Wednesday, February 16, 2011

In which Mike demonstrates once and for all the proof that God exists

Having some problems with the blog comments on this post and hoping that starting a new one will fix it.

Please direct your attention to the comments section, where MikeAdAstraSmith shall valiantly demonstrate to us poor, benighted sinners that God irrefutably exists.

[Edit: Actually we traced our problem to an overzealous spam filter, which probably thought that some comments looked too much like the work of a certain D**** M****. We're retraining it as fast as we can, but in the meantime, please do enjoy the thread.]

384 comments:

  1. i will use the chris langan's Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe.
    ctmu.org, in the first link in the first paragraph on the home page, has a link to an introduction to the paper.

    ReplyDelete
  2. without a guiding Entity whose Self-awareness equates to the coherence of self-perceptual spacetime, a self-perceptual universe could not coherently self-configure. Holopantheism is the logical, metatheological umbrella beneath which the great religions of mankind are unknowingly situated.

    ReplyDelete
  3. God is indeed real, for a coherent entity identified with a self-perceptual universe is self-perceptual in nature, and this endows it with various levels of self-awareness and sentience, or constructive, creative intelligence.

    ReplyDelete
  4. this is nothing about sin yet, kazim.
    this is just holopantheism, not xtianity.

    and your blog is still broken.

    sigh,...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Not to interrupt, but, without looking at the source you're copy/pasting from, please explain what is meant by describing the universe as "self-perceptual." Are you arguing the universe is itself sentient?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Holy crap is that a bunch of gobbligook.

    I may actually parse this thing from the site and have an ironchariots entry for it.

    It's going to take a lot to filter out all the rambling, though.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Wish I could stay for this, but I have to go pick up my son. Martin, keep an eye on the spam filter and make sure it doesn't misbehave again, k? Mike, I look forward to seeing how I have become another notch in your belt when I return this evening, k? ;)

    ReplyDelete
  8. BTW We're paying close attention to ensure nothing of yours gets slotted into the spam folder again.

    ReplyDelete
  9. And, what evidence do you have that anything you have said is true?

    ReplyDelete
  10. we are part of it, and we are sentient.
    so yes.

    ReplyDelete
  11. BZZZZZZT! Composition fallacy. Two point penalty.

    Okay, see you heathens later. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  12. But the fact we are sentient does not demonstrate the universe itself is. A light bulb is part of a house, but a house is not a light bulb.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm a part of Earth, therefore Earth is also sentient, so therefore Gaia is real.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Gotta run a quick errand too (suppertime!), but don't stop on my account. If anything of Mike's gets shuffled to spam in my absence I will make sure it's properly posted, never fear.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I have very expensive guitars, 12 of them, some I have had my entire life and one guitar was given to me at birth by my grandfather...therefore obviously I am a great guitarist and entertainer. BzzzzzT Does not work does it!?

    ReplyDelete
  16. the universe is not like a house.
    it is a special case.
    it is a self-inclusive set.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Would you describe the universe as "the set of everything that comprises existence"?

    ReplyDelete
  18. the universe, like the set of all sets, distributively embodies the logical syntax of its own descriptive mathematical language. It is thus not only self-descriptive in nature; where logic denotes the rules of cognition (reasoning, inference), it is self-cognitive as well.

    ReplyDelete
  19. the universe is not like a house.
    it is a special case.


    Way to explicitly invoke special pleading.

    ReplyDelete
  20. it topologically includes itself in the act of descriptively including itself in the act of topologically including itself..., and so on, in the course of which it obviously becomes more than just a set.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Again, how would it be self-cognitive? What do you think, not just the source you're pasting from.

    ReplyDelete
  22. the universe, like the set of all sets, distributively embodies the logical syntax of its own descriptive mathematical language

    Does this even mean anything?

    "Winning" a debate isn't the same thing as winning a Star Trek Technobabble competition.

    ReplyDelete
  23. its like mc eschers self-drawing hands.
    i assume you knwo what i mean

    ReplyDelete
  24. it topologically includes itself in the act of descriptively including itself in the act of topologically including itself...

    Bud, I think someone's jerking your chain with this stuff. XD

    ReplyDelete
  25. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  26. It sounds like you're trying to make a circular argument but there's too much obfuscation for me to tell what the point of your argument really is.

    ReplyDelete
  27. the CTMU shows that reality possesses a complex property akin to self-awareness. That is, just as the mind is real, reality is in some respects like a mind. But when we attempt to answer the obvious question "whose mind?", the answer turns out to be a mathematical and scientific definition of God.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Does the CTMU show this, or does the CTMU assert this?

    ReplyDelete
  29. So far Mike has demonstrated that he can't prove that either the kalaam cosmological or first cause arguments are valid/plausible. Now he is spitting out nonsensical garbage arguments that have no inherent meaning, and resorts to special pleading and circular arguments....Yeah nothing new here.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Okay.

    1) How exactly is it you think reality has something akin to self awareness?

    2) How is reality like a mind, and how do you know?

    3) No, the obvious question is begging the question.

    4) What is the mathematical/scientific definition of god?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Yes, he's using the classic Argument from Gibberish.

    At the end, when none of us can understand what he's saying, and thus cannot refute it, he'll stroll away, with a smile on his face, confident that he "defeated" yet another group of atheists.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Wow. I can't believe I actually punished my brain by reading the CMTU stuff. Mike, you could have saved us all a lot of time by simply saying that you believe as Sungyak does in that you disagree with materialistic naturalism.

    "without a guiding Entity whose Self-awareness equates to the coherence of self-perceptual spacetime, a self-perceptual universe could not coherently self-configure"

    This is an assertion. A needlessly obfuscated one at that. You are just asserting that "the universe cannot 'just exist' therefore some intelligence must be involved" except in a gibberishly, desperate to sound deep and meaningful sort of way.

    "That is, just as the mind is real, reality is in some respects like a mind."

    Being in some respects like a mind does not imply intelligence or consciousness. My computer is "in some respects like a mind" but it has never told me that it loves me. :(

    ReplyDelete
  33. in my first post on this thread, i gave you a link to the paper.
    so it saddens me that i have to spoonfeed you it:
    In short, the set-theoretic and cosmological embodiments of the self-inclusion paradox are resolved by properly relating the self-inclusive object to the descriptive syntax in terms of which it is necessarily expressed, thus effecting true self-containment: "the universe (set of all sets) is that which topologically contains that which descriptively contains the universe (set of all sets)."

    ReplyDelete
  34. Yeah Turns out Mike is just copying and pasting off of Christopher Langan's Wikipedia Bio...The guy is supposed to be extremely smart yet couldn't get through college.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Weird. On the outside, blogger says this has 43 posts, and viewing the comments, it says it has 33.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Mike, you're just asserting things as unclear as (it seems to me) humanly possible. assertions are not facts. Or proof. Or evidence. We need those to believe you.

    ReplyDelete
  37. What a load of hooey.

    Stringing together big words in long sentences doesn't make nonsense anything other than nonsensical.

    If you want us to believe that the universe is self aware then demonstrate it. You won't because you can't because it's utter nonsense.

    Please, for the love of simple human decency can some theist come up with an argument that gets past step one? Please? Pretty please?

    ReplyDelete
  38. "The CTMU: A New Kind of Reality Theory was published in the scientific journal, Progress in Complexity, Information and Design."

    Bwahahah... This journal is an explicitly ID journal, devoted to publishing all the wacky ID stuff that get's rejected from respectable journals.

    ReplyDelete
  39. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXksaSewCEs

    ReplyDelete
  40. Mike, you don't get to run away from this point.

    Exactly how is the universe like a mind, and self aware? What evidence do you have to back up this claim?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Alright.. I saw mike post a youtube link, and it went gonners.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Wow, I am speechless

    "without a guiding Entity whose Self-awareness equates to the coherence of self-perceptual spacetime, a self-perceptual universe could not coherently self-configure"

    What the hell does this even mean? This is not philosophy, it is a rank attempt to obfuscate.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Saw it too JT, the link is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXksaSewCEs

    ReplyDelete
  44. type in chris langan on youtube, and you will get for the first hit a 3-part interview in which he explains his theory.
    remember, he is probably in terms of raw brainpower the smartest guy on earth.
    so maybe he sucks at explaining things clearly to normal people, but so do many geniuses.

