|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:02 pm
Faith Alone is my answer but not the answer to your question. There is no way of "proving" the existence of an omnipotent god, but one must look and ask to one's self: how did life come from nothingness, from random lifeless elements? why is our world, our universe designed the way it is, with order, creativity, and ingeniousness? and etc...
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:57 pm
Quote: To me, at least, this makes scientific answers truer than religious ones. I have to admit this statement made me chuckle. No offense but explain to me how something can be......truer.....that anything else. To me true is a state of being. One state, not a measure of things. It either is true, or is not. I'm sure what you meant to say is "closer to the real truth" or something along those lines but that wouldn't be congruent with your other theories since you seem to believe there is no "real" truth of the matter. If that is the case then you are not allowed to use words like "truer" or even "truth" for that matter. For what are they reffering to when you use them if they do not exist? Quote: "there is no amount of evidence that could prove that God does not exist for me." Well of course this is true. That is because there simply is no evidence at all. God is PURELY metaphysical (if he exists) and so therefore ipso facto cannot be either disproven or proven. You can only speculate and speculation is not proof either for or against. The real troubling thing is that people who say what is quoted above are typically the ones who are thoroughly convinced that they have sufficient proof that God indeed DOES exist when in fact "There is no amount of evidence that COULD prove that God DOES exist for me." Is exactly as valid thereby proving what I said above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:14 pm
Whenever people talk to me about their faith or quote things from the bible and such, I always look back at history to see where the concept of god came from. Seems that, prior to science, every time people needed an explanation for something they cannot explain, they come up with a god. Or, if they explain their history, they spice it up with the help of a god. This continued even after the birth of science just out of tradition and because those with power in religion were unwilling to give it up.
When I think about all this, and the fact that I personally have never experienced anything spiritual, leads me to believe that God is no less an invention of man than the flying spaghetti monster.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 6:20 am
Gman6817 Whenever people talk to me about their faith or quote things from the bible and such, I always look back at history to see where the concept of god came from. Seems that, prior to science, every time people needed an explanation for something they cannot explain, they come up with a god. Or, if they explain their history, they spice it up with the help of a god. This continued even after the birth of science just out of tradition and because those with power in religion were unwilling to give it up. When I think about all this, and the fact that I personally have never experienced anything spiritual, leads me to believe that God is no less an invention of man than the flying spaghetti monster. If I were to count the number of logical and arguementative falacies in what you have just said.....I would need to use at least two hands. You do realize of course...that the very first thing people used God to explain is still the very same thing that science cannot possibly explain right? You also do realize....I'm sure....that your own "personal experiences" are in no way valid proof for anything at all that exists let alone any form of God. We are speaking about something that is metaphysical in its very nature. Have you ever experienced Mars? Have you ever Experienced outer space? I'd bet you haven't......and yet you still assume they are there don't you? And you believe it based on books you've read and what a few experts on the subject have said........huh........sounds almost like......a religion. Your arguement above is weak at best, if not totally invalid. Honestly, it sounds like you're jealous that you've never had these spiritual experience and so now you are stomping you foot and saying "If I haven't had one of those then they can't exist!" Honestly, there are hundreds of millions of beliefs you form every day from the same exact concept you are claiming God is "invented" by man from. If that it IS the case that God was just an invention of man (and it very well might be) I guarentee you the arguement you used above will not at all be of any validity in helping to convince people of this sort of thing. Even Atheists hiss in pain at what you've just written.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 10:34 pm
I'm glad that through all my illogical ranting that you were able to keep your cool. I'm also glad that you picked out the point I was trying to make (admittedly poorly) that god is an invention of man. Of course I'm jealous of people who have had spiritual experiences, if they in fact had them, that would be pretty sweet. Certainly my personal experience is not valid proof and I'm sorry I even thought of that, much less typed it.
I do know what metaphysics is. I also think it's pointless. I wonder, if leprechauns had been held in as high regard as the gods when metaphysics came about, would they have merited their own science to try and explain their existence? The whole explanation for god reminds me of when we used play superhero as kids. We would keep making up powers to one up each other until someone was infinitely everything, kinda like god. The more science has been able to explain, the more abstract god has become until finally god lives on some spiritual plain where science can't ever find him.
