Is there finally an argument for the existence of God?

[mr.macabre13]

Uhoh, now you’ve done it.

[AtheistChMG]

That doesn’t make sense at all. Why would you even presuppose that there is a god if you do not adhere to certain interpretation of god?

[Quim]

Because I believe that deities are representations of underlying principles. Deities can be either projections of the human psyche or personifications of specific ways in which humans have intelligently related to their environment. If we are going to engage in a serious discussion about mythology, it would be more appropriate to formulate more serious questions.

[Quim]

@Sheldon

no method humans create can be infallible, so suggesting that science and logic are fallible is meaningless, suggesting this makes unevidenced superstition valid is frankly risible.

Well, this is why you have to exercise extreme caution when denying the possibility of a sentient universe. It is perfectly acceptable to not believe blindly, but it is important to recognize that there is a significant risk of being profoundly mistaken when interpreting evidence. This applies not to you specifically, but to the mainstream scientific consensus, which could potentially be completely erroneous.

I simply urge you to contemplate the possibility that a sentient universe could indeed be a genuine possibility.

[AtheistChMG]

Why would you try to make underlying principles anthropomorphic?
Seriously I don’t understand the motivation behind it.
I’m not really sure what you accept as serious discussion and where to go with this. It seems that you just like to think that way.

Is it serious or do you think it’s mocking if I ask you how would it work metaphysically when they are already so intertwined physically?

[Sheldon]

@Quim

@Sheldon

no method humans create can be infallible, so suggesting that science and logic are fallible is meaningless, suggesting this makes unevidenced superstition valid is frankly risible.

Well, this is why you have to exercise extreme caution when denying the possibility of a sentient universe.

I have never denied any such thing, though I do disbelieve the claim it exists, or is possible, since I have seen, nor am I aware of, any objective evidence to support the claim.

@Quim

It is perfectly acceptable to not believe blindly,

I have never based belief blindly, nor disbelief either.

@Quim

it is important to recognize that there is a significant risk of being profoundly mistaken when interpreting evidence.

You seem to be making a claim here, that your own posts and unevidenced subjective beliefs suggest you don’t understand…

@Quim

This applies not to you specifically, but to the mainstream scientific consensus, which could potentially be completely erroneous.

I base belief on sufficient objective evidence, hence what mainstream science validates is not erroneous. You cannot both claim to have scientific evidence, while decrying the methods and results of science.

@Quim

I simply urge you to contemplate the possibility that a sentient universe could indeed be a genuine possibility.

I will contemplate this possibility, when the possibility is demonstrated, with sufficient objective evidnece.

[CyberLN]

@Quim

…it is important to recognize that there is a significant risk of being profoundly mistaken when interpreting evidence. This applies not to you specifically, but to the mainstream scientific consensus, which could potentially be completely erroneous.

Well, following that line of thinking, one should never accept anything for risk of error.

[Cognostic]

@21stCenturyIconoclas

Quim, please don’t embarrass yourself any further and just pick which God your thread topic is all about, okay?

come on! Your not being fair. How is he going to hop about like a bunny rabbit if you try to pin him down to just one god. Mamma Quilla had the magical power to regulate minstrel cycles, and you don’t find Thor messing around with that. Now Manerva looked a lot like Athena on the outside. but she really had a better understanding of business than Athena and Athena was better at War. You know you can’t just pickl one, you have to pick and choose from the best attributes of each. All gods are one god and each is a part of the great unfolding of “Brahman,” The world is a simple place when you understand it fully.

[CyberLN]

@Cognostic

minstrel cycles

Minstrel cycles? Is that anything like a Bach fugue or Row, Row, Row Your Boat?

[Sheldon]

@Quim

@21stCenturyIconoclas

but without stating which primitive God concept you are referring to, your presense withing this thread is useless, period!

This question is so childish that it may sound like an argument to you, but it is ridiculous to me.

Oddly it sounds a perfectly reasonable question to me, whereas your petulant response sounds ridiculous.

@Quim: I believe in X…

@21stCenturyIconoclas What is X?

@Quim: This question is so childish that it may sound like an argument to you, but it is ridiculous to me.

@Quim

If you lack even a minimal knowledge of how mythology repeats patterns across the globe, how humans project their psychological experiences, and how humans deal with the unknown, it doesn’t make much sense to even start answering this question.

Vapid and evasive word salad.

@Quim “If you don’t grasp how unicorns are part of the fabric of human imagination, it makes no sense to ask me which unicorns I believe are real.”

@Quim

In other words, to make it understandable for you, your question makes as much sense as asking what the real name of water is.

So you can’t even tell us which deity you imagine is real? Water btw is an inorganic compound with the chemical formula H 2O.

@Quim

As you can see, this is truly a stupid question.

Well your response to that question, is about as stupid a response as one could imagine.

@Quim

I apologize if the answer seems harsh, but this is how I perceive it.

It’s not harsh, it is idiotically evasive.

@Quim

I believe that deities are representations of underlying principles.

Which you have failed and even refused to define, priceless.