    ReplyDelete
  45. So, now he's engaging in the Argument from Authority?

    He's smurt.

    ReplyDelete
  46. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  47. You seem to be intimately familiar with it. Perhaps you can explain. You are, after all, the one we're debating with.

    ReplyDelete
  48. "remember, he is probably in terms of raw brainpower the smartest guy on earth.
    so maybe he sucks at explaining things clearly to normal people, but so do many geniuses."

    That doesn't mean we have to take your or his word for it.

    "[pseudo-intellectual gibberish] therefore god exists, and plus I'm the smartest person ever" does not make for a convincing argument

    ReplyDelete
  49. @Mike
    Raw brainpower? What does that even mean?

    I smell an argument from authority. Please tell us what *you* think. I'm not watching some youtube video. Please give us the main points from that video. While you're at it, please respond to any of our questions/remarks.

    ReplyDelete
  50. As Mamba24 points out, Mike has been plagiarizing his argument from Christopher Langan's Wikipedia page. I wouldn't expect any clarification -- since the obfuscatory language isn't even his, he probably doesn't understand the claims he's making any better than we do.

    remember, he is probably in terms of raw brainpower the smartest guy on earth.

    1) Appeal to authority.
    2) According to the I.Q. metric, which is in itself pseudoscience.

    so maybe he sucks at explaining things clearly to normal people, but so do many geniuses.

    No, true geniuses are the ones who can distill their thoughts in such a way that their utility is clear to just about anyone. Someone who can't explain their thoughts coherently could as easily be insane as a genius.

    ReplyDelete
  51. What does this say about God? First, if God is real, then God inheres in the comprehensive reality syntax, and this syntax inheres in matter. Ergo, God inheres in matter, and indeed in its spacetime substrate as defined on material and supramaterial levels. This amounts to pantheism, the thesis that God is omnipresent with respect to the material universe. Now, if the universe were pluralistic or reducible to its parts, this would make God, Who coincides with the universe itself, a pluralistic entity with no internal cohesion. But because the mutual syntactic consistency of parts is enforced by a unitary holistic manifold with logical ascendancy over the parts themselves - because the universe is a dual-aspected monic entity consisting of essentially homogeneous, self-consistent infocognition - God retains monotheistic unity despite being distributed over reality at large.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Thus, we have a new kind of theology that might be called monopantheism, or even more descriptively, holopantheism. Second, God is indeed real, for a coherent entity identified with a self-perceptual universe is self-perceptual in nature, and this endows it with various levels of self-awareness and sentience, or constructive, creative intelligence.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Oh no you don't! You haven't answered the question yet.

    How exactly does the universe have the attribute of self-awareness, and is mindlike, and what evidence do you have that this is the case?

    If this cannot be proven, then the rest of the "theory" falls apart.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Simply resorting to an argument from authority doesn't make your argument any more plausible, when we speak of scientific evidence, we are talking about a universally accepted peer-reviewed scientific theory...in which Chris Langan's theory doesn't fit...If his theory was correct then all scientists from around the world would be all over it. But this just isn't the case. It doesn't matter what the man's IQ is, it won't be an accepted theory unless there is evidence to support it...which there isn't.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Why, if there exists a spiritual metalanguage in which to establish the brotherhood of man through the unity of sentience, are men perpetually at each others' throats? Unfortunately, most human brains, which comprise a particular highly-evolved subset of the set of all reality-subsystems, do not fire in strict S-isomorphism much above the object level. Where we define one aspect of "intelligence" as the amount of global structure functionally represented by a given sÎS, brains of low intelligence are generally out of accord with the global syntax D(S). This limits their capacity to form true representations of S (global reality) by syntactic autology [d(S) Éd d(S)] and make rational ethical calculations. In this sense, the vast majority of men are not well-enough equipped, conceptually speaking, to form perfectly rational worldviews and societies; they are deficient in education and intellect, albeit remediably so in most cases. This is why force has ruled in the world of man…why might has always made right, despite its marked tendency to violate the optimization of global utility derived by summing over the sentient agents of S with respect to space and time.

    ReplyDelete
  56. "First, if God is real..."

    If god is real, we could all be turned into pancakes in a sec. However, you first have to DEMONSTRATE that god is real. How many times do we have to repeat that?

    ReplyDelete
  57. But although religion has often been employed for evil by cynics appreciative of its power, several things bear notice. (1) The abuse of religion, and the God concept, has always been driven by human politics, and no one is justified in blaming the God concept, whether or not they hold it to be real, for the abuses committed by evil men in its name. Abusus non tollit usum. (2) A religion must provide at least emotional utility for its believers, and any religion that stands the test of time has obviously been doing so. (3) A credible religion must contain elements of truth and undecidability, but no elements that are verifiably false (for that could be used to overthrow the religion and its sponsors). So by design, religious beliefs generally cannot be refuted by rational or empirical means.

    Does the reverse apply? Can a denial of God be refuted by rational or empirical means? The short answer is yes; the refutation follows the reasoning outlined above. That is, the above reasoning constitutes not just a logical framework for reality theory, but the outline of a logical proof of God's existence and the basis of a "logical theology".

    sry guys,
    Abusus non tollit usum.
    ;)

    ReplyDelete
  58. Yeah, he's definitely just ignoring us and copying/pasting.

    The conversation cannot resume until he answers the question.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Another comment of Mike got eaten by the spam filter...

    ReplyDelete
  60. Mike - I think your argument ignores the photothetically omnirelevance of ectoplasmic endocrinions doesn't it? Have you considered that if you subdivide the neural brain and coagulate it with raw chicken eggs, it renders your entire hypothesis unfallitible? Well, have you?

    Big words does not an intelligent sentence make. Stop telling us what Langan thinks and why, he's very unimpressive to me. Tell us what you think and why.

    ReplyDelete
  61. First, if God is real

    The problem is that you started with this statement. Your proof that god exists cannot rely upon the presumption that god exists.

    No, true geniuses are the ones who can distill their thoughts in such a way that their utility is clear to just about anyone.

    Well put Dorkman.

    ReplyDelete
  62. you guys are trying to censor me with your "spam filter" problems. i should have known you were too cowardly.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Another comment of Mike got eaten by the spam filter...

    ... not that we really missed anything.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Looks like we're dealing with the very definition of a godbot. He's got a program to run and it's read-only.

    I wonder why he wanted so badly to jump into a chatroom when he really just wanted to basically write a gibbering email.

    A bunch of Mike's yammering pastejobs have already disappeared into spam...

    ReplyDelete
  65. "you guys are trying to censor me with your "spam filter" problems. i should have known you were too cowardly."

    LOL. Nice way to get out while you still can. If you leave, you're the coward.

    ReplyDelete
  66. I'm pretty much convinced he's "Andrew" from the other day.

    ReplyDelete
  67. I think we've all read your copy and pasted posts Mike, no one is spamming them to my knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  68. i will admit the CTMU is suspiciously hard to understand.
    but you should at least debunk it, if you can.

    moving on, without religion life is meaningless because the heat death of the unvierse will end us.

    ReplyDelete
  69. I'm pretty much convinced even the spam filter thinks Mike is full of crap.

    ReplyDelete
  70. This is going to be the longest thread ever. Mike is copying and pasting from this:

    https://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=8798180154&topic=17912

    Christopher Michael Langan who supposedly has an IQ of over 200, and uses "binary logic" to prove god's existence.

    ReplyDelete
  71. For some reason his posts do keep disappearing and reappearing when I refresh or post new comments, not sure what exactly is going on.

    ReplyDelete
  72. "moving on, without religion life is meaningless because the heat death of the unvierse will end us."

    That also doesn't make any sense. I think my life is meaningfull. That's all that matters.

