God doesn't exist

Non-physical things don't exist. Or at least there are no good reasons to think they do exist.

Prove that a soul exists. You can't.
Prove that God exists. You can't.

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Prove the space between electrons exists

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You could measure it, probably

      Non-physical things exist but are always constituted by the physical. For example, economic inflation is a not physical phenomenon, yet the economy is ultimately made up of physical entities doing physical stuff.

      Surely that means non-physical things don't exist then. If they are in fact purely physical which is what you're saying.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Surely that means non-physical things don't exist then. If they are in fact purely physical which is what you're saying
        No, there are just different domains of reality and some depend on others. The most fundamental domain we know of is described by quantum theory, but quantum theory can't even describe, like, objects. But objects still exist. Likewise the distinction between life and non-life is very real, but not within the point of view of any physical theory or even chemistry, like there's no "life force" animating things, but we shouldn't therefore deny that life exists.

        You see what I'm saying? I want to be clear, this isn't about sneaking in any woo woo bullshit, it's about having a sensible way to understand and talk about a complex reality.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          But all of that stuff you mentioned is physical right? And the economy is physical in the sense that all the parts making it up are physical. So maybe "the economy" just refers to a group of physical entities doing certain physical actions.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Then why aren't physicists studying the economy? Why is there a separate field for that that's very different from physics? I feel like you're diluting the term "physical" into something nondescriptive. And at that point what does it mean to say that everything is physical?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This, the soul and the body has a similar relationship.
            >Prove that God exists
            Until you don't see the relation between the physical, mathematical or whatever processes that exist both in life and the universe/reality at large, you will not understand why God exists, it is pointless. Life isn't separate from the movement and the physical part of the universe which raises a lot of questions as to what life really is, and the concept of God doesn't seem all too alien since the emotions and the very form of your brain is also a product of that movement that could also reasonably happen in other ways, like aliens or some other life forms that have a different consistency like simulated life inside a computer. If those relationships didn't exist, there wouldn't be machine learning. What happens nowaday, is that we try to separate what is living and what isn't while disregarding the similarities between the two. If you believe in the Big Bang, you also need to believe that inside of it was also all the possibilities and impossibilities, which includes life and consciousness.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Its a vacuum

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        prove my dewalt vacuum exists.
        checkmate atheists

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Rutherford experiment. You can shoot positively charged particles on a very thin gold foil and infer from the trajectory of these particles that there must be space between the electrons and the nucleus. You can read up on the technical details in any introductory book of classical mechanics.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I think he means the orbital rings are not lines with particles, and is referring to quantum mechanics having a rather cloudy idea of what an electron even is, not the space between the orbitals and the nucleus.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I don't understand, what do you mean? If he asks for evidence that electrons orbit the nucleus like the planets orbit the sun, then he's asking for something that we know and can show doesn't exist.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Non-physical things exist but are always constituted by the physical. For example, economic inflation is a not physical phenomenon, yet the economy is ultimately made up of physical entities doing physical stuff.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Dark matter.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I can prove it, because I am

      Mankind is utterly lost. God save us.

      >cogito ergo sum should be cogito ergo Deus est.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      We don't know what that is, we don't even know if it exists. But if it is matter then surely it's physical.

      I can prove it, because I am

      Go on then

      Reddit metaphysics holy moly dude get a grip

      You haven't given an argument, I accept your concession

      [...]
      Mankind is utterly lost. God save us.

      >cogito ergo sum should be cogito ergo Deus est.

      >cogito ergo Deus est
      That doesn't logically follow

      There are good reasons to say they do exist however

      What reasons?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >What reasons?
        If you wanted to start a cult based on superstitions you created

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          That would be wishful thinking

          >You haven't given an argument, I accept your concession

          >You haven't given an argument, I accept your concession

          >You haven't given an argument, I accept your concession

          >That doesn't logically follow
          (Neither does "I" follow from a thought :^] )

          Take that internet debate champ reddit atheist timetraveler from 2008

          Ad hominem isn't an argument, I accept your concession

          What about things like heat? Heat isn't a physical thing.

          Yeah it is, it's energy, which is physical

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >You haven't given an argument, I accept your concession

        >You haven't given an argument, I accept your concession

        >You haven't given an argument, I accept your concession

        >That doesn't logically follow
        (Neither does "I" follow from a thought :^] )

        Take that internet debate champ reddit atheist timetraveler from 2008

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If it existed, it would be physical by definition. So far it's only a hypothetical, just like the aether in 19th century. Might be that future theory -which doesn't feature "dark matter" as we understand it today can explain the affects usually attributed to it.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I can prove it, because I am

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Reddit metaphysics holy moly dude get a grip

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There are good reasons to say they do exist however

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Non-physical things don't exist
    Only something non-physical could have caused the physical to exist. The physical has finite usable energy that decreases each moment - as the second law of thermodynamics tells us.

    No physical process results in a net increase in total usable energy. So no physical process can be responsible for the energy that exists.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If what you say is true then every scientist would be saying they've proven God. But they don't say this.

      The fact is that we don't fully understand the universe yet. So we can't say that there must be a God (or a non-physical entity of any kind).

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >If what you say is true then every scientist would be saying they've proven God
        Appeal to authority is the least scientific argument you can make

        People rarely come to beliefs rationally and don't change them rationally. If there's anything we can prove about people it's that.

        And do you have any idea how common it is for theists to bring this up as evidence in scientific discussions? It's almost a constant

        >The fact is that we don't fully understand the universe yet.
        We fully understand that no closed physical system has an increasing quantity of usable energy. This is the iron-solid second law of thermodynamics.

        Hence, no physical thing can be responsible for the usable energy that physical systems possess.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          This is literally nonsense, we don't understand the universe fully yet. We don't know whether anything created the universe.

          You are making assumptions based on your fallible understanding of the universe.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >This is literally nonsense
            It's the second law of thermodynamics. Can you please explain to me a closed physical system in which usable energy is increasing?

            >we don't understand the universe fully yet
            So your argument really boils down to "we aren't omniscient so it's possible for anybody to be wrong"?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Science doesn't prove God, nothing proves God. God is nothing more than a speculation. There is no compelling evidence of him at all.

            >So your argument really boils down to "we aren't omniscient so it's possible for anybody to be wrong"?
            My argument is that science doesn't prove God, even though you think it does.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Say you were suddenly teleported to a new universe and want to find out if it was made by a god or not. What's something you could see that you would consider to be proof that a god did make that new universe?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If I saw an apparition of God and I could see this powerful apparition doing supernatural things, and we could see that this apparition was not physical in any way (isn't picked up by a photometer or whatever). That would be some evidence of a god.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Poster of the 9th reply

            We can prove that happened before, check out https://tektonticker.blogspot.com/2022/05/today-i-have-special-guest-piece-by.html

            Our historical sources make it undeniable that God spoke in the Temple in Jerusalem and angels were in the sky over the cities in Israel at the time Jesus said such divine warning signs would come

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This is super neat, but I haven't been able to find any other sources for it.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Poster of the 9th reply

            Here are the original sources you can read:

            Josephus: https://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/war-6.htm in chapter 5

            Tacitus: https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0080%3Abook%3D5%3Achapter%3D13

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No we can't prove that an apparition happened to people.

            Here would be some good evidence though - let's say people had videoed an apparition, and it was glowing, but they showed themselves holding light meters, and the light meters registered at 0, despite glowing taking place. Then you could say that's evidence of a nonphysical supernatural thing. But I'm not aware of such evidence existing.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Poster of the 9th reply

            >we can't prove that an apparition happened
            /his/torically speaking we absolutely can! We have multiple contemporary non-Christian ancient historians reporting it. The angels in particular were a MASSIVE event that would have been seen by everyone in Jerusalem and urban Israel, and we have these things reported by someone who lived there himself at the time and would have personally seen it. And even if we missed it somehow he would have immediately had access to hundreds of thousands of witnesses. It's the easiest thing conceivable for a historian to research!