I used history because history is based on evidence. History isn't based on guessing. My trust of history can't be compared to religion because religion relies completely on faith. Unless your one of those creationists who believes that history books are part of some massive conspiracy to cover up God. I mean come on! Of all the fallacies in my hurried post you try to peg the study of history as a religion? It seems that with the little information you had on me based on my post, you assumed a lot.
Oh, and you have no idea whether I've been to space or not...
Don't worry, I haven't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 12:34 pm
Quote: Oh, and you have no idea whether I've been to space or not... Of all the assumptions I have ever made in my life (and there are quite a few) I'd say this particular one was among the safest. Quote: I'm glad that through all my illogical ranting that you were able to keep your cool I'm not entirely certain if this is sarcasm or not, but if it is then you clearly have never seen me loose my cool, if it is not then I thank you. Quote: I do know what metaphysics is. I also think it's pointless. I wonder, if leprechauns had been held in as high regard as the gods when metaphysics came about, would they have merited their own science to try and explain their existence? Actually.....you must not know what metaphysics really is then. Aristitotle was the orriginal metaphysician, and I'm quite aware that in his day pegan principles were actually the going popular theme. If what you are saying here actually holds weight in......history which apparently is based on fact and not guessing (which I will get to next) then explain to me how this makes a whole lot of sense. God, is not the subject of metaphysics entirely, in point of fact the majority of metaphysics simply deals with those things which are beyond physic's ability to describe. God may very well not exist, but it is just as likely that he does, as it is that he does not. You used history because it's not based on guessing? Really? Then you must limit everything in history to those things which are acurately recorded in dead languages that no one speaks anymore? We don't guess about those types of things? Science, as a whole, is BASED on best guesses. They call them hypothesis and theories. You read it as though it's truth but do you really know that those things are fact? You treat it like it is the infallible, but, is it? Or is it simply recorded via a singular point of view subjected to their own biased interpretations? It sounds precisely like a religion, sorry but holding something as absolute truth when you cannot remove it from doubt is doing exactly the same thing you are accusing them of doing. Example: There are different interpretations of things in history, did Troy exist, where is mount arrarat, what happened to the arc of the covenant, the dissapearance of Atlantis, the great flood....all recorded things in history that there are certain facts about and yet several different opinions about. Comapre that to religion, several different ideals about which there are also several different opinions about. Compare that to science........Several different laws and ideals, ask a descent scientist what he knows about the universe and he will tell you that he knows nothing accept what is NOT the case. He will be adament that he could quite acurately PREDICT what PROBABLY is the case, but he does not know for certain. Studying history can only reveal certain patterns but you approach them with a bias in your head. You think God is not real, and so you look to history to help you support that idea. But if it were looked at a different way you'd discover that 99% of humanity from insception (that we know about obviously) agrees there is some sort of God (or gods) in some form or another. Are you honestly....truely honestly....so vain to think that the rest of humanity has just been wrong all along and you and the other 1% are the only ones intelligent enough to have gotten it right? If what you are saying IS right...why is it that no one has accepted the idea? You could say no one who has brought up an idea has lived to see it accepted (which isn't true all the time but a lot of the time it is) and you'd be right, accept that your idea isn't new. It's been around for a couple thousand years now and no one is convinced by it. Why do you think that is?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 02, 2009 11:49 am
God is the begining and the ending that's the easiest way to put god's origin if you wanted more exat data only the dead kno(maybe) anyway god's true origins are to big of a deal for us Humans to understand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 03, 2009 1:10 am