    ReplyDelete
  73. and moral laws impy a moral lawgiver.
    checkmate.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Also, I would like to point out that being intelligent is not the same as being right. Isaac Newton was a brilliant man, he also advocated a number of batshit crazy ideas too. Don't tell us, boy that Chris Langan guy is smart. Tell us why we should believe any of this CTMU stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  75. What does a train say? Woo Woo!

    ReplyDelete
  76. and moral laws impy a moral lawgiver.
    checkmate.


    Okay, I'm starting to think Poe.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Can we get the banana argument. Please?

    ReplyDelete
  78. "and moral laws impy a moral lawgiver.
    checkmate."
    I can give you moral laws if you want. It seems I've just proven I'm god...

    ReplyDelete
  79. go to 1:05 of this vid.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyd6om8IC4M&feature=relmfu
    thunderfoot never explains whats wrong with this ARGUMENT. he just ATTACKS the preacher because of the mix up of the name of the university. who CARES if it was Harvard or Nottingham. that doesnt mean the ARGUMENT is bad.
    that is the ad hominem fallacy.
    served.

    ReplyDelete
  80. moving on, without religion life is meaningless because the heat death of the unvierse will end us.

    No, no moving on.

    How exactly does the universe have a mind, and is self aware(like). What evidence do you have that demonstrates this?

    This isn't a "debate" if you don't address the issues.

    ReplyDelete
  81. If you can't even understand the argument yourself Mike then you shouldn't be using it to try and validate your claims.

    "Moving on, without religion life is meaningless because the heat death of the universe will end us."

    LOL wow now you are just abandoning your last argument and pulling the "life is meaningless without religion card". Firstly, whether or not life is meaningful is up to the individual mind, not an external set of beliefs that a population may hold. The fact that we are born into this world, live for a short amount of time, then die...makes life more meaningful and valuable. If an afterlife existed then that would make this life less meaningful(IMHO)...So yes Mike, some day far far far far in the future our sun will die after going through all the phases of death(Red Giants, etc...), Life will no longer be able to exist...Sorry if that hurts your feelings, but resorting to arguments from Emotion doesn't make your beliefs anymore rational or justied. Try again buddy.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Mike, we wanted your arguments. We didn't simply want you to engage in a copy-paste orgy of pure metaphysical gibberish you cribbed from some fringe website whose pantheistic arguments I'm quite sure even your hero William Lane Craig would have no truck with. So again, why do YOU believe in God, and what evidence can YOU present us of his existence? Don't even pretend you know what this site you're pasting from is talking about. If we asked you this question on the street, you wouldn't have that at your disposal.

    ReplyDelete
  83. all my responses went to the spam filter.
    this is a rigged game!

    ReplyDelete
  84. Yeah I'm thinking this kid might not be for real either after the "Morals come from god statement"....Gee Mikey we neva heard dat one beeforah!!....Actually Mike you need to offer evidence for this assertion to be deemed justified. But we know you ain't going to do it.

    ReplyDelete
  85. This kid ain't for real..

    ReplyDelete
  86. bring back my responses from the spam filter?
    imagine if u were me how FRUSTRATED u'd be that all ur responses went to the spam filter?
    how FRUSTRATED would you be?

    ReplyDelete
  87. Mike, as you see, it is not a "rigged game." That is how theists play, not us. As you can clearly see, every comment of yours that gets hit by the spam filter is quickly rescued by us. So the whining isn't serving you well here.

    ReplyDelete
  88. go to 1:05 of this vid.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyd6om8IC4M&feature=relmfu
    thunderfoot never explains whats wrong with this ARGUMENT. he just ATTACKS the preacher because of the mix up of the name of the university. who CARES if it was Harvard or Nottingham. that doesnt mean the ARGUMENT is bad.


    If you keep watching the rest of the video, he explains why the argument is bad.

    But this is a non-sequitur. As JT asked: How exactly does the universe have a mind, and is self aware(like). What evidence do you have that demonstrates this?

    ReplyDelete
  89. "the answer turns out to be a mathematical and scientific definition of God. "

    When were these definitions decided, by whom, and where can I find the "mathematical" definition to god?

    May prove to be useful.......

    ReplyDelete
  90. imagine if u were me how FRUSTRATED u'd be that all ur responses went to the spam filter?
    how FRUSTRATED would you be?


    Probably about as frustrated as anyone who has to try and parse meaning from posts so meaningless that they are indistinguishable from spam. Imagine if you were US.

    ReplyDelete
  91. without god, you wouldnt even have the ability to tell me that any action was good or evil.

    ReplyDelete
  92. I have no idea what's causing Blogger to keep filtering Mike. May have something to do with his IP. In any event, how FRUSTRATED would you be if a guy came along all cocky and aggressive, then failed to offer an original argument or even a cogent defense of what he was simply pasting from some website? I'd say very.

    ReplyDelete
  93. That depends on what the definition of good/evil are.

    ReplyDelete
  94. without god, you cant explain:
    1. the unvierse
    2. life
    3. morality
    4. meaning
    5. why there are 2 billion xtians on earth

    ReplyDelete
  95. Pretty sure Mike is just a kid who doesn't really know what's going on here.

    His claim that this quack preacher is so smart that he's hard to understand combined with his copy-paste nonsense replies leads me to suspect he himself doesn't understand the quackery but is trying to use it anyway...

    ReplyDelete
  96. "without god, you wouldn't even have the ability to tell me that any action was good or evil."

    Can you offer evidence that supports this bold assertion?...Come on Mikey, you know you're not for real..Come on fess up man...

    ReplyDelete
  97. fine, i will take you down RIGHT NOW.

    although religion has often been employed for evil by cynics appreciative of its power, several things bear notice. (1) The abuse of religion, and the God concept, has always been driven by human politics, and no one is justified in blaming the God concept, whether or not they hold it to be real, for the abuses committed by evil men in its name. Abusus non tollit usum. (2) A religion must provide at least emotional utility for its believers, and any religion that stands the test of time has obviously been doing so. (3) A credible religion must contain elements of truth and undecidability, but no elements that are verifiably false (for that could be used to overthrow the religion and its sponsors). So by design, religious beliefs generally cannot be refuted by rational or empirical means.

    Does the reverse apply? Can a denial of God be refuted by rational or empirical means? The short answer is yes; the refutation follows the reasoning outlined above. That is, the above reasoning constitutes not just a logical framework for reality theory, but the outline of a logical proof of God's existence and the basis of a "logical theology".

    ReplyDelete
  98. Wow. He's failed his way from the guy with the world's highest IQ to the Bill O'Reilly defense. That didn't take long.

    *psst* We actually can explain all of those things without positing deities.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Oooh, shotgun approach!

    Mike.

    Without god it's much more informative to explain using evidence:
    1. the universe
    2. life
    3. morality
    4. meaning
    5. why there are 2 billion xtians on earth

    I just pwnt u.

    ReplyDelete
  100. if you fail to respond all my friends will know because they are watching this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  101. *blows a kiss to all Mike's friends*

    Again. How does the universe behave like a mind, and what evidence do you have to support the claim?

    ReplyDelete
  102. stop filtering my responses.
    every time i own you guys you censor me like this is North Korea.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Actually Mike we can explain those five points you brought up....it's called "science".

    ReplyDelete
  104. "stop filtering my responses.
    every time i own you guys you censor me like this is North Korea."

    It's okay Mike, maybe change that IP address and you problems will be solved. You sound like the kid from the other day that flipped out on this blog and got permanently banned....

    ReplyDelete
  105. Mike, you're now simply deluded and lying.

    We are not censoring you. Blogger is feeding you into the spam filter, and I am removing your comments from spam. You know this. So to keep claiming otherwise and whining about North Korea (like that little bitch Andrew whined about "1984" — seriously, if you losers didn't have persecution complexes, you'd have nothing at all) makes you nothing but a liar.

    How do you think your god feels about that, huh?

    ReplyDelete
  106. why do you think people blow themselves up if god isnt real?
    you think they are just insane?
    like, o i will just blow up dynamite wrapped around my waist
    or i will fly a plane into a skyscraper
    if there WAS no heaven?

    ReplyDelete
  107. Okay, let me try my sophistry-to-English translator:

    (1) The abuse of religion, and the God concept, has always been driven by human politics, and no one is justified in blaming the God concept, whether or not they hold it to be real, for the abuses committed by evil men in its name. Abusus non tollit usum.

