I'v had a talk with my dad about philosophy and theology recently and he's explained alot to me. He as christian said that there is no way to disprove God but there is a way to prove God buy just looking around you, and that atheists shouldn't rely on there logic always, and heres why: Answer these questions

for me

Can God create a huge massive boulder?

Can God pick up that huge massive boulder?

Can God make a boulder so massive that even he cannot lift it?

So as you can see logic has all these loopholes and should not be used to try to disprove God, which is already confirmed that there is no way in doing so.

1. That is not a loophole in logic, that's a loophole in god.

2. Those logical inconsistencies may not disprove god, but they certainly show how the religions that believe in such gods are inherently illogical and unreasonable.

3. "Looking around you" isn't proof of anything.

god is a sprit, physical laws do not apply to him.

quote:Originally posted by OMr_duckO:

I'v had a talk with my dad about philosophy and theology recently and he's explained alot to me. He as christian said that there is no way to disprove God but there is a way to prove God buy just looking around you, and that atheists shouldn't rely on there logic always, and heres why: Answer these questions

for me

Can God create a huge massive boulder?

Can God pick up that huge massive boulder?

Can God make a boulder so massive that even he cannot lift it?

So as you can see logic has all these loopholes and should not be used to try to disprove God, which is already confirmed that there is no way in doing so.



Let me give you something better to think about, um k?

God throws a huge massive, UNSTOPPABLE boulder, at an unmovable post, what happens?

quote:Originally posted by OMr_duckO:

I'v had a talk with my dad about philosophy and theology recently and he's explained alot to me. He as christian said that there is no way to disprove God but there is a way to prove God buy just looking around you, and that atheists shouldn't rely on there logic always, and heres why: Answer these questions

for me

Can God create a huge massive boulder?

Can God pick up that huge massive boulder?

Can God make a boulder so massive that even he cannot lift it?

So as you can see logic has all these loopholes and should not be used to try to disprove God, which is already confirmed that there is no way in doing so.



The logic becomes quite clear that obviously all three statements are false... You cannot prove to me that God exists..

I can however tell you, God didn't create the boulders on Earth...

"How rocks are Formed" http://www.fi.edu/fellows/fellow1/oct98/create/index.html

Looking around you doesn't even prove you exist...

quote:Originally posted by HellzShellz:

Let me give you something better to think about, um k?

God throws a huge massive, UNSTOPPABLE boulder, at an unmovable post, what happens?

Ok but why would he want to do that?

Continuing in the vain of logical paradoxes

The following statement is the truth

The preceding statement was a lie

Christianity originated from the bible so why wouldn't we be able to question the bibles logic? There's an interesting experiment that was conducted to observe any paranormal activity where 6 participants were chosen to create thier own ghost. Four weeks into the experiment they noticed the lights would dim when ever they asked the ghost to make the lights flicker. And the team even managed to levitate the table 2 inches above ground.

What doe's that suggest about taking christianity on a serious level?

It means that PK exists, it's existence is falliable. the bible is not falliable.

True and set.

I deny your sense of reality and shall continue to untill i die... Then i wont give a shit.

[This message has been edited by Fai1safe (edited 11-01-2005).]

Am I reading this correctly? You're actually denying the reliability of logic to create theories about the world, in favour of Making Stuff Up?



AARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGHHHHHHHHHH!!!

quote:God throws a huge massive, UNSTOPPABLE boulder, at an unmovable post, what happens?

Unstoppable and unmovable do not exist, because something unstoppable would have to have infinite momentum and something unmovable would have to have infinite mass. Which means they cannot be created. Which means an omnipotent being does not exist.

[This message has been edited by sp0rkius (edited 11-01-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by sp0rkius:

Am I reading this correctly? You're actually denying the reliability of logic to create theories about the world, in favour of Making Stuff Up?



AARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGHHHHHHHHHH!!!

