The Nuggin Logic Thread
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#368 Oct 1, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
You just linked to a post calling out liars even though you're a liar. Is that supposed to be a good idea?

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#369 Oct 1, 2012
Wow, this discussion is still going on. Amazing.

Both sides are really arguing a philosophical position, really --

Without a clear definition of the properties for an entity which could rightly be labeled a deity, can any definitive statement of possible existence be made?

One argument is that, without such definition, it is impossible to rule existence out.

The other argument is that, without such definition, any claim of potential existence is impossible.

BOTH arguments are right. AND BOTH arguments are wrong.

The non-cognitive position is that the question of existence is meaningless without a cogent definition of the properties of the entity you are discussing.

HOWEVER -- Once a "cogent set of properties for an entity which could rightly be labeled a deity" has been defined, then a determination of the possibility of existence can be made.

In other words, the term "god" is, by itself, meaningless. Which "god" being considered must be defined before the existence question is even meaningful.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#370 Oct 1, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
So if one says something is impossible they are a fundie? Using theology? Scientists NEVER say something is impossible? Ooookkkkaaaaayyyyy
Scientists say time travel impossible
http://news.discovery.com/space/time-travel-i...
Scientists say Perpetual motion Impossible
http://www.wisegeek.com/why-is-perpetual-moti...
Scientists say Vampires impossible
http://www.livescience.com/4257-vampires-math...
Scientists say Psychics are impossible
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/inde...
Top 11 movie and Tv Cliches that are sccientifically impossible
http://www.businessinsider.com/11-tv-and-movi...
Several statements in the Koran scientifically impossible
http://www.quora.com/What-scientifically-prov...
It's impossible for a circle to be a square.
It's impossible to count to infinity
I could go on and on but no need to spike the football.
PWNED
First of all, which of these links are valid scientific sites?

Second, which of these are falsifiable concepts and which aren't?

Third, if God is falsifiable then why bother bringing up all these other examples? Why not just describe the scientific test you performed that falsified it?

Don't worry, Skip has avoided that one for eight months too.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#371 Oct 1, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>NOt entirely true. Davies surmises that, GIVEN OUR CURRENT UNDERSTANDING of the nature of time and physics, time travel into the past simply isn't possible. But the universe is full of mysteries, and one of them -- the hypothetical wormhole -- might just permit such a journey.
http://news.discovery.com/space/is-time-trave...
If people listened everytime a jackass said that something was impossible nothing would ever be accomplished.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0106028.pdf
EXACTLY what I pointed out about Skippy's approach. He said if there's no evidence then it's impossible. Meaning all these are impossible - bacteria, the African wildebeest, aliens, the multiverse - and God. Cuz Skippy sez so.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#372 Oct 1, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
Lmfao
Oh well I have shown several examples of SCIENTISTS saying various propositions are impossible. My point is made.
Game over.
Except for the fact that Lil' Ticked pointed to a linky where other scientists disagreed. Don't tell me after all this time you've been posting on science threads you are surprised by this?

No G, the game's not over.

How long do you wanna cover for Skip's dishonesty?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#373 Oct 1, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
<quoted text>
First you would have to prove I could not calculate this without a computer. How could you possibly know such a thing? Good luck with that, Keep dancing puppet.
So again why is it you as a so called non believer spend so much time defending God and attacking other non believers but all the while giving believers for the most part a pass?
Are we to believe that someone using the impossible word upsets you that much? Even though I gave several examples of scientists doing just that and you yourself said some things are impossible contradicting yourself! Lmfao!
If you are aware of our posting history you would know that we have NEVER given fundies a free pass.

That's why Skippy has not been given a free pass.

So how long do you wanna cover for his dishonesty?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#374 Oct 1, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
Wow, this discussion is still going on. Amazing.
Both sides are really arguing a philosophical position, really --
Without a clear definition of the properties for an entity which could rightly be labeled a deity, can any definitive statement of possible existence be made?
One argument is that, without such definition, it is impossible to rule existence out.
The other argument is that, without such definition, any claim of potential existence is impossible.
BOTH arguments are right. AND BOTH arguments are wrong.
I disagree. Without scientific falsification, the potential for existence cannot be ruled out a priori.**That's** the philosophical position, which has been taken by Skips, and now GML.
Hedonist wrote:
The non-cognitive position is that the question of existence is meaningless without a cogent definition of the properties of the entity you are discussing.
HOWEVER -- Once a "cogent set of properties for an entity which could rightly be labeled a deity" has been defined, then a determination of the possibility of existence can be made.
In other words, the term "god" is, by itself, meaningless. Which "god" being considered must be defined before the existence question is even meaningful.
I agree. Until we have a coherent scientific definition it can be dismissed as a philosophical argument and/or baseless claim not currently supported by scientific evidence. In which case it goes into the non-falsifiable box, NOT the falsified box. These guys have just been throwing it into the wrong box.(shrug)

