ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => Other General Discussion => Topic started by: Collin Li on November 10, 2007, 05:30:06 pm
-
Another private request poll (not by the same guy). Man, you guys are curious and secretive.
I was asked to phrase it this way, don't ask me what it means.
-
what the hell, who is asking for these polls? as in actual members, or just random people joining up to ask you lol?
-
No, haven't for a long while, either.
-
I think Coblin's hiding something.. ^^
-
Yeh, the whole 'a friend of a friend' thing.
-
They're actually two different people who have asked for these polls. I have a third one, but it's a mock poll, I'll post it anyway.
-
No, haven't for a long while, either.
God doesn't love people who take a photo of themselves in the mirror holding the camera.
-
Hmm interesting question though...
I don't know, it's hard to tell, like I wonder why we're put here and what our purpose in life is and where we're headed, but so far no religion has explained it properly (in my opinion) its a matter of ultimate reality... what we came from, what surrounds us and what we shall return to..
-
No, haven't for a long while, either.
God doesn't love people who take a photo of themselves in the mirror holding the camera.
Haha, that's my first mirror shot, and it was a request too.
-
Hmm interesting question though...
I don't know, it's hard to tell, like I wonder why we're put here and what our purpose in life is and where we're headed, but so far no religion has explained it properly (in my opinion) its a matter of ultimate reality... what we came from, what surrounds us and what we shall return to..
That's my problem too =o
Like I don't believe in any of the major religions, but I am not too keen on the idea of nothing either.
And I can't work out whether there is some greater being as to why we are here, or if it's up to us to decide why we're here (eg I want to help people do this, or I want to be a multimillionare, or I want to get pissed/party everyday etc etc) to gain some sort of purpose or reason why I am waking up every day etc
Oh and if it is actually possible to have an answer to any of this =P
-
Hmm interesting question though...
I don't know, it's hard to tell, like I wonder why we're put here and what our purpose in life is and where we're headed, but so far no religion has explained it properly (in my opinion) its a matter of ultimate reality... what we came from, what surrounds us and what we shall return to..
That's my problem too =o
Like I don't believe in any of the major religions, but I am not too keen on the idea of nothing either.
And I can't work out whether there is some greater being as to why we are here, or if it's up to us to decide why we're here (eg I want to help people do this, or I want to be a multimillionare, or I want to get pissed/party everyday etc etc) to gain some sort of purpose or reason why I am waking up every day etc
Oh and if it is actually possible to have an answer to any of this =P
Yeah, I'm thinking of writing a book possibly about it ^_^
I've developed some theories, but yeah, they're a mix of what all religions say lol.. and a bit of my own. Hope i get the time to write it :)
-
I tend to the answer 'No.' No justification why. The humblest answer is "Unsure."
Nowadays, I would call myself an agnostic, which is technically "unsure," but the way this was worded prompted me to choose "no." It's a pretty trivial point: "do you believe in a god" vs. "do you believe in god." I think they're slightly different, maybe not, but my mental chemistry responds differently to it.
Ultimately, I think the existence of one is irrelevant to daily existence. I think spirited sloth could whip out an existentialist rant about this, haha.
-
I'll do it for her!
We live in an existentialist's world. The universe is indifferent to us. There is no god and no greater meaning. But realising this is tragic. If we realise that all our dreams and aspirations are futile, and that ultimately we are but a blemish on the pavement of history then we lead sad and unfulfilled lives.
I refer you all to the story of Sisyphus in greek mythology. Sisyphus was sentenced to pushing a boulder up a mountain for the rest of his life for challenging the gods. Whenever he got the boulder to the top, it would roll back to the bottom. The gods wanted Sisyphus to see the futility in his actions and give up and lead a sombre life. But so long as Sisyphus believed that he could push the rock up the mountain, in all its wondrous futility, Sisyphus was content!
Camus' brand of existentialism dictates that we must dream in life. We must have our petty hopes and our absurd little endeavours. It is all futile, but in order to live a fulfilled life we cannot realise this. The art of happy living, as it were, is to grab the most of life and to keep pushing the boulder up the mountain. And in that split second when the boulder falls back down and we realise the futility of our actions, this is what makes us tragic. But by keeping on with the boulder and not letting it break our stride, it doesn't matter anymore. Hoping and dreaming - the stuff of living in an existentialist world. :)
-
There exists a god. That god is me. :)
-
Ultimately, I think the existence of one is irrelevant to daily existence. I think spirited sloth could whip out an existentialist rant about this, haha.
lol thanks collin =P
well honestly, i think the whole concept of god is just a projection of our inner desires. the most primal, basic wishes of humanity are (arguably) to be loved and to live forever. it's quite obvious that the idea of organised religion is a means of acquiring this and a source of comfort for people, which is probably the biggest drawing card for religion.
personally, i think it can be pretty hypocritical though. you've got the whole "well if god was so powerful, why is he so fricking insecure anyway? why does he need us?" argument amongst others. there are quite a few holes and paradoxes here and there that all these zealots can't really explain besides the fact that "oh, he doesn't need us to love him, but we do anyway. now convert or you'll go to hell."
you've also got the whole image of the perfect messiah like jesus. interestingly enough, there have been many cults sprouting up all over the place declaring that the messiah has come, and yet we can look at them and laugh derisively, right? i'm not saying jesus was a fake, but perhaps the people back then were a tad more gullible, and developed a whole belief system revolving around the whole jesus ideal. who can dispute something that happened 2000 years ago? yet if someone wrote the bible and presented it in 2007, i'd have a feeling that it'd be condemned by all the scientists and stuff.
i'm ranting incoherently aren't i? meh i should really be doing physics now.
-
and besides, i don't think being an existentialist makes everything all pointless and futile. the whole thought that our lives will amount to nothing really emphasises the fact that we should enjoy our lives as well as negating all the petty little crap that plagues us.
basically, recognising that life will end and we're most likely alone in our existence forces us to treasure every moment that we have been incredibly lucky to have. (woot go the motivational speaking). i think that whole idea drives people to have fun and stuff, although keeping in mind the whole concept of bad faith (you can't be selfish and impinge on others' happiness in your own pursuit of happiness... happiness with an 'I', thank you very much)....... and rantrantrant..
-
and well done, you've lured me into ranting... i REALLY should be physicsing right now.
-
I obviously don't know either way, but if there is a god or gods or whatever, then it's probably pretty irrelevant to our life, in this realm anyway. If there is a truly great god, he/she/it/they/whaterver will be fine with us not believing, if god is an arsehole and would really send otherwise 'good' people to hell, then they aren't worth the effort here.
Also, the notion of a god being all-powerful is a logical contradiction. Going by that, god would be able to do even the things that they cannot do. re: "Is god so powerful that he could microwave a burrito so hot that he couldn't eat it?"
I have more thoughts on this, but I'll probably add them later.
-
someone said that they dont think they believe in a god but they don't want to believe that there's nothing.
yeah that's what i was saying before about us externalising our desires and calling it 'god'.
-
I obviously don't know either way, but if there is a god or gods or whatever, then it's probably pretty irrelevant to our life, in this realm anyway. If there is a truly great god, he/she/it/they/whaterver will be fine with us not believing, if god is an arsehole and would really send otherwise 'good' people to hell, then they aren't worth the effort here.
Also, the notion of a god being all-powerful is a logical contradiction. Going by that, god would be able to do even the things that they cannot do. re: "Is god so powerful that he could microwave a burrito so hot that he couldn't eat it?"
I have more thoughts on this, but I'll probably add them later.
ahahah at your last point.
anyway. i have the same kind of view as you of all that stuff.
-
and i like your burrito reference. LOL - that's gonna get me wondering all night.
-
and besides, i don't think being an existentialist makes everything all pointless and futile. the whole thought that our lives will amount to nothing really emphasises the fact that we should enjoy our lives as well as negating all the petty little crap that plagues us.
basically, recognising that life will end and we're most likely alone in our existence forces us to treasure every moment that we have been incredibly lucky to have. (woot go the motivational speaking). i think that whole idea drives people to have fun and stuff, although keeping in mind the whole concept of bad faith (you can't be selfish and impinge on others' happiness in your own pursuit of happiness... happiness with an 'I', thank you very much)....... and rantrantrant..
Completely agree with this rantrantrant. She speaks the word of truth!
-
and besides, i don't think being an existentialist makes everything all pointless and futile. the whole thought that our lives will amount to nothing really emphasises the fact that we should enjoy our lives as well as negating all the petty little crap that plagues us.
basically, recognising that life will end and we're most likely alone in our existence forces us to treasure every moment that we have been incredibly lucky to have. (woot go the motivational speaking). i think that whole idea drives people to have fun and stuff, although keeping in mind the whole concept of bad faith (you can't be selfish and impinge on others' happiness in your own pursuit of happiness... happiness with an 'I', thank you very much)....... and rantrantrant..
This sounds like a paragraph I read from the Look Both Ways Insight Guide. In fact, since you studied it.. it may just be :P
-
HAHAHAHAHA wellll..... i did read the "existentialism" section rather intensely........
-
[b]"Census figures show more Australians have no religion" 27/06/2007 [/b]
The figures, released today, revealed that 3,706,557 Australians - or 19 per cent - said they had no religion on Census night last year, which was 3 percentage points more than the 2001 figure of 2,905,993.
And the number of people who said they were Anglican also decreased by nearly 175,000 since 2005 to 3,718,248.
Christianity is still the dominant religion, with 12.7 million followers nationwide. But as a proportion of the population, Christianity dipped from 71 per cent to 64 per cent.
The number of Buddhists has doubled to nearly 2 per cent of the population, while Hinduism has also doubled in popularity since 1996 to now account for 0.7 per cent.
-
The figures, released today, revealed that 3,706,557 Australians - or 19 per cent - said they had no religion on Census night last year, which was 3 percentage points more than the 2001 figure of 2,905,993.
And the number of people who said they were Anglican also decreased by nearly 175,000 since 2005 to 3,718,248.
Christianity is still the dominant religion, with 12.7 million followers nationwide. But as a proportion of the population, Christianity dipped from 71 per cent to 64 per cent.
The number of Buddhists has doubled to nearly 2 per cent of the population, while Hinduism has also doubled in popularity since 1996 to now account for 0.7 per cent.
Interesting. 64% is higher than I thought it would be
-
i read an article in the age today about how it was scientifically proven christians have more morals than atheists. *rolls eyes*
-
i read an article in the age today about how it was scientifically proven christians have more morals than atheists. *rolls eyes*
ha how can you scientifically measure that?
-
wow 64% is higher than i wouldve thought too hmm
-
you tell me. i was looking at it and scoffing the whole way through.
-
Interesting topic. But if god did not exist then who created the universe.
-
I stopped believing in God when I got rejected by a girl for the 3rd time in three consecutive years.
....lol
-
Interesting topic. But if god did not exist then who created the universe.
gosh, not that argument again .... then who created god? :P
-
Hmm interesting question though...
I don't know, it's hard to tell, like I wonder why we're put here and what our purpose in life is and where we're headed, but so far no religion has explained it properly (in my opinion) its a matter of ultimate reality... what we came from, what surrounds us and what we shall return to..
That's my problem too =o
Like I don't believe in any of the major religions, but I am not too keen on the idea of nothing either.
And I can't work out whether there is some greater being as to why we are here, or if it's up to us to decide why we're here (eg I want to help people do this, or I want to be a multimillionare, or I want to get pissed/party everyday etc etc) to gain some sort of purpose or reason why I am waking up every day etc
Oh and if it is actually possible to have an answer to any of this =P
Yeah, I'm thinking of writing a book possibly about it ^_^
I've developed some theories, but yeah, they're a mix of what all religions say lol.. and a bit of my own. Hope i get the time to write it :)
Imo... religion is just the original theory for existence.
Now that we have higher technologies etc, more theories can be developed.
In teh same way the previous theories for things like evolution, nad (THE GOD DAMN WAVE/PARTICLE NATURE OF LIGHT) can be superimposed by other theories as we progress.
-
Interesting topic. But if god did not exist then who created the universe.
gosh, not that argument again .... then who created god? :P
hmm why dont we just ask who god is, explain what god is...
if you can do that then you'll answer your question :P
-
I believe in His Noodly Holiness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
-
I believe in His Noodly Holiness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
ahah. omg. that is hilarious
-
I believe in His Noodly Holiness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
OMG. A fellow believer!
-
I've gone through Catholic schooling by entire life even though I'm not Catholic. I'm a very strong believer that God exists. I don't know why but I think it has something to do with fear.
-
Camus' brand of existentialism dictates that we must dream in life.
He also shows us how to kill Arabs! (no racism intended, read L'etranger/The Outsider...or listen to Killing an Arab by The Cure to get the gist of it)
Camus also theorised that the only important decision in life was whether or not to commit suicide.
Interesting guy.
-
I believe in His Noodly Holiness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
lol, what a joke.
-
i went through 3/4 of the article before understanding the pastafarian pun. *SLOWWWW*
-
I've gone through Catholic schooling by entire life even though I'm not Catholic. I'm a very strong believer that God exists. I don't know why but I think it has something to do with fear.
You shouldn't fear God...
I've gone to a Catholic school most of my life, and I understand just about everything about Catholicism... Through studying it, it's made me turn away from it all (weird I know, I used to believe, but now I just don't). However I do believe there must be some sort of "supreme being", but right now, i'm going to focus on what my purpose here on earth is, rather than waste my time figuring out how the world was created.
-
but right now, i'm going to focus on what my purpose here on earth is
You mean VCE?
I can't think of why else I'm here at the moment :cry:
-
but right now, i'm going to focus on what my purpose here on earth is
You mean VCE?
I can't think of why else I'm here at the moment :cry:
VCE isnt a purpose lol ...
Purpose is like what your "calling" is, it's the bigger picture stuff, VCE can help you find that purpose I guess, but it definitely isnt a purpose.
-
VCE is only one small part of life, that you probably won't remember in 10 yrs time.
-
I'll remember it in 10 years time. I think. :)
-
VCE is only one small part of life, that you probably won't remember in 10 yrs time.
I kid I kid.
I should have added one of these :P at the end.
-
I'll remember it in 10 years time. I think. :)
Heh, me too.
-
Coblin, you'll remember it after 60 years...
-
Maybe... maybe I believe in VCE more than I believe in god.
(hell no, not the current system!)
-
I don't know how to believe in God.
-
I don't know how to believe in God.
Prove d(e^x)/dx = x (have faith)
-
even though all logical proof points towards d(e^x)/dx = e^x ? :(
-
A little off topic but who here knows about The Secret? or believes in it? couldn't be bothered making a new topic...
-
A little off topic but who here knows about The Secret? or believes in it? couldn't be bothered making a new topic...
LOL That book?
The Chasers mocked it, funny stuff. LOL
Yeah haha.
I've got the book :P
-
...and nup, I don't believe in it.
-
...and nup, I don't believe in it.
Hehe ^_^
I do :P
-
I have no idea what the book actually preaches. If it's the idea that your self-perception affects your desires and your wants, I think that there is some application to it, but I doubt it works with material.
It's more about focusing your inner mind to believing in yourself to being able to achieve, right?
-
God is watching you!
-
God is watching you!
It seems to be fine with whatever's going on. I reckon god's an anarchist :)
-
I have no idea what the book actually preaches. If it's the idea that your self-perception affects your desires and your wants, I think that there is some application to it, but I doubt it works with material.
It's more about focusing your inner mind to believing in yourself to being able to achieve, right?
Pretty much. It's mainly focused on what they call the "law of attraction", where you attract what you focus on the most.. whether it's bad or good.
-
I have no idea what the book actually preaches. If it's the idea that your self-perception affects your desires and your wants, I think that there is some application to it, but I doubt it works with material.
It's more about focusing your inner mind to believing in yourself to being able to achieve, right?
Pretty much. It's mainly focused on what they call the "law of attraction", where you attract what you focus on the most.. whether it's bad or good.
Yeah, but I think that only works on a personal level, not on a world-reaching I-can-grab-anything-I-want level, like what the Chaser's mocked. I think that you can rule your own world by controlling your perception. The only way it leaks into the whole world is if you are using your perception to empower yourself, and hence achieve great things to get what you want via socially acceptable means (i.e.: working hard for it, not stealing, lol)
-
i believe that God exists.
I also believe science only explains a small portion of God's work in the universe. How ignorant are we to think that there are no external forces that created this world and the galaxies around us?
Maybe if scientists produce a better explanation about how the world is created instead of the Big Bang theory, then I might sway towards science than my belief in God. But I highly doubt that scientist will ever produce a scientific report/evidence that will convince me or other religious people out there that the earth was created due to science without God being in the picture.
It is my biased opinion. LOL
But anyway I should stop rambling. Lets just keep this thread clean.
-
Yeah that's true, but if you actually watch the dvd, or read the book, you'll actually see what they mean, it's not what the chasers made it out to be... anyways :)
It works for me, so i'll keep using it ^_^
Not trying to force anyone to believe in it or anything, because i cant change what you believe, just try be more open minded :) If you really understand how The Secret works I think you'll see it's true to an extent.
-
Yeah, well, your perception: what you feel inside your brain is very important. There was a study that tried to investigate the connection between "luck" and self-confidence. It seemed that those deemed "lucky" were typically more confident of themselves.
About god, even though science does not complete the gap, the best answer is "Unsure" because this gap cannot be proven to be god or science yet. As far as I am concerned, this "god" has never intervened in the world, Jesus could have been a scam (all it takes is humans to fool) and therefore even if there exists a god, it is hugely irrelevant to our lifestyle. It is not an interesting question for me. I am a sceptic towards belief in god. I should be unsure, but an irrational leap of logic in my mind makes me choose: no.
-
Well I like to look at Jesus as someone who is just like everyone else, but could heal people using some high form of reiki that people at the time didn't know about... He wasn't all high and powerful he just knew things others didn't know about, and knowledge is power.
But yeah thats just what i think... lol
-
About god, even though science does not complete the gap, the best answer is "Unsure" because this gap cannot be proven to be god or science yet. As far as I am concerned, this "god" has never intervened in the world, Jesus could have been a scam (all it takes is humans to fool) and therefore even if there exists a god, it is hugely irrelevant to our lifestyle. It is not an interesting question for me. I am a sceptic towards belief in god. I should be unsure, but an irrational leap of logic in my mind makes me choose: no.
to some extent i believe what you have said. but since i believe in God and a christian, of course I'm gonna say that Jesus did came down to earth and died for our sins on the cross and defeated death, so we can have a relationship with God. and saying that Jesus isn't a scam but he is sitting on the right-hand side of God in heaven.
people can believe what they want really.
but what if there was a HEAVEN and a HELL and God? Does it really hurt just to trust God and placing God into your life? If you did believe in God, and heaven does exists, then yeah... you get to go into heaven. but if you are ignorant about all this, you'll see yourselves in hell.
Believe in God - Win-Win Situation.
if there is a heaven, you can go into it...
if there wasnt a heaven, nuthin happens. coz you're dead anyway.
Choose not to Believe in God - Lose-Win Situation.
if there was a heaven, you wouldn't be able to enter it because you dont believe in god.
if there wasnt a heaven, what you believed in initially was correct. what does that achieve? you are dead already!!!
Its not time wasting when you believe in God. And I can assure you that you'll meet the nicest peoples ever and make friends that don't judge you for who you are and are willing to help you if you need it! you'll become a better person too...
but i can see where you are coming from Coblin. I guess you just gotta have some 'faith.' haha.
I'm actually quite surprised that I'm not a Buddhist or any of the Asian religions out there even though i've been bought up in a very typical asian family. i'm glad that i became a christian.
-
I see it as unnecessary. If god refuses me entrance to heaven because I simply did not have blind faith, I would simply believe he is the Supreme Fascist, and I would be glad I'm not entering his domain.
I have been a good person with good intentions.
-
But if thre IS a god, and you dont believe... surely youll get into heaven anyway because god is forgiving! :P
-
But if thre IS a god, and you dont believe... surely youll get into heaven anyway because god is forgiving! :P
Good point...
But if there is a God, why did he create us? like why would he need to create the world and all? thats what i dont get ... was he lonely or something? or what? lol
-
Imo hes a kid sitting in his driveway playing with us like ants + a magnifying glass.
Or perhaps he was lonely.
I think we're an experiment!
Or maybe that existence as we know it is a virtual reality that were not aware we're in.
(too much stargate -_-)
-
Imo hes a kid sitting in his driveway playing with us like ants + a magnifying glass.
Or perhaps he was lonely.
I think we're an experiment!
Or maybe that existence as we know it is a virtual reality that were not aware we're in.
(too much stargate -_-)
Lol ...
I know what the nature and purpose of human life is according to the catholic tradition, but i just dont see why we were created in the first place... im gonna go ask a priest at some stage lol
-
I see it as unnecessary. If god refuses me entrance to heaven because I simply did not have blind faith, I would simply believe he is the Supreme Fascist, and I would be glad I'm not entering his domain.
fair point. but do you wanna suffer eternally? coz i know i dont. i rather not take that risk.
I know what the nature and purpose of human life is according to the catholic tradition, but i just dont see why we were created in the first place... im gonna go ask a priest at some stage
proabably because God was bored so he made us so he can develop a relationship with us. lol
But if thre IS a god, and you dont believe... surely youll get into heaven anyway because god is forgiving!
yeh God is forgiving. but he is only forgiving if you admit that you did wrong. you can only enter heaven if you have faith. you cannot enter heaven on good works alone. your trust/faith/belief in God and Jesus is very important.
i understand why people find it hard to believe in God. because you can't see God. why can't we see God? because we humans are filled with sin. just count how many bad things you have done in the past 2 hours... downloading music from illegal sites? watching porn? not respecting your parents?
God is holy. he has no sin. he is righteous and is prefect in every way. he cannot have relationship with anyone who has any sin at all. hence why there is a hell. i think that's one of the flaws of God, hence he punishes those who have sin. but then again, sin is a flaw within itself. coz its bad.
luckily we have jesus who came down to earth to die for our sins. through him, he cleans our sins so we can speak to God in our prayers. so it is also important to believe and acknowledge that Jesus did die for our sins and was raised up from the dead. because Jesus is God's son, and God did send Jesus down to earth.
i should stop trying to convert you guys. lol haha. anyways i gtg. if you have any disagreements or questions, feel free to post on!!!!! and i'll take a look at it and do my best to answer your questions.
-
Friar..
-
I see it as unnecessary. If god refuses me entrance to heaven because I simply did not have blind faith, I would simply believe he is the Supreme Fascist, and I would be glad I'm not entering his domain.
fair point. but do you wanna suffer eternally? coz i know i dont. i rather not take that risk.
I know what the nature and purpose of human life is according to the catholic tradition, but i just dont see why we were created in the first place... im gonna go ask a priest at some stage
proabably because God was bored so he made us so he can develop a relationship with us. lol
But if thre IS a god, and you dont believe... surely youll get into heaven anyway because god is forgiving!
yeh God is forgiving. but he is only forgiving if you admit that you did wrong. you can only enter heaven if you have faith. you cannot enter heaven on good works alone. your trust/faith/belief in God and Jesus is very important.
i understand why people find it hard to believe in God. because you can't see God. why can't we see God? because we humans are filled with sin. just count how many bad things you have done in the past 2 hours... downloading music from illegal sites? watching porn? not respecting your parents?
God is holy. he has no sin. he is righteous and is prefect in every way. he cannot have relationship with anyone who has any sin at all. hence why there is a hell. i think that's one of the flaws of God, hence he punishes those who have sin. but then again, sin is a flaw within itself. coz its bad.
luckily we have jesus who came down to earth to die for our sins. through him, he cleans our sins so we can speak to God in our prayers. so it is also important to believe and acknowledge that Jesus did die for our sins and was raised up from the dead. because Jesus is God's son, and God did send Jesus down to earth.
i should stop trying to convert you guys. lol haha. anyways i gtg. if you have any disagreements or questions, feel free to post on!!!!! and i'll take a look at it and do my best to answer your questions.
So your reason for there not being evidence that god exists is because we're all too naughty to see?
-
Proof of God's existence according to the Catholic tradition - Conscience ...
-
yeh God is forgiving. but he is only forgiving if you admit that you did wrong. you can only enter heaven if you have faith. you cannot enter heaven on good works alone. your trust/faith/belief in God and Jesus is very important.
i understand why people find it hard to believe in God. because you can't see God. why can't we see God? because we humans are filled with sin. just count how many bad things you have done in the past 2 hours... downloading music from illegal sites? watching porn? not respecting your parents?
Well if there really is a god who will make good people suffer, I don't like this god, and I don't want to believe in him.
Also, I don't like the thought that we are all filled with sin and should have to explain ourselves. I dunno, it just seems a bit.. well why sit around and count our sins? that's a bit depressing. I mean yeah, try and be good to people etc., but why not do it because you want to do it, not because you are scared of the possibility of hell?
-
Im not sure what i believe in... i just assertively recognise that there a chemical + physiological + psychological evidences for most things that God is proclaimed to cause.
eg, Conscience is caused by our desire to fit in ( as pack animals ) and conform to social norms.
-
god is dog backwards. dogs can walk backwards but cannot walk forwards while going backwards in time. therefore, there is no god.
-
eg, Conscience is caused by our desire to fit in ( as pack animals ) and conform to social norms.
More like people who conform to social norms will feel guilty about this, due to their conscience.
-
everyones entitled to an opinion, especially when theres no way to prove either way... i believe that conscience and guilt are created out of a desire to fit in and mimic/impress others.
as *was it denzel wahsingotn?* said in that movie lol ... "Decency is what your grandmother taught you"... not what God magickly put into your body.
-
Lol...
Well Catholics believe that your conscience is God's way of speaking to you ..
As for the whole heaven and hell thing...
After studying religion and society, there is no hell, catholics call it purgatory (a place where people go to make up for sins, because according to catholics faith alone will not save you, its faith and good works that will). Then after you spend time in purgatory, you end up going to heaven ... :)
-
@ galleleo
I know, but you are saying that people's conscience makes them want to fit in. I'd say that people's conscience would make them feel guilty about going against their 'beliefs' or whatnot in order to fit in. Kind of like, we alter our behaviour to fit in, despite our conscience. Well I guess it depends on what you are trying to fit in to haha. I don't even know what I'm talking about ha
-
I know, but you are saying that people's conscience makes them want to fit in. I'd say that people's conscience would make them feel guilty about going against their 'beliefs' or whatnot in order to fit in. Kind of like, we alter our behaviour to fit in, despite our conscience. Well I guess it depends on what you are trying to fit in to haha. I don't even know what I'm talking about ha
nooo, m not, peoples conscience dont make htem want to fit in
people want to fit in, and this creates their conscience.
-
i voted unsure .
Its not that i dont like the idea of their being a great omnipotent hand watching over us, and that theres a purpose toe verything we do... it provides security etc. its just that , when you think about the whole scheme of things, life and nature and all that... we're just not that important... not important enough for "the Creator" to be watching over us.
although i support religions in some of the practices they invoke.. etc being good + friendly people and all that
i like religion because it focusees on human decency
i think that there are feelings in all of us (because of chemicals etc whatever) that are warm and make living worthwhile, and i think that THAT could be considered God... but there isnt a conscious being looking after us all, or intentionally creating a universe... to me that just seems to be ludicrous.
-
Believe in God - Win-Win Situation.
if there is a heaven, you can go into it...
if there wasnt a heaven, nuthin happens. coz you're dead anyway.
Choose not to Believe in God - Lose-Win Situation.
if there was a heaven, you wouldn't be able to enter it because you dont believe in god.
if there wasnt a heaven, what you believed in initially was correct. what does that achieve? you are dead already!!!
On Pascal's wager,
1. Pascal's wager does not account for the possibility that there is a God (or gods) who, rather than behaving as stated in certain parts of the Bible, instead rewards skepticism and punishes blind faith, or rewards honest reasoning and punishes feigned faith.
