Religion
Related: About this forumrexcat
(3,622 posts)That's a good one. Great find!
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)except for the invisible part?
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)If humans exist then other beings must exist someplace in the universe...possibly in our own solar system.
Whether a being comprised of energy exists who am I to say? Perhaps if one or many do exist they have no need to communicate with us, or if they are given to the impulse perhaps they are presently and have been screwing with humankind for millennium.
It would be an interesting joke to make the biologicals dance for the ethereal pleasure of eternal beings. No?
Deep13
(39,154 posts)Whatever energy beings you think might exist, they are not gods.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)What if that is what they wanted humankind to believe.
"Dance, human, dance!"
On edit: please don't bring up the great old ones!
edhopper
(33,491 posts)(which i assume from your pen name) may lead you to some wonderful speculation.
But Isaac would be the first to tell you that your first statement is a conclusion without evidence and therefore cannot be given.
Also "a being comprised of energy" is highly problematic.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 16, 2013, 01:22 PM - Edit history (1)
Perhaps.
Humans are really in their infancy in understanding the universe. A being of energy may be problematic, but it does not have to mean their existence is impossible.
edhopper
(33,491 posts)When you say "must exist" that is not speculation, that is an absolute.
Is it probable that life exists elsewhere? Yes. Is it possible for there to be intelligent life? Yes.
Do we have any evidence that it is so? No.
So for you to insist that there is life, perhaps even in our solar system is pure speculation.
So do you still stand by:
"If humans exist then other beings must exist someplace in the universe...possibly in our own solar system. "?
The physics of a being of pure energy is highly problematic, since it would need to circumvent a few physical laws of the Universe.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)edhopper
(33,491 posts)amuse you.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)It took a while to track down our niece since she was in Boston, and I am distracted.
That's nice meant: "Okay, Great."
edhopper
(33,491 posts)trivial shit like this discussion really becomes meaningless on days like this.
I responded before i was completely aware of the events.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Everything is fine on our end, and my niece was studying in her dorm room.
Okay, so IF there are other beings, and I meant not necessarily sentient in our solar system since there is always the possibility of something under the ice of Europa , then perhaps they are hopefully smarter than mankind can be.
Perhaps they exist, know about Earth, and want nothing to do with us.
edhopper
(33,491 posts)of life elsewhere in the Universe is probable. Intelligent life is an unknown. But because of the absence of any radio signal detected from anywhere, it would seem that intelligent, technologically sophisticated life is rare if it exists at all.
(you could always have a super intelligent whale like species for instance, that would have no need to form a civilization or technology)
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)....just saying...
immoderate
(20,885 posts)But I won't show it to you, Rune.
--imm
Response to cleanhippie (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
rug
(82,333 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 13, 2013, 02:17 PM - Edit history (1)
On edit: You may want to check out this Group as well: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1221
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)provocative though, huh?
welcome home!
mr blur
(7,753 posts)I don't have to prove that it's nonsense. You can't prove that it isn't. It's my belief that it's nonsense and if you mock my belief you're a bigot.
If you stick around, that's all you need to remember to take part.
Oh, that and that the Jury system is your friend, they'll back you up - they're afraid someone will think they're anti-religion, which is A Crime.
rug
(82,333 posts)EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)A shame too, I think s/he would have fit right in here in the Religion group.
rug
(82,333 posts)EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)Someone wading straight into the Religion group exhibiting the familiarity of an old-timer is going to get what they get.
rug
(82,333 posts)The post disagreed with the OP and got the usual sullen reply.
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)knew exactly which group to go to, which hot button thread to post in, and which poster to pick at, all while playing the rather predictable part of a grievously persecuted believer. That person has been around the DU block a few times, and it seemed pretty obvious to me.
rug
(82,333 posts)That was his first post. The next four were in C&O which resulted in the tombstone.
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)After a while, one gets a nose for trolls.
rug
(82,333 posts)In any event, some first posts are so nukeable on sight. I don't think this one was. Certainly it didn't warrant the reply it got.
