people playing: 202, servers online: 50, games played: 132,704,726 Top Player: Wounder

  Toribash Community » General » Discussion
Register FAQ General Rules Community
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Mar 18, 2017   #81
cowmeat
Forumite
 
Master Belt
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,616
Clan: Alpha



Why am I even trying, have a good day.
cowmeat is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2017   #82
SmallBowl
Does not live in torpo
 
10th Dan Black Belt
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 3,060
Clan: Parrot



Originally Posted by cowmeat View Post
I removed my post since after this sentence you wrote.

"No, since we have no other ideas of how it was caused without drawing more assumptions it is possible that this is the solution we should accept."

This is literally the dumbest thing I've read in this entire thread by a landslide and that amounts to something. Have a good day.

I dont know why you would remove your post when it is quoted in its entirety in the next post, regardless that is the principle of Occam's razor.

Occam's razor (also Ockham's razor; Latin: lex parsimoniae "law of parsimony") is a problem-solving principle attributed to William of Ockham (c. 12871347), who was an English Franciscan friar, scholastic philosopher and theologian. The principle can be interpreted as stating Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

As an agnostic it should be easy for me to see the principles behind your argument and the argument youre making against the existence of a Deity, however the only point you have is a fallacy which does not apply.
SmallBowl is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2017   #83
Veoo
Senior Member
 
Master Belt
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,473
Clan: All Stars
Server: 666



Originally Posted by SmallBowl View Post
An unexplained phenomenon is definitely evidence towards an unestablished explanation existing.

Unexplained phenomenon in this case: The big bang
Given explanation with least assumptions given that either of us knows of: Existence of a Deity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

This is evidence towards a Deity, everything happens for a reason and outside the realm of quantum mechanics the same input will give the same output, that is core to science. So what input do you suggest there was leading to the big bang, making less assumptions than has been made in this explanation?




Note: Evidence != Conclusive proof that you should believe in above everything else.

You misunderstand what evidence is.

Lol this is very silly small bowl. Lack of evidence cannot be evidence for something.

For example: There is no evidence to prove that the whole world isn't just a bunch of robots under my control, therefor its possible!

Sounds silly right?

Exactly.



IF YOU'D ACTUALLY LISTEN TO COWMEAT

"proof by lack of evidence fallacy"

Is a common misstep when people who don't fully understand logic try to prove something.

Google it my dude.

Your "we can't explain this so SOMETHING must have caused it" argument is paradoxical.

Google "The Raven Paradox." BECAUSE THAT BASICALLY THE EXACT WAY YOU'RE TRYING TO ARGUE THAT GOD EXISTS.


HOWEVER, IT IS NOT COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE THAT A GOD EXISTS!

BUT

Your way of supporting that is silly. You can do better.

ASWELL AS THIS: I BELIEVE IN RELIGION BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT ALLOWS PEOPLE TO CONNECT WITH THERE INNER SELF WHICH THE PERCEIVE AS 'GOD' AND LEADS TO THE BETTERING ONSELF.

Heres an interesting question:

What is the difference between a large population of people believing in something that doesn't exist with little evidence and a large population believing in something that does exist with little evidence?

This is interesting. Because its possible that people are creating a kind of philosophical god that exists in the mind rather then in space.
i will do anything for the staff to bring back HOTM or some art competition : I

Last edited by Veoo; Mar 19, 2017 at 11:30 AM.. Reason: Making my argument more clear.
Veoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2017   #84
SmallBowl
Does not live in torpo
 
10th Dan Black Belt
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 3,060
Clan: Parrot



Originally Posted by Veoo View Post
Lol this is very silly small bowl. Lack of evidence cannot be evidence for something.

For example: There is no evidence to prove that the whole world isn't just a bunch of robots under my control, therefor its possible!

Sounds silly right?

Exactly.

This would be torn apart by occam's razer. It involves a lot of assumptions - whereas mine would not

IF YOU'D ACTUALLY LISTEN TO COWMEAT

"proof by lack of evidence fallacy" - does not apply

Is a common misstep when people who don't fully understand logic try to prove something.

Google it my dude.

Your "we can't explain this so SOMETHING must have caused it" argument is paradoxical.

Google "The Raven Paradox." BECAUSE THAT BASICALLY THE EXACT WAY YOU'RE TRYING TO ARGUE THAT GOD EXISTS.