    Translation: just because people have done bad things in the name of religion doesn't make religion bad.

    My response: Sure. but as religion likes to claim to be a source of morality and decency, AND to be commanded from on high, we would expect fewer incidences of bad behavior from the religious, whereas if anything studies tend to show the opposite.

    (2) A religion must provide at least emotional utility for its believers, and any religion that stands the test of time has obviously been doing so.

    Translation: Religion makes people feel good.

    My response: That doesn't mean that they're true. Any number of lies can make people feel good.

    (3) A credible religion must contain elements of truth and undecidability, but no elements that are verifiably false (for that could be used to overthrow the religion and its sponsors). So by design, religious beliefs generally cannot be refuted by rational or empirical means.

    Translation: Religion intentionally obfuscates its claims and tries to avoid making concrete claims at all in an attempt to defy skeptical inquiry.

    My response: Skeptical inquiry responds to any claim with "prove it." A claim intentionally designed so that it cannot be demonstrated doesn't get very far. The response is not to believe an unsubstantiated claim, not to decide that it's so ephemeral we might as well believe it as not.

    Also, most religions DO make quite concrete claims that are readily studied and almost always false.

    Can a denial of God be refuted by rational or empirical means? The short answer is yes; the refutation follows the reasoning outlined above

    There was no reasoning above, but yes, a denial of god can be refuted by rational or empirical means. Feel free to present some of that any old time now.

    That is, the above reasoning constitutes not just a logical framework for reality theory, but the outline of a logical proof of God's existence and the basis of a "logical theology".

    You have at no point demonstrated the existence of god. To recap, you've argued:

    1) Bad people aren't religion's fault.
    2) Religion makes people feel good.
    3) Religion tries intentionally to hide behind vague statements to confound attempts at rational inquiry.

    Where in there is evidence for a god?

    ReplyDelete
  108. Mike
    You're telling us Islam is right?

    *facepalms*.

    ReplyDelete
  109. why do you think people blow themselves up if god isnt real?
    you think they are just insane?


    Yes. That is exactly what I think.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Ah, so now the old "People wouldn't die for a lie" fallacy.

    How do you think the universe is like a mind, and what evidence do you have to back up the claim?

    ReplyDelete
  111. like, o i will just blow up dynamite wrapped around my waist
    or i will fly a plane into a skyscraper
    if there WAS no heaven?


    Spoken like a true believer, Mike.

    So a belief is proven true if the believer has such a degree of fanatical devotion to it, that he's willing to commit an appalling act of terrorism in its name?

    I think Hamas has a job for you, big guy.

    ReplyDelete
  112. the work of a certain D**** M****.

    Datt Millahunty?

    ReplyDelete
  113. Mike said.."why do you think people blow themselves up if god isnt real?
    you think they are just insane?
    like, o i will just blow up dynamite wrapped around my waist
    or i will fly a plane into a skyscraper
    if there WAS no heaven?"

    Your correct Mike, it's called being delusional. People convince themselves that heaven exists...so that they feel obligated to carry through blowing themselves up...It's a crazy world we live in Mike, with crazy people who have crazy deluded thoughts...Now you are resorting to arguments from ignorance..."Gee I can't think of any reason why people would blow themselves up unless god is real!"....Yeah we know you can't think Mike, that's why you fail at presenting any meaningful/rational/evidence supported argument and why we find you incredibly interesting. So what's next? lol

    ReplyDelete
  114. reality itself should be a set…in fact, the largest set of all. But every set, even the largest one, has a powerset which contains it, and that which contains it must be larger (a contradiction). The obvious solution: define an extension of set theory incorporating two senses of “containment” which work together in such a way that the largest set can be defined as "containing" its powerset in one sense while being contained by its powerset in the other. Thus, it topologically includes itself in the act of descriptively including itself in the act of topologically including itself..., and so on, in the course of which it obviously becomes more than just a set.

    In the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe or CTMU, the set of all sets, and the real universe to which it corresponds, take the name (SCSPL) of the required extension of set theory. SCSPL, which stands for Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language, is just a totally intrinsic, i.e. completely self-contained, language that is comprehensively and coherently (self-distributively) self-descriptive, and can thus be model-theoretically identified as its own universe or referent domain. Theory and object go by the same name because unlike conventional ZF or NBG set theory, SCSPL hologically infuses sets and their elements with the distributed (syntactic, metalogical) component of the theoretical framework containing and governing them, namely SCSPL syntax itself, replacing ordinary set-theoretic objects with SCSPL syntactic operators. The CTMU is so-named because the SCSPL universe, like the set of all sets, distributively embodies the logical syntax of its own descriptive mathematical language. It is thus not only self-descriptive in nature; where logic denotes the rules of cognition (reasoning, inference), it is SELF-COGNITIVE as well.
    SELF-COGNITIVE
    ;) pwned

    ReplyDelete
  115. How do you think the universe is like a mind, and what evidence do you have to back up the claim?

    ReplyDelete
  116. So how was the universe like a mind again? And what evidence do you have that supports that claim?

    ReplyDelete
  117. "Mike said...

    without god, you wouldnt even have the ability to tell me that any action was good or evil."

    Frankly, this doesn't make any sense what-so-ever. Until you demonstrate that there is an entity which can be classified as a "god" and then demonstrate that this being is as you describe it, it's utterly asinine to make a claim that anything is dependent on said being.

    Your arguments thus far have all the hallmarks of perception manipulation. You use words which (I'm basing this wholly on the level at which you've argued previously) you likely would not be able to use effectively on your own.

    Multi-syllable words are only an indication of intelligence if used correctly, and even then only if the content is cogent. The very purpose of complex verbage is to express a thought or idea in such a way as to be more easily understood.

    I will, however, add a caveat, as I strive to have an honest understanding. If you can, in your own words, restate what you are trying to say in such a way as to be readily understood then we (I'm making the presumption to speak for this forum's community) can start having an honest discussion about its strengths and weaknesses, and subsequently come to an understanding.

    Until then I, for one, have to disregard your attempts to "explain" as a failed play at impressing people with syllables.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Geesh.. this conversation is going nowhere.

    ReplyDelete
  119. stop feeding the troll....

    ReplyDelete
  120. by the way,
    neuroscientists vilanyu ramachandran found out that you can still detect motion without being conscious of it. it is called "blindsight."
    since being conscious could have no evolutionary purpose, how did it develop?
    without god, we would be robots, like monkeys.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Epic eyeroll. Copy-pasting again.

    What evidence can present that the universe is like a mind? We're still waiting.

    Again, we want your answer, not some copy-paste from a bunch of crap even you don't understand.

    Every time you copy-paste, a baby angel dies screaming. Think of the angels!

    ReplyDelete
  122. Okay guys he is now resorting back to copying and pasting from pseudo-scientific websites....Then writing "owned" after doing it...Gee this guy is so smart, he is unlike any theist I have ever encountered! LOL This kid must be at most 14 years old..

    ReplyDelete
  123. since being conscious could have no evolutionary purpose, how did it develop?
    without god, we would be robots, like monkeys.


    1) Being conscious keeps us alive.

    2) Monkeys are like robots? How do do figure?

    ReplyDelete
  124. seriously. do you not see that he is blatantly just trolling this blog? there is probably good reason the spam filter is eating his posts, his IP has most likely been flagged by multiple blogs/comment pages for exactly this sort of behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  125. I wouldn't look at Koko and the kitten and say she's just a robot.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Yes, DustFurn. I think he's the troll Andrew that I concluded was a troll in his yesterday's rant.

    I don't personally care.

    ReplyDelete
  127. since being conscious could have no evolutionary purpose, how did it develop?

    Wow. This is totally retarded even for a Christian.

    How could a being that was not conscious eat or reproduce?

    Duh.

    without god, we would be robots, like monkeys.

    Hint: monkeys aren't robots. However, you seem to be with God, and I imagine there are a number of monkeys out there who have a lead on you in the intelligence race.

