• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

what is more likely?

hornsby

Member
Now you are changing the options. The options presented were invisible monkey floating above San Fran or nothing floating above San Fran. .

the question remains the same. only difference is, now there is a hypothetical consequence to answering incorrectly. your life depends on it. all this does is incentivise you to answer correctly. nothing more nothing less.... the options are still the same. monkey or no monkey... if your life depended on it, what, in your mind, is most likely to represent reality?



To your new question, though...

Why does my life depend on it? .

are you serious? :slap:

because the cow said 'moooooh" and the pig responded "OINK!" .......its a hypothetical question...




This will be very informative as to how I answer. For example, if it is just some jerk threatening me, I may decide to call their bluff and answer incorrectly. Additionally, I may simply attempt to discern the answer they are looking for as opposed to the answer I consider correct. Also, if someone else's life is additionally threatened and saving my own would kill them, I might consider answering incorrectly to sacrifice myself in their place. Or I might answer correctly to ensure that they die instead of me. Of course, I don't actually know what the right answer is and any consideration of probability of one event or another is pretty much a complete waste of time without any data to go on. .


its just your own life that depends on it, you are trapped in an elevator and a robot is programmed to deliver this question to you through the intercom.

"invisible monkey over san fran, or no invisible monkey over san fran?" "choose the scenario that represents reality and you live, choose wrong and the cables will be cut and you will fall to your death"



Then again... we DO have data for what is floating above San Fran as opposed to the origin of the universe which has NO DATA. That sort of makes the question irrelevant anyway.

and what data is that??? SPROING!!
 

hornsby

Member
You have merely taken the age old "the odds are so high against the universe existing by chance that God has to exist" argument and turned it around.

Now since that argument can be dismissed for failure of the claimant to provide the math, why shouldn't yours be the same?

Or are you going to continue your feeble attempts of avoiding the math?


again i ask you, do you really need math to calculate the probabilities of santa claus coming to town IN ORDER TO dismiss this as LESS LIKELY????
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I see you are yet another person who does not hold mainstream beliefs.....lots of interesting types on these religious forums representing a variety of customized and detailed fringe beliefs.

i have never heard someone claim god is less complex than his creation or limiting god to doing "one thing" or having "one function" "one way" not sure whether you are just saying this to get out of a sticky situation, or if this is truly your belief, but

my question mainly addresses mainstream believers that make up the majority of theists on the planet today, so in the interest of not cluttering this thread i will let you go... much like i did with the panentheist, and the person holding eastern religious views...

:sad4:
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
my question mainly addresses mainstream believers that make up the majority of theists on the planet today, so in the interest of not cluttering this thread i will let you go... much like i did with the panentheist, and the person holding eastern religious views...

I think I'm that non-mainstream eastern guy you are referring too. I thought the beliefs of over a billion people over thousands of years would place the beliefs in the mainstream.

But if you're not interested in discussing anything outside the western box please say so in the OP so us non-mainstream people do not waste your and our time by reading and responding.
 

hornsby

Member
I think I'm that non-mainstream eastern guy you are referring too. I thought the beliefs of over a billion people over thousands of years would place the beliefs in the mainstream.

But if you're not interested in discussing anything outside the western box please say so in the OP so us non-mainstream people do not waste your and our time by reading and responding.

i will keep that in mind for you
 

Sir Doom

Cooler than most of you
the question remains the same. only difference is, now there is a hypothetical consequence to answering incorrectly. your life depends on it. all this does is incentivise you to answer correctly. nothing more nothing less.... the options are still the same. monkey or no monkey... if your life depended on it, what, in your mind, is most likely to represent reality?

No, the actual presented options have changed. First you gave me the choice between and invisible flying monkey floating above San Fransisco, and nothing floating above San Fransisco.

Now you are asking me whether there is an invisible monkey floating above San Fransisco or not an invisible floating monkey above San Fransisco.

In the first choice, the probability is obvious. We know there is SOMETHING floating above San Fransisco because there is ALWAYS SOMETHING floating above San Fransisco. Therefore the difference between NOTHING (0%) and invisible floating monkey (also 0%) is NO DIFFERENCE. Totally even at no chance.

are you serious? :slap:

No, I am not taking your hypothetical seriously. Its laughable.

because the cow said 'moooooh" and the pig responded "OINK!" .......its a hypothetical question...

As I suspected (and attempted to alleviate) you have completely misunderstood the point of my question here. I understand that my life must be in jeopardy for this question. But the REASON my life is in jeopardy will drastically alter how I answer. That's why its important to know. And why I asked.

its just your own life that depends on it, you are trapped in an elevator and a robot is programmed to deliver this question to you through the intercom.