            >let's say people had videoed an apparition
            In other words your argument boils down to "God hasn't appeared lately so I don't believe in him". Which isn't logical since we know that God couldn't directly act very often in the world, take a quick look at https://www.youtube.com/shorts/YKUhD7--LKw

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >sensor of the "light meter" does not detect the glow
            >similar sensor in camera does
            is this the power of gpt4?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I think therefore I am postulates the "I" prior to deriving it. This is such an obvious mistake any geometry student could recognize it.

          It should be "Thoughts exist, therefore there is a fundamental reality of subjectivity," or "thoughts exist therefore there is a thinker" or "Thoughts exist contingent upon a transcendent reality which surpasses them entirely" which I take to mean "I think therefore God exists" (we need a metaphysical argument in their about the nature of human being, namely that it discovers it is an "I" without ever having proof, precisely because their are regions of the Intellect that can determine truths without argumentation or evidence, and among these is the notion that man is accountable and contingent upon God)

          Funny enough western science still cannot answer two questions:

          >what is the nature of consciousness
          >why is there a universe instead of nothingness

          Which are both caused by science being willfilly ignorant of the category of intellect which I have described above.

          Descartes was a profound moron who postulated existence as a consequence of the rational self, thereby replacing God with his own thoughts and paving the way for four centuries of wilderness in the West.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I think you meant to reply to something else

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No sir I meant to reply to you, and you are clearly stunned and have no reply. Which is fine. Go for a walk, outside, and listen to the birds, and take not of the flowers, especially the little teeny ones.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Say you were suddenly teleported to a new universe and want to find out if it was made by a god or not. What's something you could see that you would consider to be proof that a god did make that new universe?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The second law of thermodynamics is a result of statistics; it isn't absolute. Basically it's extremely unlikely for entropy to ever decrease, but on a long enough (perhaps infinite) timescale it could happen.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Poster of the 9th reply

        >The second law of thermodynamics is a result of statistics; it isn't absolute
        It is absolute. Every claimed example to the contrary completely melts away under examination. When have we observed a violation?

        Ultimately it comes from the fact that gaining useful energy would require that energy to come from nothing. It would be like leaving marbles in a box an expecting to gain marbles eventually - that would require one to just pop into existence in the box. Just as matter can't suddenly start to exist from nothing, energy can't either.

        And by the way if someone proposes that it does, then you can prove that an inevitable consequence of that fact would be God's existence in a really neat way: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/F7bcjGArkrA

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >When have we observed a violation?
          We haven't, because exceptions are extremely improbable. But not impossible.

          >Ultimately it comes from the fact that gaining useful energy would require that energy to come from nothing.
          No, it would come from heat. It would be like shaking around a box of marbles and opening it to find them arranged in a neat triangle. Crazy improbable, but if you tried a frickhuge number of times, it could happen.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Poster of the 9th reply

            >We haven't
            Isn't observation the entire way we determine physical laws?

            >exceptions are extremely improbable. But not impossible.
            Can you describe a hypothetical violation in detail?

            >No, it would come from heat
            Which is coming from what?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Isn't observation the entire way we determine physical laws?
            Yeah that's why it's considered a law.

            >Can you describe a hypothetical violation in detail?
            No. Instead I will copypaste Wikipedia.
            >Statistical mechanics gives an explanation for the second law by postulating that a material is composed of atoms and molecules which are in constant motion. A particular set of positions and velocities for each particle in the system is called a microstate of the system and because of the constant motion, the system is constantly changing its microstate. Statistical mechanics postulates that, in equilibrium, each microstate that the system might be in is equally likely to occur, and when this assumption is made, it leads directly to the conclusion that the second law must hold in a statistical sense. That is, the second law will hold on average, with a statistical variation on the order of 1/√N where N is the number of particles in the system. For everyday (macroscopic) situations, the probability that the second law will be violated is practically zero. However, for systems with a small number of particles, thermodynamic parameters, including the entropy, may show significant statistical deviations from that predicted by the second law. And let me highlight the important part.
            >For everyday (macroscopic) situations, the probability that the second law will be violated is PRACTICALLY zero.

            >Which is coming from what?
            What do you mean? Is this just devolving to "why does anything exist?" Because that's getting beyond physics.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Poster of the 9th reply

            >Instead I will copypaste Wikipedia.
            This is talking about a model. And that model does in fact have things happening causelessly, since it posits "each microstate that the system might be in is equally likely to occur", essentially modeling them as happening randomly with no cause determining the specific state of the system. In reality of course this isn't the case, it's simply a model to use when you can't or don't want to get that detailed.

            It's kinda like, suppose there was a baseball stadium. People enter and exit through one of four gates depending on their ticket number. 4000 tickets were sold (and numbered in their order) and each gate is for 1000 people.

            If you were looking down at it with a satellite and seeing these little dots of people leaving at the end of the game, from your perspective the best way you could model it was that each little dot had a random 25% chance of exiting through any given gate.

            In reality there would of course be a complex series of causes that determined which person was going to leave through each gate (i.e. knowing who is unemployed would help you predict who leaves through Gate A since they could have bought their ticket earlier than someone who works all day), but 25% is the best you can model it just looking down with your satellite.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Only something non-physical could have caused the physical to exist.
      What if the physical isn't caused?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Poster of the 9th reply

        Then that would make God's existence an absolute certainty. Check out https://www.youtube.com/shorts/F7bcjGArkrA

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >if a thing were to just "pop" into existence
          Aaaaaaaaaand you're off topic. Try again.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Poster of the 9th reply

            That's what uncaused existence is. Whether it's eternal (a thing always existing for no reason with no cause) or temporal (it begins to exist at some point for no reason with no cause, which would look like it suddenly just popping into existence).

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >"Popping" into existence doesn't mean beginning to exist
            Yet another thing only Christians are stupid enough to say.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Poster of the 9th reply

            You misunderstand. Like it said at the beginning, it's making a point about the proposal that things can exist without causes. That might involve a beginning (popping into existence) and it might not (sometimes in very strange ways like pic related for a well-known example). The same conclusions apply either way.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You misunderstand.
            No, I didn't. If that wasn't your point, AT THE VERY LEAST admit that video was off topic, or you're simply not arguing in good faith.

            Excuse me I have slaughtered none nor shall.

            Over a millennium of Christian history disagrees with you.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I am not a Christian first of all, many people believe in God who are not Christians. Did you know this?

            Who invented the Atomic Bomb and dropped it on humans? Who unleashed the world wars? Who colonized the earth and uprooted traditional societies everywhere, replacing them with banana republics? Who has discovered the power to do mountaintop removal coal mining? Who is spilling plastics, toxic fumes, asbestos and sewage into our environment?

            I will give you a hint: not the Crusaders

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I am not a Christian first of all, many people believe in God who are not Christians. Did you know this?
            I wouldn't say there are "many" israelites in the world, no.

            >Who invented the Atomic Bomb and dropped it on humans?
            A Christian country.

            >Who unleashed the world wars?
            A Christian country.

            >Who colonized the earth and uprooted traditional societies everywhere, replacing them with banana republics?
            Christian countries.

            >Who has discovered the power to do mountaintop removal coal mining?
            A Christian country.

            >Who is spilling plastics, toxic fumes, asbestos and sewage into our environment?
            Mostly Christian countries.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Christianity was in retreat by the 16th century, evidenced by the reformation.

            The industrial revolution, the rise of scientifically derived technologies, and the emergence of modern warfare have nothing to do with Christianity at all (as evidenced by the fact that they are absent from the first 1800 or so years of Christian history, and are foreign ideas from a materialist perspectice)

            You are an unbelievably low quality thinker who cannot perceive any complexity or subtlety and deploys extraordinarily dishonest oversimplifications to affirm the reality you inhabit

            The absolute worst kind of thinker. You do not deserve the little brains you have.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Poster of the 9th reply

            My man the video applies to anything uncaused in general. In what way would whether it just pops into existence, has some sort of time loop, or has been there for infinite time make any difference to what the video says are the consequences of such a proposal?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The video literally just assumes everything uncaused "popped" into existence. Did you even watch it???

