence then they would be able to prove too that there is no God in existence.

The universe being fine tuned to allow our existence in no way means that it was designed for us or created by someone, it only means that it is fine tuned to allow our existence, nothing more.

I disagree on both counts, but that's the beauty of the right to believe whatever we want and having free thought, I don't have to believe what you believe (although it does seem like some of you guys are against that).

I don't see you you disagree with the green rabbit's example.

In order for science to disprove its existence it should be able to prove or disprove anythings existence, remember I didn't add any context to the green rabbit, I didn't say that he is on earth, there is a possibility that there is life outside our planet, thus science won't be able to disprove its existence until it knows about everything that is in existence.

It might sound like that to you but I really don't think thats true, I think that the best way to discuss such topics is to be straight forward but shit happens when you try to claim that you believes are facts.

Also, one word of advice to a lot of you who have been arguing with me, you guys need to take a step back and take a long hard look at yourselves in the mirror. A lot of you have essentially become the very people you love to hate. The vibe I got from a lot of you was equivalent to "No! You're wrong, I'm right! I'm not listening la la la la la", which sounds an awful lot like what religious people do. Nowhere in this thread was I propagating my beliefs, all I was doing was challenging this absurd notion(which obviously came out of bias) that there is anything other than a 50% chance of there being a god vs no god without any concrete proof for either side, but yet some of you were attacking me like I was propagating my beliefs simply because I disagreed with your beliefs.

I don't believe that was necessary to say, I don't think anybody here has anything against you, its just what you claim and such discussions tend to heat up pretty quick.

You have to remember, this all started when I said that you're a hypocrite if you mock people for believing in something without evidence, when you yourself don't have any evidence for what you believe in. It seems like that struck a nerve with some of you, and I apologize for that, but, no matter how much you don't want it to be, it's the truth and that's not some kind of rule I made up, it's the very definition of a hypocrite. That is exactly the reason why I don't propagate my beliefs to people, and the only time I tell people about my religion is when they ask themselves.

I too believe that belief is a beautiful thing, there is nothing that proves to me that I will wake up tomorrow, there is no evidence what so ever, but I believe that gives my life more meaning and structure.

I am no hypocrite if I believe that I will wake up tomorrow, but I will be laughed at if I claim that its a fact.

One thing I forgot to cover, people have been mentioning why it's not the religious person's job to provide proof for the existence of god, if you want my own opinion, I personally believe it should be the person who's propagating their belief's job to prove that they are right, whether that belief is in god or no god.

The difference is that we don't say that God doesn't exist and that's a fact, we just accept the possibility that it is unlikely to be true just as unicorns existence is true, if not more.

Btw, I just want to point out that you are not really worshiping God, you are worshiping a God, it might not sound reasonable but I will explain:

X = who/what-ever created us (God).
Y = Allah (a God).
Z = another God (there are about 8000 god's that has been documented that man believed in)

The different possibilities:
X = Y
X =/= Y
X = Z
X =/= Z

The possibility X =/= Y means that Allah might not be who/whatever created us, and that is because you do not worship whoever created us, you are worshiping Allah, you believe that X = Y but there is also the possibility that X =/= Y.

Last but not least, We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in, the difference is that some of us go one god further.

When you understand why you dismiss all the other gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

 

[NewGamePlus]

I just want to input some of my thoughts that I think will clear up the misunderstanding happening in this thread.

GSG Flash, I think you are absolutely correct when including the possibility of a deist god.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
In that case all the scientific ideas and all the god created the universe ideas are actually one in the same. Then it does become a 50/50 chance that a god exists or not.

However, I also believe the existence or nonexistence of a deist god is completely irrelevant to everything ever. It also doesn't seem to be what you are arguing.

In the case of a theist god what everyone else is saying holds true. Your reasoning that infinite possible religions equals infinite possible ways the universe could have been created is false. Every religion creation story boils down to the same thing, a supernatural force created the universe in a an unexplainable way. It doesn't actually matter what the god's name is or how many of them there are because at the core it's all the same thing.

ex.
How was the universe created?
God created the universe. (supernatural force in unexplainable way)

How was the universe created?
I think there are 3 beings named Rax, Zax, and Blinky that have plotted out all of time. (supernatural force in unexplainable way)

So really when talking about theist gods the question is actually is the universe explainable? When dealing with the scientific explanations they are all exclusive and thus there is an infinite amount of explanations. However, when dealing with the religious beliefs the answer is always that it is unexplainable. In that instance everything goes out the window. You can not apply logic and math to the unexplainable, two separate beliefs are actually the same belief, that it's unexplainable. Therefore, there are an infinite amount of scientific ideas versus one idea that it is unexplainable, and it is illogical to believe the latter. If you believe that god created the universe in an explainable way please refer back to deism.