"invisible monkey over san fran, or no invisible monkey over san fran?" "choose the scenario that represents reality and you live, choose wrong and the cables will be cut and you will fall to your death"

"Your mother is floating above San Fransisco, you metallic buffoon. Cut the cable if you have the balls."

Now do you see how that's a possible answer given the scenario? Next time design it so I can't answer with that. Just like your OP. You are intentionally leaving out very obvious alternatives to the two options you present so that you can attempt to force the opinion regardless of knowledge. And then you want to call it empirical. Identical to Pascal's Wager, in fact. Laughable.

and what data is that??? SPROING!!

The vast collection of video and photographic evidence of the sky over San Francisco. The vast number of people currently observing the sky over San Francisco. My own personal past observations of the sky over San Francisco. Should I keep going? Or is direct observation not enough to count as data?

Compare this to the data regarding the origin of the universe:


















































Oh snap.
 

Blackdog22

Well-Known Member
An antonym is an opposite. So when I looked up "complex" it is what I found that best suits the personality of The One I (think) I know. You seemed to have read over that word. It is something that my God never does.

Ah you are correct. When you said "I looked up the word complex" it was very easy to think you actually looked up the word and not the antonym. My apologies.

I would like to point out the bold text because you, like many other Christians, just ascribed a characteristic of God. He doesn't miss words ever.

You then go onto say.

The Earth and the universe both are more complex than God. The brain is more complex than God. A cell is too. I think that attempting to define God is a sin. I don't do it. I sometimes have tried to describe God which I have done here but I think defining and describing are different.

So my brain is more complex than God yet it misses words and Gods brain (Or whatever you wish to call it) does not. Seems rather peculiar.

The bolded text seems to say that you think you are in a constant state of sin less you worship an unfounded God. You mentioned Jesus so I assume you read the Bible which would make that book in a constant state of sin since it defines God in many ways.

If thats how you want to put it. I only gave descriptions of what I have heard about God as well. Descriptions are part of the process that helps us define what something is. How exactly would you define something with no descriptive words??


Finally, I have to say I find it bizarre that I am more complex than your God. How could your God even imagine me if he isn't at least as complex as me, but to say your "God" is a mere simpleton compared to me is.....a unique take I must say. If that is your position I don't think we can go any further however since that would place you outside of the point of this discussion.
 

Blackdog22

Well-Known Member
the feeling is mutual, trust me. no mainstream christian or muslim is willing to touch this topic with a ten foot pole.....

To be honest Hornsby I don't think you will get many honest responses to this and the ones you do will be from people who hold such a vastly different view of God that it is barely even a religion more than it is a cult.

I think everyone knows exactly what you are trying to say and if the responses are 50/50 for everything we make up on a whim then...I think you can safely assume this isn't going anywhere.
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Complex means "Consisting of many different and connected parts." YHVH is HOLY. There does not exist anything different "in" "Him".

And I said "to define God is a sin" as in settling on a distinct vision of The Almighty is wrong. How can a man know God to define God? I think he can not. So if a man does define God he is lying which is a sin. "You must not bear false witness against your neighbor". Would it not be worse to bear false witness about God? I think so. "No man can see God and live". How can you define something you can not see? Can you see God to define God?
Here is what I mean. It is googled define define.
State or describe exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of.
 

Blackdog22

Well-Known Member
State or describe exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of.

Every word you used would fall into that category. How can you then say "My God doesn't miss words" or he is "simple". Those are just are definitive as "complex". You are losing me Savage.

What did you think about the rest of my post?
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Every word you used would fall into that category. How can you then say "My God doesn't miss words" or he is "simple". Those are just are definitive as "complex". You are losing me Savage.

What did you think about the rest of my post?

This is all very complex for me. I shall go back to the other. I can not do them both at the same time. How do I know God does not miss words? It is in my head that I must be perfect as my Heavenly Father is perfect. It is an aspect of God that comes into view as I draw close to God. When I am realizing the fact that God is perfect I am not considering anything else because I can not see anything else. If in my head I was defining God I would be able to associate God's perfection with every other aspect that God possesses. I can not do that. Can you?

Simple does not mean unintelligent.
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
he bolded text seems to say that you think you are in a constant state of sin less you worship an unfounded God.

I am in a state of sin, yes. It does not matter what I do or don't do, I am in sin.

You mentioned Jesus so I assume you read the Bible which would make that book in a constant state of sin since it defines God in many ways.