          • 3 weeks ago
            Poster of the 9th reply

            I think we're having some sort of disconnect because you keep emphasizing this point but I'm not seeing the relevance - could you go into more detail?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >could you go into more detail?
            I will put it into so much detail that if you can't wrap your head around it you unironically need to have a nice day, not in a video game.

            You sent me that video as an argument that if the universe is uncaused then God exists.
            The video promises to prove it then assumes that if an uncaused thing exists then it "popped" into existence.
            This is NOT what uncaused means. Uncaused means having no cause, not popping into existence. Popping into existence means having a beginning. The video is OFF TOPIC.
            Then, you literally say "That's what uncaused existence is." No, you fricking dingus. It's not.

            Uncaused means not having a cause.
            Popping into existence means having a beginning.
            Uncaused means not having a cause.
            Popping into existence means having a beginning.
            Uncaused means not having a cause.
            Popping into existence means having a beginning.

            These are two different things.
            Do you understand yet? Is there a neuron left to activate in your Christian apologist brain?
            If not, have a nice day, and not in a video game.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Poster of the 9th reply

            You seem to be saying that nothing uncaused could have a beginning. I don't see why that would be the case. Why couldn't "Man who was born in 1989" be something that exists uncaused, if we allow for uncaused existence? There's no cause here so there's nothing to limit it to only eternal objects.

            Also, what's the relevance? Even if we grant that assumption, it just removes the temporal aspect and has all possible things existing eternally.

            In short a beginning and a cause aren't necessarily the same thing, anon

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Uncaused existence is still caused
            No. It's beginningless and eternal exactly like god is imagined to be

          • 3 weeks ago
            Poster of the 9th reply

            Who are you quoting?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You think material is eternal but God is nothingness, violating your own rationality which cannot comprehend an object that has an eternal past. All of this just so you can touch your pee pee however you like. Amazing.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >You think material is eternal but God is nothingness, violating your own rationality which cannot comprehend an object that has an eternal past.
          I can comprehend matter.

          >All of this just so you can touch your pee pee however you like. Amazing.
          Better than slaughter thousands for not believing in the correct version of your fairy tales.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Excuse me I have slaughtered none nor shall.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What about things like heat? Heat isn't a physical thing.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If you bow down and worship Yahweh every day you will soon find your prove of his existence.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Prove to me that you exist.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    God is proven by the impossibility of the contrary. Every a non intelligent source is irrational.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I dont care about proving those things, but its stupid to think the small niche of human observation contains all things which exist.
    Faith is a necessary pre-requisite for scientific discovery because it pushes a debate and research forward toward things beyond the typical sphere of observation and prevents an incest of science where researchers endlessly pour over the same thing without pushing the frontier.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You can only prove them to yourself.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Define "to exist".

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    you exist in god's imagination

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Non-physical things don't exist.

    So freedom doesn't exist.

    You are a slave. Your very mind doesn't even belong to you.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Freedom is a word that humans made-up

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >what is abstraction

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        NtA
        Abstraction cannot exist without consciousness which is very obviously immaterial, hence why scientists cannot invent a consciousness detector (if you think of Turing here you are a complete fool. Turing tests rely on the assumption of a conscioussness capable or makint inquiries. If you need consciousness to demonstrate consciousness it is not scientific at all.)

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >very obviously
          nice argument, lil' bro

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >hence why scientists cannot invent a consciousness detector (if you think of Turing here you are a complete fool. Turing tests rely on the assumption of a conscioussness capable or makint inquiries. If you need consciousness to demonstrate consciousness it is not scientific at all.)

            That part is the argument. Go ahead I'll wait.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're simply begging the question, scientists can't make a "consciousness detector", even in principle -> (because you assume your conclusion, consciousness is something immaterial)
            I can assert the opposite, that because consciousness is material, it is in principle possible to make "consciousness detector". You need to provide an argument for why this is impossible.

            Bah, this whole consciousness talk, seems so confused to me. I
            don't believe consciousness is 1 singular thing. I'm not super hyped to defend it's a thing on materialism, when I'm not even sure it's "a thing".

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >hence why
          low iq

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Your mind is not physical.

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Non-physical things don't exist.
    What do you mean by "non-physical"?

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why hasn't anyone mentioned the problem of universals?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_universals

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Prove that God exists. You can't.
    Can.

    >Or at least there are no good reasons to think they do exist.

    Testimonies of the supernatural and miracles. Before you even say it:

    Have you seen a Hadron collider in person? Have you read the experiments which are said to verify General relativity? Far and few in between they are, and you trust the testimony of scientists, and yet you are so bold to accept the results. How many experiments have you seen or read? How expensive it is to do even on experiment to verify a claim in a year. Like, the solar eclipse, or Gravitational waves, or particle colliders, or the black hole image, how many experiments of those exist? And whose testimonies do you trust?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Like, the solar eclipse
      Famously, Einstein had to wait a decade or so, or more, for his theory of general relativity to be verified. Since it required a study of the effects of bending of spacetime on light through the moon. He only got his Nobel prize after. Even more so, the first experiment for a time was thought to prove him wrong. I forgot why they decided to try again, they possibly realized a measurement error.

      It took 20 years of the theory to be verified, or so, and this was because of the elusiveness of experimentation. How many miracles are accounted for by both the Orthodox and Catholic church every year? How many saints? And who has actually done a thorough examination on these results and may correctly falsify them?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I personally trust the testimonies of inbred goat herders from a time when people unironically believed in stuff like dog-headed men and fox-sized ants. That sounds the most reasonable to me.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Your in for a bumpy road. All paranormal phenomena are real (or refer to real entities, even if their nature is not understood).

        UAP is the most obvious

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Testimonies of the supernatural and miracles.
      All bullshit.

      >Have you seen a Hadron collider in person?
      No, and I don't need to.

      >Have you read the experiments which are said to verify General relativity?
      Some yes.

      >Far and few in between they are, and you trust the testimony of scientists
      No. I trust the consensus that they all came to despite having diverging interests just because the evidence was compelling -- something religious people are not allowed to do because doubting the dogma means eternal torture.

      >How many experiments have you seen or read?
      Definitely more than you.

      >And whose testimonies do you trust?
      No one's. I trust the consensus. Again, something you will never do because you are forced under threats of torture to value dogma more than objective reality.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >No one's. I trust the consensus
        You trust the collective testimonies of people, set :=CS. 'Whose' need not be singular. You trust the consensus which was caused by something. These causes may be by data or not. I would suppose that if these causes were not by data, you would not trust them. Therefore we may remove all such people from the consensus as valuable testimonies CS' = CS- S, S was clarified.

        You trust the testimonies which were transmuted by peer review or oral tradition which was ultimately caused by data and reason. Ultimately you trust the original testimonies by those who confirmed such things. You trust the collective of individuals of testimonies, which then may minimally be the collective of individuals of original testimonies (irreducible testimonies).

        > something religious people are not allowed to do because doubting the dogma means eternal torture.

        Therefore, all religious testimony is bad? Your priors dictate that no religious testimony is good from the getgo. I may remind you of the replication crisis and many showcases of maleficence in peer review. The Stanford or Harvard (I forgot which) Italian woman in particular- some academics are motivated to lie because it may preclude temporal pleasure.

        I may add to this, though. The Magisterium's criteria is not arbitrary. And they seperate wheat from chaff. They burned people alive who were known to fake miracles.

        (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_apparition : See 'Jezter')

        Furthermore, I might add that bearing false testimony and spreading lies means eternal torture, “But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

        >No, and I don't need to.

        Would this not make it more likely that the results are true if you were to see it?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >You trust the collective testimonies of people
          Calling experiments "testimonies," thereby implying that they're mere hearsay and not reproducible, is a huge redflag of a desperate coping moron in itself. Calling a model that was critically examined by thousands of the best experts in the relevant field who work with DIVERGING INTERESTS (the exact opposite of theologians) and came to the conclusion that it's correctly supported by data "collective testimonies" is on a whole new dimension of despair and cope.

