[Big Jack]

http://www.whygodexists.ytmnd.com/

Yeah, I know religious topics have a bad history on this forum, but I just thought that it would be interesting to see people debate about this.

[Cheeseinator]

that was interesting but just a little bit over my head

[(DoV) Tokakeke]

Is there a more formal term for pseudoscientific logic than "bullshit"?

This post has been edited by (DoV) Tokakeke: 11 February 2007 - 03:36 PM

[HissingNewt]

Is there a more formal term for people who try to disprove the religion's of others than "apple handler"?

editSub: No cussing like with tok

"Apple handler"? Where did yo come up with that?

This post has been edited by hissingnewt13: 11 February 2007 - 01:59 PM

[Klarin]

Hrm. Well, it seems riddled with logical fallacies to me. I suppose you could compile a list of the assorted ones, and that would be more formal. Otherwise, I agree with you, Tokakeke - it's just pathetic.

Perhaps more interesting is that it bases its entire premise on a quote from someone who didn't even know that time was a dimension; much less that it went 'both ways', as it were. What if the universe creates itself? Does the universe, as spacetime, necessarily have to have a cause in the first place? I agree that matter, as well as the expanding "matter front" of the universe, has to have a cause. Does that necessarily mean that said cause is independent of spacetime, or that said cause had to occur prior to the event?

More importantly, how can a cause which occurs out of time be prior to a particular event? And, of course, finally, how is this "Prime Mover," to use Aristotle's version of the "first cause", lacking in a cause itself? If the first premise is true - that everything must have sufficient prior cause - then obviously the Prime Mover must also have sufficient prior cause, but since said Prime Mover exists outside of spacetime, and thus cannot have a prior cause, how could it exist at all?

It seems to me that this is just another fool who thinks he's right. Moreover, as was noted in the... slideshow? itself, there is no reason to think that minds as limited as ours would be capable of comprehending the origin of the universe.

A quick, simple list of the fallacies:
argumentum ad verecundiam
non sequitur

Bear in mind that there may be more, and that this was a fairly cursory examination.

Edit: Hissingnewt, you may have a right to practice religion as you please - within reason, of course - but that doesn't mean that you have a right to be immune or otherwise shielded from disproof and/or invalidation of said religion. Believe it all you want, there's nothing that says we can't say - and prove - that you're wrong. However, that is not what is being done in this case. We're simply disproving this false assertion.

Klarin

[Mighty BOB!]

The 'strict' causality of one individual event causing another event and so on and so forth is being proven wrong by modern science. 'Time' isn't linear and is not something outside the influence of physical forces (such as gravity) and is relative to the observer. So essentially his entire base for that ytmnd (old causality) is wrong.

Although it had cool music and looked pretty. :D

This post has been edited by Mighty BOB!: 11 February 2007 - 04:46 AM

[Loth Don]

This guy gets an F- for using bad logic, using cheesy background music, oversimplifying, and for even suggesting that he is going to later tell us which god given how bad this explanation was.

[Durge]

Quote

Is there a more formal term for people who try to disprove the religion's of others than "asshole"?

Dude, all (DoV) Tokakeke was that the logic used in this piece of pseudoscience was a load of bullshit, which I agree with. Basically he was criticizing the method used to prove it, not someone's religion.

Through out history, pseudoscience has mainly been used by powerful people such as the media, and political parties, to get what they want and using a false simplified version of science for the general public to believe, as generally they would probably that as its apparently scientific fact it is correct, where in fact it’s false.

An example of this would be with Hitler and the Nazi party. He used pseudo science for his own Aryan and anti-Semitic theories, using small parts of pseudoscience and philosophy.
In the end don’t always believe what the government and media are telling you, find it out for yourself or other primary sources.

Basically what the webpage is doing is telling you small bits of pseudo science before quickly turning the page - it’s using psychological tricks to try and make it seem scientific. The key thing is that you can’t prove or disprove religion because it relies on faith not fact.

This post has been edited by 327th_Star_Corps: 11 February 2007 - 10:23 AM

[Ghostly_Substance]

Too fast when it got into paragraphs and too vague. Music was ok, a chill out kind. It didn't leave me enough time to think about anything since it went too quick and also i'm a slow reader when it comes to long reads. God exists if you want him to exist but not being a hardcore religious person going on the streets telling people it would be the end of the world. Luckily in Italy Religion and science are working together hand in hand so finally we'll see some real results unlike the book banning and hangings in the past.

[Team Black]

To try and prove or disprove God based on theories and philosophy is a little pointless - especially those that relate to the beginning of the universe, as there was no one really around to see & record it.
Trying to prove God's exsistence though argument and science can also be flawed, because most of the time both sides of the debate are very biased.
Assuming God exists...
Biblically speaking (and based on my experience), the way God is found is mostly by personal daily observation; the more a person trusts God, the more God reveals Himself to the person. For example the Gospels mention of a time that the Pharisees asked Jesus, if He was the Messiah, to prove it by giving them a sign. Because of their doubt, He didn't give them any.
In another section it speaks of a Centurion who had a sick servant. He had a sick servant, and so he asked Jesus if he could stop by and do some healing. Jesus exclaimed that the centurion had great faith (the centurion already trusted that Jesus had the power to heal - he didn't try to 'test' to see if Jesus cold do it or not), and so Jesus healed the servant.
The science types are doing exactly what the pharisees did; trying to find solid evidence to prove whether or not God exists. If it is indeed God as described Biblically, they are using the wrong method to find Him - as if God is requred to follow their demands.
The way to find God, if anyone truely wants to seek Him, is through faith and humility. By recognizing that God is ultimately in control and you're at His mercy, He will respond.

