Aliens and UFO's

[Parkbandit]

I happen to be listening to a Conservative show right now on the radio.. Surprise, huh. Actually.. I like to listen to sports radio, but the damn channel isn't coming in right now.

The host is pretty much making fun of people believing in Aliens and UFOs from some program that aired last night. This is the same guy that also believes in God and Jesus. He basically said, "When the Aliens land in NYC, then I'll believe in them"

How can someone have an undying belief in something intangable as God.. yet can so quickly dismiss the thought of life on another planet? I just don't get it.

[Jenisi]

Eh, that's just the ignorance of people. I semi-watched that show last night "seeing is believing" (It was nice having a free evening to sit on my ass and not do anything considering I never get to, thank you spring break!) Anyway, I liked how Jennings worded it, and I agree with this. I believe in UFO's I just don't know who is behind the wheel.

[ieva]

Two Words: Circular Logic

[Overlord]

I'd like you to go ask a priest if he believes in life on other planets, then ask him why not . I'm sure he'd say something along the lines of this is the only planet god chose yadda yadda blah blah.

[CrystalTears]

I've never heard of a priest not believing in life on other planets. The ones I know believe that life is everywhere, if not just here. God is everywhere, ya know. :P

[StrayRogue]

Religious people are stupid.

[ieva]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
I've never heard of a priest not believing in life on other planets. The ones I know believe that life is everywhere, if not just here. God is everywhere, ya know. :P

I went to Catholic school for a few years, where we heavily studied the bible, and went to a christian summer camp one year - In my experience with religion, Life on other planets in impossible because it does not flow with the bible. God created man. He animals for man. 2 of every creature was placed on Noah's arc - I've never heard of any martians on the arc - so it goes to follow.

*Le Sigh* Religion is teh suxxor when taken too seriously.

Speaking about Religion, anyone read "The Da Vinci Code" and "Angels & Demons"? Those books had some interesting ideas.

Edited: to became too.
Edited: on became one.

[Edited on 2-25-2005 by ieva]

[Edited on 2-25-2005 by ieva]

[Overlord]

I'm inclined to believe not all follow the train of thought I suggested, I've just experienced conversations with a view that would say otherwise.

Hell when I was in jail in California I met this guy that put forth this outrageous theory that Jesus was created by us from the future. He began to explain it with various "ideas".

We have the technology to artificially inseminate women, which would easily justify why she Jesus has no legitimate father. (he also said our technology may explain the various "Miracles" he performed, as told in the bible) This was one of his main points but then went on lecturing me about "How would we look if we evolved over the next few million years in space". He claims that we would look more or less how many people depict aliens these days. Gray or light toned skin, large oval eyes, long dexterous fingers and a frail body. Sure enough living in a UV sheltered environment would alter our skin and to a lesser degree our eyes...... but saying we have extended fingers because we push buttons all day??? and the frail bodies due to the lack of need for muscles in a zero gravity environment.

Yes crazy people DO reside in correctional facilities....

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by ieva
Speaking about Religion, anyone read "The Da Vinci Code" and "Angels & Demons"? Those books had some interesting ideas.



Read them both.. and I never read.

[Overlord]

Originally posted by ieva

Speaking about Religion, anyone read "The Da Vinci Code" and "Angels & Demons"? Those books had some interesting ideas.


The Da Vinci Code was a great book, Jesus getting it on with Mary Magdalene and "The Holy Grail" being the children they had together. There being a translation that I forget San' greal I think meaning "Royal Blood". Great book and reccomend it to anyone whos willing to read it.

[CrystalTears]

My grandfather has contemplated the fact that Jesus could be an alien. He's very religious, but for an 80-year-old man, very modern in his thinking and beliefs. He's always willing to find other possibilities, rather than thinking that one answer is the absolute one for things that can't be explained.

I also tend to know quite a few radical religious people since my family is full of nuts and have had the occasion ghost/spirit haunt my family for years. Yeah we're special. :D

[Overlord]

:nutty::nutty::nutty::nutty::nutty::nutty::nutty:: nutty:

:devilsmile::devilsmile::devilsmile:

[ieva]

If I had actually slept last night and was feeling energetic this morning - I would write a huge response to that about Russians.

But, I didn't sleep last night and I'm not energetic so I guess you'll just have to miss out.

That is all.

[Overlord]

Ok whos talking about Russians now?