          >You trust the consensus which was caused by something. These causes may be by data or not.
          These causes are always data. There is no scientific consensus that emerged without ever testing anything empirically. That's one of the many ways to prove science is the exact opposite of religion.

          >Therefore, all religious testimony is bad?
          Yes. I care about testable claims and reproducible data, and you have yet to provide anything that qualifies.

          >I may remind you of the replication crisis and many showcases of maleficence in peer review.
          First, the replication crisis is overstated. Second, frauds in science historically are short lived because they keep getting exposed... by scientists, never by you. Third, none of this justifies believing religion. At all. No religious claim is reproducible at all, and malevolence in religion is the norm, not the exception.

          >They burned people alive who were known to fake miracles.
          Did they burn the Fatima kids alive? No? Then they're evidently not doing a good job.

          >Furthermore, I might add that bearing false testimony and spreading lies means eternal torture
          Only when done in court. This is why Christians lie literally all the time.

          >Would this not make it more likely that the results are true if you were to see it?
          ???
          No. Why the frick would it?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >(the exact opposite of theologians)
            You don't know what you're talking about. Most theologians are split due to schisms. And, the main ideas that Moses didn't write the Torah came from Protestants doing honest research trying to disprove atheists otherwise, but publishing their results anyways.

            >Calling experiments "testimonies," thereby implying that they're mere hearsay and not reproducible

            The implication here is something fantastic, like a massive hadron collider, or a giant singularity millions of miles away, can't be diswayed due to it being fantastical. And the main ways one analyzes merits or truths of things is through reports by others, which of course includes peer review.

            In particular, these experiments are sometimes not only hard, but time sensitive (like the solar eclipse), so likewise, one is being a hypocrite to discount other testimonies for those above reasons.

            >correctly supported by data "collective testimonies"

            I am not trying to abuse terms, if you want something more pleasing to the ears we may call it "collective oral traditions" or "collective oral/indirect transmission of data".

            >These causes are always data.

            The words "consensus" include people who were persuaded for bad reasons. I was just being more precise in words. There are people whose beliefs are caused by an original person who concieved of the data, and there are others from this source that latch on until it becomes consensus.

            >There is no scientific consensus that emerged without ever testing anything empirically

            The concept of the aether, the idea that atomism was false. Newtonian mechanics was actually proven to be incongruent with the orbits of mercury but people continued, some even said prior to Einstein "physics is complete". Thomas Kunen talks about how exactly, and in a more truthful manner which I can do, on how science actually works- how consensus was actually made.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >theologians are split due to schisms.
            So are their conclusions.

            >the main ways one analyzes merits or truths of things is through reports by others
            and reproductions and debates between split people who then all agree because the evidence is clear.

            >we may call it "collective oral traditions" or "collective oral/indirect transmission of data"
            Calling the result of methodical investigation of reality "tradition"... So desperate...

            >There are people whose beliefs are caused by an original person who concieved of the data, and there are others from this source that latch on until it becomes consensus.
            No mention of reproduction?

            >aether, the idea that atomism was false
            Both came from observations in antiquity and were refuted by later science.

            >Newtonian mechanics was actually proven to be incongruent
            By scientists crunching data or theologians having an opinion?

            >"physics is complete"
            One guy is no consensus.

            empirically. That's one of the many ways to prove science is the exact opposite of religion.

            The way someone is canonized by a saint is by having an overseerer investigate things. Someone deemed an expert within the organization. The way Catholics determine a miracle as dogma is a similar way, and they have a crtieria list btw. This is why the Shroud of Turin wasn't accepted: I think it is, however, compelling.

            >Third, none of this justifies believing religion.

            I never said that, I was demonstrating how your logic precludes certain premises. Or that it was isomorphic to that idea. In brief, I was indicating your logic was flawed and wrong. i was critiquing you, not providing a positive claim.

            >Did they burn the Fatima kids alive?

            Because they investiagated and found no malfeicience. Also, by this logic, you are assuming there is evidence someone dressed up as Mary to these kids. Do you have any evidence of that? where do you suppose this is the case.

            > This is why Christians lie literally all the time.

            Do you have a peer reviewed study on that claim? It has been the opposite in my experience.

            >Second, frauds in science historically are short lived

            The idea that Race doesn't exist has been a perpetual dogma in science, which is of course false.

            As goes for Keynsian economics.

            >No. Why the frick would it?

            My suggestion is that your own verification and closeness to the data makes it more likely. I assume youre an empiricist. So then your sense data determines the truth. If you see it for yourself, you have more reason to believe. You have access to it yourself, not through the transmission of other sources.

            >having an overseerer investigate things
            And when he's done, agree or die. In science, proving someone wrong makes you famous. The opposite...

            >I think it is, however, compelling.
            The one hoax the Church didn't fall for, you did.

            >I was demonstrating how your logic precludes certain premises.
            No. You said science can be wrong without considering that possibility for religion.

            >you are assuming there is evidence someone dressed up as Mary to these kids.
            No.

            >Do you have a peer reviewed study on that claim?
            My testimony should convince you. 😉

            >The idea that Race doesn't exist has been a perpetual dogma in science.
            It's not dogma, it's phylogenetic analyses.
            https://www.nature.com/articles/srep29890/figures/3

            >Keynsian economics
            Tested and works well enough. Cope.

            >your own verification and closeness to the data makes it more likely.
            Than thousands knowing better than me, all having an incentive to prove others wrong yet all agree? No.

            >your sense data determines the truth
            Not what empiricism means nor what I hold for true.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Tested and works well enough. Cope.
            >well enough

            I did an econ class and they gave us a homework assignment (a neoclassicalist professor) showing that some theory was wrong and didn't match with the data. Keynesian is not at all empirical and a bunch of balooney. Most economists will say "yeah theres a lot of issues", and then just ignore it. It is like Newtonian mechanics then, but even worse because despite their forecasts on the market being wrong, they still use it. THAT is cope. Rational choice theory is wrong and a silly assumption.

            >Than thousands knowing better than me, all having an incentive to prove others wrong yet all agree? No.

            Horrible epistemology, what size of the group do you want. You know there are thousands of flat earthers right? You want 50,000, 100,000, 1 billion, 5? Oh wait! If you go to 5 billion, guess what! They all think God exist. Wow, crazy. Therefore God is true! Surely all these people know better than me and know the data well.

            >It's not dogma, it's phylogenetic analyses.

            You're posting on IQfy, you're not going to win this one Anon. Also, then suppose race doesnt exist and you see race exists throughout history, see

            >Race is just an arbitrary category that means nothing.

            Ok, then I will reverse it, for 100 years or so until Galton, the 'race myth' was held by scientists who used 'evidence' like craniometry, linguistic data, and Darwin's theory. The Race 'myth' was not shortlived.

            >Give me one video which captures a genuine miracle.

            I sent it, the icon in the video is spilling myrr from itself. There are also studies on Eucharistic miracles where cardiologists analyzed sacred hosts after they were left for a while to find it to be living.

            >>How do scholars resolve this Lunar-CIA paradox?
            >By feeding schizos their meds.

            Not how it works. You don't understand that I don't actually care about this idea, I made it up. I am saying that your argument is equilvant to that idea. You just, idk the word, shouewd it away and then changed the subject. You haven't engaged with the reasons and this doesn't answer the question: of epistemology and ontology.

            >No. You said science can be wrong without considering that possibility for religion.

            No.

            >The one hoax the Church didn't fall for, you did.

            Prove it is a hoax, otherwise you're yapping. Notice how all your responses are like maybe 10 words at most without a justification either appealing to dogma, your own presuppositions or you just saying "No".

            >In science, proving someone wrong makes you famous.

            Famous or Infamous? Was Darwin famous? Was Kinsey famous? This doesn't work. And often times when you post peer reviewed studies about stuff like men becoming women, it doesn't go to well. Or that women like rape. Or that rape is a selective trait. This makes you Infamous and an outcast. Science is about asserting dogmas and using the mind alone to come up with dogmas.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >they gave us a homework assignment showing that some theory was wrong
            You said it was a dogma. Were you lying then or now?

