Logic dictates that there is a God!

[MeDeFe]

Username:
joecoolfrog
Rank:
Brigadier Brigadier
Score:
3128
Games:
393 Completed, 110 (28%) Won | Find all games with joecoolfrog



What I'd like to know is how you can have 3128 points, yet only have won 28% of your games?

I have won 50% of my games and only have around 1900 points.


Oh, and there is a God! (to keep this post on topic)

6, 8 player games? Single player?

Confirmed. Not even a BR.

[ParadiceCity9]

Username:
joecoolfrog
Rank:
Brigadier Brigadier
Score:
3128
Games:
393 Completed, 110 (28%) Won | Find all games with joecoolfrog



What I'd like to know is how you can have 3128 points, yet only have won 28% of your games?

I have won 50% of my games and only have around 1900 points.


Oh, and there is a God! (to keep this post on topic)

Further proof that Jay has zero common sense.

[jay_a2j]

Username:
joecoolfrog
Rank:
Brigadier Brigadier
Score:
3128
Games:
393 Completed, 110 (28%) Won | Find all games with joecoolfrog



What I'd like to know is how you can have 3128 points, yet only have won 28% of your games?

I have won 50% of my games and only have around 1900 points.


Oh, and there is a God! (to keep this post on topic)

6, 8 player games? Single player?

Confirmed. Not even a BR.

Nearly all of my games have been 4 or more player.

[joecoolfrog]

Username:
joecoolfrog
Rank:
Brigadier Brigadier
Score:
3128
Games:
393 Completed, 110 (28%) Won | Find all games with joecoolfrog



What I'd like to know is how you can have 3128 points, yet only have won 28% of your games?

I have won 50% of my games and only have around 1900 points.


Oh, and there is a God! (to keep this post on topic)

6, 8 player games? Single player?

Confirmed. Not even a BR.

Nearly all of my games have been 4 or more player.

Simple enough maths Jay, I play 6/7 player games against opponents of similar ability. Winning more than 1 out of 5 ( 20% ) therefore gives me a points profit - gets a lot harder over 3000 though to get equal opponents so your win percentage needs to climb closer to 30% to keep ahead of the game.

[Juan_Bottom]

Are we going to change the topic to Logic Dictates JOECOOLFROG isn't a Brigadier?

[MeDeFe]

Are we going to change the topic to Logic Dictates JOECOOLFROG isn't a Brigadier?

Not yet, I'm going to pm Jenos and ask him if he's going to reply to my reply to his reply to my criticism of the pamphlet he posted earlier.

[Juan_Bottom]

Are we going to change the topic to Logic Dictates JOECOOLFROG isn't a Brigadier?

Not yet, I'm going to pm Jenos and ask him if he's going to reply to my reply to his reply to my criticism of the pamphlet he posted earlier.

You know that you're never gonna get him? But I'll be damned if this hasn't been funny.

[joecoolfrog]

Does anybody find it ironic that Jay can't understand simple arithmatic and yet can solve ancient riddles and prophesies in his coffee break

[Neoteny]

Are we going to change the topic to Logic Dictates JOECOOLFROG isn't a Brigadier?

Not yet, I'm going to pm Jenos and ask him if he's going to reply to my reply to his reply to my criticism of the pamphlet he posted earlier.

Speaking of Jenos and rankings, is he still a question mark? I wonder if he comes on here just to argue with us. Because that would be cool.

And no, jay, logic dictates there is no god.

[Juan_Bottom]

Does anybody find it ironic that Jay can't understand simple arithmatic and yet can solve ancient riddles and prophesies in his coffee break

Speaking of Jenos and rankings, is he still a question mark? I wonder if he comes on here just to argue with us. Because that would be cool.

Lol, you should spy on his games!

And no, jay, logic dictates there is no god.

Way to stay on topic.
Jay did the same thing, only said the opposite. You guys are hilarious.

[Dancing Mustard]

So we've finally reached a consensus then? Who is and isn't a Brigadier is a more important than God... because he doesn't exist. Logically.

Good stuff, happy we got that sorted, all back to my place for poker in the hot-tub.

