We are all gods.

[Kamehameha34]

That's right. Each one of us inadvertently and unknowingly determines the fate of a parallel universe, with each seemingly unimportant act.

I, for one, am the god of the Turtle universe, where the shells of alliance (my followers) praise me. There are those in my universe who don't believe I exist, and they call themselves Akameists. There are even those who worship the wrong god! Ignorant fools, anyone who doesn't arbitrarily show faith in me, with no reason or proof, will be inevitably cast down to the eagle universe: another parallel reality of which I am the residing deity.



(If you haven't caught up yet, I challenge anyone willing to prove that this is less valid than any current world religions, including Christianity.)

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 (If you haven't caught up yet, I challenge anyone willing to prove that this is less valid than any current world religions, including Christianity.)

Well, it has just as much potential to be the Truth as any other belief. However, it's not truly a belief the way you're putting it, because I don't think you sincerely believe that. You doubt it to some degree, and you thus have no faith in it.

Your belief also hasn't been legitimized by cultural establishment. It's just like the pseudo-belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which some people made up just to mock theism.

Thus, yes, maybe your that quasi-reality is the true reality, but I find that through your insincerity, that seems awfully absurd, and as Bertrand Russell says, it's not "sufficiently probable."

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Epistemologist Well, it has just as much potential to be the Truth as any other belief. However, it's not truly a belief the way you're putting it, because I don't think you sincerely believe that. You doubt it to some degree, and you thus have no faith in it.

Faith in a belief is irrelevant. Christianity is no more valid now that roughly 2 billion believe it than it was 2006 years ago, when it didn't exist.

Your belief also hasn't been legitimized by cultural establishment. It's just like the pseudo-belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which some people made up just to mock theism.

Yes it has, it has been "legitimized" by the several billion in the turtle universe that believe in me.
The fact that not many on Earth believe it is completely inconsequential. Beliefs are, in no way, proven by how many people have faith in them.

Thus, yes, maybe your that quasi-reality is the true reality, but I find that through your insincerity that seems awfully absurd, and as Bertrand Russell says, it's not "sufficiently probable."

I find your god equally improbable. I can define "absurd" however I want, also.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Faith in a belief is irrelevant. Christianity is no more valid now that roughly 2 billion believe it than it was 2006 years ago, when it didn't exist.

No, it is totally relevant, because here we're dealing with the intersubjective truth of the belief. We won't be able to know its objective truth because we don't know what the true reality is per se; we only know our own respective quasi-realities, which we hope are approximations of that true reality. So, what I was saying is that your claim might be true as the objective truth but it's certainly not intersubjectively true because no one believes it.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Yes it has, it has been "legitimized" by the several billion in the turtle universe that believe in me. The fact that not many on Earth believe it is completely inconsequential. Beliefs are, in no way, proven by how many people have faith in them.

No, they're not proven that way. In fact, they're never proven at all until the ultimate truth about reality is revealed, which to some is in the afterlife. However, that which is intersubjectively true i.e. absolute within a culture, maximizes its truth when a culture expands to include more people. So, although they may not even be objectively true, beliefs maintained by faith within a culture will be true for that culture no matter what. If that culture became the only one on Earth, then for all Earthlings, that belief we're talking about becomes intersubjectively true.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I find your god equally improbable. I can define "absurd" however I want, also.

Fine, if that's your standard of sufficiency. It doesn't shake my belief.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Epistemologist No, it is totally relevant, because here we're dealing with the intersubjective truth of the belief. We won't be able to know its objective truth because we don't know what the true reality is per se; we only know our own respective quasi-realities, which we hope are approximations of that true reality. So, what I was saying is that your claim might be true as the objective truth but it's certainly not intersubjectively true because no one believes it.

Ad hominem, rephrased. Doesn't hold water.

No, they're not proven that way. In fact, they're never proven at all until the ultimate truth about reality is revealed, which to some is in the afterlife. However, that which is intersubjectively true i.e. absolute within a culture, maximizes its truth when a culture expands to include more people. So, although they may not even be objectively true, beliefs maintained by faith within a culture will be true for that culture no matter what. If that culture became the only one on Earth, then for all Earthlings, that belief we're talking about becomes intersubjectively true.

