[01010]

Originally posted by Tiara

EVERYTHING except the disproven things are in the realm of possibilities. Now, I don't believe in any God or other supreme being but I cannot discount it because there has been no proof whatsoever either way.


[/B]

This is pretty much how I feel on the subject, if there was evidence to prove or disprove then I could make a decision, as it is I don't like picking sides when I haven't got a ****ing clue what side is right.

[HotSnoJ]

Originally posted by Kazan
Being able to describe a concept does not mean we accept it's validity - I completely reject the validity of the supernatural - there is no evidence to support their existance

True, but that seems to be the exact case for Evolution. IME anyway.

Originally posted by Kazan
Your thoughts are real, however what you're thinking about doesn't have to be real

you know this, stop this banter

Can do.

Originally posted by Kazan
However mine opinion has the support of EVIDENCE, you're DOES NOT

That's so....stupid, I can't even think of a proper response.

Originally posted by Kazan
You say "since i cannot explain this a god must have done it!"
We say "we have found these simple equasions for the interaction of these simple forces that leads logically to what we see today"

not "whatever I think" - whatever has the best evidence to support it.

I have not made assumptions

Yes you have. What have I said. I said your starting assumption is that there is no super-natural. Therefore you rule it out of everything you think and use as evidence. Everyone must start out with an assumption, and believe it or not, it is based on faith (not necessarily a 'religious' one).

Originally posted by Kazan
Pascal's Gamble is no excuse - it's foolish to believe in something when the ramifications of basing your entire worldview upon irrationality is so negative

It is no excuse. However it does bring a valid point to the table. If I wager for God, there is a possiblilty for an infinite amount of joy to obtain. And only a finite amount if I wager against God. Basicly speaking, do I lose my life now or later? How much do I stand to win or lose?


Now let me ask you this. If I could prove to you that everything I've told you about the Bible being true, there is a God, and so forth. Would you accept it?

[Liberator]

So basically Kaz, you're whole basis for you're position is this:

There is no physical proof(IE foot prints, schlufed off skin cells, ect) that God exists. So therefore any person or thing that believes differently is a dangerous moron and should be attacked or ignored.

To this I ask you:  What about the philosopher's in history that believed that atoms existed when all the available scientific evidence of the time suggested otherwise?  Were they morons to be ignored as well?

Just because Science can't prove something exists, doesn't mean it doesn't.  That's where it becomes faith.  That's what I'm getting at, Science is not the "be all, end all" of understanding.

[Ghostavo]

Let's try to end this discussion. Science cannot prove that god does not exist. You cannot know the whole reality because by trying to know it you alter it. If you do not know all reality something may or may not exist beyond our knowledge. Some choose to believe there is a god, some don't. You can only prove something exists, you cannot prove that something doesn't exist. So... it's a perpectual fight between Religion and Science.

[Ghostavo]

EDIT:
Double post, please delete it.

Sorry

[Kazan]

Originally posted by HotSnoJ
True, but that seems to be the exact case for Evolution. IME anyway.

There is EVIDENCE, a ****ton of it, that supports microevolution - and macroevolution is trying to fit the fossils we find into the correct order

That's so....stupid, I can't even think of a proper response.

Yes, it is stupid that you cling to a position without evidence

Yes you have. What have I said. I said your starting assumption is that there is no super-natural. Therefore you rule it out of everything you think and use as evidence. Everyone must start out with an assumption, and believe it or not, it is based on faith (not necessarily a 'religious' one).

assumption? i said PER DEFINITION of what is supernatural

i have faith in nothing, stop trying to project your weakness onto me it's grown quite vexing

It is no excuse.  However it does bring a valid point to the table.  If I wager for God, there is a possible for an infinite amount of joy to obtain.  And only a finite amount if I wager against God.  Basically speaking, do I lose my life now or later? How much do I stand to win or lose?

It validates nothing - an infinitessimally small probability multiplied by an infinitessimally large payoff is a less than safe bet than a moderate probability multiplied by a moderate payoff


Furthermore having irrationality as the basis of your worldview is demonstrable harmful to your ability to make proper decisions, and through the rammifications of that it is harmful to humanity as whole - we see this DAILY

Now let me ask you this.  If I could prove to you that everthing I've told you about the Bible being true, there is a God, and so forth. Would you accept it?

If there was evidence to support the existance of a god I wouldn't stand opposed to people believing - if there was strong evidence supporting the existance of a God I would believe like any good objective thinker

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Liberator
So basically Kaz, you're whole basis for you're position is this:

There is no physical proof(IE foot prints, schlufed off skin cells, ect) that God exists. So therefore any person or thing that believes differently is a dangerous moron and should be attacked or ignored.

physics proof goes way beyond foot springs and schluffed off skin - but yes


Anyone who basis their view of reality off of irratinality is demonstrable dangerous - the people who don't conform to a major belief system when doing this are labeled 'crazy' - but they're no less sane than the rest of you.