            >Horrible epistemology
            It makes planes fly, cars roll and computers compute. Your epistemology causes wars and massacres.

            >You're posting on IQfy, you're not going to win this one Anon.
            Because... I-I just won't okay?

            >Prove it is a hoax
            Appeared way too late to be credible a priori, carbon dating, no blood found, no pollens from the Middle East found, image was reproduced using a piece of cloth on a statue.

            >Notice how all your responses are like maybe 10 words at most
            To fit them in one post. And they're still better than your moron babbling.

            >Was Darwin famous? Was Kinsey famous?
            Yes. Except to morons.

            >when you post peer reviewed studies about stuff like men becoming women, it doesn't go to well
            Thank you for saying it never "doesn't go to well" for me.

            >Or that women like rape.
            This is why my answers are 10 words. All I need to do is sit back and watch you ridicule yourself.

            >By scientists crunching data or theologians having an opinion?

            Newton was a deist. Most scientists were christian. Astronomy was advanced for liturgical purposes. Mendel was a priest. The person who came up with the big bang was a priest.

            All your arguments are fallacious side tracking of points that I don't need to argue, but only respond lest you feel boastful for me not replying to your horrible illogical replies.

            >Both came from observations in antiquity

            Came from observations (empirical methods)... and refuted by later science (an emprical process). Ok...?

            I want you to also just know this, what your underlying belief here is that science cannot error and there wasn't a time and point where the scinetiifc community was wrong. You keep debating historical facts, and it seems as though you just have this pressupposiiton science is infalliable.

            That is not how it works. Science is a process prone to error. And you have the problem of induction as stated by Hume. All epistemologies of science admit an issue of induction, or they say we can never know until a theory has been falsified (popper). Allowing for incorrect opinions always.

            Thomas Kunen goes into this and cites more examples than I can recall or care to provide and his work was well recieved. Science is a process that can be 'revoluitonary' in a sense that it contradicts tradition. And it constantly does that. Todays dogma is tommorows refuted tradition.

            >Calling the result of methodical investigation of reality "tradition"... So desperate...

            YOU are trusting that the person who made the article did a methodological investigation. Hardly anyone verifies this. And sometimes the articles are wrong. The only way it is an investigation in the sense of you doing it is if the observer does it, and that would have to be you.

            Oh, but wait! Nono no, not even that! The guy I was replying to said "I believe in consensus"! What are you saying!

            "An opinion reached by a group as a whole"

            >Most scientists were christian.
            They did science, not theology.

            >Came from observations (empirical methods)... and refuted by later science (an emprical process). Ok...?
            Yes. Not my fault if it makes you seethe.

            >your underlying belief here is that science cannot error
            I explicitly said it could. So can religion, but YOU believe it can't.

            >Science is a process prone to error.
            >And sometimes the articles are wrong.
            What about religion?

            >Todays dogma is tommorows refuted tradition.
            Scientific consensus is always subject to change. That's what makes it not dogma, and that's yet another way to prove that science is the exact opposite of religion.

            >YOU are trusting that the person who made the article did a methodological investigation.
            If they didn't, someone will publish a reproduction that finds a different result.

            >Hardly anyone verifies this.
            It's scientists' daily job. Your turn. How do you proofcheck your religious dogma?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >
            I did an econ class and they gave us a homework assignment (a neoclassicalist professor) showing that some theory was wrong and didn't match with the data.

            This is what happens when you start letting idiots into college.

            My god. You may as well have sucked your instructor's dick.

            YOU HAVE YOUR OWN BRAIN.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >By scientists crunching data or theologians having an opinion?

            Newton was a deist. Most scientists were christian. Astronomy was advanced for liturgical purposes. Mendel was a priest. The person who came up with the big bang was a priest.

            All your arguments are fallacious side tracking of points that I don't need to argue, but only respond lest you feel boastful for me not replying to your horrible illogical replies.

            >Both came from observations in antiquity

            Came from observations (empirical methods)... and refuted by later science (an emprical process). Ok...?

            I want you to also just know this, what your underlying belief here is that science cannot error and there wasn't a time and point where the scinetiifc community was wrong. You keep debating historical facts, and it seems as though you just have this pressupposiiton science is infalliable.

            That is not how it works. Science is a process prone to error. And you have the problem of induction as stated by Hume. All epistemologies of science admit an issue of induction, or they say we can never know until a theory has been falsified (popper). Allowing for incorrect opinions always.

            Thomas Kunen goes into this and cites more examples than I can recall or care to provide and his work was well recieved. Science is a process that can be 'revoluitonary' in a sense that it contradicts tradition. And it constantly does that. Todays dogma is tommorows refuted tradition.

            >Calling the result of methodical investigation of reality "tradition"... So desperate...

            YOU are trusting that the person who made the article did a methodological investigation. Hardly anyone verifies this. And sometimes the articles are wrong. The only way it is an investigation in the sense of you doing it is if the observer does it, and that would have to be you.

            Oh, but wait! Nono no, not even that! The guy I was replying to said "I believe in consensus"! What are you saying!

            "An opinion reached by a group as a whole"

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            empirically. That's one of the many ways to prove science is the exact opposite of religion.

            The way someone is canonized by a saint is by having an overseerer investigate things. Someone deemed an expert within the organization. The way Catholics determine a miracle as dogma is a similar way, and they have a crtieria list btw. This is why the Shroud of Turin wasn't accepted: I think it is, however, compelling.

            >Third, none of this justifies believing religion.

            I never said that, I was demonstrating how your logic precludes certain premises. Or that it was isomorphic to that idea. In brief, I was indicating your logic was flawed and wrong. i was critiquing you, not providing a positive claim.

            >Did they burn the Fatima kids alive?

            Because they investiagated and found no malfeicience. Also, by this logic, you are assuming there is evidence someone dressed up as Mary to these kids. Do you have any evidence of that? where do you suppose this is the case.

            > This is why Christians lie literally all the time.

            Do you have a peer reviewed study on that claim? It has been the opposite in my experience.

            >Second, frauds in science historically are short lived

            The idea that Race doesn't exist has been a perpetual dogma in science, which is of course false.

            As goes for Keynsian economics.

            >No. Why the frick would it?

            My suggestion is that your own verification and closeness to the data makes it more likely. I assume youre an empiricist. So then your sense data determines the truth. If you see it for yourself, you have more reason to believe. You have access to it yourself, not through the transmission of other sources.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The idea that Race doesn't exist has been a perpetual dogma in science, which is of course false.
            Race is just an arbitrary category that means nothing. Racists only want to apply it on humans so that they can hide their divisive political rhetoric behind a scientific veneer.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            lmao gr8 b8 m8

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, you're the sort of person who'd be convinced by infographics on IQfy which carefully curate information to construct a narrative. "Race" still is a convention without a physical meaning.
            >but much IQ
            The same psychologist that peddle IQ on the one hand are the ones who come up with 89 genders and catalogue of mental disorders every two decades on the other hand. Also how's the Flint effect explained?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >seething ad hom
            >how's the Flint(?) effect explained?
            It's literally right there lol. Perhaps actually read muh 4chud infographics before simply dismissing them out of hand, moron. Dunning Kruger is very real.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I checked on a third site and it says it's unexplained. Hm, I wonder who I should put my trust in. Someone who's clearly having an agenda or a neutral third party approved by experts. Yeah, I know you hate that.
            >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect#Intelligence

            >seething ad hom
            Suck it up or go back to your echochamber, gullible moron.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Race is just an arbitrary category that means nothing.

            Ok, then I will reverse it, for 100 years or so until Galton, the 'race myth' was held by scientists who used 'evidence' like craniometry, linguistic data, and Darwin's theory. The Race 'myth' was not shortlived.

            >Give me one video which captures a genuine miracle.

            I sent it, the icon in the video is spilling myrr from itself. There are also studies on Eucharistic miracles where cardiologists analyzed sacred hosts after they were left for a while to find it to be living.