The Book does not define God. It attempts to define many of God's attributes. As far as I know there is no one who has a clear true picture of YHVH from what is written in The Bible.

If that's how you want to put it. I only gave descriptions of what I have heard about God as well. Descriptions are part of the process that helps us define what something is. How exactly would you define something with no descriptive words??
You wouldn't. Remember please, "define" means State or describe exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of. Who can do that?

but to say your "God" is a mere simpleton compared to me is
LOL. I think simple and simpleton are different but I'll flow with it. You are unpredictable and have many physical parts and mental attributes. God is predictable and has no parts (I do not believe in the Trinity)and has one attitude. The one attitude is love. How is that not simple?
 

Sir Doom

Cooler than most of you
To be honest Hornsby I don't think you will get many honest responses to this and the ones you do will be from people who hold such a vastly different view of God that it is barely even a religion more than it is a cult.

I'm unsure what the literal distinction between a religion and a cult is. Can you please describe this difference to me? Use as much detail as you can manage, please.

I think everyone knows exactly what you are trying to say and if the responses are 50/50 for everything we make up on a whim then...I think you can safely assume this isn't going anywhere.

You're right. I do know exactly what he's trying to say. For my thoughts on the subject you can refer to my first post, most of which has yet to be addressed. As to why this thread is going nowhere, you only have to consider where it was supposed to go to begin with. Another conjectural assumption, of course. Its unfortunate how intentions and results often don't match. But then again, what meaning would life have without trial and error? C'est la vie.
 

Blackdog22

Well-Known Member
I'm unsure what the literal distinction between a religion and a cult is. Can you please describe this difference to me? Use as much detail as you can manage, please.

I consider a cult nothing more than a religion with much fewer members. For example Westboro Baptist many Christians consider a cult because their views, while focusing on God, are so drastically different from most.

Cult - A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.

I think that definition put forth by Dictionary.com fits well.


You're right. I do know exactly what he's trying to say. For my thoughts on the subject you can refer to my first post, most of which has yet to be addressed. As to why this thread is going nowhere, you only have to consider where it was supposed to go to begin with. Another conjectural assumption, of course. Its unfortunate how intentions and results often don't match. But then again, what meaning would life have without trial and error? C'est la vie.
I feel like some people are intentionally being somewhat dishonest or needlessly evasive as to the core point. I've read your posts and I know you are a smart, rational and witty person. I don't think that you honestly believe that anything put forth, for which there is little to no evidence, would be or should be considered a 50/50 probability anymore than you would consider winning the lottery to be a 50/50 probability since it includes winning or losing.(Not the best analogy, but not sure one regarding something with no evidence would work)

Although you are right, I guess I didn't expect this to go anywhere. I think I was hoping maybe someone would consider particles that pop in and out of existence (for which we have evidence for) more likely, to some degree, than something more complex than we can imagine (I realize not all people think of God in this way, but for those who do, what your opinion on their vision of God vs a particle being more likely) at least on some level.

Edit: I feel like I should add. The more things put forth for which we have no evidence for automatically puts their probability lower even if its an assumed 50/50 is what I mean by that. If you have a 1000 ideas put forth, that are all exclusive, then you would have a 1/1000 divided by 2 (assuming 50/50) chance of that thing actually being true.
 
Last edited:

Sir Doom

Cooler than most of you
I consider a cult nothing more than a religion with much fewer members. For example Westboro Baptist many Christians consider a cult because their views, while focusing on God, are so drastically different from most.

Cult - A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.

I think that definition put forth by Dictionary.com fits well.

Yeah, I had a feeling this would be the answer. The reason I pulled this into the topic is because you seem to be framing 'cults' as though they must have even less credibility than a mainstream religion, which I can't seem to wrap my head around from an atheistic point of view. Should not both religions and cults be equally wrong regardless of relative size and 'strangeness' when considering these topics? Or are we saying that consensus has some bearing on truth?

I feel like some people are intentionally being somewhat dishonest or needlessly evasive as to the core point. I've read your posts and I know you are a smart, rational and witty person. I don't think that you honestly believe that anything put forth, for which there is little to no evidence, would be or should be considered a 50/50 probability anymore than you would consider winning the lottery to be a 50/50 probability since it includes winning or losing.(Not the best analogy, but not sure one regarding something with no evidence would work)

Here is the thing, in my first response I talked about the probabilities in relation to 'likely'. I then went on to discuss what I felt 'made sense' as a separate answer and answered directly that I did not feel that an intelligent designer made the universe. I think if the OP had bothered to read my response in its entirety we could have avoided a lot of this mess. Instead, since I dared to leave the possibility of God open, I was met with flippant dismissal and incredulous posturing. This confirmed for me what I suspected when I first read the OP. This is nothing more than a hackneyed attempt to bait and ridicule anyone who believes in god. The bets... they be off. Now, a lack of respect from the OP has directly transferred itself to me and is now being reflected in kind. I will continue to exploit every crack into a chasm. The OP will just have to stop including cracks, or will have to start responding with reasonable arguments instead of blustering self-superiority.

