Things You Can't Prove, But Believe
- Thread starter Tyrant55
- Start date
I was just hoping that it would be anything but one of those threads, which was why I at least attempted to steer the thread away from the dead-horse flamewar topics of religious belief in the OP. Oh well, I guess the word "believe" in the thread title automatically dooms the thread.SilverBullets000 said:
Well, reverse psychology is kind of to blame for it too. You tell someone not to do something and they're bound to want to do it. You've already pointed out the key word here and how that started the whole flame war. Try to word your thread a little better next time and avoid things that'll bring people to that line of thinking. Not that it's guaranteed to work.Tyrant55 said:
Anyway, I came across an article that explained how Majora was basically a demon created because of the blasphemy of the people who worshiped the giants of the game instead of the goddesses. It's a really interesting read if you havn't read it already. I'll link it here. http://www.zeldainformer.com/news/comments/the_message_of_majoras_mask1
I talked with a biology prof about this once. He believes that the tide extracts hormones from glands, causing people to have less inhibitions. I'm a history person, so I don't even pretend to understand how that would work. Full moons and high tides have been central to many cultural celebrations, though, so there's that.TheBobmus said:
OT: I've always liked the theory that heaven and well are what you imagine them to be. My aunt has one that goes something like, "Earth is heaven or hell and your beliefs decide which one." Not sure if it's religious or self-help.
I, however, do lots of superstitious things. Salt over shoulder, avoid walking under ladders, don't say the name of that Scottish play on stage, etc.
Also, been there
Captcha: done that
You could go the cop-out route and say that our perception of time doesn't allow us to understand the origins of God, which may be the case.Captain Pirate said:
I believe that there is a multiverse. But I have no idea of how to prove that there is a parallel universe where everything is exactly the same as in this one (except minor details like me being interested in art and literature instead of physics and technology).
Having viewed a few corpses of loved ones, this is something that has always struck me as profound. Even if someone is sleeping and you can't see them breathing they still seem alive. Dead bodies are just so different and it's hard to explain.GamerAddict7796 said:
Incoming marathon post.
I will say though, it is kind of funny how much of a virtue belief has become. People are praised all the time for believing in something with little to no evidence for it, if not actually having evidence directly contradict it. A very strange cultural trait to say the least.
Oh wait, no that's not how things work, because the default is, who gives a fuck. And the burden of proof is on any side that wants to prove that he is or isn't a Muslim.
(I patiently await your incoming confusion on what a positive claim vs negative claim means)
They were rules. They were repealed. If that is your basis for disproof of any body which creates rules. Then the year 1900 does not matter. Also pro tip, take a second to actually research what your talking about before you try to lay down the law. Because you end up looking like a jackass when I point out that bride kidnapping and bride sales are completely commonplace and ignored or approved of by the governments in multiple countries. Perhaps you've never heard of kyrgyzstan, don't worry I'll get the US government to bomb it so than you can learn your geography like a good American.
2) Oh man I am already neck deep in reading comprehension failure and I'm only like 1/15th of the way into your post. The worst part about it is that it isn't just you failing to read what I wrote. But that you completely didn't even read what you wrote.
3) Trying to prove God is evil, does not disprove him. You're kind of going in circles here.
You see, I was raised without any religious instruction despite the fact that one of my parents is a Deist. Which is probably why I don't feel the need to throw a tantrum and attack other people's beliefs like a child who decided that they were being tricked and now has to act like an asshole to everyone else, because they personally felt stupid, because of something they used to believe in.
Lets play pick the hypothesis with the least assumptions.
1) Your mind fabricates reality(and thus nothing can be proven one way or another.)
or (lets deal with just the eyes and the sun)
1) A giant ball of gas exists in space
2) It is composed of tiny atoms.
3) These tiny atoms have electrons and protons in them.
4) They are pulled together by gravity.
5) When they bump together they combine in a process known as fusion, creating a larger molecule called helium.
6) The fusion process generates energy.
7) This energy manifests as light waves which travel in every direction.
8) your eye exists.
9) The energy reaches it where it enters through the pupil and bounces off the retina.
