People are always asking somone to prove that god exists, prove that god doesn't exist, and all sorts of unprovabable crap. I am not attempting to prove either of those. Pretend that there was a random pattern among some molecules on some comet somewhere. every 70 years they would heat up and change. after millions of years a pattern forms that can reproduce itself. The comet hits earth and all the dinosaurs and suchlike happens. Now humans come along and say that they were created by god, then they say that god had a hand in shaping the patterns that lead to there evoulution, and people say god is an emotional cruch for those who are to weak to take on the world, and people say nothing is proveable at this point and probabily forever. None of this can be proven, except that matters of faith are unprovable. In the eyes of the religious these people are going to hell for not beleving, in the eyes of the atheists these people are stupid for acknoliging even the possable existance of a god who wants to see them cooked. What I have proved, then seems to be that the churchgoing group ignores reality in hope of living in a nice shiney city when they die, the atheists say "what the hell, I can get that on earth and its a sure thing", and the angonistics will either live like an atheist and be happy, or miserable, or whatever, or follow some religion, suffer its laws, in hopes of a heaven which is unatainable by somone who has even a spark of doubt.

As an atheist I acknowledge the possible existence of a god; I just don't think it's very likely.

What did the comet have to do with anything?

It is just as possible to prove that God exists as anything else; it's proving that he doesn't that's impossible. Which is why theists have got the burden of proof.

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

As an atheist I acknowledge the possible existence of a god; I just don't think it's very likely.

What did the comet have to do with anything?

It is just as possible to prove that God exists as anything else; it's proving that he doesn't that's impossible. Which is why theists have got the burden of proof.

You're not an atheist then. The definition of atheist is one who does not believe in god. You're an agnostic by that definition.

Yes god might exist, I just don't think he does. Say I don't have faith or whatever, but I'll be proved right or wrong when I die.

Theological arguments employ the concept of 'design'. Nature revels designs and patterns of almost infinite complexity, espeiallywith regard to life forms. These designs and patterns reveal a type of logical archiecture which is too much to explain under the idea of chance. The chance that there is a designer is indefintely greather than there is not. William Paley (1745-1805) advanced this logic as the 'Watchmaker Argument'. If one finds a watch on a deserted island, the inductive conclusion that there was a human presecence is very strong. Moreover, the watch implies a watchmaker. In the case of God, even if God no has a relationship with creation (Deism), God's history is tied up with the existence of a world.

"You're not an atheist then. The definition of atheist is one who does not believe in god. You're an agnostic by that definition.

Yes god might exist, I just don't think he does. Say I don't have faith or whatever, but I'll be proved right or wrong when I die."

I think he was simply stating that he doesn't believe in god; but acknowledges what any sane and rational person does: exceptions to any 'rule' are possible, but improbable. He doesn't believe in god, but he also knows that there is a level of uncertainty in absolutely any situation.

look at this

http://www.victorzammit.com/

Optimus has got the idea.

The whole atheist/agnostic word definition thing is really pointless. I'm not a theist, so I'm an atheist. This is the definition used by most people who call themselves atheists.

Lokil: of course, if we had good reason to think that watches could get on deserted islands on their own, there would be no reason to suspect design.

The teleological argument has been destroyed many times, just google it.

Ontological is more viable. Any a posteriori argument is easy to find flaws in.

What, you mean the argument from "fine tuning" of the universe?

Shit no! That's 1000x worse. All it's saying is that if things were different they wouldn't be the same.

It's like a puddle saying there must be a God because it fits the hole it's in perfectly. (apologies to Douglas Adams)

Whoops, I think I got teleologican and ontological mixed up.

Can you post an example of the ontological argument?

well your gonna find out if you are right or wrong when u die, what sux is that if youre wrong than u have to go to hell and live in eternal shit, my take on it is that if i just beleive in god and take a minute topray and acknowledge him as god, then when i die i have nothing to lose, i either got to heaven or whatver atheists beleive happens when they die