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#375 Oct 1, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree. Without scientific falsification, the potential for existence cannot be ruled out a priori.**That's** the philosophical position, which has been taken by Skips, and now GML.
<quoted text>
I agree. Until we have a coherent scientific definition it can be dismissed as a philosophical argument and/or baseless claim not currently supported by scientific evidence. In which case it goes into the non-falsifiable box, NOT the falsified box. These guys have just been throwing it into the wrong box.(shrug)
When you say "without scientific falsification", it begs the question -- OF WHAT?

Without being able to define what you are even talking about, the potential for existence cannot be ruled IN a priori either.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#376 Oct 1, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
...
I agree. Until we have a coherent scientific definition it can be dismissed as a philosophical argument and/or baseless claim not currently supported by scientific evidence. In which case it goes into the non-falsifiable box, NOT the falsified box. These guys have just been throwing it into the wrong box.(shrug)
There is no "IT" to throw into either box.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#377 Oct 1, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
Oh and Nuggin you should really switch your wording up a little when you use your sock puppet screen name ok?
Just trying to help you out.
I don't really need that advice since I don't sock puppet. I leave that to the religious fanatics such as yourself.

Why am I not surprised that you have advice on how best to sock puppet?

Pathetic.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#378 Oct 1, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
Wow, this discussion is still going on. Amazing.
Both sides are really arguing a philosophical position, really --
Without a clear definition of the properties for an entity which could rightly be labeled a deity, can any definitive statement of possible existence be made?
One argument is that, without such definition, it is impossible to rule existence out.
The other argument is that, without such definition, any claim of potential existence is impossible.
BOTH arguments are right. AND BOTH arguments are wrong.
The non-cognitive position is that the question of existence is meaningless without a cogent definition of the properties of the entity you are discussing.
HOWEVER -- Once a "cogent set of properties for an entity which could rightly be labeled a deity" has been defined, then a determination of the possibility of existence can be made.
In other words, the term "god" is, by itself, meaningless. Which "god" being considered must be defined before the existence question is even meaningful.
You don't even understand the debate. You never did. Apparently you never will.

I will lay this out for you one more time. If you don't grasp it this time, please stop trying to contribute.

One side: Skippy et al, are arguing that we currently have ALL the information which will ever be collected and can determine everything which is known or knowable based on the existing data.

The other side: Dude and I, are arguing that the scientific method allows for changes in what we "know" based on future data which will inevitably come in.

That's not a situation where both sides are right. One side is right. Our side.

If you want to claim that we have ALL possible data which can EVER be known ALREADY, then feel free. Otherwise, stop trying to play in the middle ground.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#379 Oct 1, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
When you say "without scientific falsification", it begs the question -- OF WHAT?
Without being able to define what you are even talking about, the potential for existence cannot be ruled IN a priori either.
Reread what you just wrote.

The POTENTIAL for existence.

That doesn't mean it does exist. It means that it could POTENTIALLY exist.

That is not something which is ruled "in". That's the starting point.

ALL THINGS potentially exist until they can be ruled out.

Example:
A bacteria we'll call Bacteria X which uses silicon instead of carbon as a building block.

There's currently NO EVIDENCE that such a thing actually exists.

So, does it potentially exist? Or does it definition NOT exist?

If it definitely does NOT exist, and we find it later, then who created it at that second?

That's MAGIC thinking.

Just because something potentially exists doesn't mean it does exist.
However, if you claim that something does not exist, then it MUST NOT EXIST ANYWHERE.

In order to make that claim, you must have INFINITE KNOWLEDGE.

Do you have infinite knowledge?

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#380 Oct 1, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Reread what you just wrote.
The POTENTIAL for existence.
That doesn't mean it does exist. It means that it could POTENTIALLY exist.
That is not something which is ruled "in". That's the starting point.
ALL THINGS potentially exist until they can be ruled out.
Example:
A bacteria we'll call Bacteria X which uses silicon instead of carbon as a building block.
There's currently NO EVIDENCE that such a thing actually exists.
So, does it potentially exist? Or does it definition NOT exist?
If it definitely does NOT exist, and we find it later, then who created it at that second?
That's MAGIC thinking.
Just because something potentially exists doesn't mean it does exist.
However, if you claim that something does not exist, then it MUST NOT EXIST ANYWHERE.
In order to make that claim, you must have INFINITE KNOWLEDGE.
Do you have infinite knowledge?
And round and round it goes....