His next four posts were in C&O where he posted, inter alia, that Catholics who support abortion should be excommunicated. Skinner ppred him as a malicious intruder after the hidden posts.
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)considered him nukeable just based on his post here in Religion. But that one post did make my troll sense go all tingly. To wit, he seemed to have a familiarity with the normal goings-on in this group.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)what you do habitually. I guess your late self exile has not improved your demeanor in the slightest.
rug
(82,333 posts)Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)At Sun Apr 14, 2013, 09:56 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
I would answer you Warren but I'm too polite.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=76167
REASON FOR ALERT:
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)
ALERTER'S COMMENTS:
Rug thinks he is being clever, but anyone with basic reading comprehension can see that he called another DU'er a troll. This is a personal attack, and it was unwarranted, uncalled for, and disruptive.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Apr 14, 2013, 10:03 AM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Really? This place is like a day care center sometimes, in more ways than one. Leave it.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Alerted for implying that someone is a troll when that someone implied someone else is a troll? The mind boggles.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Another alerter too lazy to select the exact reply in which rug called someone a troll....thus, I refuse to hide something this innocuous. I am thoroughly sick of silly alerts by even sillier DUers
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I think Warren can handle this.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
rug
(82,333 posts)Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)I always prefer debate to silly censorship.
goldent
(1,582 posts)I think my first "welcome" focused mainly on the fact that some "horrible" people were recently expelled.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)We should always respect that.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)Sounds like he hit a nerve there.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is NO proof for the existence of any type of god. Philosophical proofs are not physical proofs and they are not scientific. You make the claim; you back it up. That's the way science and reality work.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)So which one are you going to confound us with? Ontological? Cosmological? Teleological? Lets roll!
On the Road
(20,783 posts)in putting religion and atheism on the same playing field. Whether that is what he was after is another matter.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)..since he was teasing, and all.
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)If both were forced to be subjected to the same critical analysis, I think many believers would not be happy with the results.
rug
(82,333 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)I don't think any attempt to prove the existence of a God has claimed that. To the contrary, the proofs routinely acknowledge that any attempt to prove the infinite by the finite is inherently imperfect.
"You cannont see it or detect it in any way."
He's conflating evidence of God with proof of God.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)in this case there is no evidence of god and, therefore, no proof.
rug
(82,333 posts)I don't think there are any evidence based proofs of God.
What you will end up doing is arguing evidentiary standards and types of evidence, not the existence of God.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)..were the source of imperative laws like the natural laws. i checked out your other link on natural laws but when it comes to human behavior it seems to me that matters are further complicated than 'simple' relativity and quantum mechanics..
muriel_volestrangler
(101,271 posts)Perfect, cannot be seen, cannot be deduced etc. But people still say they are convinced of the existence of this perfect God.
rug
(82,333 posts)corkhead
(6,119 posts)Sarah Palin is not our Vice President.
THE END
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Soylent Brice
(8,308 posts)dimbear
(6,271 posts)patent.......... or copyright?
sakabatou
(42,141 posts)Deep13
(39,154 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)There's no proof it is or is not turtles all the way down, either.
It's one way to deal with the Burden of Proof fallacy.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Nothing in this life is certain except death and taxes, but i hope and believe there is a heaven. I would like to party for eternity.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Saying that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove.
"The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not make it valid.
i.e. 'Bertrand declares that a teapot is, at this very moment, in orbit around the Sun between the Earth and Mars, and that no one can prove him wrong his claim is therefore a valid one.'"
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I think it is a faulty idea. If I say the moon is made of cheese and say you have to disprove that it seems silly. I say there is a God and you have to prove me wrong seems silly to me.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)People get very excited about miracles and the miracle of prayer. Someone's cancer goes into remission and it's a miracle.
YET.... time after time throughout history people by the 100's of thousands, even millions have died in horrific ways. What, no miracle for them? Is god only capable of doing little tiny things? I don't get it.
I just have to wonder, where this all good, almighty being was while millions were slaughtered during the holocaust, in Serbia, in Kosovo, in Rwanda, etc. Was he on vacation?