I hope everyone understood all that. Re-reading through it, if anyone is going to say I contradicted myself by saying the unexplainable is illogical and I then applied logic to it, I didn't. I was applying logic to the concept of the unexplainable not the beliefs contained within it. I also I hope I don't sound condescending. I wasn't trying to be.

 

[Dead Man]

Sure it's a valid belief, but just because it's a valid belief doesn't mean that it's true or that you should believe in it yourself. Maybe you should go check up on the definition of "belief".

Hang on, your concept of valid belief has nothing to do with truth? I can't even discus this with you anymore.

Like the space around us, science can't be created by people, scientific method can though, and scientific method can exploit science but that's a different discussion. Science can explain that such a rabbit can't exist, and if it did then it's not a rabbit, it's that simple.

So now you quibble about the definition of a rabbit? Lets not call it a rabbit then, lets call it a 'skawlker'. Happy?

Really guy, you might see this as hating, or personally insulting, or 'I'm rite ur wrong' but if you cannot see what everyone else is talking about there is not much point discussing it further.

Edit: You seem to see lack of belief as a belief itself. I think this might be where you are going wrong. You need evidence (of some kind, good or not) to have a belief, to not have a belief only requires a lack of evidence.

 

[Pseudo_Sam]

When did I ever say that?

If you haven't read what I have written a couple of comments back I will write here again for you, I do not believe that the lack of somethings evidence proves its nonexistence, just because I haven't seen green rabbits doesn't mean in any way that there is no such thing as green rabbits.

To say that what you see or know as a rational person does not rule out the existence of certain ridiculous things is a bit disingenuous, no? By such logic atheists can't exist, because no one has or ever will disprove the possibility of the existence of God, just like no no one has or ever will "disprove" the existence of a massive six-headed turtle floating in space just beyond our telescopes. That's ludicrous logic and distracts from the actual important discretion between atheists and theists; that is, whether or not one believes in the existence of God. Knowing the truth about God's existence is meaningless because it is, technically, unknowable, and it is with this fact in mind the religious masses will always say, "But you never know for sure!!!", even after some scientific discovery that completely contradicts scripture.

Basically, what Penn says.

 

[xelios]

Only now do I see why someone listed Hitler and GSG Flash together in that "anyone you truly hate" thread. If GSG was a great orator he'd potentially be dangerous. Fortunately he seems to be quite incoherent, so maybe he should just be laughed at instead.

 

[Furcas]

GSG Flash,

no offense, but you've ventured way, way past the limit of your education. As condescending as it sounds, all I can say when faced with this many misconceptions is, "please study probability theory".

Only now do I see why someone listed Hitler and GSG Flash together in that "anyone you truly hate" thread.

Heh, that was me, and I was sort of joking.

 

[Anaxagoras]

To say that what you see or know as a rational person does not rule out the existence of certain ridiculous things is a bit disingenuous, no? By such logic atheists can't exist, because no one has or ever will disprove the possibility of the existence of God

Sorry, I didn't really understand what you mean, can you please explain this part one more time?

Edit: never mind, I thought you said prove instead of disprove.

 

[GSG Flash]

Only now do I see why someone listed Hitler and GSG Flash together in that "anyone you truly hate" thread. If GSG was a great orator he'd potentially be dangerous. Fortunately he seems to be quite incoherent, so maybe he should just be laughed at instead.

GSG Flash,

no offense, but you've ventured way, way past the limit of your education. As condescending as it sounds, all I can say when faced with this many misconceptions is, "please study probability theory".




Heh, that was me, and I was sort of joking.

If personal attacks, sarcasm/joking or not, is all you guys can come up with, that's fine with me. I value your opinions no more than the opinion of a random stranger walking along the road, and all your posts really show me is the type of person you are on the internet.

However I have said what I needed to say, there's not much I can do when people skirt around my posts, add little meanings to them which I never meant or try to draw me into a completely different discussion which I have no interest in participating in, especially since all I've been saying from the start is that I want to keep this as basic as possible, but unfortunately that's harder for some people to grasp than I thought.

But by all means, don't let me discourage you, keep the personal attacks coming.