.

All things which potentially exist could potentially exist ... duh.

Any example you give will, of necessity, include a set of properties which defines your example.

Now, state a clear definition of the meaningful set of properties for an entity which could rightly be labeled a deity and which could potentially exist.

And, no fair using meaningless hand waving terms such as "outside our universe" or "outside space and time" or some other such nonsense. These are often tossed about as being synonymous with the concept of deity or "creator of the universe" and in fact all all equally vacuous of meaning.

Once one defines a set of properties for a deity, those properties then become amenable to verification and all such definitions to date have come up lacking.

.

I wholeheartedly agree with you when you say that existence of "x" cannot be ruled out. But without defining what you mean by "x" it cannot be ruled in either. There are thousands of things which cannot exist and are absurd to consider, "deities" might be one of 'em.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#381 Oct 1, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
And round and round it goes....
.
All things which potentially exist could potentially exist ... duh.
Any example you give will, of necessity, include a set of properties which defines your example.
Now, state a clear definition of the meaningful set of properties for an entity which could rightly be labeled a deity and which could potentially exist.
It goes round and round because you are trying to drag us back into the argument I already won against you months ago.

Here we go again.

Pharaohs were believed by the people of Egypt to have supernatural powers and required worship, therefore by the very definition of the word, they were deities.

And, they didn't just POTENTIALLY exist. They ACTUALLY existed.

Now, it's your turn to repeat your claim that Pharaohs don't count because they aren't "real gods".

At which point I ask you for an example of a "real god" against which I can test to see if a Pharaoh fits or not.

Then you reply "There's no such thing as real gods".

At which point I call you out for making up a bullsh1t category and then claiming that only members of the non-existence category should count.

Then you proclaim that I have lied or that you aren't going to respond any more because you can't come up with a better answer.

I go back to dealing with the argument at head, which is that Skippy believes he holds the entity of human knowledge past present and future.

Then, after a week or so of licking your wounds, you'll come back and try to make your same argument again claiming that I didn't provide a definition.

At which point I'll give you the same dictionary definition which I've been quoting for six months.

Then you'll complain that it keeps going round and round.

Here's a hint. It may sound familiar since I've given it to you before. GO AWAY.
Once one defines a set of properties for a deity, those properties then become amenable to verification and all such definitions to date have come up lacking.
False. I have given the only definition which applies equally well to all things humans have labeled deities AND has the added bonus of being the DICTIONARY DEFINITION of the term.

Unfortunately for you, it destroys your argument, so you've categorically denied the definition without presenting one of your own or giving a valid reason to reject it (other than the implied "Jesus is the only God" argument you like to trot out and pretend you aren't making).

If you have a better definition which fits ALL things which have been labeled deities, let's hear it.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#382 Oct 1, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
When you say "without scientific falsification", it begs the question -- OF WHAT?
Without being able to define what you are even talking about, the potential for existence cannot be ruled IN a priori either.
The *potential* is always ruled in if something can't rule it out. Falsification can rule something out, making it a lot harder to be taken out of the falsified box later on. Bacteria were once non-falsifiable, but later evidence was discovered that took it out of that box and into the scientifically valid box. That could never happen with Skip since he keeps his non-falsifiable box in the falsified box - and locks it.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#383 Oct 1, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no "IT" to throw into either box.
"IT" is an abstract concept, being thrown into abstract boxes. There is no problem here.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#384 Oct 1, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
And round and round it goes....
.
All things which potentially exist could potentially exist ... duh.
Any example you give will, of necessity, include a set of properties which defines your example.
Now, state a clear definition of the meaningful set of properties for an entity which could rightly be labeled a deity and which could potentially exist.
And, no fair using meaningless hand waving terms such as "outside our universe" or "outside space and time" or some other such nonsense. These are often tossed about as being synonymous with the concept of deity or "creator of the universe" and in fact all all equally vacuous of meaning.
Once one defines a set of properties for a deity, those properties then become amenable to verification and all such definitions to date have come up lacking.
If our universe is part of a multiverse there could well be an extra-universal creator of the universe. One example would be the infinite Big Bang/Big Crunch scenario. Granted the definitions are much better, however it's still just as testable and has just as much evidence, as it currently lies beyond the boundaries of our universe. Skeptic has therefore deemed it "impossible".