            >>How do scholars resolve this Lunar-CIA paradox?
            >By feeding schizos their meds.

            Not how it works. You don't understand that I don't actually care about this idea, I made it up. I am saying that your argument is equilvant to that idea. You just, idk the word, shouewd it away and then changed the subject. You haven't engaged with the reasons and this doesn't answer the question: of epistemology and ontology.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I will also clarify, I haven't slept in 24 hours now, I do not feel like doing much work to find research not easily accessible to me. I cannot try to find research for everything, but I will try to do it when needed.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I will also clarify, I haven't slept in 24 hours now, I do not feel like doing much work to find research not easily accessible to me. I cannot try to find research for everything, but I will try to do it when needed.

            No, but seriously. Assume I'm not a gullible moron.
            What's the very BEST evidence you think there is of contemporary miracles? Myrr video seems really lame.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Myrr video seems really lame.
            It lacks a naturalistic explanation and in general, the testimonies have been that it has nonstop been streaming myrr since the 1960s. 'Lame' doesn't count to truth. It is evidence of something that seems only metaphysically possible.

            St. John the Wonderworker in san franciscio was said to levitate.

            St. Paisius from Mt. Athos was said to be able to have prior knowledge without meeting you before, he died a few years ago. His students still live in Fresno and you can ask.

            The Shroud of Turin. There is something about UV radiation and millions of wattz needed to produce something like that.

            This Eucharist miracle analyzed by a scientist in the 1970s:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_miracle_of_Lanciano

            Eucharist miracle investigated by someone in Colombia university

            https://sfarchdiocese.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Eucharistic_Miracles_class_2-BnW-small.pdf

            The myrr one is still living. A close friend of mine said he went to a place where it was being carried and smelled a strong scent of roses all the way from the back. The myrr is still being carried around and can be analyzed by anyone still.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >1960s
            1990s*

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It lacks a naturalistic explanation
            They made it up. Literally that easy. That's maybe a boring explanation, but it's a really good one.
            There's just such a huge precedent for people making stuff up, committing frauds, or otherwise to get people to believe false things.

            I'm not really sure what needs to be explained, the fact that the idol is wet?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >His students still live in Fresno and you can ask
            Yeah, I asked them. And they told me it was true.
            I believe in magic now.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Yeah, I asked them
            You can prod them and probe them and test for errors in their testimonies. That is how things work.

            >smelled a strong scent of roses all the way from the back. The myrr is still being carried around and can be analyzed by anyone still.
            I'm not really sure what's supposed to be supernatural about this

            >I'm not really sure what's supposed to be supernatural about this
            From the icon itself, dead things cannot produce such scents from nothing. And the scent cannot be that strong. That is unlikely.

            I will continue also:

            >That's kind of my point, right?
            >Which is why I think it's concerning that you've sorta hyst decided to believe divine simplify is false.

            That is not what it implies. By this logic why believe anything. Here is what you're saying:

            (1) Nobody can go about figuring out if you're wrong about divine simplity
            (2) Therefore one shouldn't decide divine simplicty is false.

            Equivalently:

            (1) Nobody can go about figuring out if you're wrong about x
            (2) Therefore one shouldn't x is false.

            Therefore:

            (1) Nobody can go about figuring out if you're wrong about any fact that is true, at all
            (2) Therefore one shouldn't decide any fact that is true, at all is false.

            So, nobody should believe anything? This is faulty logic, I dont know what youre getting at. There will always be epistemic uncertainty, and no mind can understand unless they have all the facts.

            [...]
            If a person said "oh sorry no miracles, just like stuff you cant see", you would call it bullshit and say "that doesnt make sense if God is supposedly all powerful and great". If now I say "yes, religion claims miracles exist, because God is amazing" you laugh.

            You do not care about the facts of the matter. Your pressuppostion is God doesnt exist. You will never change your mind with that mindset and no matter what I say about miracles you will think "well thats implausible and silly", and then you may proceed to ask for evidence, but you actually do not care about evidence. I infer you arent the same anon. Nontheless, this holds.

            >They made it up. Literally that easy. That's maybe a boring explanation, but it's a really good one.

            The icon has myrr, it isn't wetness. And you see it in the video. What I mean is that, there were studies on the myrr of the icon and there was no explanation for it. Possibly it was sap from the wood? No, not possible. Possibly the priest put something in there? No, didn't happen.

            You say "they made it up", when there is literally video footage of the miracle

            "You say "they made it up", when there is literally video footage of the miracle..."

            there is literally video footage of the miracle taking place. You see the priests have to put cotton in the icon and see them drain many drops of sticky susbtances which appear to be myrr from the icon. This "they made it up" is ridiculous what you're saying. How? How fool. How. You are implying they said it and made it up. But no, there is video stuff. You cannot 'make that up'. It either has to be forged or naturalistically explained. Neither has been shown.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It either has to be forged
            Yes. That's what I mean by made-up.
            I don't really care to speculate about the specific of how to make an idol wet. I used to do magic tricks as a child, it doesn't seem hard to pull off.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the scent cannot be that strong. That is unlikely
            More unlikely than a literal miracle? lol
            You're such a moron, holy shit

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >More unlikely than a literal miracle?
            If your model cannot prove the reasoning for this, your model is incomplete and you should fix your model. Otherwise, agnosticism is warranted. No naturalistic explaiations exist for that.

            I found the article.
            https://elementy.ru/nauchno-populyarnaya_biblioteka/435363/Mirotochashchie_ikony_chto_govorit_nauka

            >It either has to be forged
            Yes. That's what I mean by made-up.
            I don't really care to speculate about the specific of how to make an idol wet. I used to do magic tricks as a child, it doesn't seem hard to pull off.

            >Yes. That's what I mean by made-up.
            Above is an article which analyzes icon myrr miracles and shows no natural solutions exist.

            >I don't really care to speculate about the specific of how to make an idol wet. I used to do magic tricks as a child, it doesn't seem hard to pull off.

            You don't know what you're talking about. Suppose this scenario

            >Hey, I just showed light can be a particle and a wave
            >Experiment just shines light through a tiny whole and some foil. I cant speculate on this magic. I used to do magic tricks as a child, it doesn't seem hard to pull off.

            You're silly.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >No naturalistic explaiations exist for that
            For what? What data do we have to explain?
            We were talking about your friend's claim that he smelled roses. (which seems like really good evidence that it actually is possible to smell "all the way to the back")

            Suppose smell don't carry that far. Maybe your friend just imagined it, or he smelled something else? Why are you jumping to miracle as the best explanation

            It's just so unserious. Bunch of bearded men leaning over the idol and rubbing it with moist looking cotton. No way for me to tell what is supposed to be going on.
            Is this supposed to be a miracle? That the idol is wet, after being rubbed with wet cotton?
            You need to spell it out for me: Like, am I supposed to think the idol is generating the wetness (myrrh?) of nothing, by way of miracle.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >For what? What data do we have to explain?
            The Icon video.

            >That the idol is wet, after being rubbed with wet cotton?

            The paper I sent showed it was vegetable oil. And obviously they're not rubbing it with wet cotton. If you look at the video, the cotton was falling apart. They got the wetness from the icon.

            >You need to spell it out for me

            The icon started streating myrr. That is the term people used. A priest was working on a shift, he noticed this and investigated. It became well known in the orthodox community, and people saw it. The original guy died and the icon died.

            This icon shown here, I forgot how it came to be. Anyways during a reunification, it starting streaming fluids. The icon was there and it was noticed that the icon was getting myrr like stuff on it.

            The icon had been preserved there and shown that myrr kept building up from the icon. The icon produced myrr. Myrr came from it. It just happened.

            >That the idol is wet, after being rubbed with wet cotton?

            This is silly too, you see the cotton rub out the myrr. And he stuffed the icon with cotton balls.

            Anyways, it just produces a sticky like substance itself, from itself. And has been doing so since. It did that for at least a decade. And people come visit and get the substence from the icon from the cotton balls or they get a mini icon inspired from it.