It is demonstrably true that people who base their view of reality off irrationality are a threat to the survival of the human race.

To this I ask you:  What about the philosopher's in history that believed that atoms existed when all the available scientific evidence of the time suggested otherwise?  Were they morons to be ignored as well?

They had LOGIC to back them up, and point out a single one that thought atoms existed without some sort of EVIDENCE -- you will find _NONE_

PS scientists, not philosophers (even if they're philosophers, while they're doing scientific work they are a scientist)

Just because Science can't prove something exists, doesn't mean it doesn't.

However that DOES mean it is irrational to believe in said things existance - especially when you hold thing B that rely on said thing A's existance to be true and there is direct evidence contradicting thing B

That's where it becomes faith.  That's what I'm getting at, Science is not the "be all, end all" of understanding.

Faith is a patently a fallacy - and yes science IS the "be all, end all" of understanding what is real

[Tiara]

However that DOES mean it is irrational to believe in said things existance - especially when you hold thing B that rely on said thing A's existance to be true and there is direct evidence contradicting thing B

First of all, irrationality is subjective.

And your argument bis flawed. It uses evidence to contradict something. In that case there is in fact scientific evidence.

We're talking stuff without either evidence backing it up or dismissing it. You CANNOT dismiss something that cannot be disproven or proven. However unlikely it is. Just because it cannot be proven doesn't mean it's per definition irrational as you so *cough* elegantly stated.

For something to be irrational you have to have a predetermined opinion about it. Hence making it not science but simple bigotry.

[aldo_14]

What would qualify as concrete proof or disproof of the existence of God (or any other supreme being/s), though?  

I mean, the very nature of such a thing is that he, she, or it would be responsible for everything, including the makeup of the world - and thus would be able to control, as it were, that evidence.  So it would consequentially be impossible to disprove God.

(except, of course, if you biased your reading of the evidence)

Not that i am, by any stretch of the imagination, religious - but maybe you should consider that when making this argument.  That is, if you are interested in trying to understand the other side of it.

[Nico]

Tho, Tiara, I'd say that science wouldn't discard a theory if it's been disproven either, coz it has happened many times that something that is proven wrong in some case can be true in another situation. Or vice versa.

Anyway, I'm amazed at the enrgy people put in those threads: You'de be better of searching an old religion thread and copy/paste your old posts, you'd save muchos efforts

[Kazan]

Tiara: irrationality is _NOT_ subjective, because rationality is _NOT_ subjective

Believing in something to which you have no evidence to support is BY DEFINITION irrational

and it is demonstrably true that people basing their view of reality of irrationality are DANGEROUS

[Mr. Vega]

I know the arguement may have moved beyond this, but i've been thinking and typings this up for too long, so here ya go:

Originally posted by Liberator
To this I ask you:  What about the philosopher's in history that believed that atoms existed when all the available scientific evidence of the time suggested otherwise?  Were they morons to be ignored as well?

Except any fool in ancient times could realize he had pathetic amounts of data. "Theories" at the time were, with few exceptions, pure speculation. Democritus had no evidence, and neither did those who disagreed with him. They both guessed and one side ended up being right.

Today, on the other hand, our technology on the other hand is advanced enough for us to observe all except for the very small and the very far away, and through clever tricks we can infer what we cannot directly observe.  Based on that information, the existence of a "god" described in the bible is unnessesary. Let me explain this.

What does it mean, exactly, to understand reality? (I'm using reality because the word encompasses more than just the universe). Basically, it is to become aware of reality, to know the "nature" of it (I know this sounds quite Buddhist).

But what is it, exactly, that we are becoming aware of? WHat exists? All that we seem to be "aware of" is what we A. "sense", AKA, physical things, and B. thoughts, emotions, and other things of the mind (this is what is called Cartesian dualism, though other philosophical theories state that there is no difference between the mental and the physical. I myself am not a dualist).

Now, back to God. From our observations, no God(s) comes up. Furthermore, to have him exist would conflict with what we do observe (physical laws, etc.). Therefore such a thing as a god need not ( must not) exist for us to understand reality, which why I say he is unneccesary.

Christianity states that God is "supernatural", apart from what is physical/mental. If that is true, than he not observable. How, then, can we become aware of him? We can't. Which leades us to:

1. How can something we cannot be aware of exist?
2. How can something we cannot be aware of influence what we are aware of?

Thus we are forced to accept the conclusion that a supernatural god does not exist.[/u] (According to Kazan, whom I agree with, the God you believe in is actually just a non-supernatural, mental idea you cling to)

I know I kinda repeated myself the last two paragraphs. I'm gonna need to fix this up .

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Kazan
Tiara: irrationality is _NOT_ subjective, because rationality is _NOT_ subjective

Believing in something to which you have no evidence to support is BY DEFINITION irrational

and it is demonstrably true that people basing their view of reality of irrationality are DANGEROUS

Well, what definition of rationality are you using? - because there are several I've seen (especially if you expand it with various definitions of 'reason').