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#385 Oct 1, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
It goes round and round because you are trying to drag us back into the argument I already won against you months ago.
Here we go again.
Pharaohs were believed by the people of Egypt to have supernatural powers and required worship, therefore by the very definition of the word, they were deities.
And, they didn't just POTENTIALLY exist. They ACTUALLY existed.
Now, it's your turn to repeat your claim that Pharaohs don't count because they aren't "real gods".
At which point I ask you for an example of a "real god" against which I can test to see if a Pharaoh fits or not.
Then you reply "There's no such thing as real gods".
At which point I call you out for making up a bullsh1t category and then claiming that only members of the non-existence category should count.
Then you proclaim that I have lied or that you aren't going to respond any more because you can't come up with a better answer.
I go back to dealing with the argument at head, which is that Skippy believes he holds the entity of human knowledge past present and future.
Then, after a week or so of licking your wounds, you'll come back and try to make your same argument again claiming that I didn't provide a definition.
At which point I'll give you the same dictionary definition which I've been quoting for six months.
Then you'll complain that it keeps going round and round.
Here's a hint. It may sound familiar since I've given it to you before. GO AWAY.
<quoted text>
False. I have given the only definition which applies equally well to all things humans have labeled deities AND has the added bonus of being the DICTIONARY DEFINITION of the term.
Unfortunately for you, it destroys your argument, so you've categorically denied the definition without presenting one of your own or giving a valid reason to reject it (other than the implied "Jesus is the only God" argument you like to trot out and pretend you aren't making).
If you have a better definition which fits ALL things which have been labeled deities, let's hear it.
Actually you are welcome to go look for yourself, but we never had such a conversation. I refused to play the word games when you introduced pharaohs as "gods" and refuse to play this game with you now.

What you "won" was my refusal to get dragged down to your level of emotional rants, in spite of you incessant name calling. What you lost was any credibility when you had the audacity to call me a creationists.

What I specifically said is a well defined question -- "what are the properties for an entity which could rightly be labeled a deity?"

I don't care about you past conversations with whomever. You want to say that pharoahs can rightly be labeled deities, fine ... short-sighted & petty ... but fine.

You are not obviously interested in advancing the conversation beyond mere pettiness. I am interested in moving forward, but apparently that's beyond you. Got it, loud and clear.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#386 Oct 1, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
If our universe is part of a multiverse there could well be an extra-universal creator of the universe. One example would be the infinite Big Bang/Big Crunch scenario. Granted the definitions are much better, however it's still just as testable and has just as much evidence, as it currently lies beyond the boundaries of our universe. Skeptic has therefore deemed it "impossible".
This is interesting, but does nothing to define the properties of "deity" beyond location.

And can you please leave Skeptic out of this, just once. It's like an obsession and you are much, much better than that.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#387 Oct 1, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually you are welcome to go look for yourself, but we never had such a conversation. I refused to play the word games when you introduced pharaohs as "gods" and refuse to play this game with you now.
All your posts are word games. Your complaint is not that I'm playing word games, but rather that I'm beating you at yours.

I gave you ample opportunity to submit your own definition. You can't. I gave you ample opportunity to present an example of a "real god" so as to negate the examples given. Again, you can't.

Basically, you're just whining that I won't let you get away with bullsh1t and you think it's not fair.

Boo friggin hoo.
What you lost was any credibility when you had the audacity to call me a creationists.
Well, walks like a duck, posts like a duck.

You've proclaimed out of hand that one group of gods doesn't count, presumably in comparison to your one true god.

You continue to make the claim, you continue to get the label. Simple as that.

If you want to take back your claim and accept that the dictionary definition of god fits perfectly for the Pharaohs, then I accept your apology.

Otherwise, I'm gonna hold you accountable for your positions.
What I specifically said is a well defined question -- "what are the properties for an entity which could rightly be labeled a deity?"
And I gave those properties MULTIPLE times.

Do people believe that this entity has supernatural powers?
Do people believe that this entity requires worship?

If both are yes, then it's a god.

If either is no, it's not.

If you want to present a BETTER definition, go ahead and give it a shot. Just so you know, it has to include all things which are commonly labelled as gods in order to be adequate as a definition.
You want to say that pharoahs can rightly be labeled deities, fine ... short-sighted & petty ... but fine.
You are not obviously interested in advancing the conversation beyond mere pettiness.
What a laughably petty point to make.

Frankly, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 32 min positronium 93,384
News Scientific, Philosophical Case for God's Existe... 1 hr Eagle 12 - 80
News American Atheists terminates its president over... Apr 20 Eagle 12 - 19
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Apr 14 blacklagoon 3 4,141
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Apr 14 Into The Night 258,515
News The Anti-Christian Movement Apr 10 blacklagoon 3 11
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) Apr 9 Wisdom of Ages 6,048