Imperfectionist said Um... This isn't a profound rebuttal or anything, and I think it may have been mentioned earlier in the thread, but the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
You're right, except that by no means justifies the opposite. That is: Believe in god all you want. I'm not arguing against that, just realize you do it on absolutely no evidence, and that I can reject a deity on the same premise that I reject elves, kobolds, orcs, and Santa Claus. Also, that the natural end point of basing your life around skepticism, will generally result in the reject of a deity in the same sense of rejecting elves, kobolds, orcs, and Santa Claus.
I'm also not stating that it is impossible for a god to exist. Merely that there is insufficient evidence for me to find the claim credible at this time.
I hope that makes it clearer.
Imperfectionist said If you're going to make a statement like that, you have to at the very least be more descriptive and less absolute, such as "it is highly unlikely to exist, due to a distinct lack of verified experimental evidence," not "no evidence=does not exist". Also, perhaps, "due to the lack of verified experimental evidence, I do not such an entity exists, and will not until evidence is given". This is logical as well.
Except that both statements are the same and should be implicit. No evidence = does not exist. Therefore: If evidence found = exists. That is the automatic, implied extension to that statement, it's simply brought to a short statement for the sake of simplicity.
Imperfectionist said What So Boerd is trying to say, I believe, is that our perceptions color what we know and what we believe, and especially that those perceptions are limited.
I have absolutely no idea how you drew this conclusion, all he really did was argue that he could be a robot, which in no way counters the argument of his existence proving that he exists, but... Okay.
Imperfectionist said There is a high probability that there is a human being behind my words, but there isn't any evidence that I'm not some other type of intelligence, such as an AI or an alien, or indeed, a deity. I could even be a person or intelligence from a different dimension, or one of your past lives, or a cat. You have no way to know, unless you follow my IP address to my house and watch me type the words into the computer. And even then, who's to say I'm not a hallucination? Absolutes are impossible, Brovo.
Ah, cute argument, but flawed. Occam's Razor applies.
If you're an AI: Who programmed you, how did such a well programmed and articulate AI end up here, and why here? And so on. Also, to make a claim like this, you kind of have to... Prove it.
If you're an Alien: Why are you fucking about on an RP site with primates? Amongst many, many other questions. This claim is even more fantastical, so it requires more fantastic evidence to back it up.
If you're a deity: Fantastic claim! Got any evidence? Also, where did you come from? Who are you? Why are you here? What is your purpose? So on and so forth.
Orrr...
You are one of many human beings using an electronic device and an internet connection.
This last one requires the least number of assumptions. Thus it is most likely the true answer. Thus I can say, pretty confidently, you are a human being, and if you want to prove otherwise, you have to do that against my skepticism.
Imperfectionist said We just have to have a good idea. It's likely that I am none of those things. I don't believe I am. But I'm not sure.
Technically speaking if we're talking philosophy the only thing you can be sure of is your own mind and nothing else, but for the sake of remaining sane and what not, it's generally assumed there is a physical world, with physical properties, and we don't live in The Matrix. (Also because again: Occam's Razor.)
Imperfectionist said Without someone telling you that the world is round, Brovo, would you be likely to deduce or calculate its roundness in your lifetime?
Would it be relevant to my life? If yes: Then probably. If not: Then probably not.
Also not sure what this has to do with the simple argument of "if no evidence then I do not believe it." If you mean to imply not knowing better... Then, yeah, sure, okay, we didn't know the Earth was round once. Then later on we learned the Earth is round. Could that happen for a deity? Sure. Has it? No. Therefore: I do not believe.
This really isn't complicated.
Imperfectionist said If you never left a windowless, doorless room and no one else ever entered, could you ever be sure there was anything beyond it?
No, but I would be curious enough to find out, and I wouldn't be arrogant enough to claim that there is a giant cosmic sky daddy beyond the doorway if I've never been beyond it.
Imperfectionist said If you've never had reason to believe in higher powers, deities or cosmic intelligences... Why would you?
... I have plenty of times? People tried to stuff it in my head when I was young that Jesus is real and the ark story was real and so on. I didn't believe in any of it, it made no sense to me, and I can't really afford to go on faith on things anyway, for personal reasons.
Imperfectionist said EDIT: Anyway, it's not even true. You can find evidence of cosmic intelligence in anything, if you look hard enough... I mean, what about math? Did it just... happen?
... Math is a purely human invention. One is an arbitrary number it has no meaning whatsoever unless you attach it meaning. ex: One kilogram is not in any way, shape, or form, one mile. "One" is simply the word we use to denote a single object. Two is what we use to denote a pair of objects, and so on. In fact, I can quite emphatically state that math is one of the pinnacle pillars of logic simply because it is almost entirely, purely, of human creation, and in no way has to tie itself to our understanding of the world. For instance, if we discover tomorrow that everything we knew about physics is wrong (again), that still isn't going to change the fact that one is still one, two is still two, and if you multiply two by itself, you get four.
Imperfectionist said Is math different in other dimensions?
No, but fun fact, it is different between various civilizations on the Earth throughout history. For example: Early Greek Math did not contain zeroes. The maximum amount one can count to in Roman Numerals is 3,888, a limitation based on the fact that their rules on math prevent them from going higher than this. (Ergo to "count" armies above this size they counted by each legio, not by the individual.) So on and so forth. Again, evidence pointing to the fact that we invented math as a purely human way to better understand the universe.
Imperfectionist said there any other dimensions?
There is no way to prove or disprove this, so I have to go with "no", unless you believe that new timelines are created anytime you commit to any action ever or do not commit to any action ever, then... Yes? Although it's incredible confusing.
Imperfectionist said Is there truly any past or future?
Yes. This is a dumb question, sorry but it is.
Imperfectionist said What time, and why does it exist?
Mountain time, and because humans made it. We divided every day into twenty four periods, and every one of those hourly periods into sixty periods (minutes), and every one of those into sixty periods (seconds), and why the fuck we decided on 24/60/60? I have no idea, probably a carryover from ancient times, just like the imperial measurement system just randomly decides when to go up and down various measurements. (ex: Metric goes up in increments of 10. Imperial just sorta goes "ah fuckit, 3 feet in a yard, works broski.")
Also, the passage of time is affected by gravity, and momentum, so... Time does physically exist, even discounting human measurements of it, which have also been different across various civilizations, such as the all too infamous Mayan Calender.
Imperfectionist said Where in the name of Science did Fibbonaci numbers come from?!
This guy.