10) Data is collected from this light
11) The brain detects the incoming energy and signals the nervous system
12) In the proper order as dictated by the physical brain, neurons reach their action potentials by moving properly charged sodium and potassium particles to change the charge of the Nerons, and thus transfer the information into the brain
13) The brain processes it into images.
My mother is one of the happiest people I know. She has a corn allergy which means she can't eat most anything at restaurants, and becomes violently sick when she accidentally ingests corn. She has Crohn's disease, and is usually wracked with extreme pain once or twice a month. She has been in surgery at least a half dozen times for intestinal re-sectionings. She has has malaria. Her father died in this house about a year and a half ago while she spoon fed him morphine to help him cope with the rapidly spreading cancer and his completely shattered spine that resulted from said cancer. And at least every other day she visits her mother in an Alzheimer's care facility to watch her extremely intelligent mother slowly lose her mind.
But she is often very happy, she makes jokes, she laughs, she enjoys her life. Because despite the immense amount of pain I see her bear on a daily basis she makes sure she has as much of that pain and sorrows polar opposite. Because she realizes that life is a bittersweet symphony, and because any time that pain is gone, she is at a job she enjoys, or painting, or reading, or watching TV. And without all the bad, she wouldn't know the good.
And if you can't then its a personal problem. But once again, what does this have to do with your claim that God can be proven false? Let me lay this out straight for you:
God=Jerk
therefore
God=False
Is not a logical conclusion, you've skipped a few steps where you prove that jerks don't exist. Don't worry about it though, I know you have issues with basic logic, so I'll forgive you(It's what Jesus would have wanted.)
If you say there 100% is no God, then you have to prove that, just like anyone who says there is a God. Occam's razor is not a proof. It says what is more likely, not what is absolutely true.
Definite knowledge = unprovable
therefore
God can not be proven true or false.
You and your poor reading skills read:
Definite knowledge = unprovable
therefore
God exists because ?
Which gets you hung up because the last bit your malfunctioning brain inserted out of nowhere makes absolutely no sense. And to spare your ego, you have to invent something crazy and pretend that's what your opponent is saying, because otherwise your brain would have to admit that it fucked up. The irony of course is I hope not lost on you.
Agreed, was my fault for not reading the names.BiscuitTrouser said:
I will say though, it is kind of funny how much of a virtue belief has become. People are praised all the time for believing in something with little to no evidence for it, if not actually having evidence directly contradict it. A very strange cultural trait to say the least.
Well I won't say it isn't a paradox, or at least just an expanding of the where does everything come from question to a next level which looks ironically almost exactly like the one we are at now. But to be fair on the other end, the where did the universe question does not really have a coherent answer from anybody, religious or scientific(and probably never will.) So I'm willing to at least acknowledge that it could plausibly have some sort of supernatural beginning. Or at least acknowledge that its probably about as equally likely as any other theory on that subject.BiscuitTrouser said:
Oh God, over and over and over and over. I actually used to be on another side of it, but I got badgered down with arguments by people who were, if not smarter than me, at least more experienced. I only really continue it because I believe an idea not challenged is an idea not worth having, and if I can challenge other peoples beliefs, I feel I have done them a service. Plus its always fun finding new and creative ways of passively aggressively insulting people.BiscuitTrouser said:
Which is another thing that I find funny. Occams Razor isn't a 100% logical proof like A=B, B=C therefore A=C. It's just a way to narrow things down to what is more likely to be true. Which is why I find it hilarious that someone needed to invent this major concept that gets talked about all the time. A rule which basically just says, hey if something is pretty unlikely, you should probably choose the more likely option. Apparently people are so unbelievably bad at basic reasoning skills they need a special concept all to its own to explain how to not be retarded.BiscuitTrouser said:
Oh cool so basically it is Obama's responsibility to dispute every single retarded claim against him, like that hes a Kenyan or a Muslim. Because he is claiming he is something, and unless he comes up with proof the other side is the default and thus wins.Denamic said:
Oh wait, no that's not how things work, because the default is, who gives a fuck. And the burden of proof is on any side that wants to prove that he is or isn't a Muslim.