2. If there is a benevolent God, he may judge you on your merits coupled with your commitments, and not just on whether or not you believed in him.
3. If a person "believes" in a god because of the expectation of a reward and the fear of punishment, then that belief is not a true valid belief or a true faith in that religion and its god.
4. There is a high probability of worshiping the wrong god, given the many religions
5. Pascal's wager ignores the opportunity cost of worshiping a god.
Finally, for those who say there exists a god. Prove it.
How ignorant are we to think that there are no external forces that created this world and the galaxies around us?
Maybe if scientists produce a better explanation about how the world is created instead of the Big Bang theory, then I might sway towards science than my belief in God. But I highly doubt that scientist will ever produce a scientific report/evidence that will convince me or other religious people out there that the earth was created due to science without God being in the picture.
.
What scientific evidence do you have that the earth was created by a deity?
"How ignorant are we to think that there are no external forces that created this world and the galaxies around us?" suggests that those who do not agree with your view are ignorant. Such arguments are offensive and do nothing to support the view that there exists a deity. If your contention is that there a deity created the earth then state it, and proceed to prove it.
-
Well if there really is a god who will make good people suffer, I don't like this god, and I don't want to believe in him.
Also, I don't like the thought that we are all filled with sin and should have to explain ourselves. I dunno, it just seems a bit.. well why sit around and count our sins? that's a bit depressing. I mean yeah, try and be good to people etc., but why not do it because you want to do it, not because you are scared of the possibility of hell?
Exactly, that is why I would call god the Supreme Fascist if I was convicted in that way.
I'm not going to bow down to what I perceive to be unjust.
-
the whole concept of religion runs around itself again and again, with each party shouting "prove it! no you prove it!". but whilst we can see science in action, god is a magical being that has yet to prove himself.
besides, what does he need us for? if he loved us so much, he wouldn't punish us for not blindly accepting things at face value. i think it's inherently wrong when people become christian because they fear hell. smells like someone's dirty scare tactics to me.
-
... but i really really hope the flying spaghetti monster doesn't devour me in the afterlife. *worships*
-
btw everyone, Mel believes in God.
You should've heard her last night, "OH MY GOD! OH GOD!"
-
The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe but sustains it today.
Here are some examples:
The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter. Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.
And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents.
Water...colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing can survive without it. Plants, animals and human beings consist mostly of water (about two-thirds of the human body is water). It has an unusually high boiling point and freezing point. Water allows us to live in an environment of fluctuating temperature changes, while keeping our bodies a steady 36 degrees. Water has a unique surface tension. Water in plants can therefore flow upward against gravity, bringing life-giving water and nutrients to the top of even the tallest trees. Water freezes from the top down and floats, so fish can live in the winter.
To brendan... I do not need to prove God's existence, because the proof is all around you. Go and explain how everything was created that is around you is prefect for your existence. I seriously don't think science can do that. Science only explains 'how' it works but not 'why.' God's existence explains 'why.' I find it hard to believe the creation of the earth was just 'luck.' there must be an external force who made this earth and the universe.
But hey, like Galelleo said, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Everyone can believe what they want. But I am sorry (brendan) if I have offended you in anyway. It wasn't my intention. Sorry!
Where are the people who voted "yes" here? They're not helping me!!! haha.
-
We are all midget dinosaurs, without tails. Lawl. /knows nothing about religion.
-
I've gone through Catholic schooling by entire life even though I'm not Catholic. I'm a very strong believer that God exists. I don't know why but I think it has something to do with fear.
You shouldn't fear God...
I've gone to a Catholic school most of my life, and I understand just about everything about Catholicism... Through studying it, it's made me turn away from it all (weird I know, I used to believe, but now I just don't). However I do believe there must be some sort of "supreme being", but right now, i'm going to focus on what my purpose here on earth is, rather than waste my time figuring out how the world was created.
I don't mean I fear God. Not at all. I fear that if God doesn't exist then what happens after we die. When my granddad died this year and my best friends mum died I really had to have a long think about what life is all about and what is next after death. So yeh of course I dont have proof that heaven or anything exists but I believe in it because I fear that if it doesn't then life after death... doesnt exist? lol
-
You can't say that the moon was intelligently formed to rotate without colliding, because almost every planet has moons. Rotation around a central body is a very common facet of celestial systems.
About water, life used water to propel itself into existence. To argue that water was designed by a creator to support life, is a bit of a leap of logic. There are plenty of other chemicals that are out there with no particular use. It just happens that water had useful properties for life. Why are there other intricate molecules that seem to have no use? (e.g: buckyballs)
It's a bit odd to appeal to the fact that everything around you supports your life: the atmosphere, water, positioning from the Sun, etc. It isn't amazing that these things are all around you: you wouldn't be there without them, but it doesn't mean that a creator created it. The reason why the Earth has conditions for life is a bit like the "natural selection" of the planets in the universe. Out of the plethora of planets in the solar system, Earth managed to assemble itself at a good distance from its star. Planets have varying conditions to Earth in terms of atmospheric pressure, temperature, etc. It just so happens that some planets (like Earth) allow life to exist because they have managed to get the right temperature and pressure.
-
To brendan... I do not need to prove God's existence, because the proof is all around you. Go and explain how everything was created that is around you is prefect for your existence. I seriously don't think science can do that. Science only explains 'how' it works but not 'why.' God's existence explains 'why.' I find it hard to believe the creation of the earth was just 'luck.' there must be an external force who made this earth and the universe."
If you can't prove it then admit it. You made the proposal that there exists a deity. So the onus of proof is on you to provide evidential support. It is not the responsibility of others to disprove your claim.
Furthermore, just because there are some things that are not yet explained by science, doesn't mean that it is proof for the existence of God. That is a logically fallacious argument, more specially argument from ignorance. That just hides the fact that you don't have any objective and credible proof for the existence of God.
-
I've gone through Catholic schooling by entire life even though I'm not Catholic. I'm a very strong believer that God exists. I don't know why but I think it has something to do with fear.
You shouldn't fear God...
I've gone to a Catholic school most of my life, and I understand just about everything about Catholicism... Through studying it, it's made me turn away from it all (weird I know, I used to believe, but now I just don't). However I do believe there must be some sort of "supreme being", but right now, i'm going to focus on what my purpose here on earth is, rather than waste my time figuring out how the world was created.
I don't mean I fear God. Not at all. I fear that if God doesn't exist then what happens after we die. When my granddad died this year and my best friends mum died I really had to have a long think about what life is all about and what is next after death. So yeh of course I dont have proof that heaven or anything exists but I believe in it because I fear that if it doesn't then life after death... doesnt exist? lol
Oh i see, it's more a fear of the unknown :)
-
The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe but sustains it today.
Here are some examples:
The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter. Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.
And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents.
Water...colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing can survive without it. Plants, animals and human beings consist mostly of water (about two-thirds of the human body is water). It has an unusually high boiling point and freezing point. Water allows us to live in an environment of fluctuating temperature changes, while keeping our bodies a steady 36 degrees. Water has a unique surface tension. Water in plants can therefore flow upward against gravity, bringing life-giving water and nutrients to the top of even the tallest trees. Water freezes from the top down and floats, so fish can live in the winter.
To brendan... I do not need to prove God's existence, because the proof is all around you. Go and explain how everything was created that is around you is prefect for your existence. I seriously don't think science can do that. Science only explains 'how' it works but not 'why.' God's existence explains 'why.' I find it hard to believe the creation of the earth was just 'luck.' there must be an external force who made this earth and the universe.
But hey, like Galelleo said, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Everyone can believe what they want. But I am sorry (brendan) if I have offended you in anyway. It wasn't my intention. Sorry!
Where are the people who voted "yes" here? They're not helping me!!! haha.
Youre saying that we exist because of these things, but theyre all chance and probability. if we didnt exist, then these things owuldnt either. That doesnt immediately imply that it was premeditated by some higher being.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
-
Well if there really is a god who will make good people suffer, I don't like this god, and I don't want to believe in him.
Also, I don't like the thought that we are all filled with sin and should have to explain ourselves. I dunno, it just seems a bit.. well why sit around and count our sins? that's a bit depressing. I mean yeah, try and be good to people etc., but why not do it because you want to do it, not because you are scared of the possibility of hell?
Exactly, that is why I would call god the Supreme Fascist if I was convicted in that way.
I'm not going to bow down to what I perceive to be unjust.
There are no easy answers to this question.
Just a few points I'd like to mention-
1-God has never caused suffering. It is more of a 'byproduct' of the sin which has infected his Creation.
2-God gave us free will. Thus people must live with the their own actions, aswell as those of others.
3-Suffering also sometimes helps others to seek God. Turning to God can lead to strength, wisdom, peace and joy.
-
Well if there really is a god who will make good people suffer, I don't like this god, and I don't want to believe in him.
Also, I don't like the thought that we are all filled with sin and should have to explain ourselves. I dunno, it just seems a bit.. well why sit around and count our sins? that's a bit depressing. I mean yeah, try and be good to people etc., but why not do it because you want to do it, not because you are scared of the possibility of hell?
Exactly, that is why I would call god the Supreme Fascist if I was convicted in that way.
I'm not going to bow down to what I perceive to be unjust.
There are no easy answers to this question.
Just a few points I'd like to mention-
1-God has never caused suffering. It is more of a 'byproduct' of the sin which has infected his Creation.
2-God gave us free will. Thus people must live with the their own actions, aswell as those of others.
3-Suffering also sometimes helps others to seek God. Turning to God can lead to strength, wisdom, peace and joy.
im not sure whether iv interpreted this correctly and if not, i apologise, but someone's suffering being a result of their sinning? big call, and just plain offensive imo.
-
Well if there really is a god who will make good people suffer, I don't like this god, and I don't want to believe in him.
Also, I don't like the thought that we are all filled with sin and should have to explain ourselves. I dunno, it just seems a bit.. well why sit around and count our sins? that's a bit depressing. I mean yeah, try and be good to people etc., but why not do it because you want to do it, not because you are scared of the possibility of hell?
Exactly, that is why I would call god the Supreme Fascist if I was convicted in that way.
I'm not going to bow down to what I perceive to be unjust.
There are no easy answers to this question.
Just a few points I'd like to mention-
1-God has never caused suffering. It is more of a 'byproduct' of the sin which has infected his Creation.
2-God gave us free will. Thus people must live with the their own actions, aswell as those of others.
3-Suffering also sometimes helps others to seek God. Turning to God can lead to strength, wisdom, peace and joy.
im not sure whether iv interpreted this correctly and if not, i apologise, but someone's suffering being a result of their sinning? big call, and just plain offensive imo.
i didn't say their own, i said sin by God's Creation as a whole.
-
This seems to be a touchy topic.
But, I DO believe in god.
-
Well if there really is a god who will make good people suffer, I don't like this god, and I don't want to believe in him.
Also, I don't like the thought that we are all filled with sin and should have to explain ourselves. I dunno, it just seems a bit.. well why sit around and count our sins? that's a bit depressing. I mean yeah, try and be good to people etc., but why not do it because you want to do it, not because you are scared of the possibility of hell?
Exactly, that is why I would call god the Supreme Fascist if I was convicted in that way.
I'm not going to bow down to what I perceive to be unjust.
There are no easy answers to this question.
Just a few points I'd like to mention-
1-God has never caused suffering. It is more of a 'byproduct' of the sin which has infected his Creation.
2-God gave us free will. Thus people must live with the their own actions, aswell as those of others.
3-Suffering also sometimes helps others to seek God. Turning to God can lead to strength, wisdom, peace and joy.
im not sure whether iv interpreted this correctly and if not, i apologise, but someone's suffering being a result of their sinning? big call, and just plain offensive imo.
i didn't say their own, i said sin by God's Creation as a whole.
explainy?
-
He means that the world would be perfect if not for human kinds sinning.
-
About god, even though science does not complete the gap, the best answer is "Unsure" because this gap cannot be proven to be god or science yet. As far as I am concerned, this "god" has never intervened in the world, Jesus could have been a scam (all it takes is humans to fool) and therefore even if there exists a god, it is hugely irrelevant to our lifestyle. It is not an interesting question for me. I am a sceptic towards belief in god. I should be unsure, but an irrational leap of logic in my mind makes me choose: no.
The huge majority of historians disagree with you. The event's, people and places mentioned in the Bible, have all been confirmed and supported by historians. Even Dan Brown, the writer of the Da Vinci Code, did not attempt to refute the claims of Christians that God came to Earth. I think a line in his book went something along the lines of 'Jesus was a extraordinary man, but a man nontheless'. And this leads me to me my next point. If this man we know as Jesus, who performed miracles at will over 2000 years ago, was indeed a 'scam' don't you think that the few minutes before He was to be crucified, in the face of death, He'd sorta chicken out of his little 'scam' and admit his deceitfulness?? But no, the Bible, which has been confirmed and supported by thousands of historians, tells of his cruxification. If what you are saying is true, then a man who was a 'scam' ultimately endured the worst possible death for nothing.
Also, I don't like the thought that we are all filled with sin and should have to explain ourselves. I dunno, it just seems a bit.. well why sit around and count our sins? that's a bit depressing. I mean yeah, try and be good to people etc., but why not do it because you want to do it, not because you are scared of the possibility of hell?
No-one said anything about counting your sins. What asa.hoshi was trying to say, is that you repent, accept that you have done wrong, and move on. Simple as that.
Christians don't do the things they do because they are scared of hell, in my opinion, it is fear of being away from God for the rest of eternity.
What scientific evidence do you have that the earth was created by a deity?
What scientifice evidence do you have that the earth wasn't???
Dinosaurs, or creatures of the like, were mentioned in the Bible, so you can't really use that old Darwanism line again..... The Big Bang is probably the worst theory ever created by mankind. It's exactly like saying, 'Oh look there's a TV, it's obviously been created by a Big Bang at TV warehouse!!!!' Scientists can't even explain where the original 'gas clouds' came from. How do you explain that part of the theory??? 'Gas clouds' cannot be conjured out of thin air. Or were they created by something else?? A God perhaps?????
-
Here you are assuming that I claimed the scam was from Jesus himself. The scam could have come from an influential group of people.
Like brendan said, the onus is on you to provide proof. He isn't saying there is definitely no god, but he is saying, there definitely is no definite on god :P
-
Also, I don't like the thought that we are all filled with sin and should have to explain ourselves. I dunno, it just seems a bit.. well why sit around and count our sins? that's a bit depressing. I mean yeah, try and be good to people etc., but why not do it because you want to do it, not because you are scared of the possibility of hell?
No-one said anything about counting your sins. What asa.hoshi was trying to say, is that you repent, accept that you have done wrong, and move on. Simple as that.
Christians don't do the things they do because they are scared of hell, in my opinion, it is fear of being away from God for the rest of eternity.
but you dont have to believe in god to realise that some things you do go against what you believe is right, and accept your mistakes within yourself. its just that like that, you are acting by your own personal set of values rather than what some random person dictates is right and wrong. i dont want someone telling me whats a sin and what isnt, i want to live by what i genuinely believe is right and wrong. who wants to get hung up on living on someone elses terms. why should i belive that some of those things are sins just because 'god says so'?
-
Here you are assuming that I claimed the scam was from Jesus himself. The scam could have come from an influential group of people.
Like brendan said, the onus is on you to provide proof. He isn't saying there is definitely no god, but he is saying, there definitely is no definite on god :P
How does it matter matter if the scam was orchestrated by Him himself, or a group of people???
Like I said, a huge majority of historians have confirmed and support the origins of the Bible. The excitement surrounding the discovery of the Sea Scrolls a few years ago demonstrates the widely held belief that God did indeed come to Earth. Coupled with the fact that Dan Brown (who has attempted to destabilise the foundations upon which the Church are based upon) did not attempt to refute the fact that a man named Jesus, who performed extraordinary feats, was on Earth around 2000 years ago. Doesn't this tell you something???
-
Also, I don't like the thought that we are all filled with sin and should have to explain ourselves. I dunno, it just seems a bit.. well why sit around and count our sins? that's a bit depressing. I mean yeah, try and be good to people etc., but why not do it because you want to do it, not because you are scared of the possibility of hell?
No-one said anything about counting your sins. What asa.hoshi was trying to say, is that you repent, accept that you have done wrong, and move on. Simple as that.
Christians don't do the things they do because they are scared of hell, in my opinion, it is fear of being away from God for the rest of eternity.
but you dont have to believe in god to realise that some things you do go against what you believe is right, and accept your mistakes within yourself. its just that like that, you are acting by your own personal set of values rather than what some random person dictates is right and wrong. i dont want someone telling me whats a sin and what isnt, i want to live by what i genuinely believe is right and wrong. who wants to get hung up on living on someone elses terms. why should i belive that some of those things are sins just because 'god says so'?
yeah thats true. thats a personal choice that you have made yourself. if you don't like being told what a sin is and isn't, then don't become a christian!! christians do indeed believe for what they genuinly believe in. thats why you will hear a lot of debate in churches, when people with differing values, all attempt to interpret one piece of scripture. Many churches have trouble coming up with a definite set of things that they believe. This stems from the very differing views of people. The debate as to the meaning of scriptures, is an example of this. it may mean one thing to one person, and something completely different to another. Christians aren't people who live their lives with tightly bound rules and regulations.
-
1-God has never caused suffering. It is more of a 'byproduct' of the sin which has infected his Creation.
2-God gave us free will. Thus people must live with the their own actions, aswell as those of others.
3-Suffering also sometimes helps others to seek God. Turning to God can lead to strength, wisdom, peace and joy.
1 - if god was so perfect, what was the point of creating 'imperfect beings' that 'infect his creation'? are you saying he's deliberately unleashed this cancer upon his own creation just for a kick?
2 - nice thought, if we weren't harangued by zealots screaming "you'll go to hell" or we'd get turned away from heaven if we didn't believe in him
3 - the whole inner desire thing that i was talking about back then
and besides, assuming that history is core fact (even though it's so unstable that people are debating whether the moon landing really occurred), you have to think that the bible came from people that were even earlier than those that thought the earth was flat - the early people were more susceptible to more out-there beliefs, because they didn't really know better. now, who can dispute an event that occurred 2000 years ago, when they're still debating about the moon landing? but everyone laughs derisively at the flying spaghetti monster.
and imo, even if dan brown didn't refute the fact that jesus existed... well... he's dan brown... cough.
i really hope i didn't sound bitchy then. if i did, it was unintentional.
-
If you can't prove it then admit it. You made the proposal that there exists a deity. So the onus of proof is on you to provide evidential support. It is not the responsibility of others to disprove your claim.
Furthermore, just because there are some things that are not yet explained by science, doesn't mean that it is proof for the existence of God. That is a logically fallacious argument, more specially argument from ignorance. That just hides the fact that you don't have any objective and credible proof for the existence of God.
Well there are hundreds and hundreds of proofs. Let me explain a few. Although they mi8 not be all physical proofs, they're proofs of God's work.
Number 1
(1) Check out the world/universe. Isn't it complex?
(2) Only God could have made them so complex.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
Number 2
(1) My aunt had cancer.
(2) The doctors gave her all these horrible treatments which didn't work.
(3) My aunt prayed to God and now she doesn't have cancer.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
Number 3
(1) Archaeologists found the remains of a boat from Jesus' time.
(2) So the Bible is true.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
Number 4
(1) Science is not always true.
(2) Therefore there is room for religious faith.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
Number 5
(1) God told me that he exists.
(2) God wouldn't lie.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
Number 6
(1) Atheists claim Christians have been brainwashed by churches.
(2) We can just as easily say that they have been brainwashed by secular colleges and universities in their futile thinking and secular reasoning.
(3) Your brainwashing keeps you from the Truth.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
Number 7
(1) There are some things in logic that you can't logically demonstrate.
(2) Therefore you have to take them on faith.
(3) Your faith in logic is the same as my faith in God.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
We should give people the benefit of the doubt. When someone says God exists, we should believe them. Even though it might be true.
Here are some quotes of famous scientist of all times. Some of these people you even look up to. All of them believe in the existence of God.
"Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive."
Albert Einstein (1879-1955), theoretical physicist, scientific genius
"There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history."
Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), English physicist, one of the greatest scientists of all time.
"All human discoveries seem to be made only for the purpose of confirming more and more the truths contained in the Sacred Scriptures."
Sir William Herschel (1738-1822), English astronomer, he made numerous discoveries about the laws of the heavens.
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), astronomer, mathematician, physicist, he constructed the first astronomical telescope
"God not only plays dice, He also sometimes throws the dice where they cannot be seen."
Stephen Hawking (1942- ) British physicist
"If we find the answer [the unified theory], it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for we would know the mind of God."
Stephen Hawking (1942- ) British physicist
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc^2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe.
He quotes: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
-
Number 1
(1) Check out Ahmad's signature. Isn't it complex?
(2) Only Ahmad could have made them so complex.
(3) Therefore, Ahmad exists.
Number 3
(1) Archaeologists found a dinosaur.
(2) So Curious George and the Dinosaur must be true.
(3) Therefore, Curious George exists.
Number 4
(1) Science is not always true.
(2) Therefore there is room for complaint.
(3) Therefore, whinging exists.
Number 5
(1) My mum told me to clean my room, or she'd take away my computer.
(2) She wouldn't lie.
(3) Therefore, I'd better clean my room.
sorry, i'm not making fun of you btw, i'm just trying to get some cheap laughs.
-
hate to break it to you, but none of those are proofs :? like, at all haha. try opinions
also "We should give people the benefit of the doubt. When someone says God exists, we should believe them. Even though it might be true."
errrrrrrrrrrrr.. if someones tell me god exists, im not going to believe them just because they say so. i wouldnt given anyone the benefit of my own blind faith. for me, their views are subject to the same scrutiny as everything i ask myself. i am under no obligation to believe them, but i not asking them to belive me either.
edited it a bit
-
Number 1
(1) Check out Ahmad's signature. Isn't it complex?
(2) Only Ahmad could have made them so complex.
(3) Therefore, Ahmad exists.
Therefore, Ahmad is god
-
Lol, I liked the dinosaur one Mel. Rawr.
If science isn't always true, what the archaeologists did mightn't have been true either. It sorta contradicts.
-
1 - if god was so perfect, what was the point of creating 'imperfect beings' that 'infect his creation'? are you saying he's deliberately unleashed this cancer upon his own creation just for a kick?
2 - nice thought, if we weren't harangued by zealots screaming "you'll go to hell" or we'd get turned away from heaven if we didn't believe in him
3 - the whole inner desire thing that i was talking about back then
and besides, assuming that history is core fact (even though it's so unstable that people are debating whether the moon landing really occurred), you have to think that the bible came from people that were even earlier than those that thought the earth was flat - the early people were more susceptible to more out-there beliefs, because they didn't really know better. now, who can dispute an event that occurred 2000 years ago, when they're still debating about the moon landing? but everyone laughs derisively at the flying spaghetti monster.
and imo, even if dan brown didn't refute the fact that jesus existed... well... he's dan brown... cough.
i really hope i didn't sound bitchy then. if i did, it was unintentional.
lol defintely not mel
1-definetely not saying that, God gave us free will.
2-Sorry, I didn't think I was that forward.
3-You could argue that.
In response to the rest of your post; numberous chapters of the Bible were written from the different perspectives of different people during the same time. A good example is the Gospels, written from four different people (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), focusing on the same period of time. The origins of the transcripts written by these have been confirmed by historians. If early people were indeed rather gullible, how is it that four different people, wrote on the same event with exceptional concordance???
And well Dan Brown, lol, the fact that he calls himself a historian, and that he is trying profusely to destabilise the whole Church is indicative of his loathing of the Church. If even he, doesn't refute the existence of Jesus, how can anyone else???
-
Does anyone else hope asa.hoshi was kidding with his 7 proofs? Like REALLY REALLY hope upon hope?
-
Yeah.
-
hate to break it to you, but none of those are proofs :? like, at all haha. try opinions
also "We should give people the benefit of the doubt. When someone says God exists, we should believe them. Even though it might be true."
errrrrrrrrrrrr.. if someones tell me god exists, im not going to believe them just because they say so. i wouldnt given anyone the benefit of my own blind faith. for me, their views are subject to the same scrutiny as everything i ask myself. i am under no obligation to believe them, but i not asking them to belive me either.
edited it a bit
So do you really believe that the universe was created by the Big Bang??? Even though scientists can't prove where the 'gas clouds' which initiated this 'Bang' came from??? As I said before, it's exactly like pointing at a TV and saying 'Oh, it must have been created by an huge explosion at the TV store!"
Just doesn't work.
-
So do you really believe that the universe was created by the Big Bang??? Even though scientists can't prove where the 'gas clouds' which initiated this 'Bang' came from??? As I said before, it's exactly like pointing at a TV and saying 'Oh, it must have been created by an huge explosion at the TV store!"
Just doesn't work.
But then was god created by the big bang?
-
No, Andy, scientists cannot tell us how/why the Big Bang originated. Only that it originated. But that does not mean G-d exists. That is the definition of fallacious logic. It all comes down to faith for believers. Often a blind faith like the one you are exhibiting now. It would - until we have conclusive evidence - be unscientific to discount the possibility of a higher being having been the controller of it.
But christianity is a falsehood. There is no way that those events unfolded as they did. It IS possible that intelligent design or a higher helping hand that fathered our known universe. But the Catholic religion was a beacon of hope for the naive and gullible and fearful of the dark and medieval ages. It brought hope to those people who were oppressed, that if they worked towards being good people, they would be rewarded. In highlighting the true stupidity of Catholicism, the catholic church was largely bigoted and unrelenting in its hunger to dominate the beliefs of everyone they could find. All religions that we know today - Judaism, Islam, Christianity etc. are guides of how to be good people, but the God that they depict certainly does not exist.
-
So do you really believe that the universe was created by the Big Bang??? Even though scientists can't prove where the 'gas clouds' which initiated this 'Bang' came from??? As I said before, it's exactly like pointing at a TV and saying 'Oh, it must have been created by an huge explosion at the TV store!"
Just doesn't work.
But then was god created by the big bang?
lol no....you can keep on going around in circles, asking what created what, but you ultimately have to arrive at the fact that there must be a super-natural power who has indeed created the universe. gases don't apparate out of thin air, trees do not become fully grown in the blink of an eye, and universes' certainly don't pop into existence just by that. for every consequence, there is an action.
-
no im not claiming it was created by the big bang. i have no idea. im not claiming to have all the answers, i just of the belief that religion doesnt either. and iv got no interest in dedicating my life to something that no one can prove exists. so instead, i live my life according to what i see with my own eyes, my own feelings. i dont need religion, i dont want to need religion. however this is moving further away from whether i believe in god to whether i believe in religion.
-
So do you really believe that the universe was created by the Big Bang??? Even though scientists can't prove where the 'gas clouds' which initiated this 'Bang' came from??? As I said before, it's exactly like pointing at a TV and saying 'Oh, it must have been created by an huge explosion at the TV store!"
Just doesn't work.
But then was god created by the big bang?
lol no....you can keep on going around in circles, asking what created what, but you ultimately have to arrive at the fact that there must be a super-natural power who has indeed created the universe. gases don't apparate out of thin air, trees do not become fully grown in the blink of an eye, and universes' certainly don't pop into existence just by that. for every consequence, there is an action.
You seem to have misunderstood me. You were saying that the big bang theory 'just doesn't work'. I was suggesting that the same could apply to the god theory, in that you can't demonstrate how god was created. How can you simply skip this, and yet pick flaws in other theories.
And anyway, you can't justify the existence of something simply by disproving another theory.
-
So do you really believe that the universe was created by the Big Bang??? Even though scientists can't prove where the 'gas clouds' which initiated this 'Bang' came from??? As I said before, it's exactly like pointing at a TV and saying 'Oh, it must have been created by an huge explosion at the TV store!"
