The Black Vault

at1with0 wrote:Being owned by feelings is not greater than the alternative.

frrostedman wrote:

at1with0 wrote:No creator is simpler than creator plus creation.

No it's not because creation can't be created without a creator. So, to have all this stuff of reality around us without a creator, you have to get around it with all kinds of theories and scenarios with no evidenciary support. That is vastly more comlicated than: Creator + creation.

Assuming existence was created, which in turn requires a creator, is more complicated than realizing existence was not created.

frrostedman wrote:Touché, however it is quite a leap to look at all this around us and just assume it wasn't created. That defies logic. I understand where you're going with it. If I may: You believe in a "God" that has always existed and was therefore never created, and, all that we see around us is just part of God. I get that I'll grant that it is far less complicated than all this infinite universes and realites stuff, but, it just doesn't make sense to me. Your concept reduces human beings to the equivalent of warring antibodies and virus cells.

Numerous definitions of and hypotheses about intelligence have been proposed since before the twentieth century, with no consensus reached by scholars.

at1with0 wrote:I wonder if it's even possible to prove humans are intelligent...by that rationale.

The Turing test is a test of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behaviour. In Turing's original illustrative example, a human judge engages in a natural language conversation with a human and a machine designed to generate performance indistinguishable from that of a human being. All participants are separated from one another. If the judge cannot reliably tell the machine from the human, the machine is said to have passed the test. The test does not check the ability to give the correct answer; it checks how closely the answer resembles typical human answers. The conversation is limited to a text-only channel such as a computer keyboard and screen so that the result is not dependent on the machine's ability to render words into audio.

humphreys wrote:An infinite number of Gods, now there is a scary thought!

greeney2 wrote:

event_horizon wrote:Weak atheists, of which I am one, and which the vast majority of atheists are do not claim to have proof there is no God, they simply lack belief.

So, no burden of proof for the atheists. Try again.

The idea one is a strong or weak atheist, and defined as not having to provide proof, is pretty lame. If you don't believe, thier is no degree of how much more or less your non-belief is measured. As far as proof, I've said many times, and have not changed what I've said, and that is the only proof of this question to any of us, is to die, as the way to find out. We all get the proof on that day, and nobody has ever returned to tell us the answer.

Its rather odd, not to mention a cop out, to sit in judgement or everyone elses Logic, or Faith based on logical concenceous, when you can not even express a logical proof standard of you own.

Yes, I do know what logic is, and there are many standards used in logic. Did you read wikipedia's definition? Many forms of reasoning, and many differences in logic between cultures, both by countrys, and by time in history, etc.. It is not just Humphreys simple idea of logic, that you are a "critical thinker" and believers are incapable ofit.

Humphreys why are you unable to explain, what logical proof would you accept, if you are a critical thinker? Its a very simple question.

greeney2 wrote:I'm not sure how that happened Event--I copy and pasted the lines, hit the quote button and didn't notice your name was put in automaticailly. You are right, it was humphreys qoute and not intended to show your name. My mistake.


However you did say in reply you are a strong Atheist, and Humphrey stated a weak athiest just does not believe, and also has no proof, where a strong Atheist presents proof of the non-existance of God. Is that true, a strong Atheist can proove God does not exist, since a weak Atheist claim he can not?

greeney2 wrote:

event_horizon wrote:Weak atheists, of which I am one, and which the vast majority of atheists are do not claim to have proof there is no God, they simply lack belief.

So, no burden of proof for the atheists. Try again.

The idea one is a strong or weak atheist, and defined as not having to provide proof, is pretty lame.

greeney2 wrote:Humphreys why are you unable to explain, what logical proof would you accept, if you are a critical thinker? Its a very simple question.