(I patiently await your incoming confusion on what a positive claim vs negative claim means)
No I don't, because he has no proof and my position is the default.Denamic said:
I have all the evidence I need, his proof is impossible. And my position is the only one that does not require proof.Denamic said:
I already did win.Denamic said:
Nope.Denamic said:
Cool, so you read it, you just have poor reading comprehension. Boy is that going to make the rest of your post exciting.Abedeus said:
What does the year 1900 have to do with a basic logic problem? Did the rules of basic logic randomly change for the 20th century onward? You used rules that were changed to cite why God does not exist: "I can disprove God by stating few paradoxes: thou shalt not kill. Unless it's a witch, adulterer, thief, someone having sex outside marriage, homosexuals and so on. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife or property. Unless God tells you to, then you have to fuck your dead brother's wife or you'll get smitten." Don't just change your argument because you realized its stupid, admit to me that it's dumb and I'll forgive you for being ignorant.Abedeus said:
They were rules. They were repealed. If that is your basis for disproof of any body which creates rules. Then the year 1900 does not matter. Also pro tip, take a second to actually research what your talking about before you try to lay down the law. Because you end up looking like a jackass when I point out that bride kidnapping and bride sales are completely commonplace and ignored or approved of by the governments in multiple countries. Perhaps you've never heard of kyrgyzstan, don't worry I'll get the US government to bomb it so than you can learn your geography like a good American.
1) Who is my God? I wasn't aware I had one.Abedeus said:
2) Oh man I am already neck deep in reading comprehension failure and I'm only like 1/15th of the way into your post. The worst part about it is that it isn't just you failing to read what I wrote. But that you completely didn't even read what you wrote.
3) Trying to prove God is evil, does not disprove him. You're kind of going in circles here.
What is my holy book? I wasn't aware I even had one, so perhaps you could educate me.Abedeus said:
You see, I was raised without any religious instruction despite the fact that one of my parents is a Deist. Which is probably why I don't feel the need to throw a tantrum and attack other people's beliefs like a child who decided that they were being tricked and now has to act like an asshole to everyone else, because they personally felt stupid, because of something they used to believe in.
I see one thing wrong with it, where it is your post. It has absolutely nothing to do with proving Christianity is false. Omnipotence solves the rib thing, and the incest is a personal issue of yours. I personally take more offense to Abraham giving his daughters to a mob to rape.Abedeus said:
Yes, you've never seen the sun in a dream? This may come as a surprise to you, as I assume you've never seen the inside of a biology class room. But your eyes don't make the image appear, your brain does. Just like your brain generates the feeling of pain, tells you when your hungry and gives every other input. Which means you have 1 and only 1 device by which to perceive. A device which can not be verified or checked by any input other than itself. Which is like having a paper up for peer review by yourself and only yourself.Abedeus said:
It's like your not even trying. Normally I have to sit here and set all kinds of traps for you to run into. But I'm not even bothering and you're still running into so many walls that I'm forced to think you're auditioning to be the next Inspector Clouseau.Abedeus said:
Lets play pick the hypothesis with the least assumptions.
1) Your mind fabricates reality(and thus nothing can be proven one way or another.)
or (lets deal with just the eyes and the sun)
1) A giant ball of gas exists in space
2) It is composed of tiny atoms.
3) These tiny atoms have electrons and protons in them.
4) They are pulled together by gravity.
5) When they bump together they combine in a process known as fusion, creating a larger molecule called helium.
6) The fusion process generates energy.
7) This energy manifests as light waves which travel in every direction.
8) your eye exists.
9) The energy reaches it where it enters through the pupil and bounces off the retina.
10) Data is collected from this light
11) The brain detects the incoming energy and signals the nervous system
12) In the proper order as dictated by the physical brain, neurons reach their action potentials by moving properly charged sodium and potassium particles to change the charge of the Nerons, and thus transfer the information into the brain
13) The brain processes it into images.