Niniva Studying history can only reveal certain patterns but you approach them with a bias in your head. You think God is not real, and so you look to history to help you support that idea. Alright, my whole argument about history is that every god that was ever worshiped by man had some purpose involving some natural thing that humans did not know how to explain, e.g. Neptune god of the sea. We know that for sure (unless you truely believe all historians are lying to us) The point is that now that science now can explain all those phenomenon, eg volcanoes, that it's pretty clear that gods/god is an invention of man. Niniva But if it were looked at a different way you'd discover that 99% of humanity from insception (that we know about obviously) agrees there is some sort of God (or gods) in some form or another. Where did you get 99 to 1? From a survey that the entire world took part in? From one of those books you don't trust? Sounds like a huge assumption. Niniva Are you honestly....truely honestly....so vain to think that the rest of humanity has just been wrong all along and you and the other 1% are the only ones intelligent enough to have gotten it right? If what you are saying IS right...why is it that no one has accepted the idea? You could say no one who has brought up an idea has lived to see it accepted (which isn't true all the time but a lot of the time it is) and you'd be right, accept that your idea isn't new. It's been around for a couple thousand years now and no one is convinced by it. Why do you think that is? It has nothing to do with intelligence. I'm not vain at all (believe me), I don't think the rest of the world is dumb by any means. I truly believe people are a product of there environment, and I'm not just talking about the quality of school you go to. People's environments shape their views on life. I was raised catholic, but one day I finally decided that I really didn't believe in that stuff. My mom still believes but I don't think she's stupid. She was raised catholic too, by strict parents. And her faith gets her through the day, and I respect that. I don't want you to think that I'm on some crusade to rid the world of religion, or go around shouting at churchgoers. I'm just saying that science has almost caught up with religion on explaining how the universe works, and eventually (many many years down the line) it will. Not everyone accepted that the world was round when it was first discovered, but I don't think that everyone was just a bunch of idiots back then either. I realize that this idea has been around for awhile, but we have only just recently made it ok to have that idea. The majority is not always correct, and in some cases is catastrophically wrong (Nazis). You can't make an argument that nothing is for sure and then say that the majority is always right. Anyways, I'd like to wrap up this discussion/argument/pissing contest. Clearly we aren't going to agree on anything. I'm apparently bias towards atheists, and you are clearly bias against. We could argue for many more pages. But the one thing I think we can both agree on is that this discussion is pointless. It doesn't really matter whether gods/God exist(s) or not. They clearly have no sway on our lives and this discussion distracts us from doing things that are important. I'm graduating soon and I should really be concentrating on the crucial next few months (getting a job) of my life rather than arguing about a topic with no right answer. If I met you in real life I would shake your hand for this very engaging discussion that clearly kept me involved. Whether you have a closing statement or want to keep having at it, or whatever, I'm done with this thread. I'm not admitting defeat, just calling for a truce.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 10:28 am
Quote: Alright, my whole argument about history is that every god that was ever worshiped by man had some purpose involving some natural thing that humans did not know how to explain, e.g. Neptune god of the sea. We know that for sure (unless you truely believe all historians are lying to us) The point is that now that science now can explain all those phenomenon, eg volcanoes, that it's pretty clear that gods/god is an invention of man. Science can now explain all those phenominon huh? Tell me how it is a bumble B flies then....since the science of areonautics can't do it. Or how a cat manages to pur since Biology still can't figure that one out, or how the big bang happened, or......ad infinitum. The problem with what you are saying here is not only that it's wrong, but that it's impossibly wrong. Science doesn't answer questions, all it does is succeed in finding new ones. You have a horrible misconception about the nature of science if you think it actually provides us with any sort of philosophical Truths. Quote: Where did you get 99 to 1? From a survey that the entire world took part in? From one of those books you don't trust? Sounds like a huge assumption. I'll tell you where I get it from, the same place you get your ideas on that people are the product of their environment from. They may very well be.....accept that if what you are saying is true yet again....you are not a product of your environment but rather the antithesis to it and YET AGAIN the non-normal of us all. It is an assumption and one that was meant to be an obvious one but if you will, go back through this history you love so much and find me even ONE society on the planet....just one....that had no religious belief of any kind. In the whole of the 12,000 years of the history of mankind that we have written down, tell me how many people in history do you think believed in....NO....God/gods. Because I'd be willing to bet you wont find even a single one. Quote: It has nothing to do with intelligence. I'm not vain at all (believe me), I don't think the rest of the world is dumb by any means. I truly believe people are a product of there environment, and I'm not just talking about the quality of school you go to. People's environments shape their views on life. I was raised catholic, but one day I finally decided that I really didn't believe in that stuff. My mom still believes but I don't think she's stupid. She was raised catholic too, by strict parents. And her faith gets