Welcome to Gaia! ::

Okay, so obviously, I cannot really prove that God does not exist, and to even claim to be able to is pretty stupid, so that's not really what I'm trying to do. To explain, I want to make a thread in E.D. that essentially disproves the existence of an omnipotent being using the "theory" of Intelligent design. It's supposed to somewhat satirical, even if not exactly funny, so, as I write this, I want the feedback of those I trust most to recognize the line between satire and just plain inappropriateness.

Anyways, this was my idea of an opening disclaimer. I was wondering if it seems adequate for this purpose:

To All God-worshipping people who might be offended by this:
Please note that it is not necessarily God whose existence I'm disproving. It could be, say, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

To All Pastafarians whom I might have offended:
Please note that I am not necessarily disproving the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It could be, say, God.

To all who believe our existence was started and guided by aliens/the aliens who started and guided our existence and might be offended by being left out of the previous two notes as well as this topic:
Please note that I am not necessarily disproving their/your existence. It could be, say, God, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

With that being said, you all may be wondering exactly how I am going to disprove God's/FSM's existence.

There is, of course, the Douglas Adams theory, which goes something like this:



Though this does, in fact, bear relevance as an argument, it is not what I will use to prove this nonexistence. There is a more scientific approach.

So, you may ask, is she planning to prove the nonexistance of God?

It is by none other than the superiorly scientific Intelligent Design theory.

As you all may know, Intelligent Design states that, because our existence is so incredibly complex, there must be some sort of conscious guidance that got us to where we are. Among the reasonings of these are that, since we have eyes, and without any one aspect of our eyes, we would be unable to see, every aspect of our eyes must have been developed at once.

In short, life, the universe and everything is so complex, that it could only possibly have happened by conscious guidance. It would be impossible for everything to exist as it is without conscious guidance.

Now, let's consider this Conscious Guider. In order to be able to create something as complex as the universe, he would inevitably have to be as, if not more, complex than the universe. That this being would have created the universe out of dumb luck is out of the question, as shown by the Intelligent Design theory.

Because something as complex as the universe could not have developed without conscious guidance, it is illogical, and even paradoxical to say that this Conscious Guider could have existed without conscious guidance. Therefore, this Conscious Guider cannot exist, because his existence would be far too complicated to explain.

The only possible solution to this problem would be if this Conscious Guider were created by an even more complex Conscious Guider, and this pattern went on forever.

This, however, is infinitely complicated, and thereby infinitely improbable. Thus, the only solution is that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster. I mean, God. I mean, Flying Spaghetti Monster. I mean...erm, yeah.

C'est Finis. Please comment.

It reminds me of Dogma as well... It also reminds me of my friend. He was banned from his local Barnes&Noble for moving all of the Bibles to the fiction section...

The core issue is that FAITH defines God. PROVING him makes him no longer an object a Faith; thus, God as we know him cannot exist. If you've ever done analysis of Turing Machines, they're a good disproof.

This suddenly made me think of dear Nietzsche...with his whole "God is dead..." argument and thoughts...(URL added for interest purposes and to clear confusion).

I like the whole Evolutionary approach that we evolved from little amoebas and the sort...and that we created religion because we fear death and the possibilty that there is no afterlife and all that. I don't refute that there was a Jesus Christ, as there is more evidence that he walked the earth than there is of Julius Caesar, however, I think he was like one drugged up roadie who suddenly decided to make himself famous.

A random but relevant thought, there are many connections and relations between Buddhism and Christianity such as "loving your enemy as you love yourself". But, that is because this along with Freemansonry and the Holy Grail are pet hobbies of mine...Back to the topic!

As much as the concept of Intelligent Design is logical, it still brings the whole thing of "There is a God!" to those who do believe...and those who DON'T believe in a higher being will be just as snide saying "But then who created God?" Sure, it's the best of both worlds...and this will be an argument that will exist until the end of time for us humans or at least until we're all either frying in hell with all them Christians laughing at us from their high seats razz Man, that would totally piss me off man.

and thus we find the faults of catholisism.

if god created everything then who created god? the simple answer is that no one thusly god doesnt exist but is an relitvely implanted though from all this religions trying to keep us in line on the premise of going to some place when you die.


I dont buy any of it. plus if there is any hitchhikers guide to the galaxy fans here then they know already about the books that prove god to not exist thus he vanishes from existance 3nodding

I think this topic shall be a continuing debate among humans for the rest of their existance, and any other sentient beings out there in the universe who believe in a Creator. I come to this conclusion based on the theories of the universe itself. What do we define as fact?

fact- n. deed, reality, a thing known to be true
(from my cheap little pocket dictionary that I carry with me)

Well then, in definition, a fact is something that has been proven true, but I think of it more as a theory that has been proven true in all the situations it has been tested in. Perhaps in some parallel universe, the opposite is fact, or the concept of it doesn't exist at all. What I mean to get down to is, that the facts we follow through with and rely on are theories, and only that.

The idea of fact and truth is all fine and dandy, but only works until proven wrong. A couple hundred years ago, it was a fact that the world was flat. A few decades ago, it was a fact that masturbation makes you sterile. One could easily argue that these "facts" had not been tested and proven true, and were not facts at all. But, at that time, they were. They were our truths, and in turn, were true to us in explaining the mysteries of the world, even if they seem outragious. It comes down to the human concious and it's idea of truth. What is truth? What is morally wrong and right? Did morality create man, or did man create morals? All questions lead to more questions and lead to no definite answer.

I think we must define our own truth, our own facts, and our own morals in this world. No one will ever know is there is or is not a a creator of all in existance. Let Christians follow through with taking the blood and body of christ and saving their immortal souls. Let FSM worshippers follow through with their pasta entity's teachings, and let others continue with their own beliefs, faiths, and hopes. Whether we find out in the end, whether it's to our liking or not, why not enjoy the ride while we're on it?

This particular topic has always fascinated me. That is, after I got over my fear of death and a possibility nothingness, then I could fully appreciate the ideas and theories regarding occurances in our universe.
As for my personal beliefs, I'm a bit torn. I'll just stick with what fits to my personal liking, and let other sleeping dogs lie.

You should go ahead and make a post if you want, Chiku. I can guarantee you'll get some interesting arguments from both sides, and even if they don't make a logical contribution, it's still fun to watch them try whee

. . .then again I can think of a number of poeple who are cruel enough that they might be with out a soul

We are all one being with one collective mind that is somehow sperated yet at the same time toghther now excuse me I must now go Take acid and listen to the doors.


In all seriousness If you were going for Adams-ish satire you succeded but if you were trying to be funny then you failed terribly.