    You haven't proven God exists yet. But you have proven your scientific illiteracy (not that we had any doubt of it).

    ReplyDelete
  128. Yeah he isn't for real, let Martin take care of it.

    ReplyDelete
  129. by DEFINITION, being aware of your actions has no effect on them.
    and therefore no evolutionary purpose.
    thus god.

    and why do you think every mind NEEDS TO HAVE A BRAIN. there could be a brainless mind, god's mind.

    ReplyDelete
  130. by DEFINITION, being aware of your actions has no effect on them.

    By the DEFINITION of what, exactly? "Aware"? "Actions"? "Effect"?

    and why do you think every mind NEEDS TO HAVE A BRAIN.

    Because we have not yet ever seen a mind that did not have a brain.

    Well, except maybe you.

    ReplyDelete
  131. "by DEFINITION, being aware of your actions has no effect on them. and therefore no evolutionary purpose.thus god. and why do you think every mind NEEDS TO HAVE A BRAIN. there could be a brainless mind, god's mind."

    LOL... Well until you can provide evidence of a mind without a brain I'm not inclined to think it's possible Mikey, but the floor is yours if you can provide some...

    ReplyDelete
  132. by DEFINITION, being aware of your actions has no effect on them.
    and therefore no evolutionary purpose.
    thus god.


    Of course being aware of my actions can have an effect on them. I can improve on my actions, or discontinue them. If I realize I'm being an asshole, I can curb that.

    And no, not thus god. That's an argument from ignorance, because even if we didn't know the reason for it, you couldn't just leap to that conclusion without positive evidence that it's the case. You can't just assert it.

    and why do you think every mind NEEDS TO HAVE A BRAIN.

    Why does every computer program need to run on a computer? The brain is what "runs" the mind.

    there could be a brainless mind, god's mind.

    There could be. Now prove it.

    ReplyDelete
  133. bacteria feed and reproduce.
    are they conscious?

    are slugs conscious?
    is a fruit fly conscious?

    is a human conscious?
    only sometimes. blindsight and split brains show that human faculties don't HAVE to be conscious. why don't ALL our faculties work like that?
    maybe some do. who knows.

    consciousness doesnt give your actions any extra GLOSS.
    being aware of your actions has NO effect on them, by DEFINITION.

    ReplyDelete
  134. name ONE human faculty that requires consciousness.
    monkeys do EVERYTHING without it.
    so do fruit flies.
    and everything else.

    when you kick a dog the dog does a PAIN BEHAVIOR but it does not FEEL PAIN.

    ReplyDelete
  135. "Mike said..
    "why do you think people blow themselves up if god isnt real? you think they are just insane?"

    By that logic we're forced to believe everything that everyone tells us.

    Should we believe that aliens are abducting people because there are so many that have corroborating stories?

    Should we believe that some little girls in Nepal are really living goddesses?

    Should we believe the sociopath who kills people because they're in his mind stealing his thoughts?

    Should we believe that cultists who drink poison are really taken up to heaven in a spaceship?

    You can not draw a line that necessarily demonstrates the existence of a thing based on what individuals or groups do because of their belief in said thing.

    "Mike said.. ;) pwned"

    That's more than a little pretentious considering that your entire argument is a cut & paste. To address the original author a natural progression of reactive elements is not an indication of intrinsic logic, nor is it in any way indicative of self-cognition.

    As an addendum, your entire argument is fairly ironic when overlayed with your underlying purpose (ostensibly, to prove that your particular brand of deity exists).

    The god you argue for would necessarily be unconcerned with the progression of human life, as we would be just another aspect of its existence. The abrahamic god was not only overly concerned to the point of being jealous of the attentions of finite beings, he was far from logical.

    ReplyDelete
  136. is a human conscious?
    only sometimes. blindsight and split brains show that human faculties don't HAVE to be conscious. why don't ALL our faculties work like that?
    maybe some do. who knows.


    They're called "subconscious", the ones that aren't conscious. A lot of that is automated. What's your point?

    consciousness doesnt give your actions any extra GLOSS.

    I have no idea what you mean here. How can you "gloss" (make shiny) an action?

    being aware of your actions has NO effect on them, by DEFINITION.

    What definition are you using? Do you even know what the term "by definition" means?

    Some of your actions are conscious.
    Some of your actions are subconscious.

    Your breathing, for example, is usually on auto pilot. You can bring it into the conscious, and control it.

    ReplyDelete
  137. I guess I'll check back in tomorrow and see if he ever has any evidence for the mind-like qualities of the universe.

    Not holding by breath, because it'll be on auto-pilot.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Okay, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Mike for giving me 20 minutes of free entertainment.

    Dude, you managed to get almost all the major logical fallacies in on one blog post! And you're still going strong like a champ!

    *swoon*

    ReplyDelete
  139. Mike,

    I've read the thread thus far, and I think where you're failing is that you aren't really providing YOUR reasons that you believe there is a basis for believing in god(s), you're copy/pasting reasons from multiple unrelated sources.

    Here are my reasons for being an agnostic atheist:

    1) I have not been presented with sufficient evidence to support the idea that any given god exists. Because of this I do not believe in any gods. Therefore I am an atheist.

    2) The concept of a god allows it to exist outside natural existence as we know it. That makes it untestable. Because it is untestable I can not with 100% certainty say that it is not real. Therefore I am agnostic with respect to knowledge of gods' existences.

    Could you provide a succinct list like this, *in your own words*, why you believe god is real? Including external arguments such as kalam in your list of points is fine, but it's not necessary to copy/paste the entirety of the arguments' bodies. (The rate of your copy/paste posting could be contributing to your hitting the spam filter, btw.)

    ReplyDelete
  140. @dustfurn, It's entirely likely that he is :P. However, this particular ploy is fairly amusing so, as far as I'm concerned, I'm ok with it.

    ReplyDelete
  141. DustFurn: I am generally in agreement with you at this point. But I think this thread has been instructive (as well as entertaining), as it demonstrates the complete mental chaos that is the mind of the devout believer.

    I agree Mike is basically just trolling now. I don't think he is Andrew, because Andrew was never caught in the spam filter, and if Mike is continually being caught this way, I suspect he has a long history, under one or more ID's, of trolling atheist blogs in this fashion.

    Anyway, I think we've given Mike enough chances (we're at well over 100 comments in only a few hours anyway) to present a cogent argument of his own. Instead, he's made something of a spectacle of himself. He shows up here, acts all blustery and tough, promises to prove God exists in 10 minutes, throws Kalam at us, we smash it, throws the general first cause argument at us, we smash that, then he takes a wild left turn into wackytown by extensively pasting a load of obfuscatory nonsense from some pantheist website, without demonstrating he even understands the very material he's posting or that he can defend its points in his own words.

    Now he's flailing badly, no longer the cocky and confident alpha-theist he paraded as when he first turned up. In desperation he's hurling out appeal to authority/popularity fallacies, long dead moral arguments, and stuff that even his hero William Lane Craig would consider weak.

    So here you go, Mike. Heads up: NEW RULES.

    From now on your comments will not be automatically released from spam. We've been exceedingly fair to you, even at your most douchebaggy. The record is above, in case you think of whining about censorship again. Frankly, that won't play.

    If you copy-paste from another website, the comment will remain in spam.

    If you snivel about how censorious we are, well, boo-hoo, but that comment will remain in spam too.

    The only comments of your that will be allowed henceforth will be ones in which you, in your own words, present the reasons you believe in God, followed up by whatever evidence you can come up with to convince us. You said you could do this in ten minutes before. But of course, it's a different ball game when you have to do it on your own, and can't fling the arguments of others our way instead, isn't it.

    So that's how this is going to go from here on.

    If you don't like it, well, it's been fun.

    ReplyDelete
  142. name ONE thing we need consciousness for.
    in fact, some humans are not conscious in certain ways.
    some feel no pain, but they still have reflexes whena needle pokes them.
    and some may be fully unconscious.
    how would you even know?
    how do you know when you are kicking a person if they are even feeling the pain?
    they scream and you think "o no i hurt them" but i already explained that some people dont feel pain. Congenital insensitivity to pain

    ReplyDelete
  143. without god, you cant explain:
    1. the unvierse


    Cosmology.