[Latrinsorm]

The Da Vinci code had too many inaccuracies for me. Please note: I'm referring to actual facts the author cited, not the author's theories on religion (which I would describe as supremely revisionist, as opposed to inaccurate).

Parkbandit, please look up "ontological argument". :) An infinite being by its very nature does not require tangible proof. Aliens are by definition finite, otherwise we would be part of them and they couldn't be alien. Therefore, it is not entirely unjustifiable to ask for tangible proof of aliens.

I don't feel like there is no other sentient life in the universe, but I don't feel like the Drake equation is wrong either, and the two are a bit at odds. I'd say there probably are extrasolar sentient lifeforms, but I'm much more worried about the ones right here on Earth.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
The Da Vinci code had too many inaccuracies for me. Please note: I'm referring to actual facts the author cited, not the author's theories on religion (which I would describe as supremely revisionist, as opposed to inaccurate).

Parkbandit, please look up "ontological argument". :) An infinite being by its very nature does not require tangible proof. Aliens are by definition finite, otherwise we would be part of them and they couldn't be alien. Therefore, it is not entirely unjustifiable to ask for tangible proof of aliens.

I don't feel like there is no other sentient life in the universe, but I don't feel like the Drake equation is wrong either, and the two are a bit at odds. I'd say there probably are extrasolar sentient lifeforms, but I'm much more worried about the ones right here on Earth.

So.. lemme get this correct:

You believe that there is some supreme alien of some sort that looks over every human being on this planet simultaneously.. makes decisions about life and death constantly.. shows obvious favoritism towards some and tortures others.. listens to people's prayers and sometimes grants them.. believes that every human should be perfect all the time, but if you are not all you have to do is confess and all is forgiven.....

Is that essentially right?

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
You believe that there is some supreme alien of some sort that looks over every human being on this planet simultaneously..Not alien.
he is within all of usWithin, without, with.
makes decisions about life and death constantly..The problem with constantly to me is it implies that God exists through a linear progression of time like we do. I don't think that's accurate.
shows obvious favoritism towards some and tortures others..Only if you make a division between what experiences are good and bad.
listens to people's prayers and sometimes grants them..I believe God always gives us what we need. I don't believe we always pray for what we need.
believes that every human should be perfect all the time, but if you are not all you have to do is confess and all is forgiven.....Flat out wrong.
Is that essentially right? You'd get an F if it was a scholastic test, but you got some parts right. :)

[CrystalTears]

I'm going to be a traitor to my own faith here when I say this, but as much as I believe in God, I don't believe He grants or gives me anything. I'll go as far as to say that I have life because of Him (thought my parents, of course).

To say that there's a being out there who listens to me and gives me what I want just doesn't jive with me. It doesn't make sense. Having faith in something to give you the power to motivate and empower yourself to achieve your goals is one thing. Another is to actually believe that he will give it to you. But that's just me.

[Parkbandit]

Ok:

God is an alien since he/she/it is not from this planet.

And you can't determine between what is good and bad that happens?? Religious double talk alert!!!

[DeV]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
I'm going to be a traitor to my own faith here when I say this, but as much as I believe in God, I don't believe He grants or gives me anything. I'll go as far as to say that I have life because of Him (thought my parents, of course).

To say that there's a being out there who listens to me and gives me what I want just doesn't jive with me. It doesn't make sense. Having faith in something to give you the power to motivate and empower yourself to achieve your goals is one thing. Another is to actually believe that he will give it to you. But that's just me. I agree... I also believe there is life elsewhere in this universe. The extent to which it exists is something we may or may not ever know, but hopefully we aren't the only ones. To completely dismiss that there may be other life forms but to believe wholeheartedly in God whom we have never seen seems a bit ridiculous.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Parkbandit, please look up "ontological argument". :) An infinite being by its very nature does not require tangible proof.

That's very convenient, don't you think? The religious believer gets to decide that there is unquestionably a God. And then he also gets to decide that there is a type of argument to prove there is a God that doesn't actually require any tangible proof. And using the type of argument that he invents, he thereby 'proves' the existence of a God that he invents.

Raven

[CrystalTears]

Um.. yeah. Like I'm going to take ontological arguments seriously after reading this.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/


Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world — e.g., from reason alone. In other words, ontological arguments are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists.