Just doesn't work.
But then was god created by the big bang?
lol no....you can keep on going around in circles, asking what created what, but you ultimately have to arrive at the fact that there must be a super-natural power who has indeed created the universe. gases don't apparate out of thin air, trees do not become fully grown in the blink of an eye, and universes' certainly don't pop into existence just by that. for every consequence, there is an action.
The question is entirely valid. Who created God? Or is that, in fact, there is no God? The blind faith in God, or, as it's better termed, the God delusion, is the remnant of a dark period in human history where blind faith ruled and governed how we lived. Religion in this day and age should only serve as a guide for good, moral behaviour. And even in that respect, religion is antiquated. The human race is now past its need to depend on the higher plane of existence (heaven) to get through life. And, I think you'll find that as we progress further scientifically, we will find all the answers to the origins of the Universe and realise that religion was for the gullible and needy.
-
What scientifice evidence do you have that the earth wasn't???
You made the claim that there exists a god,. So the onus is on you to provide evidential support. It is not the responsibility of others to disprove the claim. To say that God exists because there is no evidence that god doesn't exists is logically fallacious i.e. WRONG : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
-
What scientifice evidence do you have that the earth wasn't???
You made the claim that there exists a god,. So the onus is on you to provide evidential support. It is not the responsibility of others to disprove the claim. To say that God exists because there is no evidence that god doesn't exists is logically fallacious i.e. WRONG : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
True God believers do not operate with logic. It requires faith. It is highly difficult to find followers of religion with sound logic. People with sound logic generally don't believe in god - merely, god is entertained as a slight possibility.
-
No, Andy, scientists cannot tell us how/why the Big Bang originated. Only that it originated. But that does not mean G-d exists. That is the definition of fallacious logic. It all comes down to faith for believers. Often a blind faith like the one you are exhibiting now. It would - until we have conclusive evidence - be unscientific to discount the possibility of a higher being having been the controller of it.
But christianity is a falsehood. There is no way that those events unfolded as they did. It IS possible that intelligent design or a higher helping hand that fathered our known universe. But the Catholic religion was a beacon of hope for the naive and gullible and fearful of the dark and medieval ages. It brought hope to those people who were oppressed, that if they worked towards being good people, they would be rewarded. In highlighting the true stupidity of Catholicism, the catholic church was largely bigoted and unrelenting in its hunger to dominate the beliefs of everyone they could find. All religions that we know today - Judaism, Islam, Christianity etc. are guides of how to be good people, but the God that they depict certainly does not exist.
My question is, how??? Scientists can come up with all the theories they want, but where's the proof? How can a simple 'bang' conjure everything we see around us today???
As for the rest of your post, I can't really say, I don't really know about Catholicism.
-
If 'something' created God, then God won't be God as that 'something' would be more powerful than God because the 'something' created God. You get what I'm going at? haha.
THIS IS MY 100th post... horray :) I should go and study for my methods exam 2morow... fuck, im so gonna fail it. bye.
-
My question is, how??? Scientists can come up with all the theories they want, but where's the proof? How can a simple 'bang' conjure everything we see around us today???
My question is how is god created. Answer that first
-
True God believers do not operate with logic. It requires faith. It is highly difficult to find followers of religion with sound logic. People with sound logic generally don't believe in god - merely, god is entertained as a slight possibility.
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeyyyyyyyyyyyy?????????????? didn't u read my previous post about all the famous scientist quotes? they all believe in the existence of GOOOOOOOOODDDDDDD!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
My question is how is god created. Answer that first
god was there from the very beginning. god was never created.
-
No, Andy, scientists cannot tell us how/why the Big Bang originated. Only that it originated. But that does not mean G-d exists. That is the definition of fallacious logic. It all comes down to faith for believers. Often a blind faith like the one you are exhibiting now. It would - until we have conclusive evidence - be unscientific to discount the possibility of a higher being having been the controller of it.
But christianity is a falsehood. There is no way that those events unfolded as they did. It IS possible that intelligent design or a higher helping hand that fathered our known universe. But the Catholic religion was a beacon of hope for the naive and gullible and fearful of the dark and medieval ages. It brought hope to those people who were oppressed, that if they worked towards being good people, they would be rewarded. In highlighting the true stupidity of Catholicism, the catholic church was largely bigoted and unrelenting in its hunger to dominate the beliefs of everyone they could find. All religions that we know today - Judaism, Islam, Christianity etc. are guides of how to be good people, but the God that they depict certainly does not exist.
My question is, how??? Scientists can come up with all the theories they want, but where's the proof? How can a simple 'bang' conjure everything we see around us today???
As for the rest of your post, I can't really say, I don't really know about Catholicism.
Why the hell are you asking me for proof when you have none of it yourself? That is the epitome of arrogance displayed by the churches. You cannot prove AT ALL that God exists, but Scientists have explained away vast chunks of what the bible says was God's work. Is that not evidence enough? God created light. Well, no he didn't. "Light" was given off by The Sun which was the result of the collapse of a Hydrogen molecular cloud. Boom, God did not create light. Hydrogen did. Unless God is Hydrogen. All hail Hydrogen, Deuterium and Tritium, our mighy overlords! And, Earth was not created in 7 days a few thousand years ago. We have carbon dating to tell us that the earth is billions of years old and is comprised of star dust.
All subscribers to religion have is hearsay and texts written by PEOPLE. People who could have easily fabricated the entire thing. Science has cold hard facts and has refuted much of the text you hold sacred. Do you not see that your blind faith is the mark of sheer ignorance?
-
man created science.
-
So do you really believe that the universe was created by the Big Bang??? Even though scientists can't prove where the 'gas clouds' which initiated this 'Bang' came from??? As I said before, it's exactly like pointing at a TV and saying 'Oh, it must have been created by an huge explosion at the TV store!"
Just doesn't work.
But then was god created by the big bang?
lol no....you can keep on going around in circles, asking what created what, but you ultimately have to arrive at the fact that there must be a super-natural power who has indeed created the universe. gases don't apparate out of thin air, trees do not become fully grown in the blink of an eye, and universes' certainly don't pop into existence just by that. for every consequence, there is an action.
You seem to have misunderstood me. You were saying that the big bang theory 'just doesn't work'. I was suggesting that the same could apply to the god theory, in that you can't demonstrate how god was created. How can you simply skip this, and yet pick flaws in other theories.
And anyway, you can't justify the existence of something simply by disproving another theory.
My point was that everything we have come to know cannot be conjured out from thin air. Everything we have come to know cannot have been created from nothing. How is THAT scientifically possible???
You made the claim that there exists a god,. So the onus is on you to provide evidential support. It is not the responsibility of others to disprove the claim. To say that God exists because there is no evidence that god doesn't exists is logically fallacious i.e. WRONG : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
mate, have you even looked at my other posts?!?!!? i've repeatedly pointed at the fact that historians have confirmed and supported the origins of the Bible, which in turn have pointed to the existence of Christ.
-
So do you really believe that the universe was created by the Big Bang??? Even though scientists can't prove where the 'gas clouds' which initiated this 'Bang' came from??? As I said before, it's exactly like pointing at a TV and saying 'Oh, it must have been created by an huge explosion at the TV store!"
Just doesn't work.
But then was god created by the big bang?
lol no....you can keep on going around in circles, asking what created what, but you ultimately have to arrive at the fact that there must be a super-natural power who has indeed created the universe. gases don't apparate out of thin air, trees do not become fully grown in the blink of an eye, and universes' certainly don't pop into existence just by that. for every consequence, there is an action.
You claim god was here from the beginning, but now you say, "gases don't apparate out of thin air". Hmmm, no, wait, but super-natural beings do? HELLO MASSIVE FLAW IN LOGIC.
Also, time is a concept. There is no such thing as the "beginning". Time is infinite and never began. There is no beginning or end to time. It is simply a measure by which we, as humans, live.
-
One word answer.
No.
-
So do you really believe that the universe was created by the Big Bang??? Even though scientists can't prove where the 'gas clouds' which initiated this 'Bang' came from??? As I said before, it's exactly like pointing at a TV and saying 'Oh, it must have been created by an huge explosion at the TV store!"
Just doesn't work.
But then was god created by the big bang?
lol no....you can keep on going around in circles, asking what created what, but you ultimately have to arrive at the fact that there must be a super-natural power who has indeed created the universe. gases don't apparate out of thin air, trees do not become fully grown in the blink of an eye, and universes' certainly don't pop into existence just by that. for every consequence, there is an action.
You seem to have misunderstood me. You were saying that the big bang theory 'just doesn't work'. I was suggesting that the same could apply to the god theory, in that you can't demonstrate how god was created. How can you simply skip this, and yet pick flaws in other theories.
And anyway, you can't justify the existence of something simply by disproving another theory.
My point was that everything we have come to know cannot be conjured out from thin air. Everything we have come to know cannot have been created from nothing. How is THAT scientifically possible???
You made the claim that there exists a god,. So the onus is on you to provide evidential support. It is not the responsibility of others to disprove the claim. To say that God exists because there is no evidence that god doesn't exists is logically fallacious i.e. WRONG : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
mate, have you even looked at my other posts?!?!!? i've repeatedly pointed at the fact that historians have confirmed and supported the origins of the Bible, which in turn have pointed to the existence of Christ.
And all that proves is that there was a man who once "died for your sins". Whoop dee dee, that's a really solid proof of god. >_>
-
we have more "yes" in the poll...
yet there are more people arguing against the existence of God right now... how unfair!!! haha
-
asa.hoshi, do you seriously think thats proof? SERIOUSLY? cos i thought the first part of it was a joke haha.
anyway i think im rather a non believer in religion.. and unsure about "god" or rather some kind of other force. and unlikely to ever make up my mind on that, because i would never believe it without proof, yet nor would i completely rule it out because i dont have the proof to do that either. therefore i dont know. but, i do not believe in religion.
edit: i was referring to those things that asahoshi posted on the last page. he reposted them, but clearly deleted it
-
So do you really believe that the universe was created by the Big Bang??? Even though scientists can't prove where the 'gas clouds' which initiated this 'Bang' came from??? As I said before, it's exactly like pointing at a TV and saying 'Oh, it must have been created by an huge explosion at the TV store!"
Just doesn't work.
But then was god created by the big bang?
lol no....you can keep on going around in circles, asking what created what, but you ultimately have to arrive at the fact that there must be a super-natural power who has indeed created the universe. gases don't apparate out of thin air, trees do not become fully grown in the blink of an eye, and universes' certainly don't pop into existence just by that. for every consequence, there is an action.
You claim god was here from the beginning, but now you say, "gases don't apparate out of thin air". Hmmm, no, wait, but super-natural beings do? HELLO MASSIVE FLAW IN LOGIC.
Also, time is a concept. There is no such thing as the "beginning". Time is infinite and never began. There is no beginning or end to time. It is simply a measure by which we, as humans, live.
That simply comes down to faith. You either believe God has been around all along, or not. Simple.
If you don't, then you don't believe in God.
If you do, then you do believe in God.
-
i love this thread. its a good way of getting my post-count up! :D
-
What scientifice evidence do you have that the earth wasn't???
You made the claim that there exists a god,. So the onus is on you to provide evidential support. It is not the responsibility of others to disprove the claim. To say that God exists because there is no evidence that god doesn't exists is logically fallacious i.e. WRONG : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
I'm pretty sure that that 'Argument from ignorance' thing can be associated with non-believers who try to refute Christianity.
-
So do you really believe that the universe was created by the Big Bang??? Even though scientists can't prove where the 'gas clouds' which initiated this 'Bang' came from??? As I said before, it's exactly like pointing at a TV and saying 'Oh, it must have been created by an huge explosion at the TV store!"
Just doesn't work.
But then was god created by the big bang?
lol no....you can keep on going around in circles, asking what created what, but you ultimately have to arrive at the fact that there must be a super-natural power who has indeed created the universe. gases don't apparate out of thin air, trees do not become fully grown in the blink of an eye, and universes' certainly don't pop into existence just by that. for every consequence, there is an action.
You claim god was here from the beginning, but now you say, "gases don't apparate out of thin air". Hmmm, no, wait, but super-natural beings do? HELLO MASSIVE FLAW IN LOGIC.
Also, time is a concept. There is no such thing as the "beginning". Time is infinite and never began. There is no beginning or end to time. It is simply a measure by which we, as humans, live.
That simply comes down to faith. You either believe God has been around all along, or not. Simple.
If you don't, then you don't believe in God.
If you do, then you do believe in God.
AND THAT'S EXACTLY IT. It's a belief. It's blind faith. It's purely unscientific. To its core, all religion does is give an answer to what we cannot explain currently. "What created us?" "I don't know, obviously some higher power".
It's an easy answer, easily digested and has wider ranging benefits for society. If we believe there is heaven then we believe there is meaning to being a good person in life. If we believe that there is a benevolent god watching over us, it provides comfort.
But that's ALL religion is. A blind faith to give security and hope to the weak. Now that we can explain the things that religion only has the "god" answer for, it is fast becoming obvious that religion is massively flawed.
-
asa.hoshi, do you seriously think thats proof? SERIOUSLY? cos i thought the first part of it was a joke haha.
edit: i was referring to those things that asahoshi posted on the last page. he reposted them, but clearly deleted it
yeh yeh the 7 proofs were a joke. lol but some of them are kinda true... but the latter part wasn't though haha.
-
We should give people the benefit of the doubt. When someone says God exists, we should believe them. Even though it might be true.
Huh? The phrase "benefit of the doubt," keyword doubt, suggests that we are supposed to be sceptical of claims that are unproven. That's what "benefit of the doubt" means. Therefore, if someone says God exists, you're supposed to doubt it.
And those "logical" proofs relied on leaps of logics and were based on ridiculous assumptions. I respect your right to believe in god, but please stop trying to pretend there is some sort of solid logic behind it. Just admit that it is blind faith, and stop embarrassing logic.
Like spirited sloth pointed out, here's a ridiculous version of those proofs:
(1) My aunt had cancer.
(2) The doctors gave her all these horrible treatments which didn't work.
(3) My aunt prayed to my testicles and now she doesn't have cancer.
(4) Therefore, my testicles can heal cancer.
-
i love this thread. its a good way of getting my post-count up! :D
And it's a marvellous way of displaying massive amounts of sheer ignorance, too. :D
-
i love this thread. its a good way of getting my post-count up! :D
And it's a marvellous way of displaying massive amounts of sheer ignorance, too. :D
lol... there's more 'yes' in the polls :D take that. haha. this is fun. what a fun thread. seriously!
-
Like spirited sloth pointed out, here's a ridiculous version of those proofs:
(1) My aunt had cancer.
(2) The doctors gave her all these horrible treatments which didn't work.
(3) My aunt prayed to my testicles and now she doesn't have cancer.
(4) Therefore, my testicles can heal cancer.
And then, you know, all those people who pray and aren't cured.
-
We should give people the benefit of the doubt. When someone says God exists, we should believe them. Even though it might be true.
Huh? The phrase "benefit of the doubt," keyword doubt, suggests that we are supposed to be sceptical of claims that are unproven. That's what "benefit of the doubt" means. Therefore, if someone says God exists, you're supposed to doubt it.
And those "logical" proofs relied on leaps of logics and were based on ridiculous assumptions. I respect your right to believe in god, but please stop trying to pretend there is some sort of solid logic behind it. Just admit that it is blind faith, and stop embarrassing logic.
Like spirited sloth pointed out, here's a ridiculous version of those proofs:
(1) My aunt had cancer.
(2) The doctors gave her all these horrible treatments which didn't work.
(3) My aunt prayed to my testicles and now she doesn't have cancer.
(4) Therefore, my testicles can heal cancer.
that was a bad sentence. i should rephrase that.
but anyway the 7 proofs were a joke as i pointed out o mel.dee
-
lol... there's more 'yes' in the polls Very Happy take that. haha. this is fun. what a fun thread. seriously!
One reason why a democratic moral code is not a good idea, and liberty is a much better principle.
Also, percentage of "yes" is less than 50%. The people who are unsure are humble. People who are saying "no" also are blindly believing.
-
And well Dan Brown, lol, the fact that he calls himself a historian, and that he is trying profusely to destabilise the whole Church is indicative of his loathing of the Church. If even he, doesn't refute the existence of Jesus, how can anyone else???
lol, thats like saying... one kid believes in santa... so santa must exist!
-
What scientifice evidence do you have that the earth wasn't???
Dinosaurs, or creatures of the like, were mentioned in the Bible, so you can't really use that old Darwanism line again..... The Big Bang is probably the worst theory ever created by mankind. It's exactly like saying, 'Oh look there's a TV, it's obviously been created by a Big Bang at TV warehouse!!!!' Scientists can't even explain where the original 'gas clouds' came from. How do you explain that part of the theory??? 'Gas clouds' cannot be conjured out of thin air. Or were they created by something else?? A God perhaps?????
Number 1
(1) Check out the world/universe. Isn't it complex?
(2) Only God could have made them so complex.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
Number 4
(1) Science is not always true.
(2) Therefore there is room for religious faith.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
Just because there are some things that are not yet explained by science, doesn't mean that it is proof for the existence of God. That is a logicall fallacious (in simple words your argument is WRONG) argument, more specially it is argument from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
It is a logical mistake to assert that because a phenomenon is unpredictable by current scientific theories, that a better scientific theory cannot be found that provides an adequate natural explanatory model for the phenomena in question; and that therefore, one must assert that the only viable explanation of the unexplained phenomena is the supernatural action of God. This variant is known as the God-of-the-gaps argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
Number 3
(1) Archaeologists found the remains of a boat from Jesus' time.
(2) So the Bible is true.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
Logical fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29 i.e. WRONG
Number 5
(1) God told me that he exists.
(2) God wouldn't lie.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
No objective, substantive or credible evidence has been provided to support the proposition that there exists a God. This kind of logically fallacious proof, needs no rebuttal. It simply does not follow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29
Number 6
(1) Atheists claim Christians have been brainwashed by churches.
(2) We can just as easily say that they have been brainwashed by secular colleges and universities in their futile thinking and secular reasoning.
(3) Your brainwashing keeps you from the Truth.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
Fallacious logic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29
Number 7
(1) There are some things in logic that you can't logically demonstrate.
(2) Therefore you have to take them on faith.
(3) Your faith in logic is the same as my faith in God.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
All the arguments provided so far are WRONG and logically fallacious.
-
So do you really believe that the universe was created by the Big Bang??? Even though scientists can't prove where the 'gas clouds' which initiated this 'Bang' came from??? As I said before, it's exactly like pointing at a TV and saying 'Oh, it must have been created by an huge explosion at the TV store!"
Just doesn't work.
But then was god created by the big bang?
lol no....you can keep on going around in circles, asking what created what, but you ultimately have to arrive at the fact that there must be a super-natural power who has indeed created the universe. gases don't apparate out of thin air, trees do not become fully grown in the blink of an eye, and universes' certainly don't pop into existence just by that. for every consequence, there is an action.
You claim god was here from the beginning, but now you say, "gases don't apparate out of thin air". Hmmm, no, wait, but super-natural beings do? HELLO MASSIVE FLAW IN LOGIC.
Also, time is a concept. There is no such thing as the "beginning". Time is infinite and never began. There is no beginning or end to time. It is simply a measure by which we, as humans, live.
That simply comes down to faith. You either believe God has been around all along, or not. Simple.
If you don't, then you don't believe in God.
If you do, then you do believe in God.
AND THAT'S EXACTLY IT. It's a belief. It's blind faith. It's purely unscientific. To its core, all religion does is give an answer to what we cannot explain currently. "What created us?" "I don't know, obviously some higher power".
It's an easy answer, easily digested and has wider ranging benefits for society. If we believe there is heaven then we believe there is meaning to being a good person in life. If we believe that there is a benevolent god watching over us, it provides comfort.
But that's ALL religion is. A blind faith to give security and hope to the weak. Now that we can explain the things that religion only has the "god" answer for, it is fast becoming obvious that religion is massively flawed.
In your opinion it's blind faith!!! How do you know that that is all religion is?? Where is your evidence??? I am still to see none.
I also find it unfair, that in this thread, asa.asoshi and myself are being asked to provide proof for our own faith, whilst non-believers do not have to disclose or provide reasons/evidence backing up their own beliefs, purely because 'Christians claimed there was a God, therefore they have to prove that He does exist.'
-
What scientifice evidence do you have that the earth wasn't???
Dinosaurs, or creatures of the like, were mentioned in the Bible, so you can't really use that old Darwanism line again..... The Big Bang is probably the worst theory ever created by mankind. It's exactly like saying, 'Oh look there's a TV, it's obviously been created by a Big Bang at TV warehouse!!!!' Scientists can't even explain where the original 'gas clouds' came from. How do you explain that part of the theory??? 'Gas clouds' cannot be conjured out of thin air. Or were they created by something else?? A God perhaps?????
Number 1
(1) Check out the world/universe. Isn't it complex?
(2) Only God could have made them so complex.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
Number 4
(1) Science is not always true.
(2) Therefore there is room for religious faith.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
Just because there are some things that are not yet explained by science, doesn't mean that it is proof for the existence of God. That is a logicall fallacious (in simple words your argument is WRONG) argument, more specially it is argument from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
It is a logical mistake to assert that because a phenomenon is unpredictable by current scientific theories, that a better scientific theory cannot be found that provides an adequate natural explanatory model for the phenomena in question; and that therefore, one must assert that the only viable explanation of the unexplained phenomena is the supernatural action of God. This variant is known as the God-of-the-gaps argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
Number 3
(1) Archaeologists found the remains of a boat from Jesus' time.
(2) So the Bible is true.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
Logical fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29 i.e. WRONG
Number 5
(1) God told me that he exists.
(2) God wouldn't lie.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
No objective, substantive or credible evidence has been provided to support the proposition that there exists a God. This kind of logically fallacious proof, needs no rebuttal. It simply does not follow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29
Number 6
(1) Atheists claim Christians have been brainwashed by churches.
(2) We can just as easily say that they have been brainwashed by secular colleges and universities in their futile thinking and secular reasoning.
(3) Your brainwashing keeps you from the Truth.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
Fallacious logic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29
Number 7
(1) There are some things in logic that you can't logically demonstrate.
(2) Therefore you have to take them on faith.
(3) Your faith in logic is the same as my faith in God.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
All the arguments provided so far are WRONG and logically fallacious.
as i told mel.dee and coblin. the 7 proofs were a joke. read the latter part. sometimes you guys take it really seriously especially brendan. lol
-
This reminds me a bit of UMAT.
-
I also find it unfair, that in this thread, asa.asoshi and myself are being asked to provide proof for our own faith, whilst non-believers do not have to disclose or provide reasons/evidence backing up their own beliefs, purely because 'Christians claimed there was a God, therefore they have to prove that He does exist.'
Awwww poor you. Do you not understand the onus of proof? The onus of proof always lays on the claimaint to provide evidence to support the claim. It is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." therefore my claim is true. It is not the responsibility of others to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the claimaint to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven. That is logically fallacious and WRONG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof
-
Like spirited sloth pointed out, here's a ridiculous version of those proofs:
(1) My aunt had cancer.
(2) The doctors gave her all these horrible treatments which didn't work.
(3) My aunt prayed to my testicles and now she doesn't have cancer.
(4) Therefore, my testicles can heal cancer.
And then, you know, all those people who pray and aren't cured.
Another thing wrong with the Atheists perception of religion. It's not all about YOU!!!!!
-
I believe that there are an infinite amount of miniature dolphins that make up our bodies. I.E. cells make us up and these cells are composed of atoms which are composed of sub-atomic particles such as protons, and neutrons and they have quarks etc. until we get to the miniature dolphins. The tiny, infinitesimal miniature dolphins which make us up. But, because of the limitations of the Planck scale, we can't know for sure. DISPROVE ME!!! PROVE ME WRONG!!!! I BELIEVE IN THIS WHOLEHEARTEDLY, SO THEREFORE I AM RIGHT
!!!!!!
-
Religion has it's purposes. It keeps religious people sane. It gives them something to live for. It also keeps people from doing 'bad things' like killing other people for fun.
Source: Something I wrote in year 8. I failed religion. Lulz.
-
Kopite:
Why do you have to provide proof? Because you are trying to convince us god exists. If you cannot provide evidence, then therefore it is inconclusive: god may or may not exist.
We are not proposing that "god does not exist," we are merely defending the inconclusiveness of god's existence, so therefore we require evidence to convince us otherwise.
-
I also find it unfair, that in this thread, asa.asoshi and myself are being asked to provide proof for our own faith, whilst non-believers do not have to disclose or provide reasons/evidence backing up their own beliefs, purely because 'Christians claimed there was a God, therefore they have to prove that He does exist.'
Awwww poor you. Do you not understand the onus of proof?
LOL. Mate if you had any idea, you'd realise that this is not a court of law, it's a forum, where people are expressing their views. I have given mine, and the reasons why I believe them. If you don't accept them, then I can't really do anything. I'm simply asking for the reasons underpinning your own beliefs. Is that too much to ask???
-
Like spirited sloth pointed out, here's a ridiculous version of those proofs:
(1) My aunt had cancer.
(2) The doctors gave her all these horrible treatments which didn't work.
(3) My aunt prayed to my testicles and now she doesn't have cancer.
(4) Therefore, my testicles can heal cancer.
And then, you know, all those people who pray and aren't cured.
Another thing wrong with the Atheists perception of religion. It's not all about YOU!!!!!
Kopite. its pointless arguing. they have their own views on God and we have ours. its always gonna clash.
let's just stop. im pretty sure most of us have a methods exam 2morow.
-
So ... uh ... I believe that you killed Princess Di.
you have to prove me wrong... i thought it was innocent until proven guilty?
-
Like spirited sloth pointed out, here's a ridiculous version of those proofs:
(1) My aunt had cancer.
(2) The doctors gave her all these horrible treatments which didn't work.
(3) My aunt prayed to my testicles and now she doesn't have cancer.
(4) Therefore, my testicles can heal cancer.
And then, you know, all those people who pray and aren't cured.
Another thing wrong with the Atheists perception of religion. It's not all about YOU!!!!!
Kopite. its pointless arguing. they have their own views on God and we have ours. its always gonna clash.
let's just stop. im pretty sure most of us have a methods exam 2morow.
lol agreed....ummm...i prob should have gone through mm 2004-2006 exams, but oh well...i shall pray :P
-
Christianity, is based on faith, there is no physical evidence to prove God's existence. That's what made it hard for me to come to terms with, how can someone believe in something they can't see? I guess at the end of the day it's your faith that enables you to believe in it all.
I guess the existence of God helps people find meaning in their life, answers questions that science just can't answer...
-
LOL. Mate if you had any idea, you'd realise that this is not a court of law, it's a forum, where people are expressing their views. I have given mine, and the reasons why I believe them. If you don't accept them, then I can't really do anything. I'm simply asking for the reasons underpinning your own beliefs. Is that too much to ask???
Awww poor you. Don't want to provide proof? Don't have proof? Don't like logic? This is how logical arguments works. You made the claim, so the onus is on you to provide evidential support, not anybody else.
-
LOL. Mate if you had any idea, you'd realise that this is not a court of law, it's a forum, where people are expressing their views. I have given mine, and the reasons why I believe them. If you don't accept them, then I can't really do anything. I'm simply asking for the reasons underpinning your own beliefs. Is that too much to ask???
Awww poor you. Don't want to provide proof? Don't have proof? Don't like logic? This is how logical arguments works. You made the claim, so the onus is on you to provide evidential support, not anybody else.
i think u crossed the line there. don't bag fellow FSN members for their beliefs. its tite.