    2. life

    Biology, abiogenesis.

    3. morality

    Moral philosophy, sociology, sociobiology.

    4. meaning

    Psychology.

    5. why there are 2 billion xtians on earth

    History. Specifically that people are often wrong.

    But here, Mike: how do you explain all those with God, in a way that doesn't ultimately lead to logical fallacies or just pushing the same questions back a level? In other words, when "god" is your explanation for the universe, then the question becomes "where did god come from?" It doesn't solve the problem, it just moves the problem up a step.

    Finally, Mike, is the CTMU argument for god's existence the one that convinced you? If so, then you must be able to put it in your own words rather than engaging in this silly copy-pasting. If not, then why would it convince us?

    ReplyDelete
  144. To follow in the footsteps of Mr. Isaac F.

    My reasons are fairly simple.

    The idea that a omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being popped out of nowhere and then popped everything else out of nowhere is so patently absurd as far as I'm concerned that it doesn't even warrant consideration until it can be demonstrated that any such could possibly exist.

    Everything else is merely an addendum further driving a nail in that proverbial coffin.

    ReplyDelete
  145. This is fucking hilarious. Langan's claim to being the smartest man in America is based on an IQ test he took IN OMNI MAGAZINE, which was called "the world's hardest IQ test." The questions on the test have absolutely nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with TRIVIA.

    Here's a sample question: "Pain is to Rue, as Bread is to ?"

    The answer is "street." "Pain" and "Rue" and French words for "bread" and street". It's a test full of shit like this that "measured" Langan as having an IQ of 195-210. Utter bullshit. This man is a crank, end of discussion.

    Mike, you're giving Mikes a bad name. Langan is spouting shit and you're swallowing it.

    ReplyDelete
  146. name ONE thing we need consciousness for.

    Um, okay. How about eating, walking around, holding down a job, talking, thinking, typing on a computer... Oh wait, you only wanted one.

    in fact, some humans are not conscious in certain ways.

    Talking to you, I fully agree.

    some feel no pain, but they still have reflexes whena needle pokes them.
    and some may be fully unconscious.
    how would you even know?


    That certain behaviors are indicated by those in an unconscious or semi-conscious state do not mean that there's no such thing as consciousness. Good grief.

    how do you know when you are kicking a person if they are even feeling the pain?
    they scream and you think "o no i hurt them" but i already explained that some people dont feel pain.


    But if they suffered that condition, they wouldn't scream when I kicked them then. Durp.

    being aware of your actions has NO effect on them, by DEFINITION.

    If I am aware I'm about to walk off a cliff, I will stop walking. If I'm not, well, I guess I'll die, won't I? So, like, there's your evolutionary advantage, dude.

    Honestly, it's amazing anyone could be as thick as to say the stuff you're saying with a straight face. But that's why these threads are so fun to read, aren't they?

    there could be a brainless mind, god's mind.

    Or a mindless brain, like your own. (rimshot)

    ReplyDelete
  147. In other words, Mike, Langan's claim of being incredibly smart is just as valid as a teenage girl's claim to be an expert on guys based on her results from a quiz in a teeny bopper magazine.

    ReplyDelete
  148. lets turn the table.
    if ur an atheist, prove god doesnt exist.

    ReplyDelete
  149. "lets turn the table."

    Man, you really like to explicitly state which fallacies you're committing!

    Prove Thor doesn't exist.

    ReplyDelete
  150. Sorry, Mike, you don't get to play that one either. The burden of proof always rests upon the person making the positive claim. You are claiming God exists. We are saying we don't believe you. Shifting the burden of proof is just another logical fallacy, usually resorted to when everything else the believer has tried has failed spectacularly.

    ReplyDelete
  151. "lets turn the table.
    if ur an atheist, prove god doesnt exist."

    Shifting the burden of Proof fallacy...You are making the positive claim, the burden of proof rests on your shoulder

    ReplyDelete
  152. this is proof god is real in 5 minutes.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZfFhA96uAI

    but i know you are too scared to watch it.
    it uses geometry of circles.

    ReplyDelete
  153. Mike has confused consciousness with sentience. A dog may have limited or no sentience, but it definitely has consciousness. Consider that a dog can be sedated--made unconscious. If it were not conscious in the first place, then where would the difference come from?

    Further, he fails to understand what blindsight is. In people with certain kinds of blindness, the part of the brain responsible for actually producing vision is damaged, but other parts of the brains still respond to visual stimuli, even if the person is not consciously able to interpret their visual input. This is a function of the fact that different parts of the brain govern different things, not some magical property of consciousness, nor is it some evidence that consciousness is unnecessary. There is a difference between being conscious, being aware, being able to process various stimuli on an intentional level, and being sentient, and Mike is apparently unclear on this.

    Further, Mike is engaging in a common mistake with regard to evolution. Let's pretend that consciousness is not evolutionarily advantageous, ignoring all the advantages that are provided by the ability to think abstractly, plan for and anticipate the future, and relate in complex ways to our environment and other organisms. Even if there were no advantage to consciousness, that is no argument against it being a product of natural evolutionary processes. There are many traits that propagate because they are linked to advantageous traits by virtue of being on the same chromosome, or because they are not deleterious, or because a population bottleneck made them common. There are almost certainly traits that propagate because they are tied to advantageous traits in ways that we do not yet know (e.g., a single protein produces both traits, or something). The idea that every trait must provide an evolutionary advantage in order to be passed on is the result of a very naïve assessment of evolutionary biology.

    ReplyDelete
  154. someone put rude comments on it
    so dont watch the video just listen to it.

    ReplyDelete
  155. if ur an atheist, prove god doesnt exist.

    Mike, to be an atheist is to lack belief in gods. It is not reasonable to ask someone to prove a negative.

    Example, a person who believes in the Loch Ness Monster, and a person that doesn't:

    A-nessist: I don't believe in Nessie.

    Nessist: Well prove that Nessie doesn't exist!

    Would it be reasonable to expect the a-nessist to drain Loch Ness and dig through every square foot of mud searching for dinosaur-like bones just to disprove the proposition that there's a monster in Loch Ness?

    I would say no, it's not. When one makes a positive claim such as, "The Loch Ness Monster exists" or, "God exists" the responsibility to provide evidence rests exclusively with the person making the claim.

    Do you accept that requesting that we prove a negative is unreasonable, or do you still have reasons remaining where you believe the responsibility rests with the atheist?

    ReplyDelete
  156. Wow what a day, this has been fairly entertaining. I've almost seen every logical fallacy...although I'm not sure Mikey was for real...then again there are a lot of thick people out there.

    ReplyDelete
  157. "although religion has often been employed for evil by cynics..."

    http://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/God#Logical_Theology

    Go up two paragraphs from "Logical Theology" to see where he's copy/pasting from.

    "reality itself should be a set…in fact, the largest set of all. ..."

    That's from http://scientopia.org/blogs/goodmath/2011/02/11/another-crank-comes-to-visit-the-cognitive-theoretic-model-of-the-universe/

    And he follows up his copy/paste with ":) pwned" as if he has a single goddamn clue what he just pasted.

    "and why do you think every mind NEEDS TO HAVE A BRAIN. there could be a brainless mind, god's mind."

    I think you're proof of a brainless mind, Mike.

    Wowsers, what a loopy troll.

    ReplyDelete
  158. stop blocking my comments.

    and the bible is 99.5% accurate with 5600 copies.

    thats more accurate that most greek ancient books like homer, lucretius, herodotus.
    you name it.

    would you just throw those books away?

    no, you wouldnt.

    but you dont like the bible because you are bigots.

    and if i cant use the bible then you cant use th eorigin of species.


    you are hypocrits.

    ReplyDelete
  159. plz stop blocking my comments.

    in daniel 2 neb. predics 4 empires that didnt exist yet.
    in dnaiel 12 it says there will be growth in technology and travel.
    explain these profecies.
    jesus born of a virgin LIKE IT SAID
    in bethlehem LIKE IT SAID
    preceded by a messenger JOHN THE BAPTIST LIKE IT SAID
    rejected by his ppl LIKE IT SAId
    pierced in the side LIKE IT SAID
    crucified LIKE IT SAID

    explain the profecies.