The first, and best-known, ontological argument was proposed by St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th. century A.D. In his Proslogion, St. Anselm claims to derive the existence of God from the concept of a being than which no greater can be conceived. St. Anselm reasoned that, if such a being fails to exist, then a greater being — namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists — can be conceived. But this would be absurd: nothing can be greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. So a being than which no greater can be conceived — i.e., God — exists.

So basically... there is no proof but you're making up proof from these arguments? And then say that aliens can't exist but God can? :wtf:

[Parkbandit]

In his defense.. I think he believes that there is a chance for life outside this small planet. Heck.. did anyone see where a few scientists believe that there is/was some form of life on mars due to the large amounts of methane gas on the planet?

And I was thinking.. don't we bring germs/bacteria/single celled organisms with our spacecrafts as they explore the solar system? Are we not in fact 'seeding' planets? Who says that the bacteria that may exist on Mars isn't from some ship we sent years ago?

[xtc]

The Da Vinci code is a fictional book. He may get close on a few points, but far too many people take this book seriously.

If you want to read an interesting book about Christ I suggest "The Pagan Christ" by Tom Harpur. However it is probably not for the evangelical types, but ok for open minded people.

http://www.tomharpur.com/


Aliens who knows maybe? It is a big universe and to quote a line from a movie "if it is just us, it is an awfully big waste of space".

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
God is an alien since he/she/it is not from this planet.I don't really get this. Was Washington an alien in America?
And you can't determine between what is good and bad that happens?? Religious double talk alert!!! I know what I feel defines good, bad, pleasant, etc. I know I have been wrong many, many, many times in the past. I try my best not to be arrogant (honest!!) so I would not presume to say what I find unpleasant is necessarily "wrong".
Originally posted by Ravenstorm
That's very convenient, don't you think?I think Raven likes Hume. :/
The religious believer gets to decide that there is unquestionably a God.Did God make man or did man make God, eh?
And then he also gets to decide that there is a type of argument to prove there is a God that doesn't actually require any tangible proof.Please feel free to refute the argument.
Originally posted by CrystalTears
So basically... there is no proof but you're making up proof from these arguments?A priori truths are true by definition (not "made up"). An a priori truth is triangles have three sides.

There is no question of belief when it comes to extraterrestrial life. It exists. However, there is something science is missing when it comes to non-us sentient life. When I/you look at the Drake Equation, it seems to make sense, and yet we have undeniably not been contacted by any other civilizations. There is a gap between theory and reality.

[Parkbandit]

Personally, I believe Man made God as they needed a reason for things they did not know. God makes it all nice and comfortable. Much like the Romans didn't know why the sun moved across the sky or why there were seasons.. they created Gods to explain that which they did not know.

Today, we think it's foolish to think Apollo is really riding a chariot of fire across the sky... yet we believe that there is an almighty that is overlooking everything we say and do. I find that equally foolish.

[Latrinsorm]

I notice you seem to be ignoring the ontological argument, PB. Why?

[CrystalTears]

Maybe cause it doesn't make any sense and perhaps you can explain it?

[Warriorbird]

Latrin's first reply gets much cooler if you substitute "The Force" for God.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
I notice you seem to be ignoring the ontological argument, PB. Why?


Originally posted by CrystalTears
Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world — e.g., from reason alone. In other words, ontological arguments are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
I notice you seem to be ignoring the ontological argument, PB. Why? Because whatever conclusion you want can be derived no matter what you, the individual believe. It can be argued for or against using the ontological argument.

If it is possible for God (the greatest possible being) to exist, then he exists.
If it is possible for God to not exist, then he doesn’t exist.

[Warriorbird]

No mystic energy field controls my destiny!

[Latrinsorm]

Here's my version of the ontological argument:

1. Man has a concept of infinity.
2. Infinity can not be created through finite means.
3. Man is finite.
4. Man cannot create infinity.
5. Something infinite must exist that gave us the concept of infinity.

I don't really know how one can use an ontological argument to prove that there is no God.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
1. Man has a concept of infinity.
2. Infinity can not be created through finite means.
3. Man is finite.
4. Man cannot create infinity.
5. Something infinite must exist that gave us the concept of infinity.

You do realize that numbers 2-4 are all basically opinions. You don't know whether man is finite or not nor can you know whether the infinite can be created by the finite or that man can't do it. It's unproven conjecture assumed to be fact.

Which makes the conclusion based on nothing solid.