It just honestly makes zero sense to me unless God is an evil fucking bastard, an uncaring voyeur or an absent landlord.
I just cannot rationalize it at all. I've heard all the explanation from my very Catholic family and no.... none of it makes no sense to me.
I remember the night my nephew died of Tay Sachs after 4 years of nothing (and I do mean nothing, but pain) and the priest shows up at the house talking about God's will....... I gotta say, I wanted to punch him.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I do not think God decides who lives, dies, gets sick, or is rich and famous. I pray to God for strength and forgiveness. I believe God is with us but we make our own choices. But that is just my humble opinion.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)lindysalsagal
(20,592 posts)I'm just curious. What would it take to make non-believers believe?
FWIW: I put "God" right up there with Santa, The Easter Bunny, The Tooth Fairy, the Great Pumpikin, and Unicorns.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Something verifiable/falsifiable. Anything less is nonsense.
Simple, really.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 13, 2013, 08:23 PM - Edit history (1)
If you have something that does, then please share.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)The few exceptions I believe God makes them cease to exist.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Presumably there are other sentient beings in this universe, are they allowed in? Where is this heaven? Isn't it going to get boring? Can you have hobbies, or is it just bliss all day long? Are my dogs excluded?
Since we apparently just get to make stuff up regarding god etc. wouldn't it be more comforting to adopt a reincarnation viewpoint?
If there is no hell except apparently for hitler level baditude, and that is just termination, what motivation is there to not be a selfish asshole in this world?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)what heaven is. But yes I believe in it. I believe animals are there.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Cool.
But I am still confused. In this heaven, wherever it is, is your "personality" preserved?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)What about people with dementia? What personality do they get for eternity? What about people who were suicidally uncomfortable with themselves, are they stuck for eternity with that mess?
Personally I think a metaphysics that has our individual "souls" merging back into some cosmic meta-physical uber soul is a little less problematic, although it has the disadvantage of being remarkably similar to the "lights out you're dead" atheistic view.
Maybe the "hindu" branch of bronze age theology got it right in terms of just so stories to make us less anxious about death?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)How much we change when we get there is a guess. Your guess is as good as mine.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)What will be will be!
lindysalsagal
(20,592 posts)Cause I gotta have Nutella.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)lindysalsagal
(20,592 posts)I'm gonna start believing that I live in a nutella factory!
goldent
(1,582 posts)This is probably as good as a description as any.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)lindysalsagal
(20,592 posts)Exactly what I expected to happen, since deep down, "God" is just wishful thinking, and totally imaginary.
But it was an interesting little experiment. Thanks for the responses.
goldent
(1,582 posts)and not God appearing are acting in physical form...
I would say it would take rigorous scientific proof. Even with that, I would say some small-ish percentage of non-believers would not buy it.
Jim__
(14,063 posts)... this:
Ax. 2. P( ¬ ? ) ? ¬ P( ? )
Th. 1. P( ? ) ? ◇ ? x ( ? (x) )
Df. 1. G(x) ? ? ? (P ( ? ) ? ? (x) )
Ax. 3. P(G)
Th. 2. ◇ ? x G(x)
Df. 2. ? ess x ? ? (x) ∧ ? ? ( ? (x) ? ▢ ? x ( ? (x) ? ? (x) ) )
Ax. 4. P( ? ) ? ▢ P( ? )
Th. 3. G(x) ? G ess x
Df. 3. E(x) ? ? ? ( ? ess x ? ▢ ? x ? (x) )
Ax. 5. P(E)
Th. 4. ▢ ? x G(x)
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)godel's theorems are true within the axiomatic framework of assumptions that make arithmetic go, but can't be generalized to all number systems or to just any real phenomenon.
Jim__
(14,063 posts)It's Gödel's logical proof for the existence of god.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)sadly for godel, logical proofs don't lend themselves well to metaphysics. my reading of the criticisms of his proof lie, as they almost always do in such matters, in the axioms assumed at the outset.
for instance, one may debate the following assumption all day long without progress.. in fact that's more or less what we do around here..