[suggs]

I need a poke

[Dancing Mustard]

Poke

[suggs]

Thanks Mustard.
My anus is all moist now, much appreciated.

[heavycola]

Thanks Mustard.
My anus is all moist now, much appreciated.

Timosil's side effects can include anal seepage.

[jonesthecurl]

he is not just an invisible man in the sky!! he's much more than that. he's not really even man... and he's in heaven, not the sky that we see everyday.

So if your so sure then prove it !

Matthew 12:39

He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign(proof)! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.

I got your sign right here jay.

(actually there are two versions. With my right hand I am using two fingers, in the approved UK "Agincourt" fashion. With my left I am only using one in the US manner. You can actually swivel on that one, which is more difficult with the UK version.

[jay_a2j]

he is not just an invisible man in the sky!! he's much more than that. he's not really even man... and he's in heaven, not the sky that we see everyday.

So if your so sure then prove it !

Matthew 12:39

He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign(proof)! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.

I got your sign right here jay.

(actually there are two versions. With my right hand I am using two fingers, in the approved UK "Agincourt" fashion. With my left I am only using one in the US manner. You can actually swivel on that one, which is more difficult with the UK version.

That's nice, I'm not the one looking for a sign.

[Jenos Ridan]

And here we go again. Version 1.2 with a commentary already... And you, Jenos, have so far not once responded to my reponse to your little pamphlet, you're running out of credibility.

When did you respond? But, since you are responding now, I'll take it on.

Every single time you've posted that pamphlet, Jenos, check the old threads if you don't believe me.

First of all, I'm working under a relativistic definition of 'explanation', me not pointing this out caused some confusion a while back and I'm trying to avoid making the same mistake again.
Any explanation is relative to and limited by humans and their knowledge and what humans and human technology can perceive. There might be a causal chain for every phenomenon, but if the chain can not (at least in theory) be recreated by humans the phenomenon will not have an explanation (or at least not a full explanation).

Fairly logical, save for the fact that a partial explaination will always leave you with more questions than answers. Sort of like "who created the Creator" or the classic cliche of the Chicken and the Egg.

But I will concede that Human understanding is limited, especially compared to the entity called "God".

Great! So we agree that Tom Morris' definition of 'explanation' is shite because it's impossible to give a full account of every factor on all levels.

This does not in any way make it magical (Nappy claimed I was saying that in the other thread), just unexplainable. I think it likely that at some point the particles (or maybe dimensions) being dealt with will be so small that there's not even a theoretical chance of showing that they exist.

How can the universe be both explainable and unexplainable? And I'M the one who is illogical?

It would really help if you would bother to read everything I write. My point is that we will most probably not be able to come up with a full explanation of the universe. Down to a certain level it will be possible, but once we can no longer observe the next smaller particles/dimensions/whatever we will be stuck. The universe is partially explainable, but a part of the chain will not be visible to us.

1. intelligible - understandable, in the way that you can "get your mind around it", but where is the prerequisite of an explanation? Personally I'm quite happy to let, say, gravity go on and be something that comes with matter and just is. There are degrees of understanding as well, it's not a 1/0 issue.

In this case, like most other instances, it is. Otherwise, we run into screaming rubbish like what you just posted before you began to "tear" my argument apart.

See above, you're ignoring the consequences of not accepting Morris' wishful definition of explanations as something perfect.

And understandable in what way? In the way it works? That would in this case be the physical laws and whatnot. In 'where it all came from'? I'm not convinced knowing exactly down to the last detail how the universe started (or if it ever did) is necessary to understand the basic workings of the universe.

This just circles back to your preamble.

Let's say it spirals in the general direction of it. The point here is that a full explanation of the origins of the universe is not necessary for understanding how the physical laws in it work. Nor for anything else for that matter.

2. has just fallen flat on its face because there's a third option of partial understanding, but I'm not done yet, even if we allow for only his two options and disregard 3. that "We cannot ever fully understand the unvierse and where it came from" is not all that irrational and nicely allows a person to get on with other stuff than posting on an internet forum.

