how many gods are there?

~H

42

lets hope theres 1 =)



if not. it'd make an interesting TV program. BATTLE OF TEH GODZ0RZ!!

0.

Do you have evidence of any other number?

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

0.

Do you have evidence of any other number?

Don't be starting will al that crap. At least leave a coupla threads for other discussions. Fuck!



I say 1

Im the only one. And I'm still jealous,...

quote:Originally posted by ---Beany---:

Don't be starting will al that crap. At least leave a coupla threads for other discussions. Fuck!

Come on, man. It's perfectly on topic.

He asked how many gods there are. Obviously, the answer is 0 (unless you can give a reason to believe otherwise).

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

(unless you can give a reason to believe otherwise).

Theres many reasons to believe many things. We're not all bound by the same laws of reasoning.

but you are bound by the same laws of reality.

Meh...what do you know about reality? It's a word that humans desperately need to cover for their own authenticity. There's no set law of reality because its simply a perception of some people. We can (and do) all look beyond such barriers.

yay for subjectivist soup!

an infinite amount

quote:Originally posted by The Crusader:

Theres many reasons to believe many things. We're not all bound by the same laws of reasoning.

Um, yes we are.

It's called "logic".

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

Um, yes we are.

It's called "logic".

You're a bit of a one way street ignoramus aren't you?...There are multiple variations of logic. Doubly so when arguing for and against the existence of God.

Yeah, but only one is right.

(that would be the one that doesn't make crap up and call it fact)

Can you give an example of where "atheist logic" diverges from "theist logic" and both are equally valid?

i agree with Craftian.

there is one set of rules to cover the how of the universe. i've never seen a man who can conclusively say "i don't like this rule, so we're just going to change it."

i will draw a distinction between "logic" and "human logic."

logic is an abstraction; it is simply the way things work--human logic is our interpretation, how we codify those rules. the latter may be flawed, at this present time, but the former must by definition be purely rational.

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

Yeah, but only one is right.

(that would be the one that doesn't make crap up and call it fact)

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

Can you give an example of where "atheist logic" diverges from "theist logic" and both are equally valid?

Two different but logical arguments

A popular theist argument which rests on logic, is the notion that something can simply not pop up out of nothingness? I.e. the Cause & Effect system. If you followed this logical system you would falter and come to a stand still at the point of the Big Bang. If there was nothing before the Big Bang to initiate the Big Bang, how did it come into existence? It's logically and scientifically impossible.

Stephen Hawking describes how time and energy came into existence with the creation of the Big Bang, but that the laws of science break down at the singularity preventing us from looking further back in time.

Many people hoped that quantum mechanics, would somehow smooth out the singularity. In the world of quantum mechanics, the laws of physics that are familiar from the everyday world no longer work. Instead, events are governed by probabilities. Einstein was deeply upset by the implication and said "God does not play dice!"

Yet there is actually a logical, sophisticated argument atheists can use to counter the theist. Whether it's equally valid or not comes down to a purely personal level. I suspect anyway that 95% of the people in this forum restrict themselves from ever looking at the issue in a totally impartial way.

The atheist argument firstly requires a definition of nothingness. It means literally nothing, the complete absence of everything. By definition then nothing must be an infinite void. If nothing exists it would have to be infinite. This is a result of it not being allowed any boundaries, as a boundary would place a limit on nothing's size and furthermore would also indicate that there was something existing on the other side of the boundary, apart from the boundary itself existing. This would be contrary to our definition of both infinite and of nothing. This also would exclude anything existing in any other dimension, or dimensions, as a dimension would then be a boundary. Nothing then, when described as an infinite void, excludes all possibility of anything else existing, anywhere.

The only conclusion you can draw from this, is that nothing cannot exist, because we do. This counteracts the theist to an extent on the view that there was nothingness for something to come into existence, many theists, were ready to accept the Big Bang and the singularity theorems because they could counter it with logic.

The best atheist argument I can think of is; The universe is an infinite eternal unchanging nothing that has always existed and has always contained a finite but unbounded closed universe that constantly changes but is itself eternal.

so the universe is god?

Nonexistence cannot exist. That's all the whole post boils down to. At which, I must say:

Like...DUH!

(and yes, that was meant nicely)

quote:Originally posted by ashesofzen:

Nonexistence cannot exist. That's all the whole post boils down to. At which, I must say:

Like...DUH!

Yet science hasn't been able to delve beyond the big bang. Put them in a situation where they can not beat a sophisticated theists' argument and they can only offer alternative theories. Which is fine, but hardly superior in any form of logic and fact.

So Predisposed garbage like this;

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

only one is right.

(that would be the one that doesn't make crap up and call it fact)[/B]

Offers nothing but glaring inconsistencies. There are equally valid and highly logical theories out there that offer different and alternative answers.

No theory about what happened before the Big Bang is better than any other because we have no information about what happened.

A theist claiming that their god was the "first mover" is making an unbacked assertation, as is an atheist who claims there was nothing before that moment.

The logical response is to admit that you have no idea what happened.

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

No theory about what happened before the Big Bang is better than any other because we have no information about what happened.

Its feeble and contrary to the nature of science to start at an illogical beginning...

As equally feeble as saying God did this, God did that, period.

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

The logical response is to admit that you have no idea what happened.

So that's the one essence of logic you were proclaiming earlier on in the thread is it?...Stalemate? You have not countered the fact that logic remains in multiple theorem and that logic itself is unregimented.

Crusader, I must ask you to use two (or more)alternative logics to solve a "real-world" problem. I'd like to see it.