Really? You think everything exists in your mind so w/e requires more questions to be answered than believing in a physical world? One where scientists at the top of their fields admit we have so many fucking unanswered questions that we will almost never get to the bottom of it. Because with every new discovery we open the door and find 8 other doors? Because we haven't even proven string theory and already we have moved on to maybe there's quarks? You think there's less questions in the world that legitimately hadn't even seen a live giant squid until 2006? And for the longest time before that, only even thought they existed because there were giant sucker marks on whales? That routinely comes close to disproving Einsteins core theories, and has already disproven some of his outlying ones? That still has absolutely no idea how or what exactly dark matter is? You really think that's less complicated than we are disembodied thoughts to whom nothing is real but our emotions?Abedeus said:
No it isn't. Evolution is a theory. Science never makes 100% claims of fact. That's what makes science so badass. If I flip a coin that has a 99% chance to land on heads, that means there's still a 1% chance it will be tails. And science never hits 100%. That's the point of science. For every single thing: they say, 'under all trials we have done it has happened this way all times or the bulk of the times.' But if the probability is 99.99999999999% likely, science and scientists will not run that many trials. And because they can never be certain of the chances they always file everything under: 'for all trials it proved true but as we can never be sure, so it will always be up for review and revision should other evidence appear.'Abedeus said:
And you aren't necessary for evolution to exist. So I guess I've disproven you as well. Oh wait, silly me, that's not how proofs work.Abedeus said:
Please stick to the subject being discussed. Your claim was that God existed. No claim was ever registered about him being a force for good or for evil. I do appreciate your attempt to change the subject to one you feel you have a better chance of winning though. It lets me know that you've actually realized you're on the run.Abedeus said:
Why because I pointed out two systems, and the one you theoretically would approve of more was the worse system? Don't worry I'm content with proving you a fool in one pursuit, no need to branch out into others unnecessarily.Abedeus said:
Could you give me some harder questions? Conservation of space, it isn't infinite. There is only so much space to fit X number of body parts into. Also assume by hole, you mean tube. We already have two, one called the trachea, one called the esophagus. And you'd think the way you act, people would be choking everywhere at all times. Could you name one benefit to not having multiple stomachs and multiple hearts? I mean if were adding extra parts why not just go all out, right?Abedeus said:
No, they let you choose what kind of life you want to lead. What you do with that ability, is your decision. And apparently you choose wallow in self pity and miss-placed anger for your predicament rather than instead holding on the good moments and being all the more happy for them because of your sad moments.Abedeus said:
My mother is one of the happiest people I know. She has a corn allergy which means she can't eat most anything at restaurants, and becomes violently sick when she accidentally ingests corn. She has Crohn's disease, and is usually wracked with extreme pain once or twice a month. She has been in surgery at least a half dozen times for intestinal re-sectionings. She has has malaria. Her father died in this house about a year and a half ago while she spoon fed him morphine to help him cope with the rapidly spreading cancer and his completely shattered spine that resulted from said cancer. And at least every other day she visits her mother in an Alzheimer's care facility to watch her extremely intelligent mother slowly lose her mind.
But she is often very happy, she makes jokes, she laughs, she enjoys her life. Because despite the immense amount of pain I see her bear on a daily basis she makes sure she has as much of that pain and sorrows polar opposite. Because she realizes that life is a bittersweet symphony, and because any time that pain is gone, she is at a job she enjoys, or painting, or reading, or watching TV. And without all the bad, she wouldn't know the good.
And if you can't then its a personal problem. But once again, what does this have to do with your claim that God can be proven false? Let me lay this out straight for you:
God=Jerk
therefore
God=False
Is not a logical conclusion, you've skipped a few steps where you prove that jerks don't exist. Don't worry about it though, I know you have issues with basic logic, so I'll forgive you(It's what Jesus would have wanted.)
