Master of Ossus wrote:DarkStar's existence precludes the existence of God. Any omnipotent being would have to be horribly cruel to place that blight upon the world he created.
But DarkStar's a dead giveaway isn't it, as nothing that moronic could have evolved on it's own without beng eaten by it's own mother. It proves God exists, and therefore, by His own argument, that he doesn't.
*listens to the hissing sound*
Third dead deity this week. Maybe it's me.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.
Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.
Gosh! I just posted this thread last night and when I re-open it this morning, there's already a helluva lot of replies... Guess I need to read 'em first, seems interesting.
Anyway, there's a lot of inconsitencies with God in the bibble (Judeo/Christian/Islam), and I think this one is the most annoying one:
OK, it said God is full of mercy, right? Then why He put people in HELL????? What kind of mercy is THAT???
If you keep posting lile this then you'll earn countless eons of flames here. As well as a strong dose of logic and reasoning that, there is always hope, may somehow crack into your thick skull and reach unspoiled parts of your brain
Thou dare speak to thy maker is such a flippant and fresh tongue?
There is only one possible punishment....DAMNATION!
And the damnation shall be....A BLOWJOB!
Delievered by YOUR HAND!
TO BARBARA WALTERS!
Now, let me see you tremble, poor, pitiful, writhing 'atheist'!
God . . . meet the fire-breathing dragon in my garage.
. . . .
What do you mean 'you can't see it'! You're God if you're omniscient, you should be able to see it!
::Puts on sunglasses . . . thinks better of it and puts on a welding helmet.::
"Christianity is the true path, recognize the lord as your savior"
"Christianity is 2000 years old, judism is 5000, if you were a vengfu,l jealous deity would you let yourself be worshipped the wrong way for 3000 years?"
my 2 cents thrown between the two of them:
"But I worship Sutehk, god of black magic, and he was worshipped for 12000 years, by your argument, if you were a vengful, jealous god would you wait 7000 years before saying hello?"
Bwah ha ha ha ha
"Nobody ever inferred from the multiple infirmities of Windows that Bill Gates was infinitely benevolent, omniscient, and able to fix everything. " Argument against god's perfection.
Would that argument work? Wouldn't a Christian, at least a fundie claim that the Earth is only 6000 years old or some shit like that and say then that any earlier deities are made up?
I don't think it's possible to empirically demonstrate that God does not exist. If God is defined as a being that created the Universe, then at least part of God has an existence independent of the Universe. Since physical enquiry is meaningless outside the physical Universe that we have access to, I don't see that it's possible to prove that God doesn't exist. As for specific instances of God popular with the various religions, their properties should be examined on a case by case basis, although I don't know what conclusions could be justified by that.
ClaysGhost wrote:I don't think it's possible to empirically demonstrate that God does not exist.
False Dilemma. The burden of proof does not lie with those arguing the non-existence of God, but upon those taking the opposite view.
If God is defined as a being that created the Universe, then at least part of God has an existence independent of the Universe.
Tautology. It assumes the premise of the argument as its proof, without reference to objective, testable evidence.
Since physical enquiry is meaningless outside the physical Universe that we have access to, I don't see that it's possible to prove that God doesn't exist.
Appeal to Ignorance fallacy. Proof is never demonstrated because its supposedly impossible to examine evidence "outside" the physical universe. Again, the burden of proof lies upon those arguing that God exists and to present testable evidence to back the argument.
As for specific instances of God popular with the various religions, their properties should be examined on a case by case basis, although I don't know what conclusions could be justified by that.
Immaterial. Comparative mythologies have zero evidentary value, except as a means to trace the roots of religious concepts.
neoolong wrote:Would that argument work? Wouldn't a Christian, at least a fundie claim that the Earth is only 6000 years old or some shit like that and say then that any earlier deities are made up?
Usually yes, I then ask for proof of the 'young earth theory'. I haven't heard a credible argument yet. They usually tell me 'Prove its older'
"Tyrannasaurus Rex, deaseased 65 million and counting."
"Nobody ever inferred from the multiple infirmities of Windows that Bill Gates was infinitely benevolent, omniscient, and able to fix everything. " Argument against god's perfection.
I believe in a form of a sort of devine deity, by no means an all powerful, all knowing, all seeing and affecting "being". I believe that the devine deity ("god" for lack of a better name) is the collection of and residue of the thoughts and memories of all organic and inorganic beings that do, or at one time existed in the universe. Though I know inorganic things don't possess thoughts as we know it, it poses quantum energy of its existance. "God" to me is a sort of energy ether that in a way is all knowing, all seeing, all powerful only by association with the things that it comes from. "God" is the law of conservation of energy on the philosophical level, that thoughts are chemical electric signals and stored sequences of charged electricity. It is this electricity viewed as a continum, the philisophical "stock market" of energy exchanges where it is niether created nor destroyed that constitues my "god". Any sentient thought on its part is just a shuffle of having infinite knowledge (all knowledge known to all living and non-living beings must be infiniate, for it is the only true knowledge to exist). Miracles and "devine acts" are nothing more but naturally occuring mysterious (to our minds). I know my belief may revolve greatly around "hand waving" and "smoke tricks", but that is what all thoughts on "god" revolve around, just thoughts. There is no proof, mine just has a little bit more physical base to it than saying that there is just a devine friend in the sky that we must blindly accept without any practical proof. Well, let the slaughter begin.