her through the day, and I respect that. I don't want you to think that I'm on some crusade to rid the world of religion, or go around shouting at churchgoers. I'm just saying that science has almost caught up with religion on explaining how the universe works, and eventually (many many years down the line) it will. Not everyone accepted that the world was round when it was first discovered, but I don't think that everyone was just a bunch of idiots back then either. I realize that this idea has been around for awhile, but we have only just recently made it ok to have that idea. The majority is not always correct, and in some cases is catastrophically wrong (Nazis). You can't make an argument that nothing is for sure and then say that the majority is always right. First of all, I'd like to point out that for someone who says they enjoy history so much your facts are pretty wrong. The Nazi's never even got more then 20% of the common vote, they were never a majority ever. And I'm fairly certain it's always been "ok" to have the aetheist idea. I'm not sure what you're basing that data on there but if it were such a convincing idea then don't you think (much like the earth being round) it would have caught on? Quote: Anyways, I'd like to wrap up this discussion/argument/pissing contest. Clearly we aren't going to agree on anything. I'm apparently bias towards atheists, and you are clearly bias against. We could argue for many more pages. But the one thing I think we can both agree on is that this discussion is pointless. It doesn't really matter whether gods/God exist(s) or not. They clearly have no sway on our lives and this discussion distracts us from doing things that are important. I'm graduating soon and I should really be concentrating on the crucial next few months (getting a job) of my life rather than arguing about a topic with no right answer. If I met you in real life I would shake your hand for this very engaging discussion that clearly kept me involved. Whether you have a closing statement or want to keep having at it, or whatever, I'm done with this thread. And I'd like to wrap this discussion up by saying that I have displayed no bias against aetheism, just against your portrayal of it. I've run across many very staggeringly intelligent arguments for the non-existance of God, but I will never be able to accept one that relies on statements like "But the one thing I think we can both agree on is that this discussion is pointless. It doesn't really matter whether gods/God exist(s) or not. They clearly have no sway on our lives and this discussion distracts us from doing things that are important." Because you clearly are not seeing whats wrong with your own statements. "Clearly have no sway" huh? Can you prove how you know that? Since it's so obvious and the rest of us out here in the world just aren't getting us take the opportunity to show me this profound truth that you discovered which is so clearly obvious. If there is no "right answer" as you say....then why are you so inclredibly convinced that your way of seeing thigns is "clear" and "obvious". I'm not putting those words in there for dramatic affect those are the terms you yourself used. When things are clear and obvious, I typically take them to be fairly certain to produce certainty, but then you state there is also no right answer. I will admit this: That there really and truely is no way to tell one way or the other that is going to be absolutely convincing, no argument can be made either for nor against the existance of God that is going to be profound and obvious and clear, but the arguement you have made, you have also claimed is exactly those things, and then in the next breath claimed they were not so clear. I will agree to a truce, because that is what we Philosophers do, we discuss and argue and throw stones and mud and spit and scratch and claw and then pat each other on the backs and go to the pub for a cold beer and a smoke. Why? Because in the end, to the Aetheist is it going to matter? No....to the Christian is it going to matter? No. They think it will, but if God does exist he's laughing at us right now, and if he doesn't then we'll both laugh at the end of our lives anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 10:34 am
zargap I've decided it is futile to prove that God exists. First off, you can't prove that you are reading this. You can't prove that this text exists, that I exist or that you exist. The mind can be easily tricked by electrical impulses and wahtnot. Therfore, you cannot prove that we were actually created. (Atheist BTW) Thoughts? God could be an alien who is in another dimension, (and that another dimension there is no laws of physics for him, so he dominates it) and God has to obey the laws of physics in our universe, so God sends things like meteorites to form planet Earth, then God sends ice to Earth from a meteorite, then God makes the conditions of where Earth is just right by mathematically calculating at what angle he has to launch the meteorite, and then God uses biological science to form a bunch of species, whcih would eventually turn into humans as he intended? Well no that doesn't prove he exists. You can't prove scientificly he exists, but you can't prove he doesn't exist etiher. Science is always changing, and soon scientists might discover a new element which they will call 'anti-physics' which is a magnetic field which is also called 'magic' by ancient tribal people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