Since you have concluded the universe is unintelligable in any meaningful way, this actually makes some sence. Too bad it proves the irrationallity of your argument, by silent acceptance of 2a.

I have concluded no such thing, nor have I accepted 2a. You are only forced to that conclusion if you accept Morris's implicit definition of explanation, which I do not, and btw you said agreed with my relativistic definition. Morris seems to think that an explanation needs to cover every last detail of the causal chain in order to be an explanation. I maintain that that's impossible, and that Morris' definition is therefore unreasonable.

4. is correct under my previously stated premises, you need to disregard the problems with the first 3 points in order to accept this one. While there might well be a causal chain for the universe, there is nothing to say there's a full explanation for it.

More of the same.

Yes, you're right, I still don't agree with Morris' definition of 'explanation'. That's my main beef with his argument.

5. Back in my first reply I accepted this one. No more...
There's really only one sort of explanation, which is really more accurately termed 'description': we see phenomenon A and can list the factors which caused the phenomenon, then we can list the factors that caused the factors causing A to come about and so on. At some point, though, we're forced to say that we observe entities with certain distinguishing features behave in a certain way under certain conditions, but can not (yet) say why they behave that way. This applies to all explanations, be they of scientific phenomena (why does this rubber ball bounce back if I throw it against a wall?) or human behaviour (why did you murder your wife?).

Again, the universe cannot be understood, I get it already!

No you don't. I'm doing more than just attacking his unreasonable demands on explanations here, I'm questioning the nature of explanations itself. It's not crucial to my criticism of Morris, but it's an interesting tangent I think.

6. Why do there have to be initial physical conditions outside of the universe?

Otherwise, those conditions would still be present.

No, see below, if physical constants can change it's possible that the conditions once were present and changed over time.

In a thread some time ago someone pointed out that there is evidence that a physical constant (I think something to do with electrons) has changed over the last 15B years. That shouldn't be possible since it's supposedly a constant, but if it is possible I really see no reason why there can't be initial conditions inside this universe at one point that simply don't occur nowadays and which started off the universe we see. A proto-universe so to speak, we've had that discussion as well, with time not yet an established dimension and suchlike, remember?

All of which reinforces your contention of an unintelligalble universe.

No, all of which questions your claim of physical laws and conditions being unchangeable.

In the old thread it was mentioned in reply to this that no closed system can be fully explained without referencing to whatever's outside the system. Well, but so what? If Godel's incompleteness theorem (says Colossus) is true it only means that we cannot fully explain the universe. (Which, unlike what Morris may think and say, is not a problem.)

More reinforcement of unintelligabilty, jeepers, it's almost as if you know that this argument will not last serious debate......

No, more reinforcement of my claim that explanations are not, nor need be, complete in all details on all levels.

And anyway, what's "outside the universe" supposed to mean.

Independant of it. I can't help it if you choose not to read things more carefully.

The universe is not some ball which we're sitting inside where we can just walk up to the boundary, poke a hole in it and take a look at what's "outside".

I don't recall saying that. You're skirting a Strawman Fallacy.

Oh you didn't, but your idol Tom Morris skirts it, using overly simplified language to express something he seems to know even less about than I do, and I know I know next to nothing. Read the 2nd last block of quotes before this one for a few details.

7. You would do well to include a short definition of 'contingent' here, the first one you're likely to find when checking a dictionary is 'contingent on' which means "dependent on something that might happen in the future", which doesn't fit at all.

"Dependant on the item/issue in question" would seem to fit. Too bad this did not occur to you.

But that's not meant here, no, you could imagine the universe not existing you say. Really? Do you even have a vague idea of what a "complete lack of anything" is? Not just the space between any two hypothetical subatomic particles where there isn't a hypothetical subatomic particle, but not even any hypothetic subatomic particles between which there can be a space, not even the space for the particles to exist in. I know I don't. For all we know a total lack of any matter or dimensions might even lead to random, spontaneous generation of matter (or dimensions). Matter itself might be "essential", existence might be a necessary feature of matter. We don't know, you postulate that it has to come from "somewhere" because it cannot from nothing, but you have not yet been able to watch this "nothing", so your claim is as far-fetched as any other.