"Once again we wanted our heroes to be simple, grizzled everymen with nothing to lose; one foot in the grave, the other wrapped in an American flag and lodged firmly in a terrorist's asshole."
Brotherhood of the Monkey: Nonchalant Disgruntled Monkey
Justice League
Essentially, you've arrived at Pantheism —Deity existing in every part of nature. Baruch Spinoza advanced a similar idea, I believe, which was the concept Albert Einstein agreed with to an extent.
Existence of God proven logically? Not at time of writing, no.
Nonexistence of God proven logically? Never.
My personal beliefs... Used to be a very militant atheist until i was 20, and now i consider myself fluctuating between deism, pantheism and atheism. I still hate organized religion with all my being, and most likely will continue to do so.
As to why I stopped my complete refusal to entertain the notion of any kind of intelligence or sense behind existence was basically this:
I fully believe that everything I observe in the world can be explained by scientific means. I fully appreciate that my body consists of the same matter as everything else. The only thing that's completely inconsistent with everything else in the world is the human conciousness. Well, at least mine is, I might be the reincarnation of Dwayne Hoover, after all. Everything else is tangible, but the fact that I think is in my view a completely supernatural event. Yes, you can measure brain activity, and you can alter my thoughts or emotions by physical stimuli. But the fact is that the electrochemical processes in my brain amount to this thing called conciousnes, and the conciousness itself is not the process, no more than a collection of words is a sentence without someone to read it, it's simply ink molecules on paper molecules.
So from that i accepted that there is something that is not physical yet it exists. And so, maybe, if I'm lucky, my conciousness will keep existing somewhere after those brain processes stop. And that maybe there's one conciousness that made this whole thing (i mean the laws, i'm no creationist). If i'm wrong, then by all means explain this.
But jesus and mohammed? jesus was at best a mere mortal with a basically decent message who spoke too confusingly for most people, thus being deified. 'I am the son god'... if a god is our creator, aren't we ALL sons and daughters of this god? but since basically decent people never get a huge public following, then i'd have to go with the belief that he was most likely some cheap l. ron hubbard ripoff.
mohammed was henry VIII (i'll make my own religion to serve my needs).
SWPIGWANG wrote:w00t, a dragon, where did you get it.
It comes as a gift when you buy The Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan.
I have one too. He's invisible and undetectable,so it comes really handy as a pet. I usually have it on lookout
That is maybe my favourite book ever. Before reading that I thought that aliens visited Earth and ESP was real. But now I don't and good old Carl saved me and showed me how beautiful and fascinating the universe was without resorting to that fake shite.
A Deamon Haunted World should be required reading during school...
ClaysGhost wrote:I don't think it's possible to empirically demonstrate that God does not exist.
False Dilemma. The burden of proof does not lie with those arguing the non-existence of God, but upon those taking the opposite view.
If God is defined as a being that created the Universe, then at least part of God has an existence independent of the Universe.
Tautology. It assumes the premise of the argument as its proof, without reference to objective, testable evidence.
Since physical enquiry is meaningless outside the physical Universe that we have access to, I don't see that it's possible to prove that God doesn't exist.
Appeal to Ignorance fallacy. Proof is never demonstrated because its supposedly impossible to examine evidence "outside" the physical universe. Again, the burden of proof lies upon those arguing that God exists and to present testable evidence to back the argument.
As for specific instances of God popular with the various religions, their properties should be examined on a case by case basis, although I don't know what conclusions could be justified by that.
Immaterial. Comparative mythologies have zero evidentary value, except as a means to trace the roots of religious concepts.
I'm not sure I buy that "false dilemna" usage. People have believed in a God longer than they have not believed in one. Thus, atheism being newer, the burden of proof should lie with it. (crawls under Nomex tarp and cackles fiendishly)
While nobody can conclusively prove that God exsists, neither can anyone conclusively disprove that he exists. After death, the answer to that question should become quite clear.
John 3:16-18 Warwolves G2
The University of North AlabamaLions!
Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:I'm not sure I buy that "false dilemna" usage. People have believed in a God longer than they have not believed in one. Thus, atheism being newer, the burden of proof should lie with it. (crawls under Nomex tarp and cackles fiendishly)
Actually, if we want to get strictly technical, non-belief in a god is older than belief in a god. And in any case, the burden is not on the "newer" theory but rather the one structured upon a tautology. The surrounding universe can be explained without recourse to the God Theory.
Durandal wrote:The idea of god holds as much validity as me claiming that there is an beautiful, invisible, intangible woman giving me a blow job 24 hours a day.
Now, I'm off to make sure that the Pledge is changed to "One nation, under the beautiful, invisible, intangible woman who gives Damien blow jobs all the time, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
How's that sound?