Raven

[Latrinsorm]

If 2 and 3 are true, 4 must be true. 2 and 3 are both a priori truths. I don't think I've ever read/heard anything that suggests man is anything but finite, and infinity is that which is beyond all measurement. I don't understand how either can be described as "opinion". What else does infinity mean? What philosophy suggests that man is boundless?

[Ravenstorm]

I can't prove whether man is infinite or not. If he was, that would put him on par with God though wouldn't it? Hence, by definition of those who want an all powerful God to exist, man must be finite. Nor has it been, nor can it be proven that any concept is beyond the grasp of humanity as a whole.

The argument is based on assumptions that have at its core that God exists and that humans are lesser than God so therefore, anything that the debater declares 'beyond man's grasp' (whether it is or not) must, by definition, come from God.

And I'm just not buying it any more than I buy Intelligent Design aka Creation Science aka Genesis. If you have faith, fine. Just call it faith and leave it at that :)

Raven

[Edited on 2-26-2005 by Ravenstorm]

[Latrinsorm]

My argument is actually based on the idea that ideas aren't beyond the grasp of man. I don't know what exactly suggested otherwise to you.
I can't prove whether man is infinite or not.Sure you can. There are novel ideas that you have not created, and yet you experience them, yes? People you've never seen, music you've never heard, food you've never tasted? Unless you're subscribing to the idea that the lines drawn by "I" and "you" are artificial, I don't understand how you can suggest man is anything but finite.
If he was, that would put him on par with God though wouldn't it?I do believe it would.

Here are my assumptions:

1. Man has a concept of infinity.
2. Infinity can not be created through finite means.
3. Man is finite.

I don't see any mention of God. I haven't seen any convincing arguments that suggest that any of these are bad assumptions.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Sure you can. There are novel ideas that you have not created, and yet you experience them, yes? People you've never seen, music you've never heard, food you've never tasted? Unless you're subscribing to the idea that the lines drawn by "I" and "you" are artificial, I don't understand how you can suggest man is anything but finite.

I refer to man as the race. Not a man but humanity. The nuts and bolts of quantum physics is beyond me. Does that mean God exists? It is quite in the grasp of at least one person however and in fact more than one. Who is to say that the concept of infinity is beyond the grasp of at least one human at some point in history? You are making the assumption that it is.

Raven

[Artha]

Humanity is finite.

[Ravenstorm]

I am not prepared to state as a fact that humanity's potential is finite. Nor his imagination.

Raven

[DeV]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
My argument is actually based on the idea that ideas aren't beyond the grasp of man. Such as the ideas that God may or may not exist aren't beyond the grasp of man.

I completely understand.

[Warriorbird]

It's a simple corollary, Latrin. Sorry if it's beyond you. And how can you be sure infinity can not be created by finite means? Them language toxins are getting to you.

[Edited on 2-26-2005 by Warriorbird]

[HarmNone]

Latrinsorm, you cannot convince those adults who don't believe in an almighty being to do so. We've all looked into the subject, its pros and cons, its consistencies and inconsistencies, and we've taken a stance that suits our beliefs, our needs, our intellectual evaluations, and our personalities.

While I respect your views, I consider them YOUR views. I do not consider them MY views. That, you will find, is true of most adults with whom you broach this subject. Be happy that you have found something that helps you to live life to the fullest. Leave others to find their own way. While it may not be YOUR way, give them the right, without judgement, to find their own way.

Faith is not a matter for debate. It is a matter for commitment. It is also individual, and individuality is not a bad thing.

[Edited on 2-26-2005 by HarmNone]

[Back]

That may be true, Harm, but the number of those of faith outweigh those not of. And they constantly INSIST on pushing it on the rest of us.

There is no hell other than from your own making. And while I am on the fence about if Armeggedon is the precursor to the next evolutionary step of mankind, there is a world of people out there who will make it happen because they believe it will happen.

In my opinion, life in other parts of this universe is a given. You are ignorant if you think otherwise.

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Backlash
That may be true, Harm, but the number of those of faith outweigh those not of. And they constantly INSIST on pushing it on the rest of us.

There is no hell other than from your own making. And while I am on the fence about if Armeggedon is the precursor to the next evolutionary step of mankind, there is a world of people out there who will make it happen because they believe it will happen.

In my opinion, life in other parts of this universe is a given. You are ignorant if you think otherwise.