Again, you tell that there is no logical explaination to anything. Please say something new, seriously.

"Dependent on" which "item/issue in question"? I didn't quite catch what either you or Tom Morris said the universe is dependent on. Anyway, I was pointed in the general direction of 'contingency' which made a little more sense, the idea that an act could not have happened. Applied to the universe it means that one can imagine the universe not existing.
What I asked you was if you can really imagine the universe not existing and if you have any idea at all of what a complete lack of everything entails in terms of which (if any) physical laws apply. I claim that you do not have even the slightest idea, much less any knowledge about it. Until you do and can show that such "nothingness", even a lack of all space, not just matter, can exist, I suggest you be a little more careful with your claims regarding the "essentiality" of matter. I wish to point you in the general direction of quantum theory and spontaneously appearing and disappearing particles which have a lot more mathematics backing them up than any god ever conceived of.

And furthermore, to me the claim of a sentient being with all the attributes ascribed to god being essential sounds far more unlikely than some subatomic particle or dimension "popping into existence".

So Something came out of Nothing. Brilliant. Not, just more reinforcement.

A very small, very simple particle on the one hand, a very complex being with attributes only observed as the result of a long process on the other. Yes, which is more likely to come out of nothing?

8. And where did this Person come from? We're back to the old question of who created the creator, and that's one you cannot get out of. A creator outside of the universe "must" exist only if you can prove that nothing else can have caused it. And Tom Morris has shown nothing of the sort so far. Even if you can show that the universe has to have been created, there's nothing to indicate that the creator is "essential" and must exist, you end up with an infinite regress.

In order for this creator to be what it is, it must be essential. Otherwise, it is not the creator. In whichcase, yes, you end up with the Chicken and the Egg.

Just as you have been trying to establish from the start.

So, the creator has to be essential or he won't be a creator, therefore we can conclude that the creator†is essential and because the creator is essential the creator must have always existed. Looks rather circular to me.
Add to this what I just wrote, that the attributes (intelligence, "wisdom", "power", love, and so on) commonly ascribed to this creator have only been observed as the result of a long process, never as spontaneously appearing to the extent to which god supposedly has them.

9. And now we give it a name, hey, let's call it Bob. And we ascribe attributes to it, "power" and "wisdom". Now really, the origins of the universe we largely see today might have required some large-scale border conditions, but "wisdom"?
This step is completely unnecessary and serves no other end than to introduce the term 'God' into the line of reasoning.

Since you've thrown any sort of creative force or entity out of the equation, this is logical, if just more reinforcement of your set agenda.

I had no need of dismissing the idea of a creator prior to my criticism of Morris' pamphlet, please notice that what I have mainly criticised is his definition of "explanation" and the conclusions he drew from it, as well as the idea that the universe not existing is a likely scenario. Here he postulates, without any proof at all, that "power" and "wisdom" are necessary for a universe to be brought into existence, he also fails to explain where and how this creator exists if there is absolute "nothingness" before the act of creation.

10. The conclusion has been shown not to follow, because the premises are flawed on several levels, thank you for your time.

Congratulations, you've just proven to yourself that God does not exist, just like you set out to do.

Will your pride compell you to try again?

No, that's something I did not prove, nor would I try. How do you prove a negative outside of mathematics? What I have shown though, is that belief in god is not necessarily the rational state of mind.

The difference, I think, between how you think and how I do now (I used to not believe, I've explained that many times and why I don't now) is that I understand that a "partial explaination" is not an explaination at all. It basically leaves us with more questions than answers, just as cyclical as the Chicken and the Egg.

So, I cannot accept any incomplete explaination as such. Either it (whatever "it" is) has an explaination or it does not. Either it is explainable or it is not. If it is not, then it is unintellegable and if it is explainable then it is intellegable. And the rest, I've said already.

If you choose to see things differently, that's cool. I can't knock freedom of will and I will not knock you for exercising it.

[MeDeFe]

The difference, I think, between how you think and how I do now (I used to not believe, I've explained that many times and why I don't now) is that I understand that a "partial explaination" is not an explaination at all. It basically leaves us with more questions than answers, just as cyclical as the Chicken and the Egg.