            Anyways, the icon just got wet itself. It stays there, and the next day you need to clean it because it got sticky.

            The paper I sent investigated the substance of the icon. It is the Ivry Icon. Apparently it is olive oil or vegetable oil that comes from it. Or the substance best aligns with that. The paper also confirmed the very strong stench of roses.

            They didn't provide a naturalistic explanation for that.

            In the video, the icon keeps producing myrr and they keep having to wipe it with cotton balls because it would get really sticky. The substance just appears and appears on the icon.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Myrr is even coming out of the glass
            Wow, you seriously believe this?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You ask for reasons
            I give reasons
            You ask for video
            I give video
            You ask for a meaning
            I give a meaning

            What more can a person do? Like, bruh. As I have already indicated it really just seems like your head is an egg. An empty shell stuck to the puddly yoke garbage that is naturalism.

            I can give you video of Jesus Christ himself healing people and you will call it foolish. I can show a scientists who converted and you will close your ears.

            "You shall keep on listening, [f]but shall not understand;
            And [g]you shall keep on looking, [h]but shall not perceive; For the heart of this people has become dull, With their ears they scarcely hear, And they have closed their eyes, Otherwise they might see with their eyes, Hear with their ears, Understand with their heart, and return, And I would heal them."

            You are like at a point where I can show anything, I can show the greatest of proofs and you will not accept it literally just because it implies God exists.

            Even if mathematics showed it, physics showed it, philosophy showed it, you wouldn't believe for the simple reason:

            (1) It proves God exists
            (2) Therefore it is invalid

            Like, are you moronic? What is your problem. Eggshell brain. A lot of people on IQfy were narcissists, when I used discord. Maybe that is why.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Look, it's just when some bearded 70YO man in cosplay says myrr is coming out of a glass panel.
            I don't believe him right away. You do.
            We're built different.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >myrr is coming out of a glass panel
            To be fair, that was probably just condensation. And not part of the miracle.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >smelled a strong scent of roses all the way from the back. The myrr is still being carried around and can be analyzed by anyone still.
            I'm not really sure what's supposed to be supernatural about this

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        of the supernatural and miracles.
        >All bullshit.

        I may also, add..

        >>How many experiments have you seen or read?
        >Definitely more than you.

        You are confident that they are 'bullshit'. You've read/seen as many testimonies and/or experiential data as you have with the physical sciences which led you to believe your current presuppositions. And of the same caliber of quality (from the relatively high position of a hierachy of knowledge, expertise, and influence: e.g, Aquinas and theologians are higher and academic than some random Billybob pastor)?

        And you've done your due dilligence relative to how much dilligence you did with verifying the scientific claims?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Aquinas
          He and Augustine retconned "theodicy" onto God, which is disproven by the fact that 5% of men are constitutional psychopaths incapable of empathy or remorse. Aquinas also "worshiped" God, as if he were a narcissist who would require or even desire such a thing. Also,
          >hard mode: argue that Satan exists

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Testimonies of the supernatural and miracles.
      Gullible moron.

      Testimony: My neighbor walked on water last week

      What best explains this?
      Miracle?
      Or
      people making up stories?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Gullible moron.
        >Testimony: My neighbor walked on water last week

        I refer you to my reply which seems to aim at showing all things are testimonies. Most useful knowledge is testimonies.

        >No one's. I trust the consensus
        You trust the collective testimonies of people, set :=CS. 'Whose' need not be singular. You trust the consensus which was caused by something. These causes may be by data or not. I would suppose that if these causes were not by data, you would not trust them. Therefore we may remove all such people from the consensus as valuable testimonies CS' = CS- S, S was clarified.

        You trust the testimonies which were transmuted by peer review or oral tradition which was ultimately caused by data and reason. Ultimately you trust the original testimonies by those who confirmed such things. You trust the collective of individuals of testimonies, which then may minimally be the collective of individuals of original testimonies (irreducible testimonies).

        > something religious people are not allowed to do because doubting the dogma means eternal torture.

        Therefore, all religious testimony is bad? Your priors dictate that no religious testimony is good from the getgo. I may remind you of the replication crisis and many showcases of maleficence in peer review. The Stanford or Harvard (I forgot which) Italian woman in particular- some academics are motivated to lie because it may preclude temporal pleasure.

        I may add to this, though. The Magisterium's criteria is not arbitrary. And they seperate wheat from chaff. They burned people alive who were known to fake miracles.

        (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_apparition : See 'Jezter')

        Furthermore, I might add that bearing false testimony and spreading lies means eternal torture, “But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

        >No, and I don't need to.

        Would this not make it more likely that the results are true if you were to see it?

        There is more to this, though, the quality of testimonies. Which is by peer review and the Magisterium has laid out.

        >Aquinas
        He and Augustine retconned "theodicy" onto God, which is disproven by the fact that 5% of men are constitutional psychopaths incapable of empathy or remorse. Aquinas also "worshiped" God, as if he were a narcissist who would require or even desire such a thing. Also,
        >hard mode: argue that Satan exists

        This was one example of a theologian. I do not believe divine simplicity is correct and Aquinas was in error with many of his teachings.

        I will say that better arguments on God are less accesible, liek the Ireanean theodicy or the idea of Monalism. The Eastern Orthodox tradition is free from error.

        So long as you have researched religion as deep as parts of science which preclude you to naturalism, then it seems you are not being hypocrtical (inconsistent). Assuming you've read Aquinas or his works, then there seems to be no inconsistency.

        As to your individual objections, if we are removing Aquinas here and asking on a model in which God may be consitent or reasonable:

        >hard mode: argue that Satan exists
        Satan was a Seraphim closest to God, and chose to rebel due to his free will. The Kantian ethics of God, or virtue ethics (his energies being the good), dictates that created essences must have free will. Of course free will may lead to bad consequences, but directly, at least, God is good.

        Satan exists because he chose to rebel against God, using his free will God gave him.

        >Aquinas also "worshiped" God, as if he were a narcissist

        Of course this is hard for you to understand and may come off as weird, but, is it narcissitic to wish your pets to follow your command? And what metric is this not narcisstic? Because there is a difference of intellect of about x units? About the distance, what if it were infinite? Then would a person be less justified for him to desire his pet gave him kisses and obeyed when he said 'sit' and 'down'?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >miracles stopped the moment the smartphone dropped
          How do scholars resolve this miracle-smartphone paradox?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >How do scholars resolve this miracle-smartphone paradox?

            That is false, the Orthodox church still has miracles.

            They have modern saints, and they have modern miracle workers.

            You just haven't seen the data.

            Also, this is not a good idea. As said with solar eclipses, it is something hard to detect. Let me go further:

            >Interplanetary travel stopped the moment JFK was assasinated

            How do scholars resolve this Lunar-CIA paradox?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You just haven't seen the data.
            Give me one video which captures a genuine miracle.

            >How do scholars resolve this Lunar-CIA paradox?
            By feeding schizos their meds.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >I do not believe divine simplicity is correct
          If you were wrong about that. And DDS is true.
          How could you go about figuring that out?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >How could you go about figuring that out?
            So, my crtieria was to analyze history.

            I came to Christianity due to the watchmaker argument and the fact our computing power got better and better. So, if computing got better and better, and theoretically everything is mathematically modelable, and there will be no God of the gaps, then it should seem likely we would be able to "create" the universe. and we have a model on how to do this (primitive): AI evolution-based learning and computers.

            I first stuck with Christianity due to Pascals wager.

            I now stick to it because supposing miracles are possible and God is more likely than not to exist, Christianity is likely. The historical account is perfect, the only issues is the supernatural stuff. But if a higher being is probable, metaphysics is possible and no longer could be handwaved by me.

            For Catholicism: I had to rule out Protestantism first. I think it is best to poke at their epistemological foundations. Ive been writing a paper analyzing the mathematical consistency of their doctrine of "sola fide" and how well it works compared to non Protestant doctrines. Secondly, sola scripture. I havent written anything formal, but arguments I know informally indicate this js a bad episremology and infalliable tradition makes more sense.