    ReplyDelete
  160. Dude, just call into the show. Pick up the phone and push the pretty little buttons that make the pretty sounds and talk to the people on the magic devil box.

    ReplyDelete
  161. isiah 40:22 says the earth is a sphere.
    explain that.
    job 26:7 explains earth is floating in space.
    'splain it, son.

    ReplyDelete
  162. Nah they need some people who are actually serious to call into the show.

    ReplyDelete
  163. genesis 7:11 says there are valleys in the sea. did they have scuba equipment?
    no.
    did they hold their breaths for hours?
    no.

    how did it know.
    CHECK MATE.

    ReplyDelete
  164. I sometimes have a hard time differentiating between trolls and fervent theists. I can't tell which you are right now, Mike, but you don't seem to be answering any of our reasonable questions, so I'm leaning toward the former.

    I'm sure we're all willing to continue the conversation here, but there's a lot of open ends dangling that require your input to close. If you don't it shows that you aren't actually interested in accepting input and hashing your arguments out, but merely throwing ideas at our wall and hoping something manages to stick.

    ReplyDelete
  165. You made him [man] ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything under his feet...the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas,
    how did psalms 8:1 know about water currents?

    ReplyDelete
  166. ok fine, the reason i actually believe in god is that there are things we dont understand, so i use god to explain them.
    and plus my parents taught me that and i went to church a lot so that made god my go-to idea for explaining things.
    but i have lots of things from the bible that prove god, if you would just stop blocking me!

    ReplyDelete
  167. I smell a Sokal... [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair]

    ReplyDelete
  168. I like MiketheInfidel's approach...

    @Mike, prove that Vishnu doesn't exist.

    If you're unfamiliar with who vishnu is, he/she/it is "the Supreme God in the Vaishnavite tradition of Hinduism."
    -wikipedia

    I certainly don't believe he exists, but there are millions who believe he does. Is it your responsibility to disprove it or is it their responsibility to provide proof.

    If the former, then good luck, because very likely whatever you bring to bear against that supernatural entity will very likely be applicable to your own.

    If the latter, well then, that would make you hypocrite.

    ReplyDelete
  169. the reason i actually believe in god is that there are things we dont understand, so i use god to explain them.

    This is referred to the God of the Gaps fallacy:
    http://goo.gl/83h69

    An excellent presentation by Neil deGrasse Tyson about the effects of god of the gaps on human progress:
    http://youtu.be/0vrpPPV_yPY

    and plus my parents taught me that and i went to church a lot so that made god my go-to idea for explaining things.

    It's natural to trust your parents' teachings, but just because your parents taught you your religion doesn't make it true.

    Did either of yours parents warn you to not go swimming after eating? Mine did, but the warning has no basis in fact:
    http://goo.gl/Ims3h

    ReplyDelete
  170. So I thought I'd have a little look at this Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe. Apperently it was actually published in a Journal: "Progress in Complexity"

    A little more searching finds this is an online only Journal. And looking at that list of Fellows we find:
    Surprise surprise Christopher Michael Langan. So he had his work published in his own journal. I tried to read the paper but did not find a single intelligible sentence.

    Other notable thinkers on the SOciety fellows Page include: Michael Behe & William Lane Craig. Hmm I may be seeing a pattern here.

    ReplyDelete
  171. Because so much of this has been beaten to death, I'll just focus on one thing that Mike said in the previous thread:

    "matt said we have to rely on copies of copies of translations of copies.
    ok, do you apply the same standard of evidence to ancient greek writers like Herodotus, Lucretius, Scorates, and Homer?
    if you did you would have to DISCARD those texts.
    and the New Testament is 99.5 percent accurate with 5600 copies.
    so matt should apologize for this lie."

    Yes, we should apply the same standard of evidence. I would recommend, for example, that you take Homer's tales of sirens and one-eyed giants and men being turned into swine with a grain of salt.

    As far as Socrates goes, many scholars are uncertain that he did exist; but the ideas expressed by Socrates in Plato's writings stand or fall on their own merits, not because they originated with Socrates.

    We're not saying that you should "discard" the Bible; we're saying that you have no reason to conclude that it is an accurate account of history.

    Your arguments are made of FAIL.

    ReplyDelete
  172. its a hoax isnt it.
    damn it.
    well what am i supposed to use, tag fucking sucks.
    kalam sucks.
    fucking stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  173. what about biblical prophecies and statements about underwater valleys and stuff and the water cycle and currents and shit they didnt know back in the fucking ancient times.

    ReplyDelete
  174. maybe religion is just a big hoax.
    it still makes people behave good.
    and church is fun as you know if you ever went there.
    so argument from utility.

    ReplyDelete
  175. Totally worth taking time off studying to read that. I really needed a good laugh.

    ReplyDelete
  176. I googled some of Mark's word salad, and found that Mark Chu-Carroll has a couple of posts about the CTMU over at Good Math, Bad Math: "Two For One: Crackpot Physics and Crackpot Set Theory" and "Another Crank comes to visit: The Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe". His summary:

    "Stripped down to its basics, the CTMU is just yet another postmodern “perception defines the universe” idea. Nothing unusual about it on that level. What makes it interesting is that it tries to take a set-theoretic approach to doing it."

    And the gist of the first post seems to be that it's a lot of word salad. I know you're shocked to hear that.

    ReplyDelete
  177. my biblical evidence got deleted and martin put it back but now everyone has to go back and read it adn respond to it,.
    if you dont you will not be good atheists you will be lazy atheists.
    and by the way i think you are agnostics actually. see my william lane craig video i posted above.

    ReplyDelete
  178. Mike, FYI, nobody has been "blocking" your comments. As I tried to explain at least three times earlier this evening, our automatic spam blocker is arbitrarily killing a bunch of posts that we didn't ask it to. We have been unblocking them, but both Martin and I were away for several hours.

    I have only now gotten home and let all your posts out of the box, and we're hoping that eventually the spam filter will settle down and stop bothering you. But TRUST ME, absolutely nobody here wants anything other than to let you go on with this stuff as long as possible.

    I haven't caught up with the thread yet, but I'll get right on that when I can.

    ReplyDelete
  179. Mike i don't think you're reallllly a christian I think you're an agnostic. I mean you can't know everything right? Think of everything you know and compare that to the total knowledge of the universe. Obviously you're really an agnostic. ;)

    Actually most of the people here would gladly call them selves agnostic atheists, and if you weren't such a lazy christian and actually informed yourself first you'd know that.

    ReplyDelete
  180. the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas,
    how did psalms 8:1 know about water currents?


    Thunderf00t did a video about this a few days ago:
    http://youtu.be/By17QNKQQ44 (Beginning 01:03)

    ReplyDelete
  181. And if you're bible is full of so much good science and understanding of the world why does it include a bunch of nonsense as well like:

    The moon is a light source like the sun (Gen 1:16)
    Some fowls are four-footed (Lev. 11:20-21)
    The earth rest on pillars (1 Sam. 2:8)
    Hares chew the cud (Lev. 11:6)

    To name a few. Why does an all knowing creator of the universe make basic errors about things it created?

    ReplyDelete
  182. god wants to test you.
    acting like this is not a good argument:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qmglGWMsdk
    that is NOT mature.
    deal with the argument.
    not just ad hominem ATTACKS.

    ReplyDelete
  183. he doesnt want to let gullible people into heaven so he tests you with dinosaur bones to make sure you actually know how to think for yourself not just listen to "experts".

    ReplyDelete
  184. Forgot to respond to this:

    and by the way i think you are agnostics actually. see my william lane craig video i posted above.

    I posted above that I'm an agnostic atheist and why. You're misunderstanding the terms.

    (A)theism has to do with the belief in gods. Think of it answering, "Do you believe in any gods?" Answering yes yields a theist, answering no yields an atheist.