-
Nobody's disproved my miniature dolphin theory yet so it must be true. :(
-
LOL. Mate if you had any idea, you'd realise that this is not a court of law, it's a forum, where people are expressing their views. I have given mine, and the reasons why I believe them. If you don't accept them, then I can't really do anything. I'm simply asking for the reasons underpinning your own beliefs. Is that too much to ask???
Awww poor you. Don't want to provide proof? Don't have proof? Don't like logic? This is how logical arguments works. You made the claim, so the onus is on you to provide evidential support, not anybody else.
i think u crossed the line there. don't bag fellow FSN members for their beliefs. its tite.
No bagging was done. If anything, I've been the one insulting you for your ignorance. But as stipulated in the code of conduct this is allowed. I'm not being prejudiced towards you and neither is brendan. You are acting like an ignorant buffoon and as such, shall be treated like one.
EDIT: I should clarify that whilst we encourage open discussion, close-minded ignorance and fallacious logic will not be tolerated. Any and all animosity generated by your own inability to comprehend the laws of logic will be tolerated as long as it doesn't degrade to excessive swearing and flaming. You've made these wild and sweeping arguments with huge twists of logic and for it, you will bear the brunt of all the criticism that is dished back at you. That goes for everyone. This is a forum for adolescents. It's not a kindergarten and we won't hold your hand if you're going to make trouble for yourself.
-
LOL. Mate if you had any idea, you'd realise that this is not a court of law, it's a forum, where people are expressing their views. I have given mine, and the reasons why I believe them. If you don't accept them, then I can't really do anything. I'm simply asking for the reasons underpinning your own beliefs. Is that too much to ask???
Awww poor you. Don't want to provide proof? Don't have proof? Don't like logic? This is how logical arguments works. You made the claim, so the onus is on you to provide evidential support, not anybody else.
i think u crossed the line there. don't bag fellow FSN members for their beliefs. its tite.
No bagging was done. If anything, I've been the one insulting you for your ignorance. But as stipulated in the code of conduct this is allowed. I'm not being prejudiced towards you and neither is brendan. You are acting like an ignorant buffoon and as such, shall be treated like one.
fair point. it was just bredan's post's tone that i didn't like about it. 'poor you' 'don't like logic' but anyway.
i agree with toothpick. it is a great discussion topic. but at times it is very hard to follow.
-
I should clarify that whilst we encourage open discussion, close-minded ignorance and fallacious logic will not be tolerated. Any and all animosity generated by your own inability to comprehend the laws of logic will be tolerated as long as it doesn't degrade to excessive swearing and flaming. You've made these wild and sweeping arguments with huge twists of logic and for it, you will bear the brunt of all the criticism that is dished back at you. That goes for everyone. This is a forum for adolescents. It's not a kindergarten and we won't hold your hand if you're going to make trouble for yourself.
First sentence made me shriek. You don't tolerate stupidity? Then I read the rest, and I agree wholeheartedly. I think what you mean is: we encourage free and open discussion, and that also means the right to criticise anything that has been said previously.
It reminds me of what the Danish cartoonist notorious for the Muslim satirical cartoons said:
When people are saying the cartoons are mocking a weak minority, I just can't understand it because the cartoonist, in making these cartoons were treating the Muslim community in Denmark in exactly the same way they treat every other group, which in fact, to my mind was an act of recognition and inclusion into Danish society. We were not saying to the Muslims "yknow, you're so weak, you're so different, so we have to treat you like children." We are saying to you, you are grown ups, you are responsible, you are part of society. We are not asking more of you, we are not asking less of you, but we are exactly the same thing as we are about everybody else.
-
Kopite:
Why do you have to provide proof? Because you are trying to convince us god exists. If you cannot provide evidence, then therefore it is inconclusive: god may or may not exist.
We are not proposing that "god does not exist," we are merely defending the inconclusiveness of god's existence, so therefore we require evidence to convince us otherwise.
I don't think it's possible for those who are religious to provide real proof supporting the existence of god. Religion is predicated on faith. Faith is not logical. Thus, it is not possible to use logic to prove god. Both sides are flawed - religion has many gaps, and science cannot explain everything. Hence, I'm agnostic :)
-
Brendan is very aggressive with is argument, but he has a point ... if you cant provide obvious evidence for your contention (which we know you cant because noone in the world can), then anyone has a right to question it, without you saying "well if you dont agree with me because i say its so then youre just ignorant and a sinner and youll go to hell" etc... im not saying thats what you suggested... but you get the point of my meaning.
The same goes for atheists who go aroudn trying to disprove the existence of god. I personally am agnostic... so i dont wanna prove or disprove... i dont think its possible to... Maybe one day, but not at the moment, and ESPECIALLY not us VCE students on late afternoon on the sunday before our final exam week. lol
WHICH by the way, is meant to be a day of rest !!! :P
*edit* lol sif steal my "agnostic" term just before i post!! :@
-
what i don't understand about religion, especially monotheistic ones is the fact you can believe in something you never see, hear who is supposedly almighty.
yes, i'll put my hand up and say i am insignificant, worthless. because GOD said so.
want to argue with me, i'll disprove you. i do religion and i did biology last year. i know which one i'll believe.
-
*edit* lol sif steal my "agnostic" term just before i post!! :@
heh, sorry :P
-
My Facebook says I'm Agnostic, and that's what I am. In this poll I answered No, however.
-
gosh this thread doubled since i last left it.
asa.hoshi wrote:
Number 5
(1) God told me that he exists.
(2) God wouldn't lie.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
No objective, substantive or credible evidence has been provided to support the proposition that there exists a God. This kind of logically fallacious proof, needs no rebuttal. It simply does not follow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29
I think i disagree... isn't that circular logic instead?
Another thing wrong with the Atheists perception of religion. It's not all about YOU!!!!! - kopite
i think u crossed the line there. don't bag fellow FSN members for their beliefs. its tite. - asa.hoshi
arrogant ad hominem attack. this doesn't add anything to the argument or have any grounds whatsoever, so i'm not going even attempt to refute this.
and LOL @ enwiabe's eloquence compared to my uncapitalised arguments. *rants incoherently at her dog*
-
btw, any dav-ers here? ASSERTIONS GALORE ARGGHHH *bangs head on table*
and i think kopite mentioned something about how the bible was scientifically proven to be true, despite the fact that:
it was written 2000 years ago when people still believed that the earth was flat
it was selectively edited by constantine (i think it was in the da vinci code)
hence the 66 books out of the countless gospels that would have been written were clearly in favour of jesus' divinity
especially seeing as many were written by the disciples
it cannot be validated seeing as it described things happening 2000 years ago.
well, i'm going to say it right here and right now. 3000 years ago, a magical unicorn ruled the world, but he got bored and decided to disappear and ascend into the heavens.
i challenge you to scientifically prove that that's untrue.
-
btw, any dav-ers here? ASSERTIONS GALORE ARGGHHH *bangs head on table*
and i think kopite mentioned something about how the bible was scientifically proven to be true, despite the fact that:
it was written 2000 years ago when people still believed that the earth was flat
it was selectively edited by constantine (i think it was in the da vinci code)
hence the 66 books out of the countless gospels that would have been written were clearly in favour of jesus' divinity
especially seeing as many were written by the disciples
it cannot be validated seeing as it described things happening 2000 years ago.
well, i'm going to say it right here and right now. 3000 years ago, a magical unicorn ruled the world, but he got bored and decided to disappear and ascend into the heavens.
i challenge you to scientifically prove that that's untrue.
no historical records??? which have been verified by historians??? probably not then!!!!
And I also find it hypocritical, that you have taken evidence from the Da Vinci Code, where before, you quickly rebutted my evidence from the exact same source, purely based on the fact that it was written by Dan Brown. And I quote-
and imo, even if dan brown didn't refute the fact that jesus existed... well... he's dan brown... cough.
edit-i would also like to point out that the vast majority of the gospels were omitted from the bible, purely because of doubts of authorship and the time in which they were written, which demonstrates the thorough investigation of its origins.
Taken from Wiki, on the Gospel of Judas.
The Gospel of Judas is another controversial and ancient text that perports to tell the story of the gospel from the perspective of Judas, the apostle who betrayed Jesus. It paints an unusual picture of the relationship between Jesus and Judas. The text was recovered from a cave in Egypt by a thief and thereafter sold on the black market until it was finally discovered by a collector who, with the help of academics from Yale and Princton, were able to verify its authenticity. The document itself does not claim to have been authored by Judas (it is, rather, a Gospel about Judas), and dates no earlier than the second century.
The reason the chapters were written by disciples, was apparently because of divine inspiration. Accept this, or not, its up to you. And besides, I'm pretty sure, not all of them have been written by them. Remember Jesus only had 12!!! There's a lot more than 12 books in the Bible!!!!
it cannot be validated seeing as it described things happening 2000 years ago.
do a little bit of research, and you will find that this is not true. as above, academics from Yale and Princton, two rather prestigious universities, verified a books authenticity. thats only one example of the Bibles validation
-
Awww poor you. Don't want to provide proof? Don't have proof? Don't like logic? This is how logical arguments works. You made the claim, so the onus is on you to provide evidential support, not anybody else.
HAHAHA, your feeble attempts to cause a reaction out of me will not come to fruition.
Well all the proof I've provided has been quickly rebutted. So what can I do??? You either accept my point of view or you don't. Proof I've pointed to included the origins of the Bible being confirmed and supported by the massive majority of historians. But, as Mel rightly pointed out, history (e.g the moon landings) can be fabricated. What you choose to believe in is entirely up to you.
And you talk about logic hey??? Hahaha, think logically about the creation of the Universe??? Is the 'Big Bang' logical??? Ummm....no. But I guess you will use your 'Argument from Ignorance' view on things. And at that, I can't really do anything.
asa.asoshi and myself have attempted to put forward evidence for our beliefs. Obviously, as ninwa pointed out, us two alone are probably not going to be able to prove the existence of God by ourselves.
Finally, I'd like to ask all the atheists/agnostics out there, what can Christians do to prove the existence of God??? The origins of the Bible have been proved, this obviously is not good enough for you. The only logical explanation pertaining the creation of the universe, is 'unlogical'. So what can we say or do???
-
Whats the difference between an agnostic and an athiest.
-
Finally, I'd like to ask all the atheists/agnostics out there, what can Christians do to prove the existence of God??? The origins of the Bible have been proved, this obviously is not good enough for you. The only logical explanation pertaining the creation of the universe, is 'unlogical'. So what can we say or do???
Why say or do anything?
-
Whats the difference between an agnostic and an athiest.
I think agnostic = unsure, atheist = no religion. Might wanna check that
-
Why say or do anything?
Why not?? I could name over a hundred people who were self-serving, self-centered, and lacking something, who have come to know Christ, and have turned their world around, and have had their lives enhanced immeasurably. I know of one of Mel's graduating classmates who could attest to this claim. (And no I'm not going to name her lol) Millions around the world would have the exact same story to tell.
-
Whats the difference between an agnostic and an athiest.
I think agnostic = unsure, atheist = no religion. Might wanna check that
Oh right, I see.
-
Kopite:
Why do you have to provide proof? Because you are trying to convince us god exists. If you cannot provide evidence, then therefore it is inconclusive: god may or may not exist.
We are not proposing that "god does not exist," we are merely defending the inconclusiveness of god's existence, so therefore we require evidence to convince us otherwise.
I also find this statement rather intriguing. After 2000 years of civilisation, do you really think that two year 12 school kids who happen to be on a VCE forum, just happen to come up with the idea 'Hey, let's prove that God existed?!?! I can't believe anyone has thought of this idea before!!!" and prove it??? Obviously, and most certainly not. This is a forum, where we have been offered the opportunity to express our beliefs and opinions, and why we believe in them. We have given our point of view and evidence supporting them, and they have been dismissed, due to 'illogical reasoning' and the like. What are we to do??? Agnostics and atheists, can never and will never know for certain if there is a God, if they never consider explanations with a narrow minded mind, such as what Brendan is displaying. Having an open-mind and not simply dismissing opposition arguments and statement by quoting Wiki article will never lead to a greater understanding of religion. Dismissing logical reasoning as simply an 'Argument from Ignorance' is unfair. It may indeed be an 'Argument from Ignorance' but it does beg the question, how can all this that we know of come into existence?? Such answers must be answered. These were the questions I posed to myself when I was younger when I too was unsure of the existence of God. asa.hoshi and myself have tried our best to explain our beliefs to these answers. Take them or leave them.
-
Christianity, is based on faith, there is no physical evidence to prove God's existence.
The Bible??? Has been confirmed and supported by the vast majority of historians. I think probably the 20th time I've said this.
-
Christianity, is based on faith, there is no physical evidence to prove God's existence.
The Bible??? Has been confirmed and supported by the vast majority of historians. I think probably the 20th time I've said this.
The Bible? the Bible doesn't prove God's existence...
-
Christianity, is based on faith, there is no physical evidence to prove God's existence.
The Bible??? Has been confirmed and supported by the vast majority of historians. I think probably the 20th time I've said this.
The Bible? the Bible doesn't prove God's existence...
Oh ok :S
-
Kopite:
Why do you have to provide proof? Because you are trying to convince us god exists. If you cannot provide evidence, then therefore it is inconclusive: god may or may not exist.
We are not proposing that "god does not exist," we are merely defending the inconclusiveness of god's existence, so therefore we require evidence to convince us otherwise.
I also find this statement rather intriguing. After 2000 years of civilisation, do you really think that two year 12 school kids who happen to be on a VCE forum, just happen to come up with the idea 'Hey, let's prove that God existed?!?! I can't believe anyone has thought of this idea before!!!" and prove it??? Obviously, and most certainly not. This is a forum, where we have been offered the opportunity to express our beliefs and opinions, and why we believe in them. We have given our point of view and evidence supporting them, and they have been dismissed, due to 'illogical reasoning' and the like. What are we to do??? Agnostics and atheists, can never and will never know for certain if there is a God, if they never consider explanations with a narrow minded mind, such as what Brendan is displaying. Having an open-mind and not simply dismissing opposition arguments and statement by quoting Wiki article will never lead to a greater understanding of religion. Dismissing logical reasoning as simply an 'Argument from Ignorance' is unfair. It may indeed be an 'Argument from Ignorance' but it does beg the question, how can all this that we know of come into existence?? Such answers must be answered. These were the questions I posed to myself when I was younger when I too was unsure of the existence of God. asa.hoshi and myself have tried our best to explain our beliefs to these answers. Take them or leave them.
Stop pretending that your arguments are logical and just admit they come from faith, and that others had faith too. There may be "evidence" but it is inconclusive. The Bible only proves that there were people who believed in God, not that God actually came down.
-
My Facebook says I'm Agnostic, and that's what I am. In this poll I answered No, however.
Why may I ask???
-
Kopite:
Why do you have to provide proof? Because you are trying to convince us god exists. If you cannot provide evidence, then therefore it is inconclusive: god may or may not exist.
We are not proposing that "god does not exist," we are merely defending the inconclusiveness of god's existence, so therefore we require evidence to convince us otherwise.
I also find this statement rather intriguing. After 2000 years of civilisation, do you really think that two year 12 school kids who happen to be on a VCE forum, just happen to come up with the idea 'Hey, let's prove that God existed?!?! I can't believe anyone has thought of this idea before!!!" and prove it??? Obviously, and most certainly not. This is a forum, where we have been offered the opportunity to express our beliefs and opinions, and why we believe in them. We have given our point of view and evidence supporting them, and they have been dismissed, due to 'illogical reasoning' and the like. What are we to do??? Agnostics and atheists, can never and will never know for certain if there is a God, if they never consider explanations with a narrow minded mind, such as what Brendan is displaying. Having an open-mind and not simply dismissing opposition arguments and statement by quoting Wiki article will never lead to a greater understanding of religion. Dismissing logical reasoning as simply an 'Argument from Ignorance' is unfair. It may indeed be an 'Argument from Ignorance' but it does beg the question, how can all this that we know of come into existence?? Such answers must be answered. These were the questions I posed to myself when I was younger when I too was unsure of the existence of God. asa.hoshi and myself have tried our best to explain our beliefs to these answers. Take them or leave them.
Stop pretending that your arguments are logical and just admit they come from faith, and that in the post others had faith too. There may be "evidence" but it is inconclusive.
Why are they inconclusive??? Care to back up your claim , like we have been forced to???
-
You cant say just because a bunch of guys wrote it down means its true :S
especially aftere so many re-translations and interpretations... and 2000 years.
Also, agnostics believe that its impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a deity, and so they accept that it may or may not be so.
alternatively, atheists assertively believe that there IS no god.
-
My Facebook says I'm Agnostic, and that's what I am. In this poll I answered No, however.
Why may I ask???
No reason. I attributed it to an irrational leap of logic because of the way the question is worded. It sounds like it is singular, and referring to "the god," when there is no reason to single out monotheism over polytheism.
-
The Bible only proves that there were people who believed in God, not that God actually came down.
Have you read the Bible??
-
Christianity, is based on faith, there is no physical evidence to prove God's existence.
The Bible??? Has been confirmed and supported by the vast majority of historians. I think probably the 20th time I've said this.
The Bible? the Bible doesn't prove God's existence...
Oh ok :S
It's kinda hard to prove God's existence, or to even describe God for that reason... A book about the life of Jesus, and those before him, does not prove God's existence...
-
Yes.
Anyone could have written these beliefs. It does not indicate god exists. Strange things may have happened that caused people to think god exists, and they interpreted the events and wrote down his commandments. A book does not indicate the presence of god, only the presence of his ideas (which may have come from the creation of the human mind, rather than god).
You should read about logic, before you say "argument from ignorance" is not a fair go at those claims.
-
You cant say just because a bunch of guys wrote it down means its true :S
especially aftere so many re-translations and interpretations... and 2000 years.
Also, agnostics believe that its impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a deity, and so they accept that it may or may not be so.
alternatively, atheists assertively believe that there IS no god.
Oh boy. For the 21st time....I'm not the only one you said that a 'bunch of guys' wrote it down. The VAST MAJORITY OF HISTORIANS TODAY BELIEVE AND CONFIRM THE ORIGINS OF THE BIBLE.
Edit-This is probably the closes thing you will come to physical evidence.
-
You cant say just because a bunch of guys wrote it down means its true :S
especially aftere so many re-translations and interpretations... and 2000 years.
Also, agnostics believe that its impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a deity, and so they accept that it may or may not be so.
alternatively, atheists assertively believe that there IS no god.
Oh boy. For the 21st time....I'm not the only one you said that a 'bunch of guys' wrote it down. The VAST MAJORITY OF HISTORIANS TODAY BELIEVE AND CONFIRM THE ORIGINS OF THE BIBLE.
Would you like to back up your claims? (Show me a list of these historians)
Are you sure they don't merely claim the existence of the Bible, or the fact that the origins are not directly from god?
-
You cant say just because a bunch of guys wrote it down means its true :S
especially aftere so many re-translations and interpretations... and 2000 years.
Also, agnostics believe that its impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a deity, and so they accept that it may or may not be so.
alternatively, atheists assertively believe that there IS no god.
Oh boy. For the 21st time....I'm not the only one you said that a 'bunch of guys' wrote it down. The VAST MAJORITY OF HISTORIANS TODAY BELIEVE AND CONFIRM THE ORIGINS OF THE BIBLE.
Would you like to back up your claims? (Show me a list of these historians)
Are you sure they don't merely claim the existence of the Bible, or the fact that the origins are not directly from god?
Indeed I will....after Methods.
Edit-The Bible wasn't directly from God.
-
The Bible??? Has been confirmed and supported by the vast majority of historians. I think probably the 20th time I've said this.
i'm rather confused by your ASSERTION that the bible has been proven to be true. yes, perhaps it has been shown that jesus existed somehow by finding remnants of boats or something (even though he lived 2 millenia ago). but even so, there's a massive void that you have to leap across if you say HENCE, god exists and the bible is true. so logically, if you claim that, does that mean that the earth was created in 7 days as well? that's why people are saying it's inconclusive, and i for one refuse to take this leap.
and by the way, the whole dan brown thing: </sarcasm> BUT the whole constantine thing wasn't a lie. unless ur beloved historians made that up too. the whole 'divine inspiration' thing is simply that. inspiration. you can be inspired to make up a myth if you like. just because several people believed in jesus those millenia ago and those books were proven by these 'prestigious universities' to have been penned by his own followers and believers doesn't mean it's immediately hardcore fact for the rest of us.
and again, i'm not a big fan of people implying that non-believers are heathens "lacking something". because they've come to find solace in an externalisation of their desires doesn't mean it exists.
-
I saw a documentary about Jesus and the bible once, the historians say that yes, the events in the bible did occur, but there is no real proof of the existence of God...
I'll find the name of it, i'll ask my teacher about it..
-
If you say that the Bible did not come directly from god, I am not interested anymore. You can prove to me that the Bible comes from it's "origins" (whatever they may be), but it has nothing to do with god anymore, so it doesn't prove anything.
-
historians only confirm and believe that the bible was written 2000 years ago by some guys... they dont say they were divinely influenced...
also, theres no doubt that Jesus existed, and was a guy ... but that doest mean he was the son of god... he may have just been some random guy who came up with some messages that he thought he could use to invnet god because he thought the world around him was fcked up.
IF that was the case.. he could make up whatever shit he wanted abuot his mother being a virgin, and wisemen and shephards visitng his cradle etc... and who would question him? because we can see that even today, people of the "faith" are very reluctant to question.
-
I saw a documentary about Jesus and the bible once, the historians say that yes, the events in the bible did occur, but there is no real proof of the existence of God...
I'll find the name of it, i'll ask my teacher about it..
I saw an ad for a documentary the other day about how theythink volcanos caused many of the plagues.. eg fireballs, swarms of locusts/frogs (Migrating) + they even said it messed with the sea levels.
-
I saw a documentary about Jesus and the bible once, the historians say that yes, the events in the bible did occur, but there is no real proof of the existence of God...
I'll find the name of it, i'll ask my teacher about it..
I saw an ad for a documentary the other day about how theythink volcanos caused many of the plagues.. eg fireballs, swarms of locusts/frogs (Migrating) + they even said it messed with the sea levels.
Interesting :)
-
If you say that the Bible did not come directly from god, I am not interested anymore. You can prove to me that the Bible comes from it's "origins" (whatever they may be), but it has nothing to do with god anymore, so it doesn't prove anything.
indirectly. God didn't come to Earth to write a book.
-
Dismissing logical reasoning as simply an 'Argument from Ignorance' is unfair.
Did you even bother to read the article? "argument from ignorance" is a LOGICAL FALLACY - it is anything but logical reasoning!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance" [1]) or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history
http://www.frame-poythress.org/poythress_articles/2003Why.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/050811_scientists_god.html
All neutral articles. Except for the second one, I'm not sure.
-
If you say that the Bible did not come directly from god, I am not interested anymore. You can prove to me that the Bible comes from it's "origins" (whatever they may be), but it has nothing to do with god anymore, so it doesn't prove anything.
indirectly. God didn't come to Earth to write a book.
Clearly you didn't read my post. :roll:
-
Isn't Jesus God in human form?? Jesus started the Bible didn't he, well his disciples did.. so in a way it's directly isn't it?
I dunno that just comes from my many years learning Catholicism..
-
Dismissing logical reasoning as simply an 'Argument from Ignorance' is unfair.
Did you even bother to read the article? "argument from ignorance" is a LOGICAL FALLACY - it is anything but logical reasoning!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance" [1]) or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true.
That's not I'm trying to say though.
Quote-is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true.
Obviously nothing has been proved true or false. The only thing TRUE in this case, is that the Universe cannot be created out of nothing. That for one, I know is true. Draw from that, your own conclusions.
-
If you say that the Bible did not come directly from god, I am not interested anymore. You can prove to me that the Bible comes from it's "origins" (whatever they may be), but it has nothing to do with god anymore, so it doesn't prove anything.
indirectly. God didn't come to Earth to write a book.
Clearly you didn't read my post. :roll:
Haha Ok, so you say that because it didn't come 'directly' from God, it doesn't have to do with anything with God anymore??? Good logic????
-
If you say that the Bible did not come directly from god, I am not interested anymore. You can prove to me that the Bible comes from it's "origins" (whatever they may be), but it has nothing to do with god anymore, so it doesn't prove anything.
indirectly. God didn't come to Earth to write a book.
Clearly you didn't read my post. :roll:
Haha Ok, so you say that because it didn't come 'directly' from God, it doesn't have to do with anything with God anymore??? Good logic????
It is, unless you can bridge the gap for me.
If it is indirectly supplied by god, what are the connections.
e.g: God --> disciples --> Bible.
Can we prove the first link? We can prove the second link, I'm sure, but that doesn't tell us anything.
-
It is, unless you can bridge the gap for me.
If it is indirectly supplied by god, what are the connections.
e.g: God --> disciples --> Bible.
Can we prove the first link? We can prove the second link, I'm sure, but that doesn't tell us anything.
Wouldn't the first link be Jesus (God in human form) ??
I don't know I'm just saying :)
-
If you say that the Bible did not come directly from god, I am not interested anymore. You can prove to me that the Bible comes from it's "origins" (whatever they may be), but it has nothing to do with god anymore, so it doesn't prove anything.
indirectly. God didn't come to Earth to write a book.
Clearly you didn't read my post. :roll:
Haha Ok, so you say that because it didn't come 'directly' from God, it doesn't have to do with anything with God anymore??? Good logic????
Angelina Jolie didnt come from me ... (although id like to make her... uh lets not go there)
does that mean she has anything to do with me?
lawl i just sinned.
-
"a narrow minded mind, such as what Brendan is displaying"
So instead of defending your argument or pointing to any logical wrong in my scrutiny of your arguments, you proceed to personally attack me instead - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Having an open-mind and not simply dismissing opposition arguments
So other people who expose your arguments as logically fallacious are narrow minded? I am dismissing your illogical reasoning. If you think making logical fallacious claims is a form of rational and reasoned argument, then the credibility of arguments speak for themselves. You claim that your reasoning is logical, but i have shown that it is anything but logical and in fact, they are full of logical fallacies as i have shown.
Take them or leave them.
I have already said what i think of your unsound and logically fallacious arguments.
That's not I'm trying to say though.
Yes you did you admitted that you made an argument from ignorance
It may indeed be an 'Argument from Ignorance'
Is the 'Big Bang' logical???
...
The only logical explanation pertaining the creation of the universe, is 'unlogical'.
Again that doesn't prove anything, other than you are making another argument from ignorance. Just because there are some things that are not yet explained by science, doesn't mean that it is proof for the existence of God. That is a logically fallacious argument. It simply a logical wrong to assert that because a phenomenon is unpredictable by current scientific theories, that a better scientific theory cannot be found that provides an adequate natural explanatory model for the phenomena in question; and that therefore, one must assert that the only viable explanation of the unexplained phenomena is the supernatural action of God.
Brendan is very aggressive with is argument
it's my job 8) - actually it might very well be my job in the future
isn't that circular logic instead?
Actually you are right. The premise already assumes the existence of god. So the logic is circular, and hence logically fallacious.
-
it's my job 8) - actually it might very well be my job in the future
I think youd make a great lawyer... but a terrible guy to get drunk + philosophical with ... lol :D:D:D
-
it's my job 8) - actually it might very well be my job in the future
I think youd make a great lawyer... but a terrible guy to get drunk + philosophical with ... lol :D:D:D
Haha lol .. :P
-
it's my job 8) - actually it might very well be my job in the future
I think youd make a great lawyer... but a terrible guy to get drunk + philosophical with ... lol :D:D:D
LOL you wouldn't want me cross-examining ya :P
-
I saw an ad for a documentary the other day about how theythink volcanos caused many of the plagues.. eg fireballs, swarms of locusts/frogs (Migrating) + they even said it messed with the sea levels.