HOWEVER, IT IS NOT COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE THAT A GOD EXISTS!

BUT

Your way of supporting that is silly. You can do better.

ASWELL AS THIS: I BELIEVE IN RELIGION BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT ALLOWS PEOPLE TO CONNECT WITH THERE INNER SELF WHICH THE PERCEIVE AS 'GOD' AND LEADS TO THE BETTERING ONSELF.

Heres an interesting question:

What is the difference between a large population of people believing in something that doesn't exist with little evidence and a large population believing in something that does exist with little evidence?

This is interesting. Because its possible that people are creating a kind of philosophical god that exists in the mind rather then in space.

No it is evidence, there is a difference between evidence and proof though which is not clear in your post.


The way the model of the atom was theorised was that it was known that there were negative parts that could come away and the rest was overall positively charged - thid was evidence for the plum pudding model which was once accepted as it was the best and simolest explanation for the phenomenon, after rutherfords gold foil experiment a new phenomenon had been showed which had to he explained, this disproved plum pudding model and as it was simply explained by the current model of the atom, it was used as evidence for that.

Similarly, in our case in point, as a god elequently explains the big bang phenomenon it can easily be seen as evidence - something which cannot be explained is evidence for existance of things or principles we dont know of yet
SmallBowl is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2017   #85
Veoo
Senior Member
 
Master Belt
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,473
Clan: All Stars
Server: 666



Originally Posted by SmallBowl View Post
This would be torn apart by occam's razer. It involves a lot of assumptions - whereas mine would not


No it is evidence, there is a difference between evidence and proof though which is not clear in your post.


The way the model of the atom was theorised was that it was known that there were negative parts that could come away and the rest was overall positively charged - thid was evidence for the plum pudding model which was once accepted as it was the best and simolest explanation for the phenomenon, after rutherfords gold foil experiment a new phenomenon had been showed which had to he explained, this disproved plum pudding model and as it was simply explained by the current model of the atom, it was used as evidence for that.

Similarly, in our case in point, as a god elequently explains the big bang phenomenon it can easily be seen as evidence - something which cannot be explained is evidence for existance of things or principles we dont know of yet

EDIT:

THAT LAST PART

LACK OF UNDERSTANDING IS NOT EVIDENCE LOL

STOP THIS WEIRD ASS EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IT LEAVES ROOM FOR TONS OF THEORIES BUT IT DOES NOT, HOWEVER, SUPPORT THOSE THEORIES AS EVIDENCE


The plum pudding model and that theorizing example is pretty unrelated to your argument, I'd snip it out, it just sounds like your trying to sound smart.


Yes but when you have much more logical scientific conclusions that are actually supported by reality you tend to lean towards those kiddo

although Im not saying there is no chance god exist ( I forget if I said I'm atheist, but if I did that was a mistake, I'm more agnostic.)

You tell me I am assuming but honestly do you know how much assuming is involved in concluding "I don't understand x so x might be true"

Im not saying that god exists or doesn't I'm just saying that that kind of reasoning is silly.


When you think about it things like the two slit experiment (yes this is more relevant then thomson's plum pudding model lol) they provide much more interesting proof for a kind of god and it would be much more scientific and interesting if you use this. The two slit experiment is the closes we've gotten to proving god using science (and quantum mechanics).

BUT

It is MUCH more logical to say this statement: "At this point in time, we have little scientific evidence to prove or disprove of a god, but there are clear inaccuracies in the bible, ranging from impossible immortal beings to amazing feats of magic that would be theoretically impossible, that would lead one to "Impeach the witness" and remove the christian bible from its pedestal. These inaccuracies however do not disprove the existence of a god they just disprove, as far as we, as humans can understand it, christianity as a viable solution to the problem that is gaps in scientific explanation of events in the history of our universe"

I believe that people believe in god for the same reason children believe in santa, because they want to, because its the only theory that explains the unexplainable with warmth rather then cold scientific analysis.

