Originally Posted by m0o
So, would you like to start by proving God does not exist?
Wait a second lady - where did i say I am setting off to "prove" god does not exist? One can't prove the statement "god exists" false just like one can't prove the statement "pink genius teddy bear is orbiting the sun" false, due to the obvious fact that both are beyond our empirical inquiry.
What i can hope to do, however, is to show how specific attributes and actions attributed to god conflict with our reality. It may convince some, and not convince others - that's all understood. We all have varying predispositions and quotas for evidence.
Atheism is the least valid of all religions. It serves no righteous purpose, provides no guidelines to leading a "holy life". In essence it simply states "you cannot prove god exists therefore he does not exist".
Worst definition of atheism ever :V
Until you can provide a scientific argument for the non-existence of "God", this thread is based on faith as much as any pro-God thread.
"Until you can provide a scientific argument for the non-existence of invisible ju-ju from the mountain, asdfgdfgg"
For all intents and purposes, lack of evidence for a claim counts as evidence against it. Especially if a claim is as specific as saying there exists a sentient all-powerful being who actively participates in our life.
Last edited by Odlov; Feb 6, 2010 at 08:31 AM.
Originally Posted by m0o
I agree, atheism sucks. In fact, I already said that the corruption of what atheism once was is completely detestable. The belief in nothing (classical definition) is almost nhilistic and completely adequate. Modern atheism is a total crock.
Don't know about modern atheism, but i define mine as lack of belief in all definitions of god that I've come across. Agnostic atheism, to be technical.
There's more evidence for god than against, dude.
Creation of the universe, for example...
You are intolerable
Are you trolling me?
Either way, i don't see emergence of the universe as evidence for anything.
And don't reference the old testament
It always occured to me both old and new testament star one and only god character...
Last edited by Odlov; Feb 6, 2010 at 09:35 AM.
Originally Posted by m0o
You can't prove god and you can't disprove it. State your belief and fuck off.
/me applauds
Arguing about if there is a God is akin to arguing over why your religion is the correct one and all the others are bollocks. It never achieves anything as there is no proof, not to mention the it's all based on belief. Each to their own.
Personally, I'll believe it either when I see it or when someone can produce solid evidence.
<Erf> SkulFuk: gf just made a toilet sniffing joke at me
<Erf> i think
<Erf> i think i hate you
To a couple off-topic statements people posted:
"These are people's beliefs, leave them alone"
So? Everything you hold to be true is a belief by a stretch. I see no reason to isolate any ones in some untouchable bubble which is immune to discussion.
"You can't prove non-existence of god!"
I agree, just like you can't prove false any claim which is placed somewhere far outside our reach. What I'm doing here is showing why qualities assigned to god are philosophically troublesome, and actions assigned to him bluntly contradict evidence.
Here is my favorite analogy of god concept, from Carl Sagan:
Suppose I claim i have a dragon in my garage.
"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work. Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists?
Yes, knowing something does not make you control it. That said, we are talking about god: all-knowing designer of all that exists. He personally designed all the elements in the universe, not excluding you.
Timeless? Seems like he acts within time in the bible. Even if we are talking about deistic god, the mere act of creation of the universe must have happened in some type of time.
Yes we do - from the bible.
If you are defending deistic god - then i wholly agree. Good and bad are, at the end, strictly subjective terms we label favorable and unfavorable actions/states with. But i was more focusing on Christianity here.
Piece of puzzle? Should we take solace in the fact that our descendants may experience all the "good stuff" god has to offer? I am arguing from our present experiences, which are often bad.
Concept of biblical god is derived from statements in the same book.
"These are people's beliefs, leave them alone"
So? Everything you hold to be true is a belief by a stretch. I see no reason to isolate any ones in some untouchable bubble which is immune to discussion.
"You can't prove non-existence of god!"
I agree, just like you can't prove false any claim which is placed somewhere far outside our reach. What I'm doing here is showing why qualities assigned to god are philosophically troublesome, and actions assigned to him bluntly contradict evidence.
Here is my favorite analogy of god concept, from Carl Sagan:
Suppose I claim i have a dragon in my garage.
"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work. Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists?
Originally Posted by Squiziph
[I]If god knows everything, he knows the future ,past and now. Knowing something does not make you control it, it simply means you know it, just because god isn’t surprised doesn’t mean he must be pulling your strings.
Yes, knowing something does not make you control it. That said, we are talking about god: all-knowing designer of all that exists. He personally designed all the elements in the universe, not excluding you.
That leads me to believe god is timeless and therefore endless and therefore logic on his level would be incomprehensible for us, since we ( I believe ) are bound by time and very much have our ends and therefore now experience or true insight in that which has no end.
Timeless? Seems like he acts within time in the bible. Even if we are talking about deistic god, the mere act of creation of the universe must have happened in some type of time.
Again we have no insight in how something omnipotent would experience good or evil.
Yes we do - from the bible.
If you are defending deistic god - then i wholly agree. Good and bad are, at the end, strictly subjective terms we label favorable and unfavorable actions/states with. But i was more focusing on Christianity here.
That piece of the puzzle looks like chaos but maybe when you put it together with a trillion other pieces it’s a piece of art. We will ( probably ) never know.
Piece of puzzle? Should we take solace in the fact that our descendants may experience all the "good stuff" god has to offer? I am arguing from our present experiences, which are often bad.
Now you are taking it more to the book and the statements within it instead of the god concept itself.
Concept of biblical god is derived from statements in the same book.