So, I cannot accept any incomplete explaination as such. Either it (whatever "it" is) has an explaination or it does not. Either it is explainable or it is not. If it is not, then it is unintellegable and if it is explainable then it is intellegable. And the rest, I've said already.

If you choose to see things differently, that's cool. I can't knock freedom of will and I will not knock you for exercising it.

I guess at this point we could agree to disagree and maybe discuss the universe's contingency or lack thereof, but I have a feeling that would be ultimately futile since neither of us holds a degree and a nobel prize in theoretical physics and advanced mathematics.
So I guess we're better off debating the nature of explanations/descriptions.

You say that an explanation is only really an explanation if it is complete, if it covers the whole causal chain of events. I say that there is no such thing. The adequacy of an explanation depends on who is asking and who is answering the question. (<- very important bit)

Example in biology: If a 15 year old in a biology class can explain that sperm and egg meet, that the sperm enters the egg and their DNA combine and the cell starts splitting and grows into a new organism it's an adequate explanation. A university student of molecular developmental biology will have to go a good deal further, explaining which chemicals cause certain reactions at certain points in the cell (and at later stages cells), how these reactions lead to genetically identical cells developing into different body parts.
Both explanations are adequate in the respective situations, but neither is complete, there are causes for the chemicals being there in the first place, causes for two other organisms procreating and setting off this particular process, causes for their being there. Ultimately the causal chain of every phenomenon goes back 13.7 billion years and needs to invoke sub-atomic particles we haven't even discovered yet.

Example in society: A wife has killed her husband because he abused her, but there are causes for why he abused her in the first place, whether genetic predispositions, traumas in his childhood, stress, poverty, drugs or whatever. There are further causes for why she didn't choose a different solution, like divorce and a restraining order, but went for the ultimate solution instead. Causes for the causes for the causes for the causes... The adequate explanation ends at "because he abused her, and this is why she didn't choose any other solution"; murder but there are mitigating circumstances. Period. But it is not the full explanation of what happened.


To state it again: my point of view is that a truly full explanation/description of a phenomenon is not attainable, therefore it is unreasonable to make that your definition in any argument. Feel free to prove me wrong or to offer a better definition of what explanations entail.

[frogger4]

To state it again: my point of view is that a truly full explanation/description of a phenomenon is not attainable, therefore it is unreasonable to make that your definition in any argument. Feel free to prove me wrong or to offer a better definition of what explanations entail.

I have to agree with you to an extent. There really is no way to actually prove something, because it all eventually goes back to either 13,700,000,000 years ago, or 6,002 years ago, depending upon what you chose to believe. Logic can dictate that the earth was created on Oct. 23, 4004 BC if your logic means tracing the genealogy in the bible. Logic can also dictate that God has to be real because something had to start the big bang. Or, your logic can dictate that the universe has always been here, going through a process of expansion and retraction (your logic assuming there is no God). All these points of view can be valid in their own sense be logical in one way or another, but there is no way to prove any of them.

That brings up the question though of what is "proof" and what is "logic"? (I am asking because I really don't know)

[AlgyTaylor]

That brings up the question though of what is "proof" and what is "logic"? (I am asking because I really don't know)

'Logic' is irrelevant in this argument anyway, it's a scienfitic (ie testable) question, not one which would require logical analysis. The only people who'd try to analyse the situation logically are idiots who are trying to 'prove' something based on assumptions which purely and simply cannot be made.

Proof = testing. Testing = proof. (hence the phrase "the proof of the pudding is in the eating" - it actually means the test of the pudding rather than the absolute nature of the pudding)

[jay_a2j]

I gotta tell this story I just saw on tv last night. (Blackglass and others may appreciate it)


This guy was giving his testimony. He was a real devout atheist. His wife started to go to church and one day she came home and said, "I've decided to follow Jesus Christ." The man said "DIVORCE" was the first thing that entered his mind.