Poor countries often rate highly on self-reported world happiness surveys. Usually it tends to be Asian or South American countries though, because African countries are under constant civil strife which is a whole different ball game. Although likely not that different, because at the height of the Lebanese Civil war, people still threw dinner parties and went golfing. Even when they were commonly shot while golfing.Abedeus said:
No, it relies on anyone making any claim. The default is 'we don't know,' that is what a baby comes into this world thinking. He isn't born thinking THERE IS NO GOD. He is born without knowing either way, because that's the default all people are before they are told the idea of God. If you make a claim that there is or isn't one, then it's yours to prove, not mine.Abedeus said:
If you say there 100% is no God, then you have to prove that, just like anyone who says there is a God. Occam's razor is not a proof. It says what is more likely, not what is absolutely true.
And given what you think rational arguments are, I don't doubt that you actually believe that. Which is probably why this is so easy.Abedeus said:
If you want to say that its categorically untrue, then yes, the burden of proof is on you to disprove it.Abedeus said:
No, I don't say prove it because its wasted effort. I would instead shrug, note it down as pretty unlikely, and then move along. If I wanted to say that you were wrong, then it would be mine to prove that you were wrong. Just as it would be yours to prove that you were right.Abedeus said:
Contradictions don't prove your point. You do seem really good at making them though. Especially when you think you aren't. That's what makes you such a delightful debater, your inability to self perceive.Abedeus said:
None of my arguments prove God to exist, and none of my arguments attempted to( <- This is where taking some English classes comes in handy.) My argument's said that you cant prove it, and they would be very successful if you had graduated highschool.Abedeus said:
I can't. Both statements are completely possible though unlikely.Abedeus said:
You're saying that a world renowned logician and mathematician, so well respected that absolutely every single current day philosopher and mathematician knows his name more than 300 years after his death, has the logic of a 10 year old? Oh my you're so darling. Quick go running to the nearest university to tell them all about how Descartes is a ****** for pointing out the inherent unprovability of your dumb theories. I'm sure it will go over well.Abedeus said:
What if I told that that you don't? That if you shut up about it, absolutely no one would care?Abedeus said:
How do you know Jesus existed? He was never listed in any Roman Census reports or other reliable documents. Only the bible and related religious texts.Abedeus said:
Yardenna Alexandre and the archaeological community at large disagrees with you.Abedeus said:
You don't. The guy who attacked for no reason, freely admitted that. It's kind of the point of the thread, as you may have noticed the OP and thread title. You were a dick for absolutely no reason for no discernable logical reason, I'm sorry to say and sad to report.Abedeus said:
There you are with that faulty logic. I write:Abedeus said:
Definite knowledge = unprovable
therefore
God can not be proven true or false.
You and your poor reading skills read:
Definite knowledge = unprovable
therefore
God exists because ?
Which gets you hung up because the last bit your malfunctioning brain inserted out of nowhere makes absolutely no sense. And to spare your ego, you have to invent something crazy and pretend that's what your opponent is saying, because otherwise your brain would have to admit that it fucked up. The irony of course is I hope not lost on you.
You're not allowed to change your assertion in the middle of the debate. You didn't say it was pointless to talk about. You said that they were categorically untrue. Admit you were wrong or keep flailing about, but don't pretend like you said something different.Abedeus said:
No we don't. We believe that its highly likely that at one point matter was extremely condensed, and then it expanded all at once at an extremely quick rate. Absolutely no scientific theory for how it was actually created exists. You would know that if you bothered to take some astronomy classes, or spend a few days actually learning about the shit you're talking about.Abedeus said:
No need to believe in them, is not the same as proves that they don't exist(see the two ideas even have entirely different wording so that you hopefully don't confuse them.) Your argument was that God does not exist, so prove it flyboy.Abedeus said:
I declared myself the winner because of flawed logic, but it wasn't mine.Abedeus said:
I know you are, but what am I?Abedeus said:
I know you are, but what am I?Abedeus said:
Ok this one I definitely do. But it's a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. Except that I'm condescending because I'm correct. And you are because of some hilarious psychological baggage.Abedeus said:
I know you are, but what am I?Abedeus said:
That's what I mean. A person asleep is a person but a person after death is more of a thing.Programmed_For_Damage said:
They're not there.