    (A)gnostic in this context has to do with the conviction one has about their knowledge of the god proposition. Think of it answering, "Are you absolutely certain that your position on the existence of gods is 100% correct?" Being 100% sure of your answer yields a gnostic, not being 100% yields an agnostic.

    The two terms are used in combination:

    Gnostic theist
    Agnostic theist
    Gnostic atheist
    Agnostic atheist

    Mike, are you done posting your reasons for why you believe God exists? Posting challenges to come up with reasons for why such and such passage in the bible exists can be entertaining, but it doesn't get us any closer to understanding why we should believe your god exists. Please use the format I suggested above where you list all your best reasons so we can review and respond to them all accordingly.

    ReplyDelete
  185. if you pray, i SWEAR he will reveal himself to you.

    ReplyDelete
  186. you HAVE to be sincere. put on a straight face. and concenrate.
    and take a good 5 minutes.

    ReplyDelete
  187. when you get to heaven gaets what do you think will happen, do you think they will let you in if all you cared about was evidence?

    ReplyDelete
  188. Mike said.."isiah 40:22 says the earth is a sphere. explain that."

    Actually it doesn't Mike, it's "Circle of the earth"..not sphere, there's a difference. What this particular verse is saying is that when you look out at the earth from upon high, you look all around you and the land appears to be "circular." Implying a flat earth that's circular in shape. Of course it's up to interpretation as to what it specifically means, but it almost certainly does not explain the earth as a sphere....explanation complete son.

    Mike said.."job 26:7 explains earth is floating in space.'splain it, son."

    This particular verse is up to interpretation and most likely is referring to the "heavens" or what I would call it, "the Sky". Yes it appears that the sky is floating! But actually Mike the earth doesn't float, nor does it hang by nothing. The earth is constantly moving around the sun by a force we call gravity. And this verse isn't talking about that. You should know that the book of Job...is a book of poetry......there son I 'Splained it..

    ReplyDelete
  189. Unless you're going to put forth your compelling arguments for why you believe in your god, I think I'm done responding now.

    Good luck, Mike.

    ReplyDelete
  190. i really like this neil tyson vid.
    but he SAYS that 15% of THE MOST BRILLIANT MINDS IN OUR COUNTRY believe god.
    so obviously the burden is on atheists to prove why they DONT believe.

    ReplyDelete
  191. Mike said.."genesis 7:11 says there are valleys in the sea. did they have scuba equipment?
    no.did they hold their breaths for hours?
    no. how did it know.CHECK MATE."

    No it doesn't say there are valleys in the sea, it says.. "all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened."

    This in no way implies that there are valleys in the sea. Nice try bud, but you don't get to claim "checkmate" by making up your own personal interpretation of a verse in order to try and show that the bible is true or divinely inspired. But I'm sure you didn't actually think of this on your own and actually got it from some creationist website. I believe all of your pawns,knights, bishops, rooks, and King and Queen have been killed long ago.

    ReplyDelete
  192. and the bible is 99.5% accurate with 5600 copies.

    Define "accurate." If you're talking about accuracy between copies, then you've been misinformed. Per Biblical historian Bart Ehrman: "There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament." If you're talking about accuracy with respect to reality, then you've been misinformed: the mustard seed is not even close to the smallest of all seeds, the sun does not move around the Earth, and bats are not birds (to name just a few). Assertions are not evidence, Mike.

    thats more accurate that most greek ancient books like homer, lucretius, herodotus.
    you name it.

    would you just throw those books away?


    Homer wrote mytholigized history. Herodotus was called "the father of lies." You're right, we don't throw those books away. We also don't believe everything they say. We believe the things that are reasonably corroborated and disbelieve the things that are not. For instance, "Homer" probably never existed as a single person, and the Iliad was almost certainly the compilation of a story told orally for many generations. We can discuss these matters because of the evidence that we have.

    Also, note that the Greek texts you cite are all a century or more older than the earliest Christian texts. And yet, while we can say some things with a high degree of certainty about the truth of Herodotus's writings or the existence of Homer, we cannot corroborate the existence of Biblical figures like Jesus or Moses any more than we can corroborate the existence of Achilles or Odysseus. So why should we believe your myths any more than we believe the Greek ones?

    and if i cant use the bible then you cant use th eorigin of species.

    We'll leave aside the point that the Origin of Species was based on well-documented evidence collected and compiled by a single known person only one hundred and fifty years ago, and corroborated by the independent observations of his contemporaries, in contrast to the Bible, which is the compilation of dozens of books written over a span of millennia by many authors, most of them anonymous, describing countless events which are either uncorroborated or flatly contradicted by independent evidence. We can even accept your premise: let's leave the Origin of Species alone. Instead, we'll rely on the mountains upon mountains of evidence for biological evolution that science has acquired in the intervening hundred and fifty years. Darwin is not our prophet, and Origin is not our holy book. There were many things that Darwin didn't know, and we have greatly improved upon his understanding. Unlike religion, science marches on.

    ReplyDelete
  193. right, fountains in the sea...
    VOLCANOS!
    JETS!
    all that stuff.

    for the VALLEYS see 2 Sam. 22:16
    "the valleys of the sea were exposed"

    you know what else was exposed?
    your ignorance.
    and your mother's breasts.
    during our make-out session

    ReplyDelete
  194. isiah 40:22 says the earth is a sphere.
    explain that.


    We'll ignore the fact that the Earth is not a sphere, but a slightly pear-shaped oblate spheroid. We'll leave aside the fact that Isaiah 40:22 actually says the Earth is a "circle" with the sky stretched above it like a tent, which is more in-line with a cosmology which says that the Earth is a flat disc than one which suggests the Earth is spherical. That part of Isaiah was written around the 6th Century BCE; at the exact same time, Greek philosophy held that the Earth was spherical. Three hundred years later, Greek astronomers would confirm it several times over. Is that evidence that Zeus and Apollo are real?

    job 26:7 explains earth is floating in space.
    'splain it, son.


    Actually, it says that the Earth is hanging on nothing. Doesn't actually say anything about space. But then, 1 Samuel 2:8 and Job 9:6 say that the Earth is set on pillars. So which is it? Is the Earth floating in space, or held up by pillars?

    So much for that vaunted Biblical accuracy.

    genesis 7:11 says there are valleys in the sea. did they have scuba equipment?
    no.
    did they hold their breaths for hours?
    no.


    Did they guess? Probably. The same verse says that rain comes out of the "windows" of Heaven. Strange how we've never seen those, having gone into space and all.

    The Bible is the big book of multiple choice. Look close enough, and you can find support for any position, even a position as inconsistent as yours, Mike. You're happy to trumpet places where science eventually confirms things that you think the Bible says, and to claim those as proof that the Bible is true. But then, when science flatly contradicts your Bible, as in the discovery of evolution, you still claim the Bible is accurate and want us to ignore the science. You can't have it both ways, Mike.

    ReplyDelete
  195. "i really like this neil tyson vid.
    but he SAYS that 15% of THE MOST BRILLIANT MINDS IN OUR COUNTRY believe god.
    so obviously the burden is on atheists to prove why they DONT believe"

    Another argument from authority...Logical fallacy repeat. Shifting the burden of proof fallacy again... Failure to recognize that the claim.."15% of the most brilliant minds in our country believe in god".. is not a fact that supports his beliefs, meaning that 85% of the most brilliant minds in our country don't believe in a god...Although I'm skeptical of the survey statistics regardless.

    ReplyDelete
  196. @Issac F - I would even go a little further on your explanation to Mike that he seemed to miss the first time. When someone is asked if they believe in any god, a yes would be a theist. Anything else, not just no, would yield an atheist. Answers such as "I am not sure" or "I have no belief either way" would not fall under belief of a god.

    ReplyDelete

PLEASE NOTE: The Atheist Experience has moved to a new location, and this blog is now closed to comments. To participate in future discussions, please visit http://www.freethoughtblogs.com/axp.

This blog encourages believers who disagree with us to comment. However, anonymous comments are disallowed to weed out cowardly flamers who hide behind anonymity. Commenters will only be banned when they've demonstrated they're nothing more than trolls whose behavior is intentionally offensive to the blog's readership.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.