[Tiara]

Originally posted by Kazan
Tiara: irrationality is _NOT_ subjective, because rationality is _NOT_ subjective

Believing in something to which you have no evidence to support is BY DEFINITION irrational

and it is demonstrably true that people basing their view of reality of irrationality are DANGEROUS

Irrationality _IS_ subjective.

What one person will view as irrational, the other will view it as rational. This thread is the perfect example of this.

[Kazan]

Tiara: perhaps to _you_ but i am adhering strictly to the rules of logic (ie what we've been working on the refinement of for 1000+ years and have a very stable self-evident ruleset now)

if you have been trained in Logic (capital L should noted) then rationality and irrationality are _NOT_ subjective - neither should they EVER be

once again this is a matter of people's personal opinion being trumped by facts

[aldo_14]

What are the rules of logic_with_a_big_L, then?

[Liberator]

Originally posted by Mr. Vega
Christianity states that God is "supernatural", apart from what is physical/mental. If that is true, than he not observable. How, then, can we become aware of him? We can't. Which leades us to:

1. How can something we cannot be aware of exist?
2. How can something we cannot be aware of influence what we are aware of?

There is key flaw in your statement, indeed the whole argument.  The "No God" side says that since we have no evidence of God's existence that he cannot exist.  A better way to state that should be, if you were honest, "We do not currently have the means to detect God therefore he does not exist".

I challenge this statement, there is proof that God exists looking at your monitor and sitting in your chair right now.  Life is proof that God exists, you can argue statistics and "proof" all you want, but the odds are astronomically against life forming and developing the way you suggest.  With odds like that, it would suggest that we are unique in the Universe and it's googleplexes of cubic parsecs, I refuse to accept that.

A second flaw in the statement that Man only has 2 aspects, physical and mental.  Untrue, we have a third aspect, spiritual, an ephemeral part of us that we cannot ordinarly access, a soul if you will.  God is a one-hundred percent spiritual being, therefore, we will  probably never be able to empirically detect his existence because we have such a poor understanding of this aspect of our being.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Liberator


There is key flaw in your statement, indeed the whole argument.  The "No God" side says that since we have no evidence of God's existence that he cannot exist.  A better way to state that should be, if you were honest, "We do not currently have the means to detect God therefore he does not exist".

I challenge this statement, there is proof that God exists looking at your monitor and sitting in your chair right now.  Life is proof that God exists, you can argue statistics and "proof" all you want, but the odds are astronomically against life forming and developing the way you suggest.  With odds like that, it would suggest that we are unique in the Universe and it's googleplexes of cubic parsecs, I refuse to accept that.

A second flaw in the statement that Man only has 2 aspects, physical and mental.  Untrue, we have a third aspect, spiritual, an ephemeral part of us that we cannot ordinarly access, a soul if you will.  God is a one-hundred percent spiritual being, therefore, we will  probably never be able to empirically detect his existence because we have such a poor understanding of this aspect of our being.

The problem is that life itself is not proof of God.  It's proof of a causitive agent - but not a supernatural one.  Even though the odds against life are astronomically large, so is the universe.  i.e. if you roll a million-sided dice a trillion times, you're going to get a large number of hits.

The spiritual aspect can be seen as the mental aspect - spirituality is just another way of saying how we explore our own existence, and the terms in which we do so.   As such, this can be done by many means - science, philosophy, religion, or a combination of these (and many more ways, I'd imagine).  

The existence of a soul is unprovable - obviously so - and even if we posses what could be termed as a 'uniqueness', it doesn't imply a supreme being - just another aspect of the creation of life that we do not understand.

[Mr. Vega]

There is key flaw in your statement, indeed the whole argument. The "No God" side says that since we have no evidence of God's existence that he cannot exist. A better way to state that should be, if you were honest, "We do not currently have the means to detect God therefore he does not exist".

My point was that we are reaching the point where we can observe the entire physical world. Based on what we have observed, no God exists then. I admit that the arguement only favors agnosticism. (Although you now seem to be argueing that God is a natural phenomenon.)

However, I do not think you will be able to refute my other arguement about why a supernatural God cannot exist.

Other statements: You simply state what you think/believe in and give me no reason why. Please, explain.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Mr. Vega


My point was that we are reaching the point where we can observe the entire physical world. Based on what we have observed, no God exists then. I admit that argue only favors agnosticism. (Although you now seem to be argueing that God is a natural phenomenon.)

However, I do not think you will be able to refute my other arguement about why a supernatural God cannot exist.

Other statements: You simply state what you think/believe in and give me no reason why. Please, explain.

I don't think that's necessarilly true - we only know what we can observe, not necesarrily what lies below that.  Like at the subatomic level, for example (where the standard model is based around an unproven, theoretical particle(?) called the Higgs Boson, IIRC).

From a loose - religious - definition, you could say 'God is the world'... so what we can and cannot observe isn't a way to disprove or prove God.  That's why these arguments will go round and round and circles till the cows come home