@Quim

Deities can be either projections of the human psyche

That is a pretty accurate description of imaginary.

@Quim

personifications of specific ways in which humans have intelligently related to their environment.

Meaningless word salad.

@Quim

If we are going to engage in a serious discussion about mythology

You will need to demonstrate some objective evidence to support them.

@Quim

it would be more appropriate to formulate more serious questions.

Nonsense, it will be “more appropriate” to formulate some shred of objective evidence for your unevidenced superstition.

@Quim

@Sheldon

no method humans create can be infallible, so suggesting that science and logic are fallible is meaningless, suggesting this makes unevidenced superstition valid is frankly risible.

Well, this is why you have to exercise extreme caution when denying the possibility of a sentient universe.

Nope, since just because anyone disbelieves your unevidenced superstition, does not mean they need to make a contrary claim, and the more you ignore the definition of atheism in this way, the more dishonest and vapid your superstition appears.

[Cognostic]

@CyberLN

Minstrel cycles?

I know they are illegal on the beach in California. Something about peddeling kitty kats???

[Sheldon]

@Quim

it is important to recognize that there is a significant risk of being profoundly mistaken when interpreting evidence.

So you may be woefully wrong about everything then?

[Tin-Man]

@CyberLN

Minstrel cycles? Is that anything like a Bach fugue or Row, Row, Row Your Boat?

… (deeeep breath)… … (gasping for air)… … help…

(Edit for ukuleles and flutes on wheels.)

[Sheldon]

@CyberLN

Row, Row, Row Your Boat?

- YouTube

[CyberLN]

@Quim

@21stCenturyIconoclas

but without stating which primitive God concept you are referring to, your presense withing this thread is useless, period!

This question is so childish that it may sound like an argument to you, but it is ridiculous to me.

Uh….that wasn’t a question.

[Quim]

@Sheldon

@Quim

Science only accounts for a small portion of our experiences.

Yes, the objectively evidenced ones.

Yes, sadly, it fails to explain the experience itself in the first place. That is why it is difficult for them to determine whether AI is sentient or not.

Come on… Please refrain from flooding the debate with your detailed “analysis”.

[Whitefire13]

@Quim

but it is important to recognize that there is a significant risk of being profoundly mistaken when interpreting evidence.

Why?

How does either effect day-to-day life?

[Quim]

@Whitefire13

@Quim

but it is important to recognize that there is a significant risk of being profoundly mistaken when interpreting evidence.

Why?

How does either effect day-to-day life?

Well, when people understand that the Earth was not the center of the universe, it may not have an immediate effect, but it does help a lot in moving humanity forward. Perhaps when we understand that we are not the center of sentience, it could have a similar effect.

[Sheldon]

@Quim

Yes, sadly, it fails to explain the experience itself in the first place.

Ah, another argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, let me respond in kind then, since you seem so determined not to learn to reason rationally:

@quim “it fails to explain the experience itself in the first place”

So does an unevidenced deity, using inexplicable magic.

@Quim

Please refrain from flooding the debate with your detailed “analysis”.

Please refrain from telling other posters what they can and cannot post, this isn’t church, and you’re not in a pulpit, so get over it…

@Quim

when people understand that the Earth was not the center of the universe, it may not have an immediate effect,

It did on the religions who claimed they possessed immutable truths, and claimed this was one of those truths.

@Quim

but it does help a lot in moving humanity forward.

…and away from the unevidenced superstition of religions.

@Quim

when we understand that we are not the center of sentience, it could have a similar effect.

Word salad…“centre of sentience” ffs…hilarious bs…

[Cognostic]

@Sheldon

Yes, the objectively evidenced ones.

LOL… That is one of the funniest assertions I have heard in a long time.

But, my friend, it is not only objective evidence that is required… That is a good first step. The evidence should also be sufficient and appropriate to the claim. After all, I have an invisible dragon in my backyard. Each day I fill his water bowl up with water and each day, he drinks all the water. The bowl is empty by sundown. (Except in the winter when he does not drink as much.) These are the factual observations.

As you can see, interpretation of observations can vary. Intervening variables must also be considered. Objective evidence is not enough to support personal experience. It is a good first start.

Next, we like evidence to be quantifiable in some way. How much, how many, exactly when? This allows us to make specific predictions. In the above case of the dragon drinking water, we would observe the water level slowly decreasing throughout the day. That would be inconsistent with an animal taking a drink. It would lead us to suppose something else might be going on. Quantifiability would be needed in addition to objectivity.

Repeatability would be a third important factor. Repeatability through experimentation or observation. Can independent parties get the same results under the same conditions? This leads to Independent Verification.

Simply put, objective evidence is based on facts and is the kind of evidence that can be independently examined, evaluated, and verified.

Meeting the above criteria, we then have a process called ‘Peer Review.’ These aholes are going to look at your methodology, research design, hypothesis, and whether the study of your observation actually studies what it purports to study. They will look at your sample size, your assertions and your conclusions. And when your observation does not match your conclusion, they are going to call you out for the foolishness you have espoused. That’s the way it works.