I think your first sentence, Backlash, says a great deal. I'm a Pagan. Many people automatically assume that I fit the more widely recognized mold set by the Neo-Pagans. Such an assumption could not be more off-base. I'll make an effort to explain what I believe, if asked; however, I will not endeavor to push my beliefs on others. They serve me well, but that does not mean they will work in that same way for others. Each must make the decision that is right for him/her.

We cannot make decisions for others, nor can we decide, arbitrarily, that the decision they have made for themselves is wrong. To do so will only engender animosity and resentment.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
Who is to say that the concept of infinity is beyond the grasp of at least one human at some point in history? You are making the assumption that it is. My first assumption:

1. Man has a concept of infinity.
The nuts and bolts of quantum physics is beyond me. Does that mean God exists?No, but I don't really see how that's relevant.
Originally posted by Backlash
And they constantly INSIST on pushing it on the rest of us.I am, after all, the first person to bring up any mention of God in this thread.

Oh wait, no I'm not.
Originally posted by Warriorbird
It's a simple corollary, Latrin. Sorry if it's beyond you.Please clarify what you mean by "it".
And how can you be sure infinity can not be created by finite means?No matter how big something is, it could always be bigger. No matter how long something lasts, it could always have lasted longer. The only way to avoid this is to not have a beginning (i.e. be infinite).
Originally posted by Harmnone
Latrinsorm, you cannot convince those adults who don't believe in an almighty being to do so.We'll see about that. :devil:
Be happy that you have found something that helps you to live life to the fullest. Leave others to find their own way.That sounds horribly selfish, and I struggle to be the opposite.
Faith is not a matter for debate.Logic is.
We cannot make decisions for others, nor can we decide, arbitrarily, that the decision they have made for themselves is wrong. You can call my argument arbitrary, or you can point out which assumptions are faulty and/or find errors in the logic. :)
While it may not be YOUR way, give them the right, without judgement, to find their own way.Yep, I'm the one saying people who believe differently are stupid. Oh jk, that was this guy.
Originally posted by Strayrogue
Religious people are stupid.

[StrayRogue]

People are free to believe in whatever they wish, regardless of how stupid I or anyone else think it is. However, where I draw the line is when those people force their retarded views on others, something Religion has been doing forever. Theres one major religion that readily springs to mind that DOESN'T do this on a regular basis.

[Latrinsorm]

Judaism?

[HarmNone]

Latrinsorm, man has a concept of mothra....I'll leave it to you to decide exactly what that might mean.

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Judaism?

HAHAHA you have to be joking right?

[Latrinsorm]

Strayrogue: no. I had a Jewish roommate, and he never said anything about his Jewishosity (beyond the part where he said he was Jewish, obviously). Also, they don't seem to have the loudmouth nutjobs Christianity churns out.

Harmnone: I'm guessing Godzilla has nothing to do with this. :?:

[StrayRogue]

I agree. Christianity is probably the most insidious of the major religions.

[HarmNone]

Per your post:
1. Man has a concept of infinity.
2. Infinity can not be created through finite means.
3. Man is finite.
4. Man cannot create infinity.
5. Something infinite must exist that gave us the concept of infinity.

Now...

1. Man has a concept of Mothra
2. Mothra cannot be created through finite means.
3. Man is finite.
4. Man cannot create Mothra.
5. Mothra must exist to give man the concept of Mothra.

Man has the capability to create, within the imagination, all sorts of wonderful, or terrible, things. The mere imagination of such things does not mean those things are actuality, or that the dream of such things even comes from anything actual.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by HarmNone
2. Mothra cannot be created through finite means.All I could find about Mothra were Godzilla-esque references, one geocities site, and one amateur porn site (I swear). As such, I'm assuming you're using the Godzilla reference, and therefore Mothra can be created through finite means. If, instead, you are using Mothra as a term for some sort of infinite being, then you have made a valid substitution. I don't really understand the purpose, as I've never said God (or Yahweh, or Allah, or Jesus) is the only name for the infinite being.
Man has the capability to create, within the imagination, all sorts of wonderful, or terrible, things. The mere imagination of such things does not mean those things are actuality, or that the dream of such things even comes from anything actual. Naturally. Here's the thing:
all sorts of wonderful, or terrible, things.I disagree that infinity is one of those things, because infinity cannot be created through finite (human) means. If you believe imagination is infinite, then that would be a valid criticism of my argument. However, I would request a demonstration of its infinitude, if you don't mind. :)

[Meril]

I imagine a mathematician would answer that infinity is a finite concept. What is an infinite list? It is a list that, for every object in it, there is another object that follows. Everything can be defined and treated in a finite manner. (What is an infinite continuum? It is the collection of ways to associate each object in the aforesaid infinite list with one of the objects in a finite set.) We really only need finitely many principles to deal with infinity. It is like a keyboard being able to type infinitely many types of paragraphs despite only having finitely many keys.