I saw a movie awhile ago which was based on the plagues - it was a fictional movie, but the bonus features at the end had several scientists discussing possible scientific explanations for all the plagues. And they weren't bullshit explanations either, they actually made sense.
e.g. water turning to blood ---> algal bloom (there are pictures of this happening today, and yes, it really does look like blood because the algae are red)
EDIT: http://www.lifeinfreshwater.org.uk/Web%20pages/ponds/Pollution.htm
Go down to "Red Tides", you'll see what I mean.
algal bloom ---> many frogs because they eat this stuff
many frogs ---> many dead frogs ---> flies
something to do with wind ---> swarms of locusts
etc.
Shows that some of the "miracles" and "unexplainable" events in the Bible really can be explained by science. And the as yet unexplainable stuff - well, science doesn't claim to know all ...... yet :P
-
Psycroptic - The Colour of Sleep (song) sums up the philosophy of life I believe makes the most sense, it's a pretty dismal outlook on life however
-
This thread is begining to remind me of a part of Hitchikers Guide:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
-
I haven't watched the film or read the book, but I've watched that part on youtube ^^
-
I voted "unsure"
I agree with much of what Sloth said, in that I *detest* the notion that being religious is the "right" way to be.
However, [in my opinion] there's a differnence between being irreligious and disliking many religous establishments for cultural reasons, and being an "atheist." Just because we don't need to invent a reason for why storms happen doesn't mean we can prove God's non-existence.
Oh well, I should read "The God Delusion" but my 11-year-old sister is reading it!
Oh, and Eriny, I LOVE your version of the "he can't be both omniscient and omnipotent" argument. I'll always quote it when I need to :)
-
Wheres the whole notion of 'faith' gone?
You shouldn't have to prove anything. If you believe in God then your faith should just guide in that direction. You shouldn't have to require proof to come to the conclusion that God exists.
Don't try and argue God on a scientific level because God is a direct contrast to science. They don't go hand in hand.
It is very interesting however to ask a science teacher whether God made the Universe (especially at a Catholic school like mine Lol) because they have their faith telling them one thing and their logic/rationale/reasoning telling them another.
But like I said. God should be about faith. Not proof.
-
well, since if there is ever a metaphysical God, we can never tell because it'll be practically impossible to detect he/she/it's existence
however there's many good arguments against the gods described in religious texts, such as the problem of evil, yet at the same time there are also a lot of good logical proofs of a supreme being (such as the ontological proof), so either way...
i have to say it's pretty pointless trying to argue for or against the existence of a/any god/s, as no one can ever know who is actually right, what one should keep in mind though is freedom of belief and freedom of choice, believers shouldnt force belief upon others (see it as punishment to the unbelievers if u must), and atheists really should stop trying to convince everyone they're just a cosmic improbability and are insignificant in every way...
well, that's just my rant, keep in mind that *who* is trying to make creationism a science?
*majorly sigh*
-
God should be about faith.
The belief in a deity is based on faith and faith alone.
-
God should be about faith.
The belief in a deity is based on faith and faith alone.
Um... are you just rephrasing what I just said? :P
=S
confused...
-
you said "should"
I said "is"
-
OMG you're still discussing this topic lol...
There is no point in arguing anymore...
That's just what i think though ^_^
Ahh bus man exam in like a few hours :shock:
-
Yeh... so I'm saying.... There shouldn't be a debate as to whether God exists or not. It should simply be, if you have faith then you do and if you don't then you don't.
I still don't see the point of your post brendan =S lol
Like I do but it's kinda just the same thing I said except you changed one word to make it a statement rather than a persuasive statement. :P
-
No, his statement reiterates that there is no evidence, other than the faith of people like you, that prove the existence of any deity.
your using SHOULD suggests that there is evidence.
-
Wheres the whole notion of 'faith' gone?
You shouldn't have to prove anything.
Umm I'm pretty sure I know what I'm saying. The accompanying line pretty clearly questions people who require evidence to believe in God. "Shouldn't" suggests that we don't have to prove anything to believe in God.
-
You dont have to justify your beliefs to yourself, but if you try to force them on others (not saying youre doing that, just syaing that people do) THEN you should offer proof.
-
But why would you even say that. That has nothing to do with my post and you know that
-
me?
you said you didnt see hte point of brendands post so i was explaining it.
him?
he was sort of agreeing with you in an exclusive way... you said it should be about faith and he was saying it is completely about faith, so theres no need for you to say that.
-
The claim that there exists a God, does not and ought not, have any immunity from scrutiny. If someone makes the claim that there exist a God, then the onus is on the claimaint to provide evidential proof. The onus exists regardless of whether the claimaint chooses to substantiate his claim. He can choose not to, he can refuse to, he can say outright that he has no proof, but the onus is still on him to substantiate his claim. If he cannot then the noble thing to do would be to retract the statement that there exists a god, and instead say, "I personally believe that there exists a God, though I can/will not substantiate this claim with any objective evidence".
-
Or you could just say I believe in God
-
Yes i do believe in God.
Ok now here is proof stating that Islam is the truth.
Really interesting stuff guys. These facts really stunned me, i think you guys should read it too.
*brendan here is your evidence *
Document is in excess of 20000 words.
http://rapidshare.com/files/70084169/Miracles_Of_the_Holy_Quran.zip.html
Edit: I'm putting a section of it here.
THE LAYERS OF
THE ATMOSPHERE
One fact about the universe revealed in the verses of the Qur'an is that the sky is made up of seven layers.
?It is He Who created everything on the earth for you and then directed His attention up to heaven and arranged it into seven regular heavens. He has knowledge of all things.?
(The Qur'an, 2:29)
?Then He turned to heaven when it was smoke. In two days He determined them as seven heavens and revealed, in every heaven, its own mandate.?
(The Qur'an, 41:12)
The word "heavens", which appears in many verses in the Qur'an, is used to refer to the sky above the Earth, as well as the entire universe. Given this meaning of the word, it is seen that the Earth's sky, or the atmosphere, is made up of seven layers.
Indeed, today it is known that the world's atmosphere consists of different layers that lie on top of each other. Furthermore, it consists, just as is described in the Qur'an, of exactly seven layers. In a scientific source, the subject is described as follows:
Scientists have found that the atmosphere consists of several layers. The layers differ in such physical properties as pressure and the types of gasses. The layer of the atmosphere closest to Earth is called the TROPOSPHERE. It contains about 90% of the total mass of the atmosphere. The layer above the troposphere is called the STRATOSPHERE. The OZONE LAYER is the part of the stratosphere where absorption of ultraviolet rays occurs. The layer above the stratosphere is called the MESOSPHERE. The THERMOSPHERE lies above the mesosphere. The ionized gases form a layer within the thermosphere called the IONOSPHERE. The outermost part of Earth's atmosphere extends from about 480 km out to 960 km. This part is called the EXOSPHERE.2
If we count the number of layers cited in this source, we see that the atmosphere consists of exactly seven layers, just as stated in the verse.
1. Troposphere
2. Stratosphere
3. Ozonosphere
4. Mesosphere
5. Thermosphere
6. Ionosphere
7. Exosphere
Another important miracle on this subject is mentioned in the statement "(He) revealed, in every heaven, its own mandate.", in verse 12 of Sura Fussilet. In other words, in the verse, God states that He assigned each heaven its own duty. Truly, as seen in previous chapters, each one of these layers has vital duties for the benefit of human kind and all other living things on the Earth. Each layer has a particular function, ranging from forming rain to preventing harmful rays, from reflecting radio waves, to averting the harmful effects of meteors.
One of these functions, for example, is stated in a scientific source as follows:
Earth's atmosphere has 7 layers. The lowest layer is called troposphere. Rain, snow and wind only take place in the troposphere.3
It is a great miracle that these facts, which could not possibly be discovered without the technology of the 20th century, were explicitly stated by the Qur'an 1,400 years ago.
-
It also could be a coincidence. 7 is not a strange number. Maybe if there were 29194014 layers, and they guessed that...
-
Yes i do believe in God.
Ok now here is proof stating that Islam is the truth.
Really interesting stuff guys. These facts really stunned me, i think you guys should read it too.
That does not prove anything. It doesn't logically follow from what you have said that therefore god exists.
A document contains two claims, X and Y.
X is true.
Therefore, Y is true.
That logic is fallacious. It's a non sequitur
-
Lol... geez this thread is getting tired. There is no way to prove it so why bother?
Its a belief. If you have that belief than state it but theres no way to prove it (you shouldnt have to prove it cause its your faith)
I will not try and prove god exists because I cant but that doesnt make me stop believing
-
Lol... geez this thread is getting tired. There is no way to prove it so why bother?
Its a belief. If you have that belief than state it but theres no way to prove it (you shouldnt have to prove it cause its your faith)
I will not try and prove god exists because I cant but that doesnt make me stop believing
Exactly. It just depends on what your "null hypothesis" is. An example of the null hypothesis being used in practice is in law: innocent until proven guilty. We assume the defendant is innocent unless there is evidence to reject the null hypothesis.
In your case, you choose to assume God, and there is no proof to reject it's existence. In our case, I choose to assume there is no God, and there is also no proof to reject it's non-existence. Therefore, we are both happy :)
-
well if innocence is taken to mean "not guilty" then there is no problem in logic with that legal principle. indeed that is what it means.
-
Lol... geez this thread is getting tired. There is no way to prove it so why bother?
Its a belief. If you have that belief than state it but theres no way to prove it (you shouldnt have to prove it cause its your faith)
I will not try and prove god exists because I cant but that doesnt make me stop believing
Exactly. It just depends on what your "null hypothesis" is. An example of the null hypothesis being used in practice is in law: innocent until proven guilty. We assume the defendant is innocent unless there is evidence to reject the null hypothesis.
In your case, you choose to assume God, and there is no proof to reject it's existence. In our case, I choose to assume there is no God, and there is also no proof to reject it's non-existence. Therefore, we are both happy :)
Exactly. The way it should be. :)
I'm not going to try and convince anyone that God exists. Its just faith, life experience, education (I've probably been brainwashed from 11 years of Catholic schooling lol.) Nah but seriously, each to their own opinion especially when it comes to faith.
And I liked the example Coblin. Thank GOD (lawl) we don't have the burden of proof on the defendant in our legal system. Pheww!
-
lol...
have you ever thought that...
atheism (not believing in any kind of god) is a much bigger "leap of faith" than theism (believing that some kind of god exists). Have you really thought about some of the evidences for God? Or, are you presupposing a purely naturalistic world, and closing your eyes to some of the possible evidence?
Biochemists and mathematicians have calculated the odds against life arising from non-life naturally via unintelligent processes. The odds are astronomical!!! I don't know what the odds are, I'll need to do some research which I shall do after my Japanese Exam.
Anyway...
Scientists aren't even sure if life could have evolved naturally via unintelligent processes. If life did not arise by chance, how did it arise?
People of every race, creed, color, and culture, both men and women, young and old, wise and foolish, the educated, (probably you as well) claim to have personally experienced something of the supernatural. So what are we supposed to do with these prodigious accounts of divine healing, prophetic revelation, answered prayers, and other miraculous phenomena?
Ignorance and imagination may have played a part to be sure, but is there something more? Was it just your brain? There has to be more!
Can I prove the existence of God, scientifically? No. Science is created by man. God is greater than human thought since he had made us.
You what physical proof of God? Well go and die and see what happens. just kidding...hahahaha! 8) You can't see magnetism or gravity and yet you believe it. You study it in school and you learn it. You believe it because you see it works and the effects it has but you don't see what its physically is. Well I don't think you can see force...
I see the same way with God. I picture him as a force, not some kind of human-being sitting in heaven, commanding what is gonna happen down on earth.
God has worked in my life. I see Him work in other people's life. I see Him work this world. Yet I don't see Him physically, I believe in God. I believe I had became a much better person and I know for a fact people around me who are Christians also have developed into good people. I'm not saying that if you don't believe in God than you are a bad person, but I just know some people who don't believe in God regularly get drunk, hurt others, have no respect, get divorce, have one night-stands and so on. But im sure that you guys are not like that. I think that is evidence in itself.
Coblin said "you choose to assume God, and there is no proof to reject it's existence. In our case, I choose to assume there is no God, and there is also no proof to reject it's non-existence." It is a fair claim to believe that and I truly respect that.
I didn't know what exactly the point of this post is. probably im trying to prove God's existence again, but im certain now that brendan and coblin will have some counter argument against this post. hahaha. Oh well. you will always have those people who believe and those who don't.
-
This has to be the longest Thread on FSN!!!
-
Biochemists and mathematicians have calculated the odds against life arising from non-life naturally via unintelligent processes. The odds are astronomical!!! I don't know what the odds are, I'll need to do some research which I shall do after my Japanese Exam.
Biochemists and mathematicians are assuming the model of science that we know today. There is no reason why science cannot progress further to help us understand a new mechanism for scientific creation. I mean, you could ask: what is the probability that our current model of science actually describes the most likely method of unintelligent creation?
Ignorance and imagination may have played a part to be sure, but is there something more? Was it just your brain? There has to be more!
No there doesn't. It could have been just that: ignorance and imagination, haha.
God has worked in my life. I see Him work in other people's life. I see Him work this world. Yet I don't see Him physically, I believe in God. I believe I had became a much better person and I know for a fact people around me who are Christians also have developed into good people. I'm not saying that if you don't believe in God than you are a bad person, but I just know some people who don't believe in God regularly gets drunk, hurt people, get divorce, have one night-stands and so on. But im sure that you guys are not that. That is evidence in itself.
I also know Christians that regularly get drunk, hurt people, and get divorced. In fact, it's not hard to expect when the typical conservative Christian is similar to the Texan redneck, they don't respect the dignity of women. I'm not saying Christianity preaches that, it's just those individuals who are at fault. The point is that individual choices and actions seems to have no correlation with religious beliefs. Now, the scary thing is that many Christians (especially the more conservative strain) will shun homosexuals. That is not "good" to me. The highest moral to me is liberty, and if Christians don't believe in allowing others to make individual choices that are mutually consented by all parties involved, like the use of drugs and homosexual relationships, then they are not "good" by my standards.
-
I also know Christians that regularly get drunk, hurt people, and get divorced. In fact, it's not hard to expect when the typical conservative Christian is similar to the Texan redneck, they don't respect the dignity of women. I'm not saying Christianity preaches that, it's just those individuals who are at fault. The point is that individual choices and actions seems to have no correlation with religious beliefs. Now, the scary thing is that many Christians (especially the more conservative strain) will shun homosexuals. That is not "good" to me. The highest moral to me is liberty, and if Christians don't believe in allowing others to make individual choices that are mutually consented by all parties involved, like the use of drugs and homosexual relationships, then they are not "good" by my standards.
yeh true. there are all kinds of christians out there. i know some Christians are hypocrites. i guess many people in the world are like that (tell others what not to do, yet they do it themselves...) yeh... a lot of christians don't accpet homosexuals. but there are others who do.
-
lol...
You can't see magnetism or gravity
The existence of magnetism and gravity are (1) falsifiable; (2) based on observable and empirical evidence.
An Invisible Pink Unicorn has worked in my life. I see this Invisible Pink Unicorn work in other people's life. I see the Invisible Pink Unicorn work this world. Yet I don't see the Invisible Pink Unicorn physically, I believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn. I believe I had became a much better person and I know for a fact people around me who Invisible Pink Unicornians also have developed into good people. I'm not saying that if you don't believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn than you are a bad person, but I just know some people who don't believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn regularly get drunk, hurt others, have no respect, get divorce, have one night-stands and so on. But im sure that you guys are not like that. I think that is evidence in itself that there exists an Invisible Pink Unicorn.
-
An Invisible Pink Unicorn has worked in my life. I see this Invisible Pink Unicorn work in other people's life. I see the Invisible Pink Unicorn work this world. Yet I don't see the Invisible Pink Unicorn physically, I believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn. I believe I had became a much better person and I know for a fact people around me who Invisible Pink Unicornians also have developed into good people. I'm not saying that if you don't believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn than you are a bad person, but I just know some people who don't believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn regularly get drunk, hurt others, have no respect, get divorce, have one night-stands and so on. But im sure that you guys are not like that. I think that is evidence in itself that there exists an Invisible Pink Unicorn.
Thats great! Now I know that you believe in the Pink Unicorns along with all other little girls... :D I hope the Pink Unicorn will continue to look out for you and may the the Pink Unicorn bless you. I'm sure the Pink Unicorn is very important in your life.
-
I believe in God. I believe I had became a much better person and I know for a fact people around me who are Christians also have developed into good people. I'm not saying that if you don't believe in God than you are a bad person, but I just know some people who don't believe in God regularly get drunk, hurt others, have no respect, get divorce, have one night-stands and so on. But im sure that you guys are not like that. I think that is evidence in itself.
I know some religious guys who do that also.
-
lol
So much for religous guys.
Its quiet amusing how hypocritical some religous guys are. They say 'Dont do this and that', yet they do the same thing themselves.
-
lol
So much for religous guys.
Its quiet amusing how hypocritical some religous guys are. They say 'Dont do this and that', yet they do the same thing themselves.
amen
-
I believe I had became a much better person and I know for a fact people around me who are Christians also have developed into good people. I'm not saying that if you don't believe in God than you are a bad person, but I just know some people who don't believe in God regularly get drunk, hurt others, have no respect, get divorce, have one night-stands and so on. But im sure that you guys are not like that. I think that is evidence in itself.
wow. That's an offensive generalisation.
And, since when has getting a divorce made someone a bad person? That's pretty damn judgemental. I guess we should all remain miserable in unhappy marriages because that is the 'morally correct' thing to do.
On that note, since when has getting drunk and having one-night stands made someone a bad person?
-
I believe I had became a much better person and I know for a fact people around me who are Christians also have developed into good people. I'm not saying that if you don't believe in God than you are a bad person, but I just know some people who don't believe in God regularly get drunk, hurt others, have no respect, get divorce, have one night-stands and so on. But im sure that you guys are not like that. I think that is evidence in itself.
wow. That's an offensive generalisation.
And, since when has getting a divorce made someone a bad person? That's pretty damn judgemental. I guess we should all remain miserable in unhappy marriages because that is the 'morally correct' thing to do.
On that note, since when has getting drunk and having one-night stands made someone a bad person?
Thumbs up to this post.
-
Oh btw I don't know if you know this asa.hoshi but the catholic church doesn't recognise divorce to be a sin or wrong for that matter... learnt that in r+s this year... if you need references go to the vatican website =]
-
wow. That's an offensive generalisation.
And, since when has getting a divorce made someone a bad person? That's pretty damn judgemental. I guess we should all remain miserable in unhappy marriages because that is the 'morally correct' thing to do.
On that note, since when has getting drunk and having one-night stands made someone a bad person?
Ino, i took offence to it as well.
-
I believe I had became a much better person and I know for a fact people around me who are Christians also have developed into good people. I'm not saying that if you don't believe in God than you are a bad person, but I just know some people who don't believe in God regularly get drunk, hurt others, have no respect, get divorce, have one night-stands and so on. But im sure that you guys are not like that. I think that is evidence in itself.
wow. That's an offensive generalisation.
And, since when has getting a divorce made someone a bad person? That's pretty damn judgemental. I guess we should all remain miserable in unhappy marriages because that is the 'morally correct' thing to do.
On that note, since when has getting drunk and having one-night stands made someone a bad person?
Yeh. Totally agree with goosefraba. The whole purpose for a divorce is to allow the individuals in an unhappy marriage to have another chance at happiness and not be stuck in an spiraling unhappy life. Thats why the law was changed in 1975 to allow for divorce to occur without one party proving fault. So don't say people are bad because they get divorced because they are only seeking happiness.
And I don't think I am a bad person because I get drunk. I don't get drunk often but its besides the point. Its a choice I make and it doesn't make me less of a Christian than you. Remember the Last Supper? What did Jesus and his disciples drink?....
-
You believe it because you see it works and the effects it has but you don't see what its physically is. Well I don't think you can see force...
(1) The existence of gravity is a testable and falsifiable proposition.
(2) There is objective and substantive evidence for the existence of gravity
This analogy with the existence of gravity and the existence of god is awkward and false. There is no logical connection, as one proposition is scientific and therefore testable and falsifiable, and the other not so. One proposition has objective and credible evidence to support it, and the other, by its very nature, has no objective and credible evidence to support it.
The awkwardness of your analogy is even more apparent given that you previously said:
Can I prove the existence of God, scientifically? No
-
THE MIRACLE OF THE ELEMENT "IRON"
Iron is one of the elements highlighted in the Qur'an. In Sura Hadid, meaning Iron, we are informed:
??And We sent down iron in which there lies great force and which has many uses for mankind....?
(The Qur'an, 57:25)
The word "sent down," particularly used for iron in the verse, could be thought of having a metaphorical meaning to explain that iron has been given to benefit people. But when we take into consideration the literal meaning of the word, which is, "being physically sent down from the sky", we realize that this verse implies a very significant scientific miracle.
This is because modern astronomical findings have disclosed that the iron found in our world has come from the giant stars in outer space.
The heavy metals in the universe are produced in the nuclei of big stars. Our solar system, however, does not possess a suitable structure for producing iron on its own. Iron can only be produced in much bigger stars than the Sun, where the temperature reaches a few hundred million degrees. When the amount of iron exceeds a certain level in a star, the star can no longer accommodate it, and eventually it explodes in what is called a "nova" or a "supernova". As a result of this explosion, meteors containing iron are scattered around the universe, and they move through the void until attracted by the gravitational force of a celestial body.
All this shows that iron did not form on the Earth, but was carried from exploding stars in space via meteors, and was "sent down to earth", in exactly the same way as stated in the verse: It is clear that this fact could not have been scientifically known in the 7th century, when the Qur'an was revealed.
-
THE EXPANSION
OF THE UNIVERSE
In the Qur'an, which was revealed 14 centuries ago at a time when the science of astronomy was still primitive, the expansion of the universe was described like this:
?And it is We who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it.?
(The Qur'an, 51:47)
The word "heaven", as stated in this verse, is used in various places in the Qur'an with the meaning of space and universe. Here again, the word is used with this meaning. In other words, in the Qur'an it is revealed that the universe "expands". And this is the very conclusion that science has reached today.
Until the dawn of the 20th century, the only view prevailing in the world of science was that "the universe has a constant nature and it has existed since infinite time". The research, observations, and calculations carried out by means of modern technology, however, have revealed that the universe in fact had a beginning, and that it constantly "expands".
At the beginning of the 20th century, the Russian physicist Alexander Friedmann and the Belgian cosmologist Georges Lemaitre theoretically calculated that the universe is in constant motion and that it is expanding.
This fact was proved also by observational data in 1929. While observing the sky with a telescope, Edwin Hubble, the American astronomer, discovered that the stars and galaxies were constantly moving away from each other. A universe where everything constantly moves away from everything else implied a constantly expanding universe. The observations carried out in the following years verified that the universe is constantly expanding. This fact was explained in the Qur'an when that was still unknown to anyone. This is because the Qur'an is the word of God, the Creator, and the Ruler of the entire universe.
-
Looks to me like you're using science to explain religion here ...
"Religion said something. Here's the scientific explanation for it." :?
-
I'm not saying that if you don't believe in God than you are a bad person
Let (a) = "if you don't believe in God than you are a bad person"
If you are not saying (a), why would you feel the need to point it out that you are not saying (a)? If in fact, what you say is true, there is no need to worry. However, if it questionable whether in fact you are not saying (a), then this claiming, "I'm not saying that if you don't believe in God than you are a bad person" probably means you are trying to obscure the fact that you are suggesting (a) particularly, by following on with:
I just know some people who don't believe in God regularly get drunk, hurt others, have no respect, get divorce, have one night-stands and so on. But im sure that you guys are not like that. I think that is evidence in itself.
In response to the above - so what? Given that you had said "I think that is evidence in itself" - how does it logically follow from that statement, that therefore God exists?
First of all for the sake of argument. Let's run with your questionable assertions that:
(1) people who do not believe in God behave in manner X, and people who do believe in God behave in manner Y.
(2) X is socially undesirable
(3) Y is socially desirable
(1), (2), and (3) are highly questionable and conceptually flawed claims in themselves.
But for the sake of argument, lets assume that (1), (2), and (3) are true.
Even then - so what? It does not even logically follow from claim (1) that therefore god exists. It is a non sequitur.
-
:) I am using "facts" which were stated in the Qur'an 1400 years ago, that were just discovered by mankind in the 20th century :wink:
Don't fuss about it. Nobody is forcing you to believe these :wink: , although they are true.
-
:) I am using "facts" which were stated in the Qur'an 1400 years ago, that were just discovered by mankind in the 20th century :wink:
Don't fuss about it. Nobody is forcing you to believe these :wink: , although they are true.
Does everything claimed in the Qur'an stand true today? Or are you just picking out snippets of it?
Interestingly, Nostradamus' "prophesies" have been twisted enough so that they seemed to actually predict current events, notably the September 11 attacks. It doesn't mean that he could see into the future; but if you believed enough in him, you could interpret his quatrains in a way which appears to reflect current events. It seems to me that that is a bit of what you're doing with the Qur'an.
-
:) I am using "facts" which were stated in the Qur'an 1400 years ago, that were just discovered by mankind in the 20th century :wink:
Don't fuss about it. Nobody is forcing you to believe these :wink: , although they are true.
That does not prove the existence of God. It doesn't logically follow from any of the things that you have said that therefore god exists.
A document contains two claims, X and Y.
X is true.
Therefore, Y is true.
That logic is fallacious and simply wrong. It's a non sequitur
-
The awkwardness of your analogy is even more apparent given that you previously said:
Can I prove the existence of God, scientifically? No
lol pwned.
-
I think there's more to life than logic itself.
im sick and tired of arguing. if i have offended u in anyway through my posts then im sorry. please tell me through pm, and i will apologize to you directly. but you have to take into account that some of my posts were done at the middle of the nite and i don't think logically during that time or am up to scratch with my arguments.
(sorry about the divorce thing. i didn't know that it would offend people. but if you plan to get divorce in the future regardless of what happens doesn't it defeats the whole purpose of marriage? if you feel miserable in your marriage, why don't you go counseling before you jump right into divorce. because you did make promises in your vows at your wedding to be together with your partner through the highs and lows. if you believe that divorce is the only option to take in a struggling marriage... then i don't think you should make any vows on your wedding day or get married for that matter. but i do reckon divorce is accepted through some exceptional cases. i.e. husband bashing wife. wife & children gets hurt continuously, hence divorce is the right path to take. for the wife and child sake.)
(and about the drunk aspect. when you get drunk you most likely make foolish decisions. you make decisions that will regret. i.e. having one-night-stands even though you have a partner already (its called cheating on your parnter). you can drink alcohol. thats what Jesus and his disciples did. but did they get drunk? i don't think so. but just be careful. but i know im not prefect. no one is. so sorry again.)
brendan --> sometimes you just need faith in some things. everything is not based in logic in life. science is not always correct. science is created by man. and man is flawed. im sure we always make mistakes in a number of things that we do everyday.
if you dont choose to believe in God then so be it. im not trying to covert you. but i know for a fact that even the greatest scientists of the past believe the existence of something superior. are you saying that they were all illogical to think that way?
if there is a God or no God... you'll know when you die.
-
(sorry about the divorce thing. i didn't know that it would offend people. but if you plan to get divorce in the future regardless of what happens doesn't it defeats the whole purpose of marriage? if you feel miserable in your marriage, why don't you go counseling before you jump right into divorce. because you did make promises in your vows at your wedding to be together with your partner through the highs and lows. if you believe that divorce is the only option to take in a struggling marriage... then i don't think you should make any vows on your wedding day or get married for that matter. but i do reckon divorce is accepted through some exceptional cases. i.e. husband bashing wife. wife & children gets hurt continuously, hence divorce is the right path to take. for the wife and child sake.)