Its bizare to me as well. Anyone who lived there life using ONLY belief and not logical application would be dirrided and possibly locked away. Evidence based reasoning is the foundation of every single goddam action we make when interacting with corporeal things. Why is it a virtue to deviate from the path that we use for everything else in our lives that works so well? I have no idea.Mycroft Holmes said:
When the lack of evidence based reasoning is described as a virtue then you might understand why such a concept was needed in society.Mycroft Holmes said:
For me its about who is doing the first asserting. For example Mr Obama is sitting around when someone challenges him about his descent. The discussion and question were raised and asserted by this person, not Mr Obama sitting around. Thus, even though the claim "im not kenyan" and the claim "Youre kenyan" are both claims its more about who is challenging the status quo of accepted logic. Its logical Obama is an american citizen. I have no more reason to question him than to question you. Thus the burden of proof always lies with the person challenging the status quo. The existing null opinion. Ill concede both are claims, that was rather silly to try and argue. But someone doing the asserting of the claim has the burden of proof to counteract the given counter claim.Mycroft Holmes said:
The status quo is a list of given assumptions that follow the idea of simplest most accurate answer to previous facts. Hitler exists is the status quo. Obama is american is the status quo. If you want to attack and assail that then you have to have reasons why you are right AND the status quo is wrong to properly shift the opinion.
If i want to say "Gravity is wrong" it isnt your job to prove gravity. Its my job to strengthen my claim challenging the status quo. I attacked and asserted a point and its my job to rally the attack into something coherent.
That seems rather confused doesnt it... yeah youve tripped me up this time.
Not even true love? *makes sad Disney eyes*Pinkamena said:
OT: I believe that human beings are basically - at the route of it all (and when not suffering from extreme mental illness) - decent. They don't always act it, but I believe they are. I don't believe there are people who are genuinely both sane and completely evil.
I doubt this is possible to prove, but it makes me feel happier to believe it.
I'm not sure I understand what's interesting. The same argument applies to all living things.Mozza444 said:
Even in the event that you really could create an absolutely identical copy of your dog (with exactly the same cellular structure, down to the configuration of neurons in the brain) it would still have a separate conciousness because it would have a separate brain. The two brains can't "sync up" with each other just because they have the same structure, for the same reason that two computers (that are completely unconnected to each other) can't communicate simply because they have the same hardware and are running the same software.
Thinking about it, if two identical dogs could be proved to have a shared conciousness, that probably would be evidence for the existence of a soul! (Like that popular scifi theme of psychic twins.)
That no religion on the planet, nor science can tell us accurately what the purpose of life or the origins of the universe are. Can't think of a right way to explain it. Maybe 'We will never know why we exist'.
And a lot of other things too, like humans HAVING a reason to exist.ZeroDotZero said:
I'm not interested in debating though, this thread is full of terrible arguments and the odd brave soul is trying to wade through them, good luck to you people.
I'll leave the only thing I believe really, everything else I just hold to be true for now or think of as likely. My one belief is that people are essentially good. Bad people exist but if it were possible to distil 'goodness' and 'badness' from people and compare them, the good of humanity would be far greater than the bad.
Maybe one day I'll be able to prove that, for now it remains my only belief.
You might think that, but I would say that Savonarola completely contradicted all logic on the most basic level to the point that he drove Florence into the ground. And for a long time they worshiped him as their savior and prophet, following his every bidding. Until of course, his completely illogical control of the city rammed it metaphorically into the ground and caused mass starvation and poverty on a level the peasantry had never imagined. And then they turned against him and poetically burned him upon the same fires that he set to burn the books and the paintings and all that he thought vain.BiscuitTrouser said:
I guess they stopped him eventually, but he not only lived quite freely, but was basically in control of an entire city for about five years. He even went so far as to convince Botticelli to join his cause.
That everyone in the world is out to get me!
[sub][small]Wait, I can actually prove that...[/small][/sub]
[sub][small]Wait, I can actually prove that...[/small][/sub]
God, Time travel, faster than light space travel, Shepard is indoctrinated, there are such things as aliens, there is an afterlife, that not all people on the internet are bad, every villain believes he's good, and that one day mankind will expand beyond the Earth.