Jim__
(14,063 posts)The post asked, what would proof of god look like? The argument is an example.
gateley
(62,683 posts)[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
Anonymousecoview
(225 posts)Human beings make mistakes... but the human spirit is capable of rising above them. ie. Anne Frank after watching her family murdered by Nazi tyrants wrote, "I still believe in the human spirit."
gateley
(62,683 posts)be capable of that hope and forgiveness.
Anonymousecoview
(225 posts)inspirational people out there
HeiressofBickworth
(2,682 posts)conversation I had many years ago with a Jehovah's Witness who knocked at my door. After informing her I am an atheist, she asked how I could believe there is no god. I told her I accepted it on faith. She didn't want to talk with me any more.
lindysalsagal
(20,592 posts)had rolled up in the entranceway, having just ripped it off the hardwood livingroom floor with my bare hands.
They declined, and never knocked on my door again.
LTX
(1,020 posts)I'm not sure what the point of the missive in the o/p actually is. Mr. Friborg has hidden "proof" that god does not exist, and that is to be (satirically) juxtaposed against . . . what? Hidden "proof" that god does exist? Beyond the various historical vanities by which god was allegedly "proved" by logic, I know of no one who claims to have such proof, hidden or not.
If there is some other point being made, such as science "proves" its contentions and religion does not, then the missive is just wrong. Science does not deal in "proof." It deals in hypothesis, theory, supporting evidence, and disproof. Perhaps this should have been phrased "I have evidence that god does not exist, but I won't show it to you." But that wouldn't be quite as definitive a quip, I guess.
"I have evidence that god does not exist, but I won't show it to you".
LOL
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)you rightly point out the difference between proof and evidence, but all too often the demand is that 'you cannot *prove* god *doesn't* exist'.. when atheists invariable point out that the onus is on the believer to 'prove' (using their terminology) their extraordinary claim, they demur.
iow i think the OP was playing with the relentless and willful misunderstanding of 'proof'. you're preaching to the choir to point out the inconsistency to atheists who must repeatedly explain that very same distinction to believers during the course of debate. that's part of the joke.. ..
LTX
(1,020 posts)Saying that "you cannot prove god doesn't exist" is equivalent to saying "you cannot disprove god," an entirely appropriate point for the scientific construct, and not at all a misunderstanding of the relationship between science and "proof."
To which the proper response remains, you have no supporting evidence for your hypothesis that god does exist.
So in context, the quip itself should still properly be "I have evidence that god doesn't exist, but I won't show it to you." Which remains a rather deflated quip, since the entire scientific edifice is built on evidence of natural, as opposed to supernatural, explanation, i.e. evidence that god is not an effective explanation for the phenomenon being considered. Adding one more piece of evidence, or one more naturally explained phenomenon, and then declaring it hidden, seems to fail most rudimentary tests of effective satire.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)there is no 'proper' or 'properly'. he's making fun of the constant refrain from believers, and their willful and continued misunderstanding of basic distinctions between empirical evidence, scientific theories, and logical proofs when arguing for their god, or against atheists.
i think we've all seen this conversation from time to time.
the word 'proof' is needed because the demands for 'proof' or claims of 'proof' *are* the joke.
i think you're thinking about this too much.
LTX
(1,020 posts)premised on a misrepresentation of the position held by your erstwhile opponent, it's a fairly juvenile "joke." Like I said, there is nothing inherently wrong with the statement that science has not, and perhaps cannot, disprove god (or, in your phrasing, that it cannot prove that god doesn't exist). So making fun of this particular "constant refrain" from believers is rather like making fun of the scientific method itself. But then, maybe self-parody was the point after all.
As for the "willful and continued misunderstanding of the basic distinctions between empirical evidence, scientific theories, and logical proofs," it certainly seems at times to be as epidemic in the atheist community as it is in the theist community. The demands for "proof" of god, after all, seem to emanate from the atheist side of the equation.
I don't know, maybe I just find bumper-sticker snark an unsatisfying form of humor.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)parse it to pieces if you want, but the fact remains..
..you just don't *get the joke*.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)And that is most important, not the point being made in the OP.