Nobody plans to get a divorce at the time of marriage - that's a ridiculous thing to say. You're right - why would anyone get married if they had plans to split later?
Many couples do go into counselling - divorce is very frequently a last resort, and these couples have done everything they could to make the marriage work. Sometimes it just falls apart.
Don't make statements like this without understanding people's situations. Have you ever gotten a divorce? I doubt it; so I don't think you're in any position to say what people should or shouldn't have done before getting one.
/my 2 cents
-
Nobody plans to get a divorce at the time of marriage - that's a ridiculous thing to say. You're right - why would anyone get married if they had plans to split later?
Many couples do go into counselling - divorce is very frequently a last resort, and these couples have done everything they could to make the marriage work. Sometimes it just falls apart.
Don't make statements like this without understanding people's situations. Have you ever gotten a divorce? I doubt it; so I don't think you're in any position to say what people should or shouldn't have done before getting one.
/my 2 cents
yeh i got married last year. but i got divorced just recently because my wife hit me all the time because I wasn't being a good husband. just kidding. lol
but yeh i shouldnt be so judgmental. but i was trying to say that people shouldn't get marriage if they had the attitude of "oh, if this doesn't work out, we can always get a divorce."
-
everything is not based in logic in life.
Indeed that is true, and you have shown this to us all through your fallacious and flawed arguments for the existence of God. Indeed, many of them have been nothing more than logically flawed, unsound and uncogent arguments in which your conclusions simply do not follow from the premises. Even then, many of your premises are questionable in themselves.
science is not always correct. science is created by man. and man is flawed. im sure we always make mistakes in a number of things that we do everyday.
So what? Even assuming what you say is true - that does not prove the existence of God. To assert what you have stated, as being any sort of argument in support for the existence of God is awkward, and bizarre:
"science is not always correct."
Therefore god exists.
"we always make mistakes in a number of things that we do everyday"
Therefore god exists.
Each of the above arguments are a non sequitur.
i know for a fact that even the greatest scientists of the past believe the existence of something superior. are you saying that they were all illogical to think that way?
Firstly, if you know this for a fact, then provide citations.
Secondly, so what? It is a complete fallacy and flaw in logic to assert that the validity of a claim follows from the credibility of the source.
Person X makes two claims, A and B.
A is true.
Therefore, B is true.
The hole in that logic is big enough for a truck to drive through.
-
i posted this up a while ago. if you kept up with the thread you would of seen it.
"Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive."
Albert Einstein (1879-1955), theoretical physicist, scientific genius
"There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history."
Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), English physicist, one of the greatest scientists of all time.
"God not only plays dice, He also sometimes throws the dice where they cannot be seen."
Stephen Hawking (1942- ) British physicist
"If we find the answer [the unified theory], it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for we would know the mind of God."
Stephen Hawking (1942- ) British physicist
-
I really don't think beliefs are anything you can debate over, unless they're rediculously stupid and don't agree with the common set of moral values we've learnt etc. If they help ya, it's all good.
Just from my experience, people that have grown up in a religious household where the attitude was 'hey, here's what I believe, take it or leave it' tend to take it and their beliefs help them through things and it's all good. People who have a religion forced on them tend to resent it.
And also, please don't tell me you're one of those people that looks down on people who have gotten divorced, that they are somehow not as good as everyone else or are lacking something within them. oh and avoiding talking to them as well.
It's not just for the exceptional circumstances you've mentioned. you can be hurt ways other than physically...
-
Firstly, if you know this for a fact, then provide citations.
Secondly, so what? It is a complete fallacy and flaw in logic to assert that the validity of a claim follows from the credibility of the source. The hole in that logic is big enough for a truck to drive through.
VCE english is over for me. im not writing any essays with citations until uni starts. haha
-
Actually you can't just get a divorce. "You need only show that the marriage has broken down irretrievably" therefore the only people who can get divorced are people who are at a stage in the marriage where it is impossible or highly improbable that reconciliation will occur.
Can we possibly make a summary for this thead. Something like
1) People who believe in God have to right to feel that way but they can not prove it (because unless you've actually seen god/met god , you are really just being force fed information that makes you feel that god exists
(BTW I believe in God so don't critisize me)
2) People who do not believe in God have the right to feel that way but they should not try and persuade others on the forum that their beliefs are in false hope.
(Although I think most people have been pretty good with respect to ensuring not to offend peoples religion)
This thread just keeps going around in a vicious cycle
-
Tell me about it :P hehe
Oh btw about the whole divorce thing... The Church says that they do not recognise divorce as a sin, because marriage is indissoluble... so you can't break a marriage, unless it was presumed invalid by the Marriage Tribunal... and in that case the couple can get their marriage anulled.
Just thought i might tell you guys that :)
Hehe good revision for R+S =]
-
And also, please don't tell me you're one of those people that looks down on people who have gotten divorced, that they are somehow not as good as everyone else or are lacking something within them. oh and avoiding talking to them as well.
It's not just for the exceptional circumstances you've mentioned. you can be hurt ways other than physically...
don't worry im not. im just hate those who say "oh, if this doesn't work out, we can always get a divorce."
-
2) People who do not believe in God have the right to feel that way but they should not try and persuade others on the forum that their beliefs are in false hope.
(Although I think most people have been pretty good with respect to ensuring not to offend peoples religion)
The assertion that there exists a God does not, and ought not, have any immunity from scrutiny. I have every right to scrutinize the claim that there exists a God whether people like it or not.
-
This thread just keeps going around in a vicious cycle
yes i agree.
-
2) People who do not believe in God have the right to feel that way but they should not try and persuade others on the forum that their beliefs are in false hope.
(Although I think most people have been pretty good with respect to ensuring not to offend peoples religion)
The assertion that there exists a God does not, and ought not, have any immunity from scrutiny. I have every right to scrutinize the claim that there exists a God whether people like it or not.
I guess you're right :) ^_^ :shock: for once i agree with brendan lol
-
What I am saying Brendan is that if someone invites you to prove to them why God doesn't exist then you should go ahead and do so. But if you are not invited to prove God doesn't exist then it is common courtesy to not try and brainwash people with your uninvited thoughts.
-
What I am saying Brendan is that if someone invites you to prove to them why God doesn't exist then you should go ahead and do so. But if you are not invited to prove God doesn't exist then it is common courtesy to not try and brainwash people with your uninvited thoughts.
I do not care, if they disagree. I have every right to scrutinize the claim that there exists a God, whether or not they enjoy their arguments being exposed as flawed. It is utter nonsense to suggest that i am "forcing" or coercing people to accept any belief. People are free to believe whatever they want. However, they do not have the right to silence the arguments of others. I have every right to scrutinize the claim that there exists a God, and I have, and will exercise that right.
-
Yes you have the right. But you also have the choice to use that right. And sometimes life is more then just YOU and YOU wanting to express your views. Its a matter of respect, maybe something you may have a lack of.
-
Yes you have the right. But you also have the choice to use that right. And sometimes life is more then just YOU and YOU wanting to express your views. Its a matter of respect, maybe something you may have a lack of.
That is nonsense. I will not respect or submit to arguments that are completely flawed. A person has every right to express their viewpoint, but no one has an automatic right to have their viewpoints respected.
-
A person has every right to express their viewpoint, but no one has an automatic right to have their viewpoints respected.
Yep and I don't respect yours because you don't have respect for others, only yourself.
-
I am just a firm believer in courtesy and putting others before myself.
Possibly a Christian value but possibly just a humane value which some are not privileged with. And yes it is a privilege to put others before yourself (in some/many/most instances depending on the circumstance) because the reward you get from it (ie. not monetary)makes you a better person.
Final Post - I promise. Never posting in this God forum again.
-
Here is a fact (from the knowledge we know today).
There is no logical argument to prove the existence of God. None! Everything that has been said on this forum in favour of God has been a logical fallacy, or just an emotional appeal.
There is also none that proves the non-existence of God.
My opinion is that if there is a God that judges us on faith, then he has been unreasonable to create us to be unable to justify our belief in him, and then judge us on faith. Therefore, if he makes such a judgement on us, he would be unfair to the human race, and he would be nothing but a cruel cosmic dictator. I would not want to go to his heaven.
Here's a humorous take on the idea that God gives us free will:
God: Believe or be sent to hell!
coblin: Thank you God, for giving me all these options.
-
Moderator action: Deleting posts that are disrespectful to moderators for doing their job.
We have the right to ensure that arguments are focused on the debate, not on the debater.
-
Here's a humorous take on the idea that God gives us free will:
God: Believe or be sent to hell!
coblin: Thank you God, for giving me all these options.
lol coblin
-
Ok....I promised myself that I wouldn't post in this thread anymore, but I cant help!!!
Anyway, I thought I'd quote a few emails I received from my leaders.
just as the atheist cannot prove there is no God by their inability to prove a negative... so too the theist cannot appeal to this "argument" to prove there is a God...eg the atheist's inability to prove God doesn't exist is not a positive proof that God does in fact exist.... the theist can't say that because the atheist can't prove there is no God, that God actually does exist.... a book that has helped me in this regard is Norm Geisler and Ronald Brooks book called "Come Let Us Reason, An Introduction to Logical Thinking.... in it he talks about an Informal Fallacy called Argumentum ad Ignoratiam which states that a thing is not proven by appealing to our ignorance as to whether or not the thing in question does exist....or that something should be believed until and or unless it has been shown to be false.... Geisler and Brooks write:
"this type of thinking assumes that something should be believed until it is shown to be false. One who uses this fallacy says `Accept this because you can't prove it isn't true.' In other words, if you don't know something is wrong, you should embrace it. But what would happen if someone approached a snake weith the attitude of `well I can't prove that it is poisonous, so I guess it's safe to pick it up...' There's a place for close mindedness. Propositions, unlike defendants in a court of law, are not presumed true [innocent] until proven false [guilty]. Ignorance proves nothing, and all that can be concluded from nothing is nothing.
Atheist: `there can't be a God, because I have never seen any evidence for him'
Christian: `there must be a God, because no one can prove that he doesn't exist.'
Only God knows how many arguments have ended in this stalemate. The problem is that both parties are wrong. Neither view should be accepted on the basis of ignorance. That is no way to find truth! Let positive evidence be presented and evaluated for both sides, and the truth can be known. As Aquinas said `the contrary of a truth can never be demonstrated.' (p95-96)
further, if physicalism/materialism is true, then it also follows that the fact that the atheist can stand there and attempt to prove atheism is true, has itself happened merely and only as a result of blind chance.... for not only are the arguments used by the atheist to try and prove his position as being true the result of blind chance and determinism, the atheist's very existence itself is just the chance collection of molecules and atoms, having been produced by a universe ruled by blind chance and a some impersonal forces like gravity, heat, etc (see JP Moreland's book called "Scaling the Secular City" for more on this)
What I understand is that atheist have a worldview which lacks intentionality. Without intentionality, beliefs, desires, and hopes, don't exist but as the thinking goes, are simply misconceptions of the mind. According to epistemology, knowledge is a combination of belief and truth; so without belief, there is no knowledge.
I apologize if this was already brought up, but it is ONLY the Christian world view that makes science possible. ALL science is based on induction, which assumes the uniformity of nature and the regularity of matter. As David Hume pointed out, in a world view such as atheism where there is only "matter in motion" devoid of a personal God that imposes order in the universe, there is NO basis for induction.
Now, the atheist will reply in various ways, but all of them boil down to question begging due to their forced use of probability. When this is considered though we see that probability ASSUMES uniformity and so cannot escape the circularity.
BTW... it is also true of deduction since this requires the use of abstract universal entities such as classes of things. In a material universe, one cannot justify non-material things such as classes with which to employ deductive logic. So it can be said that atheism is reduced to irrationality and that Christianity alone provides the necessary preconditions for intelligibility.
Two more things in this vein... if the Christian God did not exist, science would be impossible. As David Hume and Bertrand Russell (both atheists) showed, in a simply material universe the principal of induction (uniformity of nature) has no basis since there is no reason to proceed upon the expectation that a cause that produced an effect in the past will produce (under the same circumstances) the same effect in the future. We know that scientific experimentation is based on this notion, so science itself must (unknowingly) presuppose the very God that in many cases it denies.
The entire point is that unless one presupposes Christianity, science is without a foundation. Unless there is the Christian God who orders the universe, induction is meaningless. Reason presupposes faith, not the other way around.
In order for science to be valid it must presuppose the uniformity of nature or induction. Naturalistic materialism cannot provide the necessary preconditions for intelligibility. Why does the atheistic scientist expect that an experiment that yields a particular result one day will, under the same conditions, yield the same effect the next? To say that in the past this has been the case is just to beg the question since that is a probability statement which itself assumes the issue or regularity. Saying, "in the past the future was like the past" is simply question begging.
Worldview has always been influencing how scientist practice science. IMO worldviews always plays a role in our interaction with the world. We cannot escape it, only deny it. Science can never be completely neutral or unbiased because of this.
When talking to atheist, I generally began by trying to change there view to agnosticism by explaining how little we truly know about the universe and how we have no scientific evidence about what, if anything, is outside the universe. It's quite illogical to throw-out the belief in God simply because one feels our universe is incompatible with the God's of the world's religions.
Next, I discuss the laws of nature. I start by talking about how remarkable it is that science works the way it does. It's astonishing that there are laws that govern the universe, preventing absolute chaos and it seems to me, that a belief that this occurred by out of random disorder seems highly illogical; As Albert Einstein, one of the greatest minds in this field concluded about the universe: "God does not play dice". Even the most indeterminate realm of science, quantum physics, appears to follow some sets of laws which makes it not completely random.
The laws of nature even continue on to human nature. C.S. Lewis a very thought provoking explanation of this in his first few chapters of Mere Christianity. I explain that our human nature is incompatible with the a full materialist world view. Science might be able to explain why 16 year olds become interested in the opposite sex or why a mother would give up her life in order to save a child in danger, but it cannot explain why people think that stealing someones seat on a train or bus can be wrong. Some actions are considered wrong by inconvenience but in the case of the seat on the train, it's equally inconvenient to get on a train and find no seats as it is to get up from ones seat on the train, place a bag there to hold it's place, and then to find someone has removed the bag and taken it. This situation begs the question: Why is the latter considered wrong but the first is completely right. Unlike most Christian's, I use the fact that atheist DO have a sense of morality to show how the "blind watchmaker" wasn't so blind after all.
I was also pointed to this piece, which someone wrote.
(tentatively titled) Things an Atheist Must Deny
It's seems obvious what Atheists must deny when they choose to don the title of Atheist. I've met many that choose to call themselves an Atheist, but do not fully understand exactly what it calls for one to give up when you take this title. When you call yourself an Atheist, then you are choosing to believe that there is not only no Judeo-Christion God, but that there is absolutely no Creator of any kind. This includes giving the universe any credit for life and luck, almost personifying it. What you choose is evolution; random combinations of cells and acids that, over millions of years, form life.
When you have no Higher Power, then you cannot have purpose, reason and meaning for life. These things do not come from random chance and accidents.
Purpose is defined as the object for which something exists. This means that, to an Atheist, we are not here for any reason because, to have a purpose can only be brought from a Higher Power.
Reason is defined as the basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction. Life starting from a random combination of cells and acids does not provide a basis or motive. Therefore, an Atheist must abandon any reason for the beginning of his life, his loved ones lives and life in general.
Meaning is best described as inner significance. One of the biggest questions put forth is, "What is the meaning of life?". To an Athiest, this is a waste of time. There is no use for meaning outside of a Higher Power.
These three beliefs or "unbeliefs" are fundamental to Atheism. But what about the fact that they still exist? You may not want to appoint purpose, reason and meaning to your life (or life in general), but there is no denying that everything you see, touch, hear and smell has purpose, reason, and meaning. Everything from manmade, inanimate objects to the wonderous nature outside your window possess these three qualities. If you use or appreciate something, it has shown its purpose, reason or meaning, if not all three. If you affect something, then you have shown your purpose, reason of meaning, if not all three. If you accept even one of these three qualities for any reason, for anything, then you must deny the claim of Atheism.
Right and Wrong also fall victim to the Atheistic mentality. What is the basis for right, the standard and set measure that everyone must abide by? And until you find it, there cannot be a wrong, for it is a product of not doing what is deemed right. There is no cultural or social debate for this because, simply said, outside of a set standard, everyone has different morals. Everything from murder to rudeness is debatable when there is no standard for right. This standard cannot be set by people alone. A flawless system is only made by a flawless Being. There needs to be a reason why guidlines are to be followed. If you point to a person or even a moral majority, one can still debate that they do not feel that way. And, why should there feelings be looked at any less than the rule setter's. Only with a flawless Creator, can we rest assured that what is deemed right is, in fact, right.
Souls and soulmates are a popular belief even without tagging it to a particular Higher Power. But with Atheism, there is to be no supernatural of any kind. Souls would only be here for a purpose.
So what does this mean for the love we feel for our mate and the want to believe that it is more that just animal attraction and sexual desire? Most everyone has felt love; love that moves you to a selfless care outside of parental instincts. This love is not based on what you get in return. So to speak of love, animal instincts does not compare. The animal is in heat for it's mate, which is rewarding for itself, or it has the need to serve to feel gratification or reward. Love is selfless and does not fit into the desires of the flesh. *I do not see having only one mate, or monogamy, as being stricktly a trait of Love. Of course with love in the mating sense it is generaly the case. It is true that some animals only mate once and for life. This is used in the refference that animals feel Love on some sort of level as humans do. The only problem is that so very few humans abide by that and even now days most people do not mate with only one other person for life. With the fact that humans really do not abide by that standard then there is no comparison for the animals that do, thus it can be wittled down to no more than that particular animals hard wiring.
Another topic that comes to mind is fate. We seem to think of fate the most when making sense of horrible situations or finding reason for love found with no option of chance. Fate is completely attributable to a Higher Power. How would a greater good or predetermined future come from a random combination that may or may not happen. Alongside fate is karma. Karma being an Eastern philosophy that relates more to the cosmos than an actual Being. And, can best be explained as "What goes around, comes around". With nothing higher than yourself, then what punishments or rewards are there, and who is going to hand them out.
As you can see, Atheism is stricktly for those that want and believe nothing. Now, if you cannot accept the idea of complete and random chance. If there has to be something. I recommend looking carefully into the Theistic options. If someone is going to take the time to create a vast and completely complex project like time and life, I think that there is a pretty good reason. It just seemes foolish to me to think nothing of everything you see and feel bombarding you on a daily basis with purpose and emotions that are impossable to reduce to biproducts of chance.
And for Spirited Sloth and Coblin, who were questioning the validity of the Bible, I point you to these two websites.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t007.html
http://www.carm.org/evidence/textualevidence.htm
It is true that we can never prove that the Bible was divinely inspired, but the fact that they were written by different people, on the same event, with strikingly similar views on events, I would think that it would substantiate some faith in it's contents.
I look forward to your views on the articles I've posted above. This will be my last post in this thread...hopefully.
Have fun!!!
-
Pointing out the differences of atheism and Christians is nothing new. They both have a null hypothesis (the original assumption), and none can disprove the other. So which one is correct? We don't know. Clearly, this does not mean Christianity is true!
Next, I discuss the laws of nature. I start by talking about how remarkable it is that science works the way it does. It's astonishing that there are laws that govern the universe, preventing absolute chaos and it seems to me, that a belief that this occurred by out of random disorder seems highly illogical; As Albert Einstein, one of the greatest minds in this field concluded about the universe: "God does not play dice". Even the most indeterminate realm of science, quantum physics, appears to follow some sets of laws which makes it not completely random.
This is a misquote of Albert Einstein. It was his opinion, not his conclusion. And your leader is wrong: quantum physics DOES appear random on the microscopic scale. It can be approximated on the macroscopic scale. Creating mathematical models is not a wonder of God, it arises merely from how humans have observed the world, and have organised how events usually tend to happen.
The principle of induction is perfectly sound, because we are aware we are making broad assumptions. We continue to use macroscopic approximations as models, rather than use fundamental microscopic theories to describe the outcome (which would be based on probability, due to the seemingly random world at the microscopic level).
I only questioned the validity of the link between God and the Bible. What similar views on "events" are we talking about? If they are visible events, that have no particular divine relationship, then so what? If I watched a fireworks display and you did too (and we never knew each other and were on the opposite side of the river), we would recount the same thing as well!
Note: I have only responded to the arguments that try to propose the existence of God, rather than defending atheism, because I have no intention to do so, since I am not an atheist due to a lack of information.
-
Also - to whoever it was that pointed to similarities between statements in the bible / Qur'an and today's scientific discoveries as proof for God's existence. I propose that scientists today built a time machine, went back in time and wrote the Bible, thus passing themselves off as messengers of God for fun. Prove me wrong.
-
There's no poll option for dyslexics. :(
I believe in dog...
-
We have given our point of view and evidence supporting them, and they have been dismissed, due to 'illogical reasoning' and the like. What are we to do???
Yes, your arguments were conceptually flawed, logically fallacious, misleading, and simply wrong.
You say this:
Fallacy called Argumentum ad Ignoratiam which states that a thing is not proven by appealing to our ignorance as to whether or not the thing in question does exist....or that something should be believed until and or unless it has been shown to be false.... Geisler and Brooks write:
"this type of thinking assumes that something should be believed until it is shown to be false. One who uses this fallacy says `Accept this because you can't prove it isn't true.' In other words, if you don't know something is wrong, you should embrace it. But what would happen if someone approached a snake weith the attitude of `well I can't prove that it is poisonous, so I guess it's safe to pick it up...' There's a place for close mindedness. Propositions, unlike defendants in a court of law, are not presumed true [innocent] until proven false [guilty]. Ignorance proves nothing, and all that can be concluded from nothing is nothing.
Yet previously you admitted to making arguments from ignorance yourself:
It may indeed be an 'Argument from Ignorance'
Indeed it was. At this point, it is useful to remind everyone the argument from ignorance that Kopite made:
What scientific evidence do you have that the earth was created by a deity?
What scientifice evidence do you have that the earth wasn't???
Dinosaurs, or creatures of the like, were mentioned in the Bible, so you can't really use that old Darwanism line again..... The Big Bang is probably the worst theory ever created by mankind. It's exactly like saying, 'Oh look there's a TV, it's obviously been created by a Big Bang at TV warehouse!!!!' Scientists can't even explain where the original 'gas clouds' came from. How do you explain that part of the theory??? 'Gas clouds' cannot be conjured out of thin air. Or were they created by something else?? A God perhaps?????
-
Also - to whoever it was that pointed to similarities between statements in the bible / Qur'an and today's scientific discoveries as proof for God's existence. I propose that scientists today built a time machine, went back in time and wrote the Bible, thus passing themselves off as messengers of God for fun. Prove me wrong.
I reckon it was Hiro's doing.
-
Note: I have only responded to the arguments that try to propose the existence of God, rather than defending atheism, because I have no intention to do so, since I am not an atheist due to a lack of information.
I've emailed him with your response and am currently waiting for a reply.
I'm pretty sure most/all of the articles do attempt to prove the existence of God in some way or another. Would you mind addressing those???
I propose that scientists today bwrote the Bible, thus passing themselves off as muilt a time machine, went back in time and essengers of God for fun. Prove me wrong.
I agree!!! I also propose that scientists in the future, made a time-machine, to go the past, and put us on earth, to see how we will interact with each other, and are currently on the other side of the universe watching our every movement through a telescope x999999999999 bigger than the Hubble Telescope to study us for their own enjoyment. And then in 6 billion years, they'll initiate a mechanism in all of our minds which will somehow, (I have no idea how they'll do this), thus I cant substantiate my claims, but you can't prove that I'm wrong, cos you can't prove this isn't the case, that will lead to us all killing ourselves!!!! Prove me wrong!!!!! BUWAHAHAHA
Yet previously you admitted to making arguments from ignorance yourself:
HAHAHA...thats why I wrote-Leader....these are not my words, but someone else within my church. so would you like to address the other points my leaders made???
-
thats why I wrote-Leader....these are not my words, but someone else within my church. so would you like to address the other points my leaders made???
So you endorse your leader's arguments or not? Because they directly strike your arguments as being flawed.
-
I'm pretty sure most/all of the articles do attempt to prove the existence of God in some way or another. Would you mind addressing those???
I had a look at the links. There was nothing that suggested to me anything extraordinary. Can you summarise the more interesting parts of the evidence for me please?
I propose that scientists today bwrote the Bible, thus passing themselves off as muilt a time machine, went back in time and essengers of God for fun. Prove me wrong.
I agree!!! I also propose that scientists in the future, made a time-machine, to go the past, and put us on earth, to see how we will interact with each other, and are currently on the other side of the universe watching our every movement through a telescope x999999999999 bigger than the Hubble Telescope to study us for their own enjoyment. And then in 6 billion years, they'll initiate a mechanism in all of our minds which will somehow, (I have no idea how they'll do this), thus I cant substantiate my claims, but you can't prove that I'm wrong, cos you can't prove this isn't the case, that will lead to us all killing ourselves!!!! Prove me wrong!!!!! BUWAHAHAHA
You are highlighting the inadequacies of the argument from ignorance. You can believe that it happened, that's your own choice to have faith outside of logical principles, but there will never be a way that you can propagate the message with certainty.
-
thats why I wrote-Leader....these are not my words, but someone else within my church. so would you like to address the other points my leaders made???
So you endorse your leader's arguments or not? Because they directly strike your arguments as being flawed.
All I know is that I believe in God. I have e-mailed my leaders about this particular thread, highlighting your rebuttles of 'illogical fallacies' etc. So I asked them to write a bit about why they believe in God, in such a way that it would not be labelled illogical, or based on 'ignorance'. This is what they came up with. I have posted here to get your thoughts on their arguments.
-
You are highlighting the inadequacies of the argument from ignorance. You can believe that it happened, that's your own choice to have faith outside of logical principles, but there will never be a way that you can propagate the message with certainty.
true. just pissed off at ppl who aren't really adding to the debate, and rather, simply coming up with ludicrous statements like his/hers. as i said before, these are my opinions only, a forum is used to express opinions and beliefs, i have done that, accept them or leave them is up to you. i am not trying to force them onto anyone, i am attempting to back up my claims in the face of ppls scrutiny, and am in no way attempting to force it on anyone. if anyone feels like i have been trying to, i am sorry.
-
Who is this mysterious leader? lol reminds me of that simpsons episode..
-
i am not trying to force them onto anyone, i am attempting to back up my claims in the face of ppls scrutiny, and am in no way attempting to force it on anyone. if anyone feels like i have been trying to, i am sorry.
omg...i agree :P
-
Who is this mysterious leader? lol reminds me of that simpsons episode..
All three opinion pieces came from separate leaders within my church.
-
i am not trying to force them onto anyone, i am attempting to back up my claims in the face of ppls scrutiny, and am in no way attempting to force it on anyone. if anyone feels like i have been trying to, i am sorry.
omg...i agree :P
Yes, this is the most agreeable statement I have read from you.
-
I propose that scientists today bwrote the Bible, thus passing themselves off as muilt a time machine, went back in time and essengers of God for fun. Prove me wrong.
I agree!!! I also propose that scientists in the future, made a time-machine, to go the past, and put us on earth, to see how we will interact with each other, and are currently on the other side of the universe watching our every movement through a telescope x999999999999 bigger than the Hubble Telescope to study us for their own enjoyment. And then in 6 billion years, they'll initiate a mechanism in all of our minds which will somehow, (I have no idea how they'll do this), thus I cant substantiate my claims, but you can't prove that I'm wrong, cos you can't prove this isn't the case, that will lead to us all killing ourselves!!!! Prove me wrong!!!!! BUWAHAHAHA
You've just proved my point. There is as much evidence for the existence of a God as there is for scientists with time machines and a cruel sense of humour.