Something is either true or false. If I can get 10 people to agree that an apple is an orange, it doesn't make it an orange.

The validity of a religion has nothing to do with supporters. Supporters can only agree with it based on what feels comfortable, due to the fact that they have no evidence. Religions that "feel more comfortable" aren't any more likely to be valid than religions that don't.

Fine, if that's your standard of sufficiency. It doesn't shake my belief.

It isn't a "standard", your use of the word is completely subjective. The fact that Christianity was here first, and therefore has accrued more supporters means NOTHING as per the objective truth.

[Zhavric]

Gravitus scoffs at your claims of divinty.

[Kamehameha34]

O no you di'int!

Oh look what you did. You made me wipe out all of your followers in my universe.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Ad hominem, rephrased. Doesn't hold water.

No, I didn't attack you. I'm just saying that you don't sincerely believe in that belief as is evidenced by your above jokes, and I don't think anyone else does. Although it may be objectively true, it has no intersubjective truth.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Something is either true or false. If I can get 10 people to agree that an apple is an orange, it doesn't make it an orange. The validity of a religion has nothing to do with supporters. Supporters can only agree with it based on what feels comfortable, due to the fact that they have no evidence. Religions that "feel more comfortable" aren't any more likely to be valid than religions that don't.

Yes, but the only thing we can even talk about here is the intersubjective truth of the belief. We can't prove it objectively true or objectively false because we have no absolute evidence that reveals the Truth.

Maybe the apple is an orange, and maybe it isn't. We can't change the truth. But we can change our own approximations of what the truth is.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 It isn't a "standard", your use of the word is completely subjective. The fact that Christianity was here first, and therefore has accrued more supporters means NOTHING as per the objective truth.

Yeah, it doesn't mean anything other than that it could be objective truth. I was referring to your standard of what's "sufficiently probable." I should also note that your capitalized emphasis of words is meaningless and shows the confusion of your position: the Christian belief system could represent the objective truth, and you make it seem like it has no chance. Christians, of course, believe that it does represent that truth. And you probably don't, but don't say that everyone else is wrong.

[Cadre]

Quote by: Epistemologist Maybe the apple is an orange, and maybe it isn't. We can't change the truth. But we can change our own approximations of what the truth is.

Exactly, apply string theory to this argument, and you're both right. :eek:

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Cadre Exactly, apply string theory to this argument, and you're both right. :eek:

Indeed, even through scientific means, prima facie true conclusions based on observations might be proven false.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Epistemologist No, I didn't attack you. I'm just saying that you don't sincerely believe in that belief as is evidenced by your above jokes, and I don't think anyone else does. Although it may be objectively true, it has no intersubjective truth.

Ad populum, a branch of ad hominem. "Intersubjective truth" means squat. A point is just as valid with 1 supporter as it would be with 1,000,000 supporters.

Yes, but the only thing we can even talk about here is the intersubjective truth of the belief. We can't prove it objectively true or objectively false because we have no absolute evidence that reveals the Truth.

No, intersubjective truth does not constitute evidence. The existence of the universe in the OP is "unknown", just as the existence of your god.

Maybe the apple is an orange, and maybe it isn't. We can't change the truth. But we can change our own approximations of what the truth is.

Apples are apples.
Oranges are oranges.

Subjectivity has no place in proving the existence, or nonexistence, of divinity.

Yeah, it doesn't mean anything other than that it could be objective truth. I was referring to your standard of what's "sufficiently probable." I should also note that your capitalized emphasis of words is meaningless and shows the confusion of your position: the Christian belief system could represent the objective truth, and you make it seem like it has no chance. Christians, of course, believe that it does represent that truth. And you probably don't, but don't say that everyone else is wrong.

Maybe if I bolded words, would that get across the point that you are the one who doesn't understand?

The existence of your god is unknown. It doesn't matter how many people you get to believe in it, it is still unknown without objective proof.

The existence of my universe is also unknown.

Yes, your god could represent the objective truth, but that claim is unknown.

My universe could also represent the objective truth, and without any proof for either side, they are just as valid as eachother.


Subjectivity has nothing to do with a debate about objective proof.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Epistemologist Indeed, even through scientific means, prima facie true conclusions based on observations might be proven false.