(this does not however mean that god doest exist, its just why I think people BELIEVE he does)

Plus

You have a better arguement this time good job

srry for shit grammar and spelling
i will do anything for the staff to bring back HOTM or some art competition : I

Last edited by Veoo; Mar 19, 2017 at 02:43 PM.. Reason: small bowl is coming D;
Veoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2017   #86
SmallBowl
Does not live in torpo
 
10th Dan Black Belt
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 3,060
Clan: Parrot



Originally Posted by Veoo View Post
EDIT:

THAT LAST PART

LACK OF UNDERSTANDING IS NOT EVIDENCE LOL

STOP THIS WEIRD ASS EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IT LEAVES ROOM FOR TONS OF THEORIES BUT IT DOES NOT, HOWEVER, SUPPORT THOSE THEORIES AS EVIDENCE

Science works by providing explanations to things that happen. Something that has not been explained is evidence for a model that explains it.


The plum pudding model and that theorizing example is pretty unrelated to your argument, I'd snip it out, it just sounds like your trying to sound smart.

No it is equivalent - a new unexplained phenomenon occured, the bouncing back of alpha particles from the gold foil, it could not be explained using the current model so a new model had to ve theorized.

In parrallel: the unexplained phenomenon here is the big bang


Yes but when you have much more logical scientific conclusions that are actually supported by reality you tend to lean towards those kiddo

although Im not saying there is no chance god exist ( I forget if I said I'm atheist, but if I did that was a mistake, I'm more agnostic.)

Do you have a more logical conclusion to present?

Cool, me too

You tell me I am assuming but honestly do you know how much assuming is involved in concluding "I don't understand x so x might be true"

Im not saying that god exists or doesn't I'm just saying that that kind of reasoning is silly.

What youve shown there isnt an assumption at all, the key word might means your statement is 100% correct


When you think about it things like the two slit experiment (yes this is more relevant then thomson's plum pudding model lol) they provide much more interesting proof for a kind of god and it would be much more scientific and interesting if you use this. The two slit experiment is the closes we've gotten to proving god using science (and quantum mechanics).

The plum pudding model wasnt a proof for god it was to show a parrallel to the discussion we are having, moreover I dont see how quantum mechanics is an argument for god in the 2 slit experiment.

The two slit experiment I agree is very interesting, particularly in the way that observing the path of the electrons changes the diffracting pattern, despite not giving any reason for inteference but how I dont see how a deity could be an explanation for the cause of that.

BUT

It is MUCH more logical to say this statement: "At this point in time, we have little scientific evidence to prove or disprove of a god, but there are clear inaccuracies in the bible, ranging from impossible immortal beings to amazing feats of magic that would be theoretically impossible, that would lead one to "Impeach the witness" and remove the christian bible from its pedestal. These inaccuracies however do not disprove the existence of a god they just disprove, as far as we, as humans can understand it, christianity as a viable solution to the problem that is gaps in scientific explanation of events in the history of our universe"

Plus

You have a better arguement this time good job

I agree with most of this paragraph but I dont agree with "ruling out christianity" as the bible may not be at all literal in its meaning

srry for shit grammar and spelling[/QUOTE]
SmallBowl is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2017   #87
Veoo
Senior Member
 
Master Belt
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,473
Clan: All Stars
Server: 666



Originally Posted by SmallBowl View Post
Science works by providing explanations to things that happen. Something that has not been explained is evidence for a model that explains it.


No it is equivalent - a new unexplained phenomenon occured, the bouncing back of alpha particles from the gold foil, it could not be explained using the current model so a new model had to ve theorized.

In parrallel: the unexplained phenomenon here is the big bang


Do you have a more logical conclusion to present?

Cool, me too

What youve shown there isnt an assumption at all, the key word might means your statement is 100% correct


The plum pudding model wasnt a proof for god it was to show a parrallel to the discussion we are having, moreover I dont see how quantum mechanics is an argument for god in the 2 slit experiment.

The two slit experiment I agree is very interesting, particularly in the way that observing the path of the electrons changes the diffracting pattern, despite not giving any reason for inteference but how I dont see how a deity could be an explanation for the cause of that.

I agree with most of this paragraph but I dont agree with "ruling out christianity" as the bible may not be at all literal in its meaning

srry for shit grammar and spelling

[/QUOTE]



DUDE


LACK OF EXPLANATION WARRANTS A THEORY WITH EVIDENCE

THE LACK OF EXPLANATION DOES NOT SERVE AS EVIDENCE OF THE THEORY


FOR EXAMPLE:

SAY THIS IS TRUE (IT ISN"T):

We don't know how marshmallows are made.

THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE FOR THIS STATEMENT:

Marshmallows are made by alien bees
i will do anything for the staff to bring back HOTM or some art competition : I
Veoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2017   #88
SmallBowl
Does not live in torpo
 
10th Dan Black Belt
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 3,060
Clan: Parrot



Originally Posted by Veoo View Post


DUDE


LACK OF EXPLANATION WARRANTS A THEORY WITH EVIDENCE

THE LACK OF EXPLANATION DOES NOT SERVE AS EVIDENCE OF THE THEORY


FOR EXAMPLE:

SAY THIS IS TRUE (IT ISN"T):

We don't know how marshmallows are made.

THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE FOR THIS STATEMENT:

Marshmallows are made by alien bees

A phenomenon without an explanation is in itself evidence for a theory explaining it.

If an alternate theory also explains the same phenomenon and has other evidence supporting it, that theory is more likely to be chosen - it doesnt mean the incorrect theory didnt have evidence to support it, just not as much or not as compelling evidence. There was evidence for the plum pudding model, there is now more evidence for the current model of the atom so that is what is accepted.




If we didnt have any knowledge of how marshmallows were made, then that would be evidence for your theory, as the existence of marshmallows would be a phenomenon which was predicted by the model of alien bees. However this theory draws a lot of assumptions and obviously other theories have more evidence supporting them, therefore this theory is not going to be selected or believed.
SmallBowl is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2017   #89
Veoo
Senior Member
 
Master Belt
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,473
Clan: All Stars
Server: 666



Originally Posted by SmallBowl View Post
A phenomenon without an explanation is in itself evidence for a theory explaining it.

If an alternate theory also explains the same phenomenon and has other evidence supporting it, that theory is more likely to be chosen - it doesnt mean the incorrect theory didnt have evidence to support it, just not as much or not as compelling evidence. There was evidence for the plum pudding model, there is now more evidence for the current model of the atom so that is what is accepted.




If we didnt have any knowledge of how marshmallows were made, then that would be evidence for your theory, as the existence of marshmallows would be a phenomenon which was predicted by the model of alien bees. However this theory draws a lot of assumptions and obviously other theories have more evidence supporting them, therefore this theory is not going to be selected or believed.

This is silly, if that is the case you can simply say all theories explaining something have evidence that it needs to be explained, meaning they are equally likely so its not a means of prove one is better then the other so it would not be the definition of of evidence which is as follows:

"the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." -Google note card definition

How does the very problem that requires an answer provide that one specific theory is true or valid.

This is silly

I see why you could make this mistake though.
i will do anything for the staff to bring back HOTM or some art competition : I
Veoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2017   #90
cowmeat
Forumite
 
Master Belt
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,616
Clan: Alpha



"A phenomenon without an explanation is in itself evidence for a theory explaining it." -Smallbowl

I can say I have evidence for anything with your logic here as long as the contrary isn't proven. That would mean evidence is redundant and useless. Protip. evidence is not redundant


Smallbowl, you are the only one here misunderstanding what evidence means.
You also dont understand occams razor, you think it's some sort of a rule that actually applies to anything, it doesn't. If you think the universe works in a way that the simplest outcome is always chosen you are as dumb as you seem to be in your writing.
It's a thought experiment and a guideline for thought that is not even universally accepted as a good guideline.

Second of all, you think a god is the simplest explanation? My fucking shit is that a stupid thing to say. A god creating everything is literally the most complex explanation possible.
Where did the god come from? How does it have powers to create the universe? How could it create something before anything was created? All the questions are as complex as any explanation. Your "BUT MAH OCCAMS RAZOR" spouting is the dumbest thing ive heard in a long time.


But hey, according to your logic. I can just as well say that leprechauns who like gay porn created the universe and then named the universe Michael. I have just as much evidence for that as you do for god creating it. Which is NONE.

Literally the dictionary definition of evidence. Now you can shut up with your nonsense:

noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:
His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3.
Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.


Your stupidity brought me back. God damn it.

Last edited by cowmeat; Mar 19, 2017 at 05:22 PM..
cowmeat is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:18 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
ragdoll fighting game physics fighting game ragdoll fighting physics funmotion joints martial arts karate pc mac free game turn based game