[HarmNone]

I didn't think we were discussing infinity, Latrinsorm. I thought we were discussing what you call God. You used the ontological argument to prove the existence of God. I simply refuted that argument. It is circular reasoning at its finest.

I rarely argue religion because I believe it to be a matter of individual choice. I don't intend to change that here or now. However, I will refute circular reasoning whenever I see it. It's a fault of mine. ;)

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
I disagree that infinity is one of those things, because infinity cannot be created through finite (human) means. If you believe imagination is infinite, then that would be a valid criticism of my argument. However, I would request a demonstration of its infinitude, if you don't mind. :)

You believe that infinity can not be created or conceived of originally by humans. Please prove your basic assumption. You can't, correct? You have faith that humans are limited in that capacity.

That entire argument is based on an unproven assumption that you have faith in. You have faith God exists because you believe humans are limited in a certain way that makes them unable to meet a criteria that you arbitrarily set that you claim proves God's existence.

You seem unable to accept that it's an arbitrary and unproven assumption in the same way that you seem unable to accept that God doesn't exist. Because you have faith. That's what all religious arguments come down to. One person has faith and one does not and never the twain shall meet.

Raven

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by StrayRogue

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Judaism?

HAHAHA you have to be joking right?

When is the last time a Jewish missionary knocked on your door? When was the last time you saw a Jewish evangelist?

Jews don't recruit and keep to themselves, largely in their own communities.

Per the circular argument about the existence of god.

Words and scratches on paper do not validate the existence of a being. Once could concoct an argument that anal dwelling monkeys are circling around in our system in a terminal orbit for earth using the very same arguments used to "validate" god's existence. Would that in fact validate the existence of anal dwelling monkeys in space? Probably not for any sane person.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
You believe that infinity can not be created or conceived of originally by humans. Please prove your basic assumption.It isn't an assumption, it's a conclusion. Humans = finite, finite = not capable of creatining infinite, therefore humans = not capable of creating infinite. Show me how humans are infinite, or how finite means can reach infinite ends, and the argument will not be sound.
Originally posted by Harmnone
I didn't think we were discussing infinity, Latrinsorm.An excerpt from my first post.
Parkbandit, please look up "ontological argument". An infinite being by its very nature does not require tangible proof.Then I was asked about my beliefs. Then I was asked for my version/explanation of the ontological argument, in which I made no mention of God. All I said was infinite. Once we get that out of the way, then we can give it a name. No need to put the cart before the horse, and all that.

As for my argument's validity, I'd love to know which of my conclusions are the same as my premises. Here's the breakdown again:

Premises/assumptions
1. Man has a concept of infinity.
2. Infinity can not be created through finite means.
3. Man is finite.

Conclusions
4. Man cannot create infinity.
5. Something infinite must exist that gave us the concept of infinity.

2 and 5 appear very similar, I'll grant, but hardly the same. 2 merely states a definition, whereas 5 makes a statement about the world.
Originally posted by Tsa`ah
Once could concoct an argument that anal dwelling monkeys are circling around in our system in a terminal orbit for earth using the very same arguments used to "validate" god's existence. One could, but one would have a faulty premise number 2, and one would therefore not have a sound argument. :)
Originally posted by Meril
It is like a keyboard being able to type infinitely many types of paragraphs despite only having finitely many keys.An excellent example. However, the only way to actually type an infinite amount of paragraphs is to either type at infinite speed or have an infinite amount of time to type.

I like math. Here's partly where I get my 2nd premise from:

If anyone can solve this given that a, n, and f(x) are finite, I will be proven wrong. (Yes, that's supposed to be an infinity symbol on the right side.)