But, since an eternal afterlife is an infinite reward, and you can't prove that there is a zero probability of it taking place, then the expected value of belief of any kind is infinite.
"I have also a paper afloat, with an electromagnetic theory of light, which, till I am convinced to the contrary, I hold to be great guns."
-- James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) Scottish physicist. In a letter to C. H. Cay, 5 January 1865.
Graeme Dice wrote:But, since an eternal afterlife is an infinite reward, and you can't prove that there is a zero probability of it taking place, then the expected value of belief of any kind is infinite.
When the hell will people get tired of trotting out Pascal's Wager? It's old, it's tired, it's dead and buried.
Tell me, what are you going to do when Odin kicks your ass from here to eterntity because you failed to believe in the Norse Gods?
"People should buy our toaster because it toasts bread the best, not because it has the only plug that fits in the outlet" - Robert Morris, Almaden Research Center (IBM)
"If you have any faith in the human race you have too much." - Enlightenment
1. Accept the existence of this marvellous, comprehensible universe as a brute fact, and move on from there (standard pragmatic atheist outlook). The universe doesn't need a reason - it just is.
2. Look for the "underlying necessary justification" for the universe (this is actually a valid philosophical exercise, but so utterly obscure and esoteric that you have to be a philosopher, a mathematician or a fundamental particle physicist to truly appreciate why anyone would put significant brainsweat into pusrsuing it. It does however, serve to twist your mind into weird and intriguing shapes - check out "The Mind of God" by Paul Davies to find out what I mean)
3. Reject the existence of the universe as a brute fact, but instead accept the existence of some transcendental being, or force or entity as a brute fact, and claim to have "explained" the universe thereby.
The concepts of 'God' that crop up in the discussions of the philosophers pursuing option 2 bear little resemblance to the fire-breathing dragon equivalents that crop up in the imaginings of those pursuing option 3.
I prefer to cut to the chase and choose option 1.
(OT: Am I the only one who finds JC and G O D amusing? They're bizarre, sure, but they're also pretty good at taking the piss. . .)
"People should buy our toaster because it toasts bread the best, not because it has the only plug that fits in the outlet" - Robert Morris, Almaden Research Center (IBM)
"If you have any faith in the human race you have too much." - Enlightenment
ClaysGhost wrote:I don't think it's possible to empirically demonstrate that God does not exist.
False Dilemma. The burden of proof does not lie with those arguing the non-existence of God, but upon those taking the opposite view.
I'm unclear as to how that makes the existence of a being outside the universe susceptible to empirical enquiry.
Patrick Degan wrote:
ClaysGhost wrote:
If God is defined as a being that created the Universe, then at least part of God has an existence independent of the Universe.
Tautology. It assumes the premise of the argument as its proof, without reference to objective, testable evidence.
If you will not permit this definition of God, what definition of God are you arguing about?
The second clause...I really don't see the problem. If I build something, then I must have at least some properties that I do not share with the something.
Patrick Degan wrote:
ClaysGhost wrote:Since physical enquiry is meaningless outside the physical Universe that we have access to, I don't see that it's possible to prove that God doesn't exist.
Appeal to Ignorance fallacy. Proof is never demonstrated because its supposedly impossible to examine evidence "outside" the physical universe. Again, the burden of proof lies upon those arguing that God exists and to present testable evidence to back the argument.
My thesis is not "God exists", but "It cannot be proved that God does not exist". You've simply substituted the principle of parsimony for "God exists" as an article of faith.
Immaterial. Comparative mythologies have zero evidentary value, except as a means to trace the roots of religious concepts.
I am not arguing that God exists. I'm arguing that you can't prove he doesn't.
ClaysGhost wrote:My thesis is not "God exists", but "It cannot be proved that God does not exist". You've simply substituted the principle of parsimony for "God exists" as an article of faith.
No, he has pointed out that the LOGICAL CONCLUSION is that God does not exist. This is not faith; it is reason.
The fact that it cannot be "proven" is irrelevant, since absolute proof is an empty demand, hence the term "tautology" (please look it up; it's obvious you don't know what it is, much like our trollish Village Idiot Raoul aka Visionrazor). To drive that point home, I challenge you to do something: try to prove that we and the rest of the entire observable universe are all not just figments of your imagination.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
If god doesn't effect the universe that we live in then to us god doesn't exist.
Also none of the believers in a god or multiple gods claim that he has no effect on the universe. By logic and reason we must go by the definition of those who believe, otherwise the word God has only meaning for atheists. When the believers claim that God exists and that he has an effect on the universe, that is when we ask = can you prove it?
I can claim to be God but if I want you to believe it, then I have to convince you of that.
Was that a better explanation?
You can't prove a negative, therefore all logical theories must come from a positive.
ClaysGhost wrote:
My thesis is not "God exists", but "It cannot be proved that God does not exist". You've simply substituted the principle of parsimony for "God exists" as an article of faith.
You've got parsimony all wrong. God is not a simple explanation, God is infinitely complex.
Bwah ha ha ha ha 
but if I want you to believe it, then I have to convince you of that.