I didn't say that the apple "looked" like an apple, I didn't say that it "tasted" like an apple, I said that it is an apple.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Ad populum, a branch of ad hominem. "Intersubjective truth" means squat. A point is just as valid with 1 supporter as it would be with 1,000,000 supporters.

Saying this is ad populum is pretty abusive, because you're assuming that the beliefs in question are already fallacious. You say later on that it's unknown. And it just doesn't seem like you understand intersubjective truth. It doesn't relate to the actual, objective truth of the belief. But ultimately, a belief means nothing unless there are people to believe it. Maybe there's some belief out there that no one has ever come across but it's the ultimate truth; I don't care about it though, because I believe just my beliefs.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 No, intersubjective truth does not constitute evidence. The existence of the universe in the OP is "unknown", just as the existence of your god.

I never said it constituted evidence. Your obviously quite confused about my statements. Yes, it's all unknown.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Apples are apples. Oranges are oranges. Subjectivity has no place in proving the existence, or nonexistence, of divinity.

Again, you don't get it.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Maybe if I bolded words, would that get across the point that you are the one who doesn't understand? The existence of your god is unknown. It doesn't matter how many people you get to believe in it, it is still unknown without objective proof. The existence of my universe is also unknown. Yes, your god could represent the objective truth, but that claim is unknown. My universe could also represent the objective truth, and without any proof for either side, they are just as valid as eachother. Subjectivity has nothing to do in a debate about objective proof.

It's all unknown. Read my posts, and you'll see why intersubjectivity is important, and how you're just repeating what I said about how intersubjective truth is independent of objective truth. I see you're bolding words for nothing.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I didn't say that the apple "looked" like an apple, I didn't say that it "tasted" like an apple, I said that it is an apple.

Then you just gave us a subjective definition of an apple. Or, if you want to look at it another way, you basically said nothing.

[Kamehameha34]

Stop trolling this BS about "intersubjective truth". Truth is objective. Subjectivity has no place in this debate.

It is, essentially, "more people believe in my religion, so it is more likely to be true."

The people that believe either religion do not have suitable proof to make a claim, so they are not evidence. Stop persuing it. Anything other than evidence and logic has no place in a debate.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Epistemologist Then you just gave us a subjective definition of an apple. Or, if you want to look at it another way, you basically said nothing.

Object A is an apple.

How is that subjective? No one's opinion will ever influence that statement.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Stop trolling this BS about "intersubjective truth". Truth is objective. Subjectivity has no place in this debate.

I'm not trolling BS! The intersubjective truth about the claim is the only thing to even talk about here. If all we were to discuss was objective truth, then I'd just say it's all unknown, and your thread would be useless. In fact, perhaps you're trolling by making this thread in the first place. Yep, you'd be a character in a Lord of the Rings sequel.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Object A is an apple. How is that subjective? No one's opinion will ever influence that statement.

Well, I could define Object A as an orange. If you were God or some entity that defined the true reality (assuming this entity exists), then your definition of Object A would be the absolute truth, theoretically speaking. But I don't think you are.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I can't prove your alternate universe doesn't exist. I don't believe it does, but I can't prove it wrong anymore than you can prove Christianity is wrong.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Epistemologist I'm not trolling BS! The intersubjective truth about the claim is the only thing to even talk about here. If all we were to discuss was objective truth, then I'd just say it's all unknown, and your thread would be useless. In fact, perhaps you're trolling by making this thread in the first place. Yep, you'd be a character in a Lord of the Rings sequel.

That is because both claims are unknown. You can't just pull in irrelevant facts when there is no evidence. Both my universe and your religion has an "unknown" status, objectively. More people believe in Christianity, I'm fine with that. But these people base it on where they were born, and what feels most comfortable to them.

Well, I could define Object A as an orange. If you were God or some entity that defined the true reality (assuming this entity exists), then your definition of Object A would be the absolute truth, theoretically speaking. But I don't think you are.

You could do that, but you would just be giving different words to the same object. It is an apple.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary I can't prove your alternate universe doesn't exist. I don't believe it does, but I can't prove it wrong anymore than you can prove Christianity is wrong.

Correct. Both Christianity and my universe are at an "unknown" status.