Coblin: who is Hiro? lol
-
I propose that scientists today bwrote the Bible, thus passing themselves off as muilt a time machine, went back in time and essengers of God for fun. Prove me wrong.
I agree!!! I also propose that scientists in the future, made a time-machine, to go the past, and put us on earth, to see how we will interact with each other, and are currently on the other side of the universe watching our every movement through a telescope x999999999999 bigger than the Hubble Telescope to study us for their own enjoyment. And then in 6 billion years, they'll initiate a mechanism in all of our minds which will somehow, (I have no idea how they'll do this), thus I cant substantiate my claims, but you can't prove that I'm wrong, cos you can't prove this isn't the case, that will lead to us all killing ourselves!!!! Prove me wrong!!!!! BUWAHAHAHA
You've just proved my point. There is as much evidence for the existence of a God as there is for scientists with time machines and a cruel sense of humour.
Coblin: who is Hiro? lol
lol ok. yeah i agree. just a wonder why 75% of scientists believe in God eh??? time-machines should be around in a few years then!!!! zomg!!!one!!!111
-
I propose that scientists today bwrote the Bible, thus passing themselves off as muilt a time machine, went back in time and essengers of God for fun. Prove me wrong.
I agree!!! I also propose that scientists in the future, made a time-machine, to go the past, and put us on earth, to see how we will interact with each other, and are currently on the other side of the universe watching our every movement through a telescope x999999999999 bigger than the Hubble Telescope to study us for their own enjoyment. And then in 6 billion years, they'll initiate a mechanism in all of our minds which will somehow, (I have no idea how they'll do this), thus I cant substantiate my claims, but you can't prove that I'm wrong, cos you can't prove this isn't the case, that will lead to us all killing ourselves!!!! Prove me wrong!!!!! BUWAHAHAHA
You've just proved my point. There is as much evidence for the existence of a God as there is for scientists with time machines and a cruel sense of humour.
Coblin: who is Hiro? lol
lol ok. yeah i agree. just a wonder why 75% of scientists believe in God eh??? time-machines should be around in a few years then!!!! zomg!!!one!!!111
Do tell us why.
-
And are you guys actually going to comment more on the articles I posted??? Or just wave them away??? Surely not a good thing in a debate where all opinions should be considered!!!!
-
I propose that scientists today bwrote the Bible, thus passing themselves off as muilt a time machine, went back in time and essengers of God for fun. Prove me wrong.
I agree!!! I also propose that scientists in the future, made a time-machine, to go the past, and put us on earth, to see how we will interact with each other, and are currently on the other side of the universe watching our every movement through a telescope x999999999999 bigger than the Hubble Telescope to study us for their own enjoyment. And then in 6 billion years, they'll initiate a mechanism in all of our minds which will somehow, (I have no idea how they'll do this), thus I cant substantiate my claims, but you can't prove that I'm wrong, cos you can't prove this isn't the case, that will lead to us all killing ourselves!!!! Prove me wrong!!!!! BUWAHAHAHA
You've just proved my point. There is as much evidence for the existence of a God as there is for scientists with time machines and a cruel sense of humour.
Coblin: who is Hiro? lol
lol ok. yeah i agree. just a wonder why 75% of scientists believe in God eh??? time-machines should be around in a few years then!!!! zomg!!!one!!!111
Do tell us why.
oh well...if there's evidence that there is a God, which allows the majority of scientists to believe in God, then, from ninwa's post, since there is, and I quote, 'as much evidence for the existence of a God as there is for scientists with time machines' then there must be a decent amount of evidence of scientists with time-machines!!!
Or is that fallacious logic??
-
oh well...if there's evidence that there is a God
WHAT EVIDENCE??
All we've gotten so far really is that things said in the Bible/Qur'an have appeared to be "predictions" of how things scientifically work in our world. That does not prove the existence of a God. It also does not prove that scientists with time machines went back and wrote the Bible. Hence my point - there is an equal amount of evidence for both claims, which is none.
I don't think you really understand the meaning behind my scientists-with-time-machines proposal ...
EDIT: And about your article. Just because many scientists believe in God, does not mean God exists. It just means many scientists have that faith. Like I said before, many many years ago most scientists believed that the Earth was flat. Does that make it true? Science is not all-knowing and it doesn't claim to be so.
-
oh well...if there's evidence that there is a God
WHAT EVIDENCE??
All we've gotten so far really is that things said in the Bible/Qur'an have appeared to be "predictions" of how things scientifically work in our world. That does not prove the existence of a God. It also does not prove that scientists with time machines went back and wrote the Bible. Hence my point - there is an equal amount of evidence for both claims, which is none.
I don't think you really understand the meaning behind my scientists-with-time-machines proposal ...
EDIT: And about your article. Just because many scientists believe in God, does not mean God exists. It just means many scientists have that faith. Like I said before, many many years ago most scientists believed that the Earth was flat. Does that make it true? Science is not all-knowing and it doesn't claim to be so.
If two-thirds of scientists believe that there is a God, surely that hints that there is some evidence for His existence?? Enough to sway the majority?? These people have dedicated their lives to science, so excuse me if I'm a bit inclined to believe that they know a bit more about life as we know than you. Indeed, just because scientists believe in a God, doesn't mean that God exists. I never said that.
-
If two-thirds of scientists believe that there is a God, surely that hints that there is some evidence for His existence?? .
I think the point was, you keep repeating how all these scientists 'must have some evidence', and yet you fail to provide this evidence
-
I suggest you read this article, to help form your opinions.
http://www.frame-poythress.org/poythress_articles/2003Why.htm
Again, I'm not trying to force me beliefs on you, just trying to back up my claim.
-
You don't need to believe in God for scientific principles to make sense. You just need to observe that macroscopic trends seem to fit a regular mathematical model, for example: Newton's models of motion.
-
"Published in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 46/1: (2003): 111-23."
Hardly an objective source. Already this takes away some of the credibility of those arguments because it's obvious that they will be at least somewhat biased.
I had a quick scan through and these arguments make no sense. What exactly is the article suggesting? That because the concept of scientific law has things in common with how people perceive God to be, that proves the existence of God?
I won't have time to read through it properly until after my last exam on the 21st, but from a glance that appears to be the basis for the entire argument.
e.g.
Beauty of law
Scientific laws, especially ?deep? laws, are beautiful. Scientists have long sifted through possible hypotheses and models partly on the basis of the criteria of beauty and simplicity. Why? They clearly expect new laws, as well as the old ones, to show beauty and simplicity. Though beauty has not been a favorite topic in classical expositions of the doctrine of God, the Bible shows us a God who is profoundly beautiful. He manifests himself in beauty in the design of the tabernacle, the poetry of the Psalms, and the elegance of Christ?s parables, as well as the moral beauty of the life of Christ.
The author is claiming that because scientific laws are beautiful, and God is beautiful, this proves the existence of God.
It also goes a bit into the old "science explains things in the Bible therefore the Bible is true therefore God exists" argument. It's already been stated in this thread why this argument is logically fallacious.
Have you actually read through this article? Can you honestly say that this author's arguments are logical and reasonable?
Collin (and brendan if you're still watching this thread lol) if you have time, could you please read through the article he's provided. I'd be interested in your thoughts.
-
If two-thirds of scientists believe that there is a God, surely that hints that there is some evidence for His existence?? Enough to sway the majority??
I think you undermined your own argument well enough by then saying: just because scientists believe in a God, doesn't mean that God exists.
If the proposition is that there exists a god, your argument is yet again another logically flawed argument; an argumentum ad populum, a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it to be true.
If the proposition is that there exists evidence for a god. Then your argument:
x% of people believe in proposition A.
Therefore evidence for proposition A exists.
is still completely flawed and wrong; the conclusion simply doesn't follow - it is a non sequitur.
-
A lesson in logic - a list of logical flaws committed so far:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
"a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it"
If two-thirds of scientists believe that there is a God, surely that hints that there is some evidence for His existence?? Enough to sway the majority??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
"a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true."
What scientifice evidence do you have that the earth wasn't???
Dinosaurs, or creatures of the like, were mentioned in the Bible, so you can't really use that old Darwanism line again..... The Big Bang is probably the worst theory ever created by mankind. It's exactly like saying, 'Oh look there's a TV, it's obviously been created by a Big Bang at TV warehouse!!!!' Scientists can't even explain where the original 'gas clouds' came from. How do you explain that part of the theory??? 'Gas clouds' cannot be conjured out of thin air. Or were they created by something else?? A God perhaps?????
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
"the validity of a logical inference is independent of the person making the inference."
"a narrow minded mind, such as what Brendan is displaying"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29
"Non sequitur is Latin for "it does not follow." In formal logic, an argument is a non sequitur if its conclusion does not follow from its premises."
I just know some people who don't believe in God regularly get drunk, hurt others, have no respect, get divorce, have one night-stands and so on. But im sure that you guys are not like that. I think that is evidence in itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy
"False analogy is a fallacy applying to inductive arguments"
You can't see magnetism or gravity
You believe it because you see it works and the effects it has but you don't see what its physically is. Well I don't think you can see force...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
"The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context."
i know for a fact that even the greatest scientists of the past believe the existence of something superior. are you saying that they were all illogical to think that way?
Yes i do believe in God.
Ok now here is proof stating that Islam is the truth.
Really interesting stuff guys. These facts really stunned me, i think you guys should read it too.
This list is by no means exhaustive.
If the arguments for the existence of a god don't evolve, or rather 'intelligently design' themselves into something more reasoned and cogent then this list will keep on growing.
-
You cannot rely on wikipedia all the time. People can change/edit those pages for all I know.
I am incapable of presenting logical arguments in this thread according to you.
So will you be willing to talk to my leader in person rather than posting on here, pointing all our argument flaws and using wikipedia as a credible source? I'm sure you will have a good chat. You can bag, point out all his flaws through a conversation.
-
Do you not see how truly brainwashed you are, asa.hoshi? You take the word of this "leader" as gospel. You want him to fight your battles. You can't hold your own logically. You HAVE to be "lead". You are a mere sheep, a brainwashed follower in life. That's all you are. It's actually pathetic that you hide behind this "leader" fellow. You are so simple that you take the logic of Brendan's arguments as an attack on your faith, when the two are completely inequitable. Logic is rational and the blind faith that you exhibit is irrational.
You are so simple a person that you cannot handle this inconsistency in your feeble beliefs system, and so you get defensive and retreat into the diatribe which has been fed to you from an early age. I truly feel sorry for you. You have been bred in ignorance.
-
Do you not see how truly brainwashed you are, asa.hoshi? You take the word of this "leader" as gospel. You want him to fight your battles. You can't hold your own logically. You HAVE to be "lead". You are a mere sheep, a brainwashed follower in life. That's all you are. It's actually pathetic that you hide behind this "leader" fellow. You are so simple that you take the logic of Brendan's arguments as an attack on your faith, when the two are completely inequitable. Logic is rational and the blind faith that you exhibit is irrational.
You are so simple a person that you cannot handle this inconsistency in your feeble beliefs system, and so you get defensive and retreat into the diatribe which has been fed to you from an early age. I truly feel sorry for you. You have been bred in ignorance.
oi im only 17. still got another 7months until im 18. im no adult yet. then of course im a sheep.
and this is not fair. you are attacking me personally.
-
So will you be willing to talk to my leader in person rather than posting on here, pointing all our argument flaws and using wikipedia as a credible source?
That is nonsense. The arguments i showed are still logically flawed regardless of the content of the wikipedia articles. In fact i have previously showed them to be logically flawed. I only provided a link to these wikipedia articles so so that people can see further examples of such logical fallacies. Again, questioning wikipedia's credibility is irrelevant and it has no bearing on the lack of soundness and cogency in your arguments. Come to think of it, this is a fallacy of itself - logical fallacy of irrelevance, in the sense that wikipedia may be anonymously edited, but that doesn't change the the lack of soundness and cogency of the arguments i listed above. Additionally your comment about wikipedia may also be described as a red herring - an argument, given in reply, that does not address the original issue in question, and is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument.
I am incapable of presenting logical arguments in this thread according to you.
You make the further mistake of implying that your arguments are wrong or flawed just because I think they are flawed. Your arguments are conceptually flawed and logically fallacious regardless of whether I even exist. I have shown many of your arguments to be wrong, and they were wrong before I showed them to be wrong, and they will be wrong after I die.
This sort of argument "i know for a fact that even the greatest scientists of the past believe the existence of something superior. are you saying that they were all illogical to think that way?" for the existence of a god was completely flawed before I showed them to be flawed, and they will continue to be flawed long after I die.
-
I suggest you read this article, to help form your opinions.
http://www.frame-poythress.org/poythress_articles/2003Why.htm
Again, I'm not trying to force me beliefs on you, just trying to back up my claim.
How does it prove your claim that a god exists?
-
btw kopite, it's arrogant for your leader to suggest that non-believers are miserable nihilists. i believe that's another ad hominem attack, and i refer him/her to my existentialist post.
-
Yeah, I don't think it's even necessary to be an existentialist, unless I've automatically defined my existential values without realising it.
All that matters, as an individual, is that I am only doing mutually agreeable things when it comes to actions involving second parties. What does it matter what my spiritual values are? Some people don't have them. People have their own values (is this existentialist?) and they should be allowed to pursue them as long as it is not limited by mutual agreement (i.e: someone with the value that Jews should die cannot live by that value because the Jews would not agree to it). However, if your values include experimenting with drugs, there happens to be no second party! Those choices are merely up to yourself, not some parental government.
Does this make me nihilist? No. This makes me accepting of uncertainty, and respectful of all individual niches.
-
Do you not see how truly brainwashed you are, asa.hoshi? You take the word of this "leader" as gospel. You want him to fight your battles. You can't hold your own logically. You HAVE to be "lead". You are a mere sheep, a brainwashed follower in life. That's all you are. It's actually pathetic that you hide behind this "leader" fellow. You are so simple that you take the logic of Brendan's arguments as an attack on your faith, when the two are completely inequitable. Logic is rational and the blind faith that you exhibit is irrational.
You are so simple a person that you cannot handle this inconsistency in your feeble beliefs system, and so you get defensive and retreat into the diatribe which has been fed to you from an early age. I truly feel sorry for you. You have been bred in ignorance.
Attack the argument, not the person.
--- Anyway, a few cents on my own.
You cannot prove that God exists (I will capitalise the name out of respect, not because I believe personally) or does not exist. Now a cynical atheist would say: well, you said the heavens were in the sky, and we've passed that now, and God wasn't found. All the evidence points towards phenomena such as natural selection, the big bang and so forth have created the earth, not some 'higher being'.
The religious person would perhaps argue: 'How on earth did the quarks and gluons get there in the first place?'.
Perhaps the retort would be: 'Well how did God come to be?'
Counter-retort: 'He was always there'
Riposte: 'Maybe the matter was always just there'
Addon Riposte: 'That goes against the theory - matter cannot be created or destroyed'.
Counter-Riposte: Dude, you are using the Internet, you like science... let's go chill or something.
Counter-Counter Riposte: Okay, but you liked Diablo, that game had stuff to do with religion - so you find it interesting... Guitar Hero anyone?
Anyway, the point being is - arguing for and against the existence of God is ridiculous - believe or disbelieve to your heart's content. It is when religion or atheism is used as a propaganda tool to disparage those who believe differently, is when the whole notion of religion becomes a dangerous game.
-
A lesson in logic - a list of logical flaws committed so far:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
"a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it"
If two-thirds of scientists believe that there is a God, surely that hints that there is some evidence for His existence?? Enough to sway the majority??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
"a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true."
What scientifice evidence do you have that the earth wasn't???
Dinosaurs, or creatures of the like, were mentioned in the Bible, so you can't really use that old Darwanism line again..... The Big Bang is probably the worst theory ever created by mankind. It's exactly like saying, 'Oh look there's a TV, it's obviously been created by a Big Bang at TV warehouse!!!!' Scientists can't even explain where the original 'gas clouds' came from. How do you explain that part of the theory??? 'Gas clouds' cannot be conjured out of thin air. Or were they created by something else?? A God perhaps?????
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
"the validity of a logical inference is independent of the person making the inference."
"a narrow minded mind, such as what Brendan is displaying"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29
"Non sequitur is Latin for "it does not follow." In formal logic, an argument is a non sequitur if its conclusion does not follow from its premises."
I just know some people who don't believe in God regularly get drunk, hurt others, have no respect, get divorce, have one night-stands and so on. But im sure that you guys are not like that. I think that is evidence in itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy
"False analogy is a fallacy applying to inductive arguments"
You can't see magnetism or gravity
You believe it because you see it works and the effects it has but you don't see what its physically is. Well I don't think you can see force...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
"The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context."
i know for a fact that even the greatest scientists of the past believe the existence of something superior. are you saying that they were all illogical to think that way?
Yes i do believe in God.
Ok now here is proof stating that Islam is the truth.
Really interesting stuff guys. These facts really stunned me, i think you guys should read it too.
This list is by no means exhaustive.
If the arguments for the existence of a god don't evolve, or rather 'intelligently design' themselves into something more reasoned and cogent then this list will keep on growing.
damn....can't see the rest of the thread beneath ur post.
anyways, yeah no-one can prove to the atheists satisfaction that God exists. and as clearly 'evidenced' by your 'logical fallicies' beliefs and wiki articles, i don't think myself or asah.hoshi are getting anywhere in succesfully validating our beliefs.
but have you actually addressed the comments of my fellow church goers??? or actually chosen to re-track ground and attack our previous statements because they are not illogical??? and you can't revert to your wiki quoting???
sorry if you have, i can't read under your above post, as i am capped :(
Do you not see how truly brainwashed you are, asa.hoshi? You take the word of this "leader" as gospel. You want him to fight your battles. You can't hold your own logically. You HAVE to be "lead". You are a mere sheep, a brainwashed follower in life. That's all you are. It's actually pathetic that you hide behind this "leader" fellow. You are so simple that you take the logic of Brendan's arguments as an attack on your faith, when the two are completely inequitable. Logic is rational and the blind faith that you exhibit is irrational.
.
So what if asa.hoshi alone can't validate his beliefs himsef??? He's a 17 year old guy, and asking for advice on how to prove his beliefs from people who are probably more knowledgeable than him in this area is justified.
-
[quote="Kopite]I suggest you read this article, to help form your opinions.
http://www.frame-poythress.org/poythress_articles/2003Why.htm
Again, I'm not trying to force me beliefs on you, just trying to back up my claim.
How does it prove your claim that a god exists?
[/quote]
That sir, is called putting words in people's mouths. With that article, I never said it proved that God existed. I merely suggested that people read it to actually gain a greater understanding of the issue at hand.
-
I suggest you read this article, to help form your opinions.
http://www.frame-poythress.org/poythress_articles/2003Why.htm
Again, I'm not trying to force me beliefs on you, just trying to back up my claim.
How does it prove your claim that a god exists?
That sir, is called putting words in people's mouths. With that article, I never said it proved that God existed. I merely suggested that people read it to actually gain a greater understanding of the issue at hand.
1. What claim were you trying to "back up" then, if not the claim that there exists a god?
2. The topic of is this thread is "do you believe in god", is the issue at hand not the existence of a god?
damn....can't see the rest of the thread beneath ur post.
anyways, yeah no-one can prove to the atheists satisfaction that God exists. and as clearly 'evidenced' by your 'logical fallicies' beliefs and wiki articles,
1. They are not "my" logical fallacies. Your arguments were simply flawed, regardless of whether I bothered to point them out. Logical fallacies are not a "belief".
2. The arguments i quoted are still logically flawed regardless of the content of the wikipedia articles.
I only provided a link to these wikipedia articles so so that people can see further examples of such logical fallacies. The articles were not "evidence" for any proposition related to the existence of god - they are examples of general logical fallacies that not confined to just debates over the existence of god. Wikipedia's credibility is irrelevant and it has no bearing on the lack of soundness and cogency in your arguments.
but have you actually addressed the comments of my fellow church goers??? or actually chosen to re-track ground and attack our previous statements because they are not illogical??? and you can't revert to your wiki quoting???
1. Come to think of it, this is a fallacy of itself - logical fallacy of irrelevance, in the sense that wikipedia may be anonymously edited, but that doesn't change the the lack of soundness and cogency of the arguments i quoted above. Additionally your comment about wikipedia may also be described as a red herring - an argument, given in reply, that does not address the original issue in question, and is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument.
2. Just because I have not yet bothered to deal with your emails doesn't mean that they are not illogical or true. Again your reasoning is fundamentally flawed - the logical hole is big enough for me to drive a truck through. Just because something has not been proven false does not imply that it is true - that is a fallacious argument from silence.
-
For those who don't get it:
A logical fallacy is a flaw in the progression of your argument. They are not "beliefs" or opinions, they are logical facts. If you make a claim, and back it up with an argument that has no complete logical progression, then there is really no argument behind the claim.
Brendan is merely pointing out these failures in logic, and he is simply asking for you to try to fill in these gaps of logic, because he's not going to assume what you meant!
-
have you actually addressed the comments of my fellow church goers???
Firstly, they are material that you provided.
Secondly, how do they even relate to this debate, and how does it even follow from what they say that therefore a god or gods exists?
-
http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/
=)
-
http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/
=)
ahahaha. Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster > Church of Google :P
-
"How can you worship a search engine over Jesus Christ/Allah/Zeus/Spaghetti Monster/Whatever? It's just a computer program!"
They have heard your point before :(
I have only known of googlism for 20 minutes, and I believe it more than the spagetti monster. I've often referred to google in the past as a god, and now I can see many many more people share my views =D
-
:o :o
BLASPHEMER!!!!!
*hugs flying spaghetti monster*
-
Here's his reply Coblin.
-I am somewhat familiar with quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle. While we must assign probability to prediction when observing events at the atomic (not microscopic) level, one must keep in mind that we are still able to make those predictions. In other words, we can predict an electron could be in various location, and even assign probability to each of those location, but there are still limits upon the election which prevent it from arriving at certain location or performing certain events. This is why elections stay in orbit around atoms in close proximity to them and don't just drift off into space or half-way across the world or why they don't spontaneously turn to anti-matter.
All material objects in our universe are compose of particles which move around, according to the uncertainty principle, randomly, yet we are still able to predict the events of billions and billions random events combined, making it possible to create a light bulb or diesel engine. It is kind of a paradox; how can such order result from randomness? I argue it is because of the limits which exist on the randomness.
I want to focus on this particular statement:
"Creating mathematical models is not a wonder of God, it arises merely from how humans have observed the world, and have organised how events usually tend to happen."
This is rather circular thinking. Mathematical models are a part of how we observe the world, but doesn't arise from that. There really is no logical explanation an atheist can give as to why humans can assign rather simple mathematical equations to our universe. Why are thing measurable, predicable, understandable...
While it might not prove God, it sure does make perfect sense if there was a intelligent creator behind our existence.
-
While it might not prove God
No it doesn't prove the existence of god and you want to know why? Because it is not a valid argument for the existence of a god or many gods.
This is rather circular thinking.
While it might not prove God, it sure does make perfect sense if there was a intelligent creator behind our existence.
How ironic. The logic behind the second statement was - you guessed it - circular.
-
wow!!! *dazzled by google's beauty*...
LMFAO!
u should try blackle
it is a bit more benevolent than google in terms of good for society xD
-
Kopite, please ask your leader for the logic that explains why an atheist cannot believe in mathematical models. Also, thank him for his patronising, yet irrelevant discussion of quantum physics. I was just merely pointing out his misapplication of Einstein's quote: "God does not play dice," and also explaining that quantum physics does rest on the fact that there is randomness at the microscopic scale.
As long as humans acknowledge that mathematical models come from nothing but empirical evidence, there is nothing wrong with applying a statistical model to it. When you start to make causal links without evidence, then we start to require some fundamental assumptions, but if we just make models that explain particular physical phenomena without an explanation, there is no problem for the atheist.
To believe in a model does not require the belief in god. When we make up concepts such as "force," "work," and so on, these are falsifiable assumptions made by the scientist for some certain model. Since these assumptions are falsifiable, unlike the proposition of the existence of a god, this is what separates the "belief in a scientific model" from "belief in a god." I don't understand why your leader believes that it is contradictory to believe in scientific models without believing in a god.
-
With that article, I never said it proved that God existed.
Then why did you post it in a thread with the topic: "Do you believe in god?"
have you actually addressed the comments of my fellow church goers???
They are material that you provided, so how do they even relate to this debate? and how does it even follow from what they say that therefore a god or gods exists?
-
im quite confused wid the arguments lol >.< but i do believe in God!
mainly coz i think that the world, atom, human body etc is too complicated to exist by itself so there must be sum kind of creator behind it... n also without a God, human life seems very futile... if sum1 explains to me wat has happened in the last 24 pages i might b able to bring out sum arguments lol... too lz to read so much stuff that has complicated science language >.<
-
sheepz, here's a summary:
<start infinite loop here>
a: does god exist?
b: yes he does.
c: that argument dont make sense
b: c, you dont make sense
c: b, please explain your arguments then
b: god exist just because!
c: that is complete nonsense
*screaming, burning, killing, pwning*
a: guys, calm down, lets be rational
c: i have every right to destroy arguments
b: that's not fair
a: lets stay on topic
<loop back to beginning>
lol haha!
-
i do believe in God!
mainly coz i think that the world, atom, human body etc is too complicated to exist by itself so there must be sum kind of creator behind it
Just because a scientific theory cannot currently be found that provides an adequate natural explanatory model for a phenomena does not necessitate that therefore the only viable explanation of the unexplained phenomena is the supernatural action of one god or many gods. It would be a grave mistake in logic to ever make such an argument.
-
<omitted a line referring to a deleted post -- moderator: coblin>
wat type of scientific theory cud b used to explain the existence of everything tho? i suppose God can be counted as one of them... but things like the big bang? (i reckon the big bang is REALLY dodgy explanation to create so many complicated things at once... jz my opinion)
-
wat type of scientific theory cud b used to explain the existence of everything tho? i suppose God can be counted as one of them...
no it can't be, because it is not a scientific theory
-
so wat type of scientific theory do u think can b used to explain it?
-
so wat type of scientific theory do u think can b used to explain it?
explain what?
i think you are going beyond the topic: the existence of a god or many gods.
-
i mean... imo, there r no other more logical ways of explaining how things can exist so complicatedly without the existence of a God. u implied that a scientific theory wud b found 1 day to sufficiently explain this? wat type of scientific theory can do that tho? (hopefully that makes sense... i AM after all, an ESL >.<)
-
u implied that a scientific theory wud b found 1 day to sufficiently explain this? wat type of scientific theory can do that tho? (hopefully that makes sense... i AM after all, an ESL >.<)
whether or not that happens is inconsequential. it doesn't prove the existence of god as I have explained. Just because a scientific theory cannot currently (or ever) be found that provides an adequate natural explanatory model for a phenomena does not necessitate that therefore the only viable explanation of the unexplained phenomena is the supernatural action of one god or many gods. It would be a grave mistake in logic to ever make such an argument.
-
i mean... imo, there r no other more logical ways of explaining how things can exist so complicatedly without the existence of a God. u implied that a scientific theory wud b found 1 day to sufficiently explain this? wat type of scientific theory can do that tho? (hopefully that makes sense... i AM after all, an ESL >.<)
however there is.
your argument is very close to the "designer argument", ie because the watch has a function, someone must have designed it
however you are ignoring the basic principles of natural selection, our species is so evolved now not because of some miraculous metaphysical being (or so i believe), the theory of revolution has MUCH empirical evidence to support its claims, as opposed to a few religious books here and there, and other noted "relevations"...
and if you're going to talk about how the environment is so well balanced (almost perfectly), however upon inspection on chemical reactions in our environment, it can be easily shown that it is in equilibrium, hence why would it not be in perfect balance?