I'm really fine either way. This is my favorite game.

Although you are right, I guess I didn't expect this to go anywhere. I think I was hoping maybe someone would consider particles that pop in and out of existence (for which we have evidence for) more likely, to some degree, than something more complex than we can imagine (I realize not all people think of God in this way, but for those who do, what your opinion on their vision of God vs a particle being more likely) at least on some level.

Complexity being a subjective distinction, I don't find it has much bearing on what may or may not exist. Consider this, is a piece of wood more or less complex than the same piece of wood on fire? We can say it is more complex because now it is wood with fire. More components, more complexity. But then again the fire is converting what was an incredibly complex combination of elements (wood) into a very simple combination of elements (charcoal). So which is it definitively? Each to our own subjective interpretations of complexity and simplicity. One could even say that no change in complexity is happening at all. There are no wrong answers.

I honestly don't think virtual particles have been definitively demonstrated (though this is probably due to gaps of information on my part as opposed to anything else), and what's more, I do not believe that they are just 'popping into existence' so much as we just aren't aware of what is making them 'pop'. I can see how this would lend weight to a spontaneous universe as opposed to a created one, however. There is no direct correlation to be had, though so it can't inform the probabilities in any way and remains merely a distinction of human perception as opposed to objective evidence of a non-created universe.

Edit: I feel like I should add. The more things put forth for which we have no evidence for automatically puts their probability lower even if its an assumed 50/50 is what I mean by that. If you have a 1000 ideas put forth, that are all exclusive, then you would have a 1/1000 divided by 2 (assuming 50/50) chance of that thing actually being true.

Agreed. This is why the false dichotomy is a problem. It cannot be an accurate reflection of reality if it only presents two choices that don't even necessarily compete. It is an attempt to bypass the process of reasoning that any human being goes through when considering a topic and presents it in a very matter-of-fact way that suggests any deviance is foolish. Its little more than a hustle. A confidence game.
 

McBell

Unbound
I consider a cult nothing more than a religion with much fewer members. For example Westboro Baptist many Christians consider a cult because their views, while focusing on God, are so drastically different from most.
Make up your mind.
Or do you mean BOTH small size AND drastically different beliefs?

Cult - A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.

I think that definition put forth by Dictionary.com fits well..
I have no doubt you do.
Especially given that you chose it because it does not include your particular cult.
I much prefer this one:
"WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006)"
cult
n
1: followers of an exclusive system of religious beliefs and
practices
2: an interest followed with exaggerated zeal; "he always
follows the latest fads"; "it was all the rage that season"
[syn: fad, craze, furor, furore, cult, rage]
3: followers of an unorthodox, extremist, or false religion or
sect who often live outside of conventional society under the
direction of a charismatic leader
4: a religion or sect that is generally considered to be
unorthodox, extremist, or false; "it was a satanic cult"
5: a system of religious beliefs and rituals; "devoted to the
cultus of the Blessed Virgin" [syn: cult, cultus,
religious cult]​
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
"WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006)"

cult
I love WordNet for many things, but as it is unfamiliar to many and certainly doesn't have the reputation of the OED, I thought I'd reinforce (or supplement) the above definitions with the OED entry for cult:


"†1.
Worship; reverential homage rendered to a divine being or beings. Obs. (exc. as in sense 2).

1617 S. Collins Epphata to F. T.ii. ix. 371 You tell vs most absurdly of a diuine cult..for so cult you are, or so quilted in your tearmes.
1617 S. Collins Epphata to F. T.ii. ix. 380 You..referre it to the cult that you so foolishly talked of.
1683 D. A. Whole Art Converse 92 That Sovereign Cult due to God only.
a1706 J. Evelyn Hist. Relig. (1850) II. ix. 39 God, abolishing the cult of Gentile idols.



2.

a. A particular form or system of religious worship; esp. in reference to its external rites and ceremonies.