[HarmNone]

If you were not referring to God, as you see him to be, when you mentioned an "infinite being", then I mistook your meaning. That does not negate the fact that you are using circular reasoning to try to prove a point. That won't fly with me. Sorry.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Strayrogue: no. I had a Jewish roommate, and he never said anything about his Jewishosity (beyond the part where he said he was Jewish, obviously). Also, they don't seem to have the loudmouth nutjobs Christianity churns out.

Harmnone: I'm guessing Godzilla has nothing to do with this. :?:

Every religion has loud mouth nut jobs and in my opinion most religions seem to have some fucked up beliefs, Judaism included. However it doesn't seem to have an evangelical component, from my limited knowledge it seems to be a exclusive as opposed to inclusive religion.


Arguing whether there is a God or not is a waste of time, neither side can prove their opinion.

[StrayRogue]

Good post xtc.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
You believe that infinity can not be created or conceived of originally by humans. Please prove your basic assumption.It isn't an assumption, it's a conclusion. Humans = finite, finite = not capable of creatining infinite, therefore humans = not capable of creating infinite. Show me how humans are infinite, or how finite means can reach infinite ends, and the argument will not be sound.

We're not talking about physically creating something. We're talking about envisaging or defining a concept. You have not proved that humanity or specific portions thereof can not wrap its mind about a concept of infinity on its own. You are assuming it can not and taking that as a foundation to prove the existence of a deity. I don't know how to make my point more clear.

Raven

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
We're not talking about physically creating something.I am. :)
You have not proved that humanity or specific portions thereof can not wrap its mind about a concept of infinity on its own.Once again, it is the foundation of my argument that they can.

For Harmnone:

1. Man has a concept of infinity. != 4. Man cannot create infinity.
1. Man has a concept of infinity. != 5. Something infinite must exist that gave us the concept of infinity.
2. Infinity can not be created through finite means. != 4. Man cannot create infinity.
2. Infinity can not be created through finite means. != 5. Something infinite must exist that gave us the concept of infinity.
3. Man is finite. != 4. Man cannot create infinity.
3. Man is finite. != 5. Something infinite must exist that gave us the concept of infinity.

You can say circular reasoning as often as you like. When you show that any of my premises are the same statement as any of my conclusions, you will have a valid criticism. I can just as easily say that you're making the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, but it doesn't mean you're doing anything of the sort.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
We're not talking about physically creating something.I am. :)

Infinity is a concept. An idea. An attribute. It does not exist as a physical thing.

If you're using it as a synonym for the universe, you're correct: humans didn't create the universe. That doesn't mean a deity exists except, perhaps, to those who already believe in one.

Raven

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
Infinity is a concept. An idea. An attribute.Ok. Where do concepts come from? I suggest we can divide them into two categories: created by the self and derived from things existing outside of the self. If the self is finite, the self cannot have created the concept of infinity. Therefore, the concept is derived from something existing outside of the self. That something cannot be finite without failing in the same regard as the self. Therefore, it is infinite.
It does not exist as a physical thing.A bold statement. If you do not believe infinity exists outside of the self, where does the concept of infinity come from? Are you suggesting that the finite can in fact create the infinite? Are you suggesting that the imagination is infinite?

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
If the self is finite, the self cannot have created the concept of infinity.

You keep repeating this and I keep stating that you are making an assumption. You can not prove it. You wish to believe it correct. That's fine. I do not.

And since it is the basis of your ontological argument, I consider it unsound and nothing more than faulty reasoning designed to prove a conclusion that the debater wants to be true. 'I believe in God therefore God must exist otherwise I would have no concept of God.' That doesn't work for me. If you can prove your initial premise then maybe it's worth continuing the debate.

Raven

[HarmNone]

Nothing could make this debate worth continuing, in my opinion, Raven. Latrinsorm does not wish to understand that he is free to believe as he likes, and the rest of us deserve that same privilege. He is determined to proselytize, even where it isn't particularly welcome. :yawn:

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
You keep repeating this and I keep stating that you are making an assumption.Again, it's a conclusion, not an assumption. It is derived from two other assumptions. Also, the point of assumptions is that you can't prove them. That's why they are assumptions.

A thought exercise: imagine that you write a computer program that adds 1 to a variable every nanosecond. How long would it take for the variable to reach infinity?