-
I'm thinking that there has to be something supernatural that makes everything in equilibrium?
This is getting repetitive and complicated with a lot of words I don't understand >.< I think I will stop arguing and see what others think (unless if I have something to say)...
-
there has to be something supernatural that makes everything in equilibrium?
Why? Prove it. :)
-
I'm thinking that there has to be something supernatural that makes everything in equilibrium?
Equilibria do not require supernatural forces. What it is really, is just a stable outcome that prevails, because unstable outcomes do not prevail (by definition). A good example of one such equilibrium that relies on humans is the market equilibrium.
-
A good example of one such equilibrium that relies on humans is the market equilibrium.
the stock market must be controlled by a supernatural being then.... LOL
-
Haha since when did the topic change to market equilibrium? o.0 I thought we were talking about chemical reactions and just the natural part of life... and things such as why only Earth has sufficient oxygen and water to let humans live when other planets don't and why we have so many complex body cells that have specific functions that need to exist so that we can live. I'm not very knowledgeable in the science field area so correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it that say if we don't have our red blood cells that humans could have survived so long? I'm thinking something has to have knocked it into balance. So there should be a creator who designed and planned all these and made sure they are in equilibrium. I also suspect that no one would be able to explain the existence of all these with convincing scientific theory that are logical and there has to be a satisfying explanation. The most logical one that has existed after thousands of years of wondering and researches is still God, in my opinion. I know Brendan did say that you shouldn't just assume that there is a God since there are no alternative explanations, but I think it's the only thing that can justify our existence.
Obsolete chaos, I don't understand what you mean by the basic principles of natural selection and the theory of revolution >.<
-
Are you familiar with the Theory of Evolution? Natural selection is a mechanism that describes how such biological and chemical equilibria exist. You don't see lifeforms that don't have the delicate balance because they would die. Natural selection argues that those who are best equipped to survive and reproduce the best will be "naturally selected" to continue the line of their species. Species that have genetic difficulties with biochemical equilibria will simply die off, unless they can find an environmental substitute for their flaw (e.g: how humans require Vitamin C).
-
I can understand what sheepz is saying and I find that it does appear to be the more logical explanation for existence. As there is no substantial proof to prove or disprove either theory, we can not just assume either one is right. However we can take an opinionated stance on the issue and thats where logically it seems more feasible that there was a "creator" who made all of this. There is no proof that there is no creator as is the case that there is a creator so either party asking the other to offer proof is just as hypocritical as the other.
With reference to Coblins post, the argument of a "creator" stems from the belief that the "theory of evolution" could not occur if there was nothing to evolve from in the first place, hence there had to be someone or something that created the first forms of existence. Whether God made "man", I will not argue because even though it is part of my beliefs I am not 100% dedicated to either argument for or against the theory.
But I do believe that a higher being had to have been responsible for the creator of life. (ie. a being that is not bound by the belief that 'someone had to have created everything' because then someone could just argue "who made God".
-
There is no proof that there is no creator as is the case that there is a creator so either party asking the other to offer proof is just as hypocritical as the other.
I asked for proof - so what? What are you implying?
-
I'll take one out of your book. =P
What you imply from my posts is entirely up to you.
I am saying that in a debate where there is no evidence for either side, it is not advisable to ask for evidence from the other side as it just ridicules your own argument, hence the argument may seem hypocritical.
-
Brendan has ample evidence to draw upon, theory of evolution, formation of known elements via mssive nuclear fusion (the sun), natrual selection. The presence of many religions dilutes the arguement of a singular, true diety
-
I'm thinking something has to have knocked it into balance. So there should be a creator who designed and planned all these and made sure they are in equilibrium. I also suspect that no one would be able to explain the existence of all these with convincing scientific theory that are logical and there has to be a satisfying explanation. The most logical one that has existed after thousands of years of wondering and researches is still God, in my opinion. I know Brendan did say that you shouldn't just assume that there is a God since there are no alternative explanations, but I think it's the only thing that can justify our existence.
Your argument is not at all logical at all, the hole in that argument is big enough for me to drive a truck through. Not too long ago there did not exist a scientific explanation for lightning, but was that therefore an "act of god"? Just because a scientific theory cannot currently be found that provides an adequate natural explanatory model for a phenomena does not necessitate that therefore the only viable explanation of the unexplained phenomena is the supernatural action of one god or many gods.
-
I'll take one out of your book. =P
What you imply from my posts is entirely up to you.
I am saying that in a debate where there is no evidence for either side, it is not advisable to ask for evidence from the other side as it just ridicules your own argument, hence the argument may seem hypocritical.
NO - I'm ASKING YOU what you are implying?? Were you referring to my post or not?
-
Brendan has ample evidence to draw upon, theory of evolution, formation of known elements via mssive nuclear fusion (the sun), natrual selection. The presence of many religions dilutes the arguement of a singular, true diety
The theory of evolution is exactly that; a theory, not evidence.
Not too long ago there did not exist a scientific explanation for lightning, but was that therefore an "act of god"?
Good point.
Yes. Your post asking for evidence
-
yeh, a theory well supported by objective, empirical evidence
-
Yes but if no one was there to observe at the start of life (presuming that everything has to begin from somewhere) then the theory is based on evolution as we see it today or in the recent past (even thousands of years ago, still no difference) ) because we are talking about the start of creation, not the evolution.
-
I am saying that in a debate where there is no evidence for either side, it is not advisable to ask for evidence from the other side as it just ridicules your own argument, hence the argument may seem hypocritical.
Yes. Your post asking for evidence
No, she made the claim so the onus is on her to prove her claim. There is no hypocrisy at all.
-
Brendan has ample evidence to draw upon, theory of evolution, formation of known elements via mssive nuclear fusion (the sun), natrual selection. The presence of many religions dilutes the arguement of a singular, true diety
The theory of evolution is exactly that; a theory, not evidence.
So what?
-
Brendan has ample evidence to draw upon, theory of evolution, formation of known elements via mssive nuclear fusion (the sun), natrual selection. The presence of many religions dilutes the arguement of a singular, true diety
The theory of evolution is exactly that; a theory, not evidence.
So what?
The quote is...
Brendan has ample evidence to draw upon, theory of evolution...
My quote is
The theory of evolution is exactly that; a theory, not evidence.
So what do you mean...
So what?
-
Nvm BA22 said it well:
yeh, a theory well supported by objective, empirical evidence
-
Brendan, what type of evidence can I provide? Seriously, you want me to ask God to send you an e-mail saying he is the creator of the world? As costargh said, you can't provide me with real, convincing evidence that God doesn't exist too.
And why can't theories exist alongside with God? I still believe that God dictates when the lightning strike. It is just that since humans are curious and some don't believe in God, they turn to science and come up with theories and explanations, that God already knew and used when he created lightning. So even if theories ARE supported by evidence, that doesn't prove that there isn't a God.
-
But it has not been proven in the sense that it is an explanation for the the creation of existance, this it is still a theory.
-
That doesn't prove that there IS a God, either. Nor does it prove that there is only one God, etc.
-
Maybe God is the science? :D
-
Brendan never made a claim there is no God, he just says that there is no requirement for the existence of God to explain unexplained phenomena.
All of science is theory. It is always falsifiable, which is what makes it different to religion.
-
Start of creation is covered by the formation of elements via massive nuclear fusion, we see this is other galaxies constantly (though true, not the creation of life itself). Elements upon which life exist are present in the universe, condensing under gravity to form rock based planets. Single cell organism arise from basic chemical reactions of this rock based structures. These organisms adapted to their environment, adding desirable characteristics via allele mutations in gene pools.
This explains the existence of peppered moths
This explains the existence of vestigal structres such as the appendix
If we examine the peppered moth example, we can philosophically and biologically assess this issue (crudely). The peppered moth exists in England. During the industrial revoultion, trees became coated with black soot, spoiling the camouflage benefit the moth enjoyed, sheilding it from predators. A random mutation in the moths genetic make-up gave the moth a black coat, and a selective advantage over the peppered moth, the black moths quickly grew in population. This raises significant, current evidence for natrual selection, and there evolution
If you want to argue that god created the allele to help the moth, then why is AIDS rampant in the world. Surely if god
'fixed' the peppered moth to exist more easily in the world, then why not humans, the "prefered" and subservient species.
-
That doesn't prove that there IS a God, either. Nor does it prove that there is only one God, etc.
Sorry I don't know what your post is referring to. Soz =S
-
Brendan, what type of evidence can I provide? Seriously, you want me to ask God to send you an e-mail saying he is the creator of the world?
Then admit that you have no proof. Say that at the outset - Say "I have no proof, no objective, substantive or credible information to support my claims".
you can't provide me with real, convincing evidence that God doesn't exist too.
I never made the claim that a god or many gods do not exist. I challenge you to find a single instance where i have made such a claim to the effect there a god or many gods do not exist. On the other hand, you did make the claim that there exists a god or many gods.
-
lol I was referring to sheepz's post saying that it doesn't prove there isn't a God. But everyone replied too quickly :P
(btw I'm talking to costargh. Damn you ppl reply too fast LOL)
-
But where did we all come from? =P Where did the elements come from? (Sorry I'm no science head)
Thats what I am getting at.
-
By the logic we can also ask ... where did God come from?
-
But where did we all come from? =P Where did the elements come from? (Sorry I'm no science head)
Thats what I am getting at.
Why are you getting at that for? What does this have to do with the existence of a god or many gods?
-
So we come back to the start, where it all began.
We all know that we can not prove the existence of a God. We all know we can not prove the non-existence of a God. So whats the go?
-
the go is that AGNOSTIC IS BEST!!!! :D
(jk. don't take offence)
-
This fusion occurs in stars, Hydrogen is the intial and primary fuel
-
the go is that AGNOSTIC IS BEST!!!! :D
(jk. don't take offence)
Lol I agree =P
-
By the logic we can also ask ... where did God come from?
Yeh I said that in an earlier post. Its the idea that there is a 'higher being' that is not bound by the rules of the world =P. It's not my idea, its just an idea. And there is no proof for it or against it.
But where did we all come from? =P Where did the elements come from? (Sorry I'm no science head)
Thats what I am getting at.
Why are you getting at that for? What does this have to do with the existence of a god or many gods?
Maybe because it is the belief that it was Gods main role to create? Thus arguing the role of God in creation is ultimately arguing his existence.
Once again, no evidence =)
This fusion occurs in stars, Hydrogen is the intial and primary fuel
What made the hydrogen? =P
(hint: this will go on forever lol)
-
The Flying Spaghetti Monster God.
Prove me wrong.
:P
-
The Flying Spaghetti Monster God.
Prove me wrong.
:P
HEY we share the same belief
=P
-
We don't know, one day we will, but it's unlikely god created hydrogen and said, lets see what happens in 4 billion years
-
I don't believe that science will ever produce an answer for creation that would be accepted by an overwhelming majority of people.
-
The Flying Spaghetti Monster God.
Prove me wrong.
:P
HEY we share the same belief
=P
Yay! All hail Flying Spaghetti Monster *kowtows*
-
I don't believe that science will ever produce an answer for creation that would be accepted by an overwhelming majority of people.
Well that's assuming that the university was "created".
-
That's because alot of people are stupid and want to loved unconditionally (eg. prisoners turning to god) and live forever
I don't believe that science will ever produce an answer for creation that would be accepted by an overwhelming majority of people.
Well that's assuming that the university was "created".
Exactly, it could have always existed
-
I don't think anyone can really say they understand all of God's actions and thinking. God has also gave human the wisdom to devise and allocate medicine to cure AIDS.
Believing in God, I reckon, needs a lot of faith - to believe something that you can't comprehend. The God I believe in doesn't want to force people into believing that He exists. He wants to give people a choice to believe what they want and find out for themselves. That's why, in my opinion, I think He doesn't give us much really solid, convincing, obvious facts and evidences that He exists. Although I cannot explain everything about God, I still believe He exists because also of all the supernatural things I've heard, seen and experienced.
LOL i think by 4 billion years we won't be here to witness what happens XD
Brendan, how do you think that the universe exist without being created then? How does something just have always existed? Isn't it logical that there must have been a starting point?
-
I still believe He exists because also of all the supernatural things I've heard, seen and experienced.
Examples please?
-
I don't think anyone can really say they understand all of God's actions and thinking. God has also gave human the wisdom to devise and allocate medicine to cure AIDS.
Believing in God, I reckon, needs a lot of faith - to believe something that you can't comprehend. The God I believe in doesn't want to force people into believing that He exists. He wants to give people a choice to believe what they want and find out for themselves. That's why, in my opinion, I think He doesn't give us much really solid, convincing, obvious facts and evidences that He exists. Although I cannot explain everything about God, I still believe He exists because also of all the supernatural things I've heard, seen and experienced.
Your whole post assumes the existence of a supernatural being. Yet you have not established that it is true.
-
But its "logically flawed" to assume that something does not have a starting point.
-
But its "logically flawed" to assume that something does not have a starting point.
Following on from that then, God must have a starting point.
-
But its "logically flawed" to assume that something does not have a starting point.
Why must it be necessarily the case that the universe must have been "created"?
-
But its "logically flawed" to assume that something does not have a starting point.
Actually, it isn't any more logically flawed than assuming that something does have a starting point. I think we all need to understand that brendan is just defending the middle-ground here. He is not making a claim for the non-existence of God, instead he is just defending neutrality from illogical claims.
-
Brendan, how do you think that the universe exist without being created then?
You made the claim that the whole world was created by a god. The onus is on you to prove it, not me.
-
This is speaking in general terms, not just that it must have been God.
But something can not exist if it never had a starting point in time and space. It's just a fundamental idea of life.
I wont use the word "created" but the universe must have begun somewhere.
-
Nina's got it
If we can't assume the universe has always existed, then we can't assume god has.
-
But its "logically flawed" to assume that something does not have a starting point.
Actually, it isn't any more logically flawed than assuming that something does have a starting point. I think we all need to understand that brendan is just defending the middle-ground here. He is not making a claim for the non-existence of God, instead he is just defending neutrality from illogical claims.
It is more logically flawed if you can not produce one example of something that has existed without having a starting point when I can produce millions of examples of things that have existed due to having a starting point in time and space.
-
Well, according to religion, God existed without a starting point.
-
no you can't costa
There is one unexplained existence in the universe and that is hydrogen, the rest follows on from that
-
But I do believe that a higher being had to have been responsible for the creator of life. (ie. a being that is not bound by the belief that 'someone had to have created everything' because then someone could just argue "who made God".
I posted that on page 25.
In religious terms, it is simply the belief that God has always existed
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/who_made_god
Read that if you wish. Maybe skip the scriptures part, read the logic part however and make sure to note the part about "something must be either material or non material in nature"
I don't personally share the same view, just some other persons view
-
the universe must have begun somewhere.
I can produce millions of examples of things that have exist due to having a starting point in time and space.
Go ahead. Produce those "millions of examples".
-
Would a dozen suffice?
-
Well you can do a million, so do a million.
-
Oh Brendan I would prefer not to. No need to try and find a loophole in my argument because the point still stands that if you cannot produce one example of something that existed without ever being created then your argument is more logically flawed than mine.
Side note: What came first? The chicken or the egg? =P
-
Evolutionists would say the egg.
-
Lol maybe we can make the "What came first; The Chicken or the Egg" part a separate topic? =P
-
Oh no, not legal studies! =.=
Example of supernatural stuff: (by the way, I'm a Christian if you haven't figured it out so these relate to Christianity)
One of my relatives' heart stopped when he was in the hospital. The staff pronounced him dead after 4 minutes. (I think that's the standard time then you're dead? Can't remember the exact time.) He woke up after 10 minutes (again, not sure of the time but I'm pretty sure it was more than double of the normal time) though and lived for quite a few years more. He said that when he 'died', God took him up to heaven and showed him around, but said that my relative hasn't finish his purpose in Earth yet and there was more to do and therefore sent him back.
Lol the 'chicken or egg' would have no ending... and even more repetitive than this one, I would think.
-
Oh Brendan I would prefer not to. No need to try and find a loophole in my argument because the point still stands that if you cannot produce one example of something that existed without ever being created then your argument is more logically flawed than mine.
In fact your post above is the flawed one on two counts:
1. I never made any claim to the affect that you allege. You attribute to me an argument I NEVER made.
2. Your argument asserts that your premise is true because it has not been proven false i.e. regarding the lack of evidence for one view as constituting evidence or proof that another view is true. Like i said, that reasoning (or lack thereof) has a hole big enough for me to drive a truck through - not having evidence for a particular proposition is not proof that an alternative proposition is instead the case.
-
So .... his heart started again of its own accord? With no assistance whatsoever?
-
Oh Brendan I would prefer not to. No need to try and find a loophole in my argument because the point still stands that if you cannot produce one example of something that existed without ever being created then your argument is more logically flawed than mine.
In fact your post above is the flawed one on two counts:
1. I never made any claim to the affect that you allege. You attribute to me an argument I NEVER made.
2. Your argument asserts that your premise is true because it has not been proven false i.e. regarding the lack of evidence for one view as constituting evidence or proof that another view is true. Like i said, that reasoning (or lack thereof) has a hole big enough for me to drive a truck through - not having evidence for a particular proposition is not proof that an alternative proposition is instead the case.
I would like to congratulate brendan for making his points more user-friendly. The typical brendan would have replaced points 1 & 2 with:
1. Straw-man
2. Argument from ignorance
These are the names of the logical fallacies you have committed.
-
theory of eevolution: living things evolve through natural selection
natural selection in a nutshell (sorry, i havent really studied this, but read a bit about it, might make a few mistakes, or be very vague):
lets say there's a type of fish without eyes
that type of fish has a predator, *bigger fish*
one day, through tiny genetic mutations caused by reproduction (it always happen, tiny little bit, but always happen), a slightly mutant blind fish is born with cells capable of sensing light
that mutant fish has a better chance of surviving, as it can detect the predator, hence its offsprings are more likely to survive, etc etc, eventually, the mutant fish's population will increase, the original fish will die out/bred out, and there, evolution happened, mutant fish somewhat have eyes now!
in other words, nature select the fittest.
applying that to our current argument, the reason why we're so complicated, with all the intricate mechanism, is through tiny iteration of tiny mutations from the first single-cell organism. we're only one in a <insert very large number> of possibilities, but the reason why we have survived instead of all the others is because we are the *fittest*, the best product, and naturally we were *selected* to be THE race...
=D i feel special
-
Why do you keep calling it the theory of "revolution?"
-
Because the current world revolves around evolution.
Beats me, he learned the wrong world. err, word.
-
ooops was trying to type fast, "r" is next to "e" =P
-
Yeah his heart started again by itself. Like I said, everyone else assumed he was dead. I think he lived another 10 years or so after that incident.
Obsolete chaos, I thought we were talking about things coming into existence? Sure, nature select the fittest. I give you that. But surely it doesn't seem as if nature determine things like humans need red blood cells to transfer oxygen? (red blood cells do that, right? >.<)
-
He wouldn't be the only person to whom that has happened. It doesn't prove the existence of God. Nor do his visions.
-
But surely it doesn't seem as if nature determine things like humans need red blood cells to transfer oxygen? (red blood cells do that, right? >.<)
it does, it's the mechanism that woks best
we could have another mechanism, where we have no skin and recieve oxygen directly through air, however we wouldnt have survived, hence this mechanism survived and worked "best" under circumstances given.
-
This type of things don't happen often though. His visions are enough proof for me to believe in God, especially since I knew him personally and that he won't lie about it, but obviously not enough for you.
Wouldn't it have taken years to determine which mechanism works best for us and by the time humans would have probably be extinct though?
-
This type of things don't happen often though. His visions are enough proof for me to believe in God, especially since I knew him personally and that he won't lie about it, but obviously not enough for you.
Wouldn't it have taken years to determine which mechanism works best for us and by the time humans would have probably be extinct though?
And this is why God cannot be explained by scientific evidence - because faith requires one to believe on the basis of something as shaky as "visions" and "miracles". There simply is no concrete evidence.
Yes, of course it takes a long time. That's why human evolution took millions of years.
-
Obviously you don't see lifeforms that don't have an oxygen transport mechanism, because they did not survive the fitness test of natural selection. Biochemical equilibria exist in nature not by a mediator that is God, but because equilibria naturally have an urge to exist over non-equilibria.
-
Oh Brendan I would prefer not to. No need to try and find a loophole in my argument because the point still stands that if you cannot produce one example of something that existed without ever being created then your argument is more logically flawed than mine.
In fact your post above is the flawed one on two counts:
1. I never made any claim to the affect that you allege. You attribute to me an argument I NEVER made.
2. Your argument asserts that your premise is true because it has not been proven false i.e. regarding the lack of evidence for one view as constituting evidence or proof that another view is true. Like i said, that reasoning (or lack thereof) has a hole big enough for me to drive a truck through - not having evidence for a particular proposition is not proof that an alternative proposition is instead the case.
1.
You made the claim that
"Well that's assuming that the university was "created"." Continuing on from there the argument that you have either intentionally or unintentionally produced is one of whether everything must have a starting point. You are refuting my claims, and with that action, the only viable alternative for you is that or neutrality or that of opposition. Considering that through inference your argument is leaning towards one that is likened to the idea that "not everything must have a starting point" I will obviously assume that if I have made a claim to you to produce one solitary example of something that has existed without being created and you divert the question, then your implied argument that not everything has to have a starting point is weakened.
2. You have set up a straw man.
I never claimed or asserted that my argument is true. I merely stated that "if you cannot produce one example of something that existed without ever being created then your argument is more logically flawed than mine".
Your assertion that that implies that I represent my argument is true is false, misleading and a misrepresentation of my argument. You have asserted that I am claiming that my argument is "true" for the your own convenience so that you can argue a claim that I have never made.
Therefore you can go right ahead and drive your truck through a hole that never existed mate.
The only assertions that you can make from "your argument is more logically flawed than mine" is that both arguments are flawed and that in my opinion your argument is more flawed than mine.
So you can go and drive your big ass truck through the big ass hole that doesn't exist considering you just made up the existence of that big ass hole.
(http://www.thiscenturysucks.com/images/strawman.jpg)
BTW. Here is a definition of neutral. -not supporting or favoring either side
Considering that you have only questioned the "logical flaws" in arguments either supporting the idea of the existence of God, or of creation being made by God, there is without a doubt an understanding on my part that you are not neutral. I do not state that you have made that claim but it is my observation and it is questioning Coblin's thoughts of your intentions in this topic.
-
I said:
He is not making a claim for the non-existence of God, instead he is just defending neutrality from illogical claims.
I did not say he was neutral: I said that he is defending those who are neutral, from illogical claims. If you can find illogical claims that brendan has not attacked which seem to favour the non-existence of God, please highlight them.
-
Well people have made the claim that they do not believe in God but he has not questioned why they don't believe in God and what proof do they have that God doesn't exist yet if anyone has even considered saying that God exists Brendan has jumped on them and asked them for evidence.
And if people have said that they have no proof he has called their argument 'logically flawed' -paraphrased. Hence, his lack of questioning of arguments against the existence of God diminishes his neutrality (not self-proclaimed).
-
Your assertion that that implies that I represent my argument is true is false, misleading and a misrepresentation of my argument.
This (and that entire paragraph) makes no sense at all. You are saying that you made an argument which you did not necessarily believe was true, and that your actual argument was misrepresented. What? Please explain, because saying "my argument" twice in the same sentence but with different meaning confuses me.
Once again, I do not believe brendan is neutral, I only think he is defending neutrality. He does not go as far to make claims on a particular position, and it is not necessarily his responsibility to defend against both sides of an argument (although he does do this sometimes: see the thread "Karma System," pages 6-8). Whether you infer brendan advocates a particular side of the argument or not is your own interpretation. It is irrelevant because it is not a claim he has made.
You have also made this mistake of inferring his position in the case of advocating the requirement of a "starting point" or not.
-
He said that I said my argument is true.
I did not. Simple as that.
I said my argument was less flawed than his was.
Brendan can advocate his own stance on the issue when he reads this otherwise my observations will lead to me to infer his beliefs from his posts.
-
He said that I said my argument is true.
I did not. Simple as that.
I said my argument was less flawed than his was.
I still don't understand why you would make an argument that you don't believe is true.
I think I know what you mean though: there are two propositions, one is that all things must have a "starting point" the other is that things needn't require a "starting point."
I would say that you can find millions of examples of things with a starting point, but what started the starting point? You'll probably be able to find an answer to that too, but once you go back far enough, you must come to the conclusion that there was something that was always there.
-
Brendan can advocate his own stance on the issue when he reads this otherwise my observations will lead to me to infer his beliefs from his posts.
I have not stated my beliefs. The only thing you can validly imply from nothing is nothing. You can infer from that whatever you like, but that doesn't automatically mean your inference is correct, valid or even reasonable.
his lack of questioning of arguments against the existence of God diminishes his neutrality (not self-proclaimed).
What has my "neutrality" have to do with the existence of a god or many gods? It has nothing to do with it at all. You are questioning me rather than the ideas and the arguments.
than his was.
What was my argument then? What are you referring to? Quote me. Go on.
I never claimed or asserted that my argument is true. ... Your assertion that that implies that I represent my argument is true is false, misleading and a misrepresentation of my argument.
The stupidity and incoherency of that post is self-evident. Indeed I agree that your arguments aren't true at all.
-
If a man makes racist taunts repeatedly to another person but doesn't admit that they are racist then does that mean that they are not a racist because they have never said that they are?
Grow up. You know that people imply things from observations. Its your own choice to take the easy way out and not take a stance.
I am not implying from "nothing". I am implying from your posts.
-
I am implying from your posts.
Like I said, you can infer from my posts whatever you like, but that doesn't automatically mean your inference is correct, valid or even reasonable.
Then again, what are you implying from my posts? Go on state it.
-
Coblin what I am saying is that I cannot prove that everything must come from a starting point, I am merely saying that my suggestion is less flawed than Brendans. I cannot say something is true if I don't know the answer myself. I therefore make an informed opinion based on what seems more logical. Therefore a straw man was set up
-
I am implying from your posts that your stance is typically that you do not believe in the existance of any god. No need to get all defensive with your little "Go on state it".
-
I am merely saying that my suggestion is less flawed than Brendans.
Again what is this argument of mine that you are referring to? Go on quote me. I have never made any suggestions to the effect that you claimed. All you have done is attribute to me an argument and claim i never made, and then proceed to knock it down as if i had made that argument that is my friend is a straw-man.
"not everything must have a starting point" I will obviously assume that if I have made a claim to you to produce one solitary example of something that has existed without being created and you divert the question, then your implied argument that not everything has to have a starting point is weakened.
You can assume and infer all you like but that doesnt necessarily mean that your inferences are valid, or true. I never ever made any claim to effect that "not everything must have a starting point". Another straw-man.
-
As amusing as this thread was to begin with, it's just the same monotonous back and forth of the same tired crap over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again for 30 freaking pages and it's going nowhere.
Did any of you hear the one about the dyslexic, agonostic insomniac? He'd lay awake all night wondering if there really was a dog.
And like the dyslexic, agnostic insomniac we will just have to wonder about the doggy powers that be. Do they exist or not? None of us have the answer, and all this thread does is make me want to shoot something. Thread closed.
-
I am implying from your posts that your stance is typically that you do not believe in the existance of any god. No need to get all defensive with your little "Go on state it".
From what post? Quote it. I have never ever stated that there exists no god.
<admin action: enwiabe> - This was posted 4 seconds after my post and just before I locked the thread, thus it is staying (just to clear up any confusion as to why this appeared after mine). If costargh wants to continue this discussion with brendan, and likewise for all of you - the PMs are a fantastic way to do so. :)