But after awhile he noticed something about his wife that he desired. She had peace, she was happy, all the things this man had been searching for with alcohol and such but never finding. The man was a journalist for the Chicago Times. His journalistic instinct told him to set out to PROVE that this Jesus was not who people believed him to be. In researching Jesus, along with other beliefs which "fell by the way side", he concluded that Jesus Christ was indeed the Son of God. He said, "the evidence was overwhelming".

It was a nice testimony of God changing a heart.

[MeDeFe]

I gotta tell this story I just saw on tv last night. (Blackglass and others may appreciate it)


This guy was giving his testimony. He was a real devout atheist. His wife started to go to church and one day she came home and said, "I've decided to follow Jesus Christ." The man said "DIVORCE" was the first thing that entered his mind.

But after awhile he noticed something about his wife that he desired. She had peace, she was happy, all the things this man had been searching for with alcohol and such but never finding. The man was a journalist for the Chicago Times. His journalistic instinct told him to set out to PROVE that this Jesus was not who people believed him to be. In researching Jesus, along with other beliefs which "fell by the way side", he concluded that Jesus Christ was indeed the Son of God. He said, "the evidence was overwhelming".

It was a nice testimony of God changing a heart.

Oh yes, very moving, but I have a question. Why does god then not change every heart in that way so everyone can be saved?

[jay_a2j]

I gotta tell this story I just saw on tv last night. (Blackglass and others may appreciate it)


This guy was giving his testimony. He was a real devout atheist. His wife started to go to church and one day she came home and said, "I've decided to follow Jesus Christ." The man said "DIVORCE" was the first thing that entered his mind.

But after awhile he noticed something about his wife that he desired. She had peace, she was happy, all the things this man had been searching for with alcohol and such but never finding. The man was a journalist for the Chicago Times. His journalistic instinct told him to set out to PROVE that this Jesus was not who people believed him to be. In researching Jesus, along with other beliefs which "fell by the way side", he concluded that Jesus Christ was indeed the Son of God. He said, "the evidence was overwhelming".

It was a nice testimony of God changing a heart.

Oh yes, very moving, but I have a question. Why does god then not change every heart in that way so everyone can be saved?

This man sought the truth. The Bible says, "Seek and you shall find". The same evidence that was available to this man, is available to you, to all. This man, even though his intention was to prove Jesus was not the Son of God, could not ignore the evidence.

[Backglass]

I gotta tell this story I just saw on tv last night. (Blackglass and others may appreciate it)


This guy was giving his testimony. He was a real devout atheist. His wife started to go to church and one day she came home and said, "I've decided to follow Jesus Christ." The man said "DIVORCE" was the first thing that entered his mind.

But after awhile he noticed something about his wife that he desired. She had peace, she was happy, all the things this man had been searching for with alcohol and such but never finding. The man was a journalist for the Chicago Times. His journalistic instinct told him to set out to PROVE that this Jesus was not who people believed him to be. In researching Jesus, along with other beliefs which "fell by the way side", he concluded that Jesus Christ was indeed the Son of God. He said, "the evidence was overwhelming".

It was a nice testimony of God changing a heart.

A nice story, but I doubt it's real right from the beginning with the oxymoron "devout atheist". Honestly he didn't sound like an atheist to me in the first place. Atheists simply don't believe in gods. I don't doubt that jesus existed or that he was a great influential MAN. I also find it amusing that the atheist is portrayed as such a cold heartless guy, because we all know THAT is how atheists are...right jay? FWIW if my wife came home and decided to join some religion, the first words out of my mouth certainly would NOT be "DIVORCE!", but more like "have fun, but don't expect me to come along". I also KNOW the woman I married (unlike this guy) and would never have such a profound surprise thrust on me...just as I am sure YOU know YOUR wife wouldn't walk through the door one day proclaiming to be a Satanist.

C'mon jay...YOU ARE WATCHING TELEVISION. Tip: TV is not real. Wait...you also believe that the greasy preacher on TV healed you so I guess as you will believe anything they feed you as long as it is veiled in your religion.

Look...I have said before, some people NEED the crutch of religion. Some people CAN'T change on their own and need something to help them along. For some it's Yoga, for other's it's gastric bypass surgery and for others still it is a religion. Whatever floats your boat...