Or you can pull the apathy card and become agnostic, as if finding if there's a supreme being in the universe doesn't matter. Hey, it's your soul it's your choice.
Me I'd want to make dead-sure, as the last thing I'd want to be disobeying is a ruler of the universe

[(DoV) Tokakeke]

If swearing is prohibited here than I suggest you put down a filter or a global moderator puts this in the forum rules. "Refrain from using excessive profanity in your posts.". "Bullshit" is not excessive profanity. If I made a string of expletives for five pages, that's excessive. Like I said in my post, if you have a better term, Anonymous Moderator, please tell.

[Foshjedi2004]

There are no Global Moderators Tokakeke, that position was removed.

[(DoV) Tokakeke]

Really? Well, then, perhaps the rules should be edited.

[Foshjedi2004]

Rule 2 in the board rules on the top of the Forums

2. Refrain from using excessive profanity in your posts. Basically, let the censor do its job. Don't attempt to undermine it.

[Durge]

Quote

In another section it speaks of a Centurion who had a sick servant. He had a sick servant, and so he asked Jesus if he could stop by and do some healing. Jesus exclaimed that the centurion had great faith (the centurion already trusted that Jesus had the power to heal - he didn't try to 'test' to see if Jesus cold do it or not), and so Jesus healed the servant.

If you've heard of the Placebo effect you'll understand what I mean. It is possible under the right conditions, when the person has 100% belief that something is going to work and take effect. This could have been the case for either the Centurion or the servant. The Centurion could have been so certain that his mind made it reality for him, disillusioning the Centurion. For the Servant, he could have believed that he was being healed and his mind tried to make it possible, after all it’s the brain that controls your body. But when you font know what illness that dude had it’s heard to tell what exactly happened as the bible is made up of many, many accounts, some are very far apart in time.

Quote

If it is indeed God as described Biblically, they are using the wrong method to find Him

I agree the biblical god was never meant to be proved and shouldn’t be as he was a product of the time. As for the real god, I doubt we’ll ever find out what he really is and it could end up being something that we carry with us every day.

Quote

as if God is required to follow their demands.

Who says he can't

Quote

By recognizing that God is ultimately in control and you're at His mercy, He will respond.

In my opinion the way to find god is to prove you’re in control of him and he’s at your mercy and you will have complete control of your conscious. Sorry, but it’s just another way of thinking. Like I said before I’m not going to worship a god who wants to in control of me and wants me to be at his mercy. I’d prefer it the other way round.

Quote

Hey, it's your soul it's your choice.

I don’t have a soul, know one does, when I die; I’m dead, shutdown, no more whatever. Look when a computer packs up it doesn’t have a soul or live on in an after life. In many ways the brain is very similar to a computer, in the way it works. As you probably know cerebral chips are being used to repair brain damage, usually at the surface. Technologies these days are being used to develop computer brain interfaces that can help find out more about the mind. Man I would be surprised if in a couple of decades people will be modding their brains.

[Loth Don]

Is history repeating itself? Maybe not yet- it's just a matter of time I think.

[(DoV) Tokakeke]

Foshjedi2004, on Feb 11 2007, 12:47 PM, said:

Rule 2 in the board rules on the top of the Forums

2. Refrain from using excessive profanity in your posts. Basically, let the censor do its job. Don't attempt to undermine it.

The key word there is "excessive", but Sub cleared it up for me.

[Swiss Knight]

the topic we had on this subject before was awesome. Then it got taken over by really horrible arguments and single sentence posts.

[Foshjedi2004]

Perhaps we could restart the Thread but this time heavily moderated?

[Team Black]

Well, Im not here to say what you can &and can't believe of course, just what I believe & why.

Just one thing I'm curious about:

327th_Star_Corps, on Feb 11 2007, 04:25 PM, said:

Who says he can't
In my opinion the way to find god is to prove you’re in control of him and he’s at your mercy and you will have complete control of your conscious. Sorry, but it’s just another way of thinking. Like I said before I’m not going to worship a god who wants to in control of me and wants me to be at his mercy. I’d prefer it the other way round.

First of all, if you're more powerful than your god, what would be the purpose in worshiping it?
It seems to be contradictory to give your allegience to something less than yourself.

And (if you were speaking of God) it would be extreemely...arrogant to proclaim yourself as supirrior to a creator of the universe. As if you could lead around such a being on a leash.
Such a God would know everything about the universe that He created that no human could comprehend, from the catasrophic scale of galaxy-clusters to the inexplorable complexity of the human mind, things that Einstein or Hawking couldn't hope to even imagine.
Such a God would obviously know the best thing for each person, and be able to direct them in the best possible way to live.
I don't know about you, but if I'd have my choice between a God like this and a god I could place beneath my thumb, it would hands-down be the former and not the latter.

(also, I'm sure you knew this, but "complete control of your conscious" is not something the humsn mind is capable of - - college psychology 101)