1679 W. Penn Addr. Protestantsii. App. 245 Let not every circumstantial difference or Variety of Cult be Nick-named a new Religion.
1699 Ld. Shaftesbury Inq. Virtue in Characteristicksi. iii. §2 In the Cult or Worship of such a Deity.
1850 W. E. Gladstone Homer II. 211 While she [Proserpine] has a cult or worship on earth, he [Aidoneus] apparently has none.
1859 L. Oliphant China & Japan I. xii. 242 They are devoted in their attentions to the objects of their culte.
1874 J. P. Mahaffy Social Life Greece xi. 350 The cult of Aphrodite.


b. Now freq. used attrib. by writers on cultic ritual and the archæology of primitive cults.

1901 A. J. Evans Mycenaean Tree & Pillar Cult 25 Aniconic Cult Images.
1901 A. J. Evans Mycenaean Tree & Pillar Cult 77 Cult Scenes relating to a Warrior God and his Consort.
1903 Folk-lore Sept. 264 The image of the patron deity, usually a simple copy of the cult statue.
1903 Folk-lore Sept. 269 Inscriptions found at various cult-centres.
1904 Hastings's Dict. Bible V. 118/1 The female Divinity must be represented by the female animal, in order to carry out the mythological tale or the cult-act.
1906 D. G. Hogarth in Proc. Brit. Acad. 1905–6 375 Small objects dedicated in that temple, among which are several cult-figurines of the Goddess.
1928 H. Peake & H. J. Fleure Steppe & Sown 104 Already in Early Minoan times the double axe had become, not only a symbol of authority, but a cult object.
a1930 D. H. Lawrence Apocalypse (1931) vii. 117 Cult-lore was the wisdom of the old races.
1950 H. L. Lorimer Homer & Monuments vi. 349 The earliest cult-image of the goddess.
1950 Scott. Jrnl. Theol. 3 368 The rôle of the king in the great cult-drama at the beginning of every new year.
1957 Antiquity & Survival II. 167/1 Near it a cult mask, made of clay, was still lying on the floor... In a further room, we discovered a unique cult-standard..made of bronze, with a tang to fasten it to a pole.


3.
transf. Devotion or homage to a particular person or thing, now esp. as paid by a body of professed adherents or admirers.

1711 Ld. Shaftesbury Characteristicks (1737) iii. i. I. 281 Convinc'd of the Reality of a better Self, and of the Cult or Homage which is due to It.
1829 A. W. Fonblanque Eng. under Seven Admin. (1837) I. 238 These cults are generally to be found in the same house.
1879 Q. Rev. Apr. 368 The cult of beauty as the most vivid image of Truth.
1889 John Bull 2 Mar. 141/2 An evidence of the decay of the Wordsworth cult."


Only in the draft section from 2004 to we find: "A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister" (with usage going back to 1927). We also find in the draft section:

"Designating cultural phenomena with a strong, often enduring appeal to a relatively small audience; (also) designating this appeal or audience, or any resultant success; fringe, non-mainstream. Hence: possessing a fashionable or exclusive cachet; spec. (of artistic figures or works) having a reputation or influence disproportionate to their limited public exposure or commercial success. Freq. in cult figure, cult status

1961 R. Heppenstall Fourfold Trad.ii. ii. 145 This is asking a lot of the general reader and helps to keep Ulysses in its curious position as a cult book.
1968 Punch 3 July 32/2 There has been a small cult-following for [Nathanael] West.
1970 Times 5 Nov. 14/6 There is some part of her in all of us, so that whatever our reaction to her, it cannot be one of indifference. It is easy to see how she could diminish into a fashionable cult-figure.
1976 Scotsman 20 Nov. (Weekend Suppl.) 3/1 The fact that it became something of a cult book should not be held against its author now.
1985 Music Week 2 Feb. (Advt. Suppl.), Bauhaus..achieved the highest level of cult success in the UK from '81–'83, with four silver albums.
1991 Twenty Twenty Spring 92/3 Tolkien's Lord of the Rings..became a major publishing phenomenon when its late Sixties Ballantine paperback edition attained campus cult status.
1993 Boulevard Spring 25 Eraserhead was a midnight cult movie, but Blue Velvet was the movie that made Lynch famous.
2000 F. Walker in J. Adams et al. Girls' Night In 39 Last year's pop sensation Ruby ‘Red’ Richmond had been supposedly in lurve with cult actor Slim Tim Gorman for several weeks"

This:
I
Cult - A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.

I think that definition put forth by Dictionary.com fits well.

doesn't seem to fit very well except in a very narrow sense. However, if WordNet and the OED don't convince, feel free to check out Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA), British National Corpus (BYU-BNC), and other corpora to see how the word is used in thousands of examples from modern sources (spoken and written) here.
 
Last edited:
Top