            To rule out Catholicism to Orthodox, I looked at primary sources of history. The 8th council about Photius (about the filioque), and then seeing evidence of the Papacy in history and seeing if the historical evidence was good. I attacked the foundational differences again, not their doctrines. I dont believe in divine simplicity for the same reason I don't believe in the axiom of choice: the pressuppositions that are reasonable do not prove it. In particular, they prove otherwise.

            So with Catholics I attacked their epistemology, I used "Catholic sources of dogma" by Denzinger and looked at debates and catholic apologetics. For the filioque I went to thomist monasteries

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This isn't really engaging with the hypothetical: IF YOU WERE WRONG (about divine simplicity)

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This isn't really engaging with the hypothetical: IF YOU WERE WRONG (about divine simplicity)

            >How could you go about figuring that out?

            Ok, I misread. I figure it out, anyways from what I said. I think you needed to better phrase your question. If i were wrong, I wouldve beleived wrongly. Who is to say I could figure it out? How do I know that I do not know something? This is funny, it is a concept in Modal logic. You cannot know what you cannot know:

            notK notK_a (phi), K_a is "know", phi is a formuila, a is an agent.

            Anyways, without being able to engage with the question I will guess.

            Supposing I knew I was possibly wrong, or I became uncertain. Then I would use the best tools I have. I would use data and hermuentic logic to try to fish out which model makes more sense. Hermuenetic logic is the idea of how can you interpret something that seems inconsistent to be consistent. And at what point is it clear it is inconsistent and it should be abandoned. People do this all the time, like with the grandfather's paradox in particular. They concieve of many worlds models, or branching timelines, which aren't proven in the theory itself, but are metatheories to make the theory plausible.

            Then I would see religions, see which ones make more sense. How can a person access a metaphysical being (outside our experience), other than by a priori reason or by prophets? I think one of the two works. I can boil down which prophets make more sense using historical data and facts I know about the world: for example with Jesus, there are facts about hallucinations and whether or not theyre possible to be all at once.

            Theres also radio carbon dating. And stylometry. So these test historical claims of a prophets reliability/validity.

            I am more of an evidentialist, than a pure logic person- it seems.

            The other way you could do this is by just modeling God, like seeing which types of God are logically possible (dont lead to contradiction), and which models of God are consistent (an inconsistent might be like Calvinists and determinism)

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Who is to say I could figure it out?
            That's kind of my point, right?
            Which is why I think it's concerning that you've sorta hyst decided to believe divine simplify is false.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >That's kind of my point, right?
            >Which is why I think it's concerning that you've sorta hyst decided to believe divine simplify is false.

            That is not what it implies. By this logic why believe anything. Here is what you're saying:

            (1) Nobody can go about figuring out if you're wrong about divine simplity
            (2) Therefore one shouldn't decide divine simplicty is false.

            Equivalently:

            (1) Nobody can go about figuring out if you're wrong about x
            (2) Therefore one shouldn't x is false.

            Therefore:

            (1) Nobody can go about figuring out if you're wrong about any fact that is true, at all
            (2) Therefore one shouldn't decide any fact that is true, at all is false.

            So, nobody should believe anything? This is faulty logic, I dont know what youre getting at. There will always be epistemic uncertainty, and no mind can understand unless they have all the facts.

            https://i.imgur.com/uF94PS0.jpeg

            >St. John the Wonderworker in san franciscio was said to levitate.

            If a person said "oh sorry no miracles, just like stuff you cant see", you would call it bullshit and say "that doesnt make sense if God is supposedly all powerful and great". If now I say "yes, religion claims miracles exist, because God is amazing" you laugh.

            You do not care about the facts of the matter. Your pressuppostion is God doesnt exist. You will never change your mind with that mindset and no matter what I say about miracles you will think "well thats implausible and silly", and then you may proceed to ask for evidence, but you actually do not care about evidence. I infer you arent the same anon. Nontheless, this holds.

            >They made it up. Literally that easy. That's maybe a boring explanation, but it's a really good one.

            The icon has myrr, it isn't wetness. And you see it in the video. What I mean is that, there were studies on the myrr of the icon and there was no explanation for it. Possibly it was sap from the wood? No, not possible. Possibly the priest put something in there? No, didn't happen.

            You say "they made it up", when there is literally video footage of the miracle

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Non-physical things influence the path and manner of physical things, therefore they exist.

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Prove that a soul exists. You can't.
    then why do i literally feel my soul right now

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You don't.

      By definition. He’s not located at a measurable distance from another known existent object.

      I know he's not in reality.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Neither is gravity or any other word ending in -ity (including the grandiose abstraction, “reality” or any other abstraction).

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Gravity is literally an inertial force felt in space and caused by properties of spacetime. Getting THIS desperate?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Force is a verb. It’s like saying my “walk” “exists”.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >within just a few posts, the theist is once again reduced to wordgame shitposting
            embarrassing

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            In my first post, I gave a definition of "exist" (to be located a measurable distance from a known existent object). How far is "gravity" from the tree in my front garden? Or is it a mere hypostasis (i. e., without substance and thus non-existent)?

            I'm a deist, btw.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, I sometimes go on a walk, and when I do, it leads to a walk that takes place in reality. Do you have more bullets to shoot at your foot like this?

            Your statement is a bare assertion. Physical material might be all that exists but there’s no way to even estimate the probability of that, much less prove it.

            There are all the good reasons to think matter exists. There's zero reason to think God exists. And as long as there isn't, there is no reason for me to believe in the magic garden and the floating zoo, mutilate my wiener and give 10% of my income to the local pedophile. It's baffling that no matter how many times we explain this to Christians, they don't get it and stay shocked that there exist people out there who don't decide to live their entire lives by moronic shit they have zero evidence for whatsoever.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >There's zero reason to think God exists.
            Only arguments that have nothing to do with a supposed contract with foreskins as consideration or israelites on sticks. The theists shove things like that in after they've made logical arguments only go so far as deism.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Your statement is a bare assertion. Physical material might be all that exists but there’s no way to even estimate the probability of that, much less prove it.

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    non provable != doesn't exist

    try again homosexual

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    By definition. He’s not located at a measurable distance from another known existent object.

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You guys seriously think if miracles, magic, ghosts and supernatural stuff happened even somewhat regularly. There would be doubt about it?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      "Supernatural" means "beyond the natural" and is by definition scientifically inexplicable.

      Interestingly much of the supernatural beings (ghosts, jinn, demons, spirits etc.) are traditionally understood as being deliberately deceptive to humans.

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >inb4 500+ character, reddit spaced post that says absolutely nothing and is only meant to waste your time + 45 minute video of one "miracle healing" of Pastor Bob in a megachurch which is clearly a predatory scam

  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >the icon in the video is spilling myrr from itself.
    This is expected on the theism hypothesis

  28. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This so dumb. If your theology allows miracles being captured on smartphone camera, you'd think there be something good
    But then there's just bearded men in cosplay with a wet picture of Mary

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The miracle-smartphone paradox is one of the many issues that theologians worldwide are grappling with. You can't except an answer to this highly complicated and technical problem in a IQfy post. You need at least a bachelors in philosophy and formal logic to even hope to grasp the question itself. Please educate yourself.

  29. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    "Supernatural" is a worthless word. If something "supernatural" is proven to exist it instantly becomes natural, ergo anything "supernatural" does not exist by definition.

  30. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >St. John the Wonderworker in san franciscio was said to levitate.

  31. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Prove that a soul exists
    We don't "prove" semantics. Either we define it that way, or we dont.

  32. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Can you prove there is life on other planets? you never seen them, but you know it's there.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That's some kind of inductive reasoning. Life on 1 planet -> Life on other plants

      What kind of inference are you using to get at the immaterial? Physical exist ??? the immaterial exist
      What a mess

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        We know that God looks like us since we where made to look like just like him.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >we where made to look like just like him.
          I don't know this

  33. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Non-physical things don't exist.
    Math?
    Ethics?
    Logic?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *