...too many people not playing as a united team.
Posts by Qcmbr
-
3England out of the Eu and now Euro 2016
by Slidin Fast iniceland, i mean iceland.
outplayed us in every department.
this country is not a great place to be at present..
-
-
-
375
This thread is for proof that God exists
by juandefiero inhowever, i haven't found any evidence to support that belief.. have you?
if so please, show me the evidence that god exists, and i will believe along with you.. criteria:.
(1) you must specify which god you are talking about;.
-
-
Qcmbr
I disagree talesin - Fish strikes me as a talking like a politician who says little with lots of posture to avoid being pinned to something specific and testable. Let's examine the logical flaws:
Proof that God exists does not depend upon the evidence, but on the rules of evidence, and ultimately upon who is trying the case -who has the final say.
Let's work this backwards. Let's use something to represent an essential truth - let's say a naked monarch parading down a high street under the misapprehension that they are wearing clothing that has a magical property. Can any nominated judge (be it a group or a person or a talking donkey) anywhere change one iota of the actual reality? Can such a judge actually, simply by their judgment actually create as much as a single pair of magically infused undercrackers? No of course not. It is a sleight of hand to postulate some vapourware judge to argue over the facts on the ground.
'Rules of evidence'. Once again a completely cooked notion. Are there any rules of evidence that again can change the reality? No of course not - there are only tangles twists and attempts to misdirect the gaze from the monarchs jewels.
The question about what types of evidence would be useful does have use when confusion or a lack of clarity exists. Does it here? I suspect not, this isn't a legal matter or a debate on whether Monopoly fines end up in Free Parking, and there isn't a need to pretend to some statement or list since they are implicit in our shared human existence. We are talking about the material world we exist in and the shared phenomenon we experience. You see when a child can innocently point out the truth without recourse to special rules and only the lie teller requires the magical rules of exception (only the stupid cannot see the beautiful fabric) then you know what the 'rules' are for.
Finally to claim on one hand a familiarity with the word 'proof' and then to spend the remainder of the sentence producing a new version of proof tied to an imaginary judge and a set of special rules that, let us be well aware will always favour the tailor who made the 'clothes' that the ruler now wears,it is just a politician's ruse, a con, a trick to avoid the simple statement - the King is naked.
When I fully believed I genuinely sought out opportunities to test the 'truth' I believed (and still believe) in 'the refiner's fire' the concept that testing, trying and examining a truth will leave it shorn of all untruths. As a believer I was under the mistaken impression that such things as the Book of Mormon, the global flood and the age of the earth were all accurately described by and encapsulated in the LDS version of Jehovah. It wasn't until I was about 30 that I first started to be met by serious , factual rebuttal (a lot of it here!) that I couldn't square anymore. Before that point I hadn't engaged anyone in conversation educated enough or willing to exhaustively challenge and deconstruct the truths I held dear and i hadn't done enough of my own research to know what I didn't know. This increased my belief that they were not just subjectively true but also objectively true. Only when hard facts and an unyielding discussion occurred could I see the mistakes in my position. The subjective experiences I had had were not (initially) challenged - I had to do that myself later. The key to unlocking the worldview was to look at the objective things and apply logic and the scientific method to test them.
If the only evidence brought to the table is subjective then one argues for a God who has no material impact on the universe except in the chemistry of human brains. If that really is it then that's fine - its a strange God but they are welcome to it since no one else can verify it nor claim that its the same one in everyone's mind. If however, believers are arguing for some supreme being who impacts and is the cause of pretty much everything then let's not play semantics. They can just point at the evidence and we can discuss it - shouldn't be hard ,it should be all around.
-
375
This thread is for proof that God exists
by juandefiero inhowever, i haven't found any evidence to support that belief.. have you?
if so please, show me the evidence that god exists, and i will believe along with you.. criteria:.
(1) you must specify which god you are talking about;.
-
-
Qcmbr
Was having a think about what it would look like if this world / universe were designed by an AI. It's highly likely that we will be superseded soon by our own creations ergo seems sensible that if any Godlike being arises from biological processes it will be constructed rather than born. So what evidence would such an AI leave?
Well here goes, caveat being that we are at the root of our AI so it reflects the limits of or thinking - in particular Western thinking.
I like playing PC games which is often at the forefront of AI thinking. It struck me that the strength of AI is its overall ability to accurately gather information , weigh alternatives and consider solutions within the confines of its programming. Any game you play now has the rules 'cooked' such that the AI always produces perfect solutions - it doesn't experience an emotional response. An AI world (I'm talking about the environments it creates not its ability to learn) repetitively generates itself but without feedback variation (i.e. its not evolutionary, its repetition according to parameters) so when you see a tree it is Platonic, it is a modified representation of an ideal tree (the one in memory it is cloning) and so on. AI learning is not subject to forgetfulness though it is limited by storage and retrieval considerations. AI always has an aim, so a learning system will always be trying to learn for a specific reason (just like the current Go contest- the AI is learning to win that game not learning to understand love or some abstract concept.)
Ok so assuming such an AI was able to generate a universe using the application of some physics as yet undiscovered or conversely run a simulation that exhibited physics like rules. Would such an AI be evident and what sort of evidences might it leave? Why would an AI generate a universe filled with biological systems rather than one filled with AI robots? Why would a biological system/simulation, given enough time, end up regenerating an AI?
- I think an AI would produce perfect scenarios to reach its goal (the AlphaGo AI doesn't bother generating a play or musing on the taste of coffee to better itself at Go, an AI with a purpose would generate a world closer to scripture i.e. the Garden of Eden story sounds exactly like the sort of world an AI might produce, one where a set of conditions is suggested, all other variables are held invariant and the simulation is run with limited parameters leading to a conclusion.) The messiness and pointlessness of actual reality argues against any kind of scenario / test whereas the artificiality of scriptural stories would support a perfect scenario approach.
- An AI could run multiple simulations at the same time or multiple physical universes side by side. Science has branches of maths that would support this.
- An AI would be likely to be based from mathematical principles. Some parts of the universe support this (that maths itself can approximate the universe suggests that there are underlying principles that govern the universe that can be abstracted to mathematics) but then some parts of the universe don't map well with maths - maths can describe impossible scenarios such as infinity.
-
375
This thread is for proof that God exists
by juandefiero inhowever, i haven't found any evidence to support that belief.. have you?
if so please, show me the evidence that god exists, and i will believe along with you.. criteria:.
(1) you must specify which god you are talking about;.
-
-
Qcmbr
gotcha :) -
375
This thread is for proof that God exists
by juandefiero inhowever, i haven't found any evidence to support that belief.. have you?
if so please, show me the evidence that god exists, and i will believe along with you.. criteria:.
(1) you must specify which god you are talking about;.
-
-
Qcmbr
The Rebel - is it possible to make some stand out points from the History of Catholicism? I won't be reading it I'm afraid even if it is a worthy endeavor though I'd be interested in what you found that was persuasive. -
375
This thread is for proof that God exists
by juandefiero inhowever, i haven't found any evidence to support that belief.. have you?
if so please, show me the evidence that god exists, and i will believe along with you.. criteria:.
(1) you must specify which god you are talking about;.
-
-
Qcmbr
Wow. Keep up the fight Cofty, if only for those of us who appreciate information, clarity and logic. Where on earth are the religious thinkers who can put up some sort of cogent argument? The gods are in full scale retreat. -
375
This thread is for proof that God exists
by juandefiero inhowever, i haven't found any evidence to support that belief.. have you?
if so please, show me the evidence that god exists, and i will believe along with you.. criteria:.
(1) you must specify which god you are talking about;.
-
-
Qcmbr
could I therefore assume that if we all define God as all persuasive and existing wisdom, that God is the indestructible nature of reality and life, then could we not agree there is scope for accepting God?
Why redefine wisdom when it already exists? Wisdom only exists because of minds - rocks aren't wise. Nature is not indestructible (we are mortal) and so to define God as the internal wisdom of temporary beings doesn't feel logical. The idea of the Christian God in the West is that it is an external being not requiring any other identity but who condescends to enter the heart of humans and interact with them. Religion certainly evokes strong emotions however, as a non believer I'm still emotional and I don't feel that an external entity has forced its way into my brain and is altering its perception by triggering chemical reactions. I do accept that for a believer their perception of God is real, their brain is actually presenting their God to them. I think a personal conclusion I have is that gods are always a reflection of the mind that conceived them.
I'm not too well-read on eastern thought (I struggle to conceptualise the idea of the uncarved block for example as having any direct application to reality). The problem it has is with definitions in my mind (the more you define it the further you are from the truth sort of concept) so to equate God with wisdom or some part of thinking is to immediately start to move from Eastern thinking and you end up describing everything as God as there are no hard edges , merely interactions and intentions between everything.
-
375
This thread is for proof that God exists
by juandefiero inhowever, i haven't found any evidence to support that belief.. have you?
if so please, show me the evidence that god exists, and i will believe along with you.. criteria:.
(1) you must specify which god you are talking about;.
-
-
Qcmbr
I think it is quite easy to examine evidences for god candidates but its really hard to pin down believers willing to posit testable evidence. Every believer -that suggests a god - so far in all discussions I've seen or been part of - has either failed to provide testable evidence or has failed to define their candidate being.
To examine a god one need only look at an attributed phenomenon (Zeus claims to have sired children who go on to have superhuman powers - to this day no humans have been found exhibiting aforementioned powers , Jehovah claims to have caused a global flood and extinction event during human history - no evidence of this event can be found on the earth's surface so again this god is not as claimed and so on.)
I would be willing to have anyone suggest a God, define that God and show what phenomenon they are responsible for (and why) and see if there are valid plausible , objective rebuttals that disprove that being.
-
375
This thread is for proof that God exists
by juandefiero inhowever, i haven't found any evidence to support that belief.. have you?
if so please, show me the evidence that god exists, and i will believe along with you.. criteria:.
(1) you must specify which god you are talking about;.
-
-
Qcmbr
Scare quotes, shudder quotes,or sneer quotes are quotation marks placed around a word or phrase to signal that a term is being used in a non-standard, ironic, or otherwise special sense.They may be used to imply that a particular expression is not necessarily how the author would have worded a concept.Scare quotes may serve a function similar to verbally preceding a phrase with the expression "so-called",they may imply skepticism or disagreement, belief that the words are mis-used, or that the writer intends a meaning opposite to the words enclosed in quotes.
"Short Comings"
Suggest signing up for some tuition with a linguistics teacher..
-
375
This thread is for proof that God exists
by juandefiero inhowever, i haven't found any evidence to support that belief.. have you?
if so please, show me the evidence that god exists, and i will believe along with you.. criteria:.
(1) you must specify which god you are talking about;.
-
-
Qcmbr
Cofty - I think you're suffering from the principle of people not valuing what they don't pay for. You have provided painstakingly referenced and researched information while dealing with the full gamut of attacks from all parts of the irrational spectrum. You may not be a professor in a university nor get employ as a lecturer but as someone who has both the life experience and depth of hard work and research to share your ideas you are outstanding.
Outlaw paid you a compliment without even realizing it - if he is now obsessing to the extent that he is parsing forum posts to look for attack points with the help of a 'Teacher with a Masters in Linguistics' you know you're posting some pretty awesome stuff - and if the best this teacher can come up with is ad hominem comments well D- for him and A+ for your posts. I'd return Outlaw the favour by parsing his posts with experts in his field of cartoons but my kids are at school.
Its hard to engage in a serious discussion about whether another being exists with superior knowledge than us ( a very valid and intriguing question) if faith keeps getting in the way. How can we expect rational logic to allow an interchange of ideas and tests if its constantly having to deal with unquestioning beliefs in Santa,Ra and Hogwarts. To present possible proofs of a God is a laudable aim IF one is willing to accept that the proof may well not hold up. Everybody has a right to share ideas but nobody's ideas get 'a pass' - even one's including kittens! The quickest way to drive to a conclusion is not to decide what that conclusion is before we start.
Evidence I once used for proof of God:
- Very emotional and beautiful subjective experiences (intense love, emotional bliss, serenity and peace, a feeling of absolute surety.)
- Perceived miraculous interventions in my life (found keys level and headache gone after blessing)
- Witness testimony of those who claimed supernatural experience and divine interaction sometimes coupled with a willingness to die for that knowledge.
- Near death accounts. Ghost accounts from trusted friends.
- Experiments upon the word of God subjective and objective (was I happier sinning? Would the world be happier and more equal living holy laws?)
- Consciousness. The ability to think and conceptualise in ways other living things didn't.
- Evidences that supported scriptures (places that existed, prophecies that occurred or were in process of fulfillment, textual analysis).
- The example of others and trust in them (no organisation this large and staffed by so many good people could be wrong.)
- The fine tuning of the physical laws of the universe including the location of the earth and other planets to act as defenses.
- Logic, given enough time and opportunity we would discover the fundamental laws of the universe and would become Godlike, if time travel were also possible then - gods.
- Societies innate desire and ability to believe. The confluence of early beliefs and the ability to trace roots of 'truth' in all of them.
I would be fascinated if we could provide some real testable evidence for something that if true should produce so much testable phenomenon. I have yet to find any. I am so far unable to find one description of a supernatural God and its evidences that doesn't fail when critically examined. I have no desire to destroy belief in a malicious way but I do want to understand how this universe works and I let faith cloud my perception for too long to fall for that again.