If you would like a proof of my assumption, how about this. A finite being comes into existence at a specific point in time. This finite being has a finite amount of time that it will exist. This finite being has a finite size. This finite being is very much like you or me. This finite being goes about attempting to create infinity. It cannot create at infinite speed, so let's say it creates at 20 million units per second. It does not exist for an infinite amount of seconds, so let's say it exists for 20 million seconds. Has it reached infinity? Obviously, the answer is no. There are no two constants one can multiply and reach infinity. Throw in nasty things like entropy and the problem gets even worse.

Harmnone: Where did I state that what I'm saying is what anyone should believe? Let me save you some time: nowhere. What kind of prick would I be if I kept everything I've learned to myself? The point isn't that I'm always right, the point is to share information.

Do I have an evil twin or something? Are there some other Latrinsorm posts that some of you read and I can't see?

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Originally posted by Tsa`ah
Once could concoct an argument that anal dwelling monkeys are circling around in our system in a terminal orbit for earth using the very same arguments used to "validate" god's existence. One could, but one would have a faulty premise number 2, and one would therefore not have a sound argument.

Really?


2. Infinity can not be created through finite means.

No one said the anal dwelling monkeys were finite. In fact, the anal dwelling monkeys created god, who is infinite by your argument. Therefore the anal dwelling monkeys > infinite.

[Edited on 2-27-2005 by Tsa`ah]

[Latrinsorm]

If you call the infinite being "anal dwelling monkeys" I might look at you sideways. :) I'm guessing it was a slip of the tongue/fingers to say that anything was greater than infinity.

[Tsa`ah]

No, I'm saying god was created by the anal dwelling monkeys. This you can't disprove or prove through any argument.

[Latrinsorm]

Uh, ok. So, you're agreeing with me? :?:

[Tsa`ah]

Not in anyway.

You can no more disprove my argument than you can prove yours.

[HarmNone]

It's simple, Latrinsorm. You've yet to prove your premise to several of us. If you continue to use the same means in an effort to do so, you will continue to fail. :banghead:

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
You can no more disprove my argument than you can prove yours. I don't see how they are at all relevant to each other. I'm talking about whether or not the infinite exists, you're talking about how it was created. I guess my question is: what does what you're saying have to do with what I'm saying?

Harmnone: which of my suggested proofs have been unsatisfactory, and why? Do you disagree that man is finite? Do you disagree that the infinite cannot be created by the finite? Do you disagree that man has a concept of infinity? I looked back, and couldn't find anything specific you mentioned.

[HarmNone]

I find debating with you comparable to teaching a rock to talk. I get tired, and the rock says nary a word.

[Back]

Its extremism.

BTW, I did not watch the ABC thing on UFOs last Thursday, but I heard it was basically a debunking feature. They claim Roswell as a myth.

Everyone fucking knows they have made contact.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
I don't see how they are at all relevant to each other. I'm talking about whether or not the infinite exists, you're talking about how it was created. I guess my question is: what does what you're saying have to do with what I'm saying?

You propose that an ontological argument is sufficient proof that god exists. I, using the same argument, propose that anal dwelling monkeys created god. These very same anal dwelling monkeys are in a terminal earth orbit. Since you can't disprove my theory using your ontological argument, and knowing that anal dwelling monkeys do not really exist ... you can't prove god exists.

It is much better to say "I have faith" than to say "this proves" and leave it at that.

The finite and the infinite are merely terms thrown in to intellectualize an unsubstantiated hypothesis.

[Warriorbird]

"Aww, look at him... such a cute little god! He's sleeping"

-JTHM

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
Since you can't disprove my theory using your ontological argument, and knowing that anal dwelling monkeys do not really exist ... you can't prove god exists.I never claimed that my ontological argument could disprove anything. However, your argument doesn't make any sense. You talk about something greater than that compared to which nothing is greater, then you say this super-infinity is orbiting earth.
The finite and the infinite are merely terms ....

I'm sorry, should I be drawing pictures? Of course they're just terms. That's how people communicate ideas. If you disagree with me about their definitions... what am I saying, if?

[Warriorbird]

Language is a virus. You have a bad case.

I guess my main problem with the notion of the Islamic/Judeo/Christian god is how bloody new it is and how bloody plagarized. You believe in a holy book with a direct copy of the "Great Prayer to the Aten" in it. I certainly respect some of the tenets of the faith as a means of social control and respect that people believe it, but faith based arguments get you nowhere with people who don't have the same faith. The translations dilute the Bible so much it is absolutely ridiculous. You can't even really claim that you have the same faith as a Druse, for example.

Go read Malinowski on magic or something.