Unstoppable and unmovable do not exist, because something unstoppable would have to have infinite momentum and something unmovable would have to have infinite mass. Which means they cannot be created. Which means an omnipotent being does not exist.



Maybe you don't understand GOD. See, with GOD ALL things are possible.

quote:Originally posted by OMr_duckO:



Can God create a huge massive boulder?

Can God pick up that huge massive boulder?

Can God make a boulder so massive that even he cannot lift it?





Sounds like Black and White.

But what if God created the laws of physics and all that other crap like that and crammed it all together to make sense. Possible?

This is the worst thread I have ever read. If you were arguing anything besides logic cannot be used to descibe god you would be shot down so quickly in your origional point, because every logical argument you try to put together to help your point seems more like an argument against yourself. "Oh since it's impossible for god to make an infinately massive bolder, and impossible for him to make an unmovable object, and what if he crashed those together what would happen...therefore god must exist!" No, moron that would be a good logical argument against god existing as you believe he does. Actually in mathematics we call that a proof. That is a proof against god existing as you believe he does, yet you try to call it proof that god must exist and that you cannot use logic to disprove him? Fuck, religion is deeply rooted into people if they will argue this. Okay, well if you believe this, you must also believe that any mathematics geometry and beyond are also against your religion as these kinds of logical thoughts would disprove god. So please fail out of your math classes and god will protect you for your faith and you will go to heaven. If he exists and you honestly have that much faith in him then it would be a sure way into heaven.

quote:Originally posted by ate:



An Omnipotent being could exist because the characteristics of "weight" or "mass" are not the true characteristics of what a being of awareness is really like. In reality any being's awareness whether it is omnipotent or not is truly limitless to the physical law of this level of existence in itself because in this level of existence where reality is based upon physical manifestations of metaphysical concepts, such an awareness of omnipotence would mean that the very reality itself would be the being aware and of physical representation and mind. This seems an impossible existence, but the we are all impossible in existence as we are created of a mind and a body and free will. The difference is God doesn't ahve free will.

I couldn't hear you, your head was too far up your ass. Why don't you try to say something with actual meaning next time, instead of a near random assortment of semi-philosophical terms.

Hellsshellz, if God is omnipotent, then he knows the future. If God knows the future, I don't have free will. So which is it?

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

I couldn't hear you, your head was too far up your ass. Why don't you try to say something with actual meaning next time, instead of a near random assortment of semi-philosophical terms.

Hellsshellz, if God is omnipotent, then he knows the future. If God knows the future, I don't have free will. So which is it?

God does not know what choices we will make, he just knows what will be the result of the choices that we make.

i think mr.ducko is trying to say that god is primarily an emotional experience, not an intellectual one.

could you logically explain the experience of sex, or the rush of a particular drug, to someone who had never experienced it?

[This message has been edited by kenwih (edited 11-02-2005).]

St Augustine liked to think that God's omnipotence only extended to the logically possible.

shelly don't you mean

What happens when an irresistable force meets an immovable object

Having just worked quite a bit with relativity I must add one thing:

An infinitely rigid rod would violate causality.

quote:Originally posted by jsaxton14:

Having just worked quite a bit with relativity I must add one thing:

An infinitely rigid rod would violate causality.

How so?

***

This thread pains me. I couldn't decide whether to vomit, scream, or laugh in utter disbelief. Maybe all three?

[This message has been edited by Twisted_Ferret (edited 11-02-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by OMr_duckO:

God does not know what choices we will make, he just knows what will be the result of the choices that we make.

From that you could easily infer the choices that were made to cause those effects. Especially if you were omnipotent.

quote:could you logically explain the experience of sex, or the rush of a particular drug, to someone who had never experienced it?

No, but I don't make up deities for them. Why do we have to make up deities when we feel other emotions? Music makes me feel a particular and somewhat exclusive emotion in the same way that prayer does, but I don't worship my guitar.

quote:An Omnipotent being could exist because the characteristics of "weight" or "mass" are not the true characteristics of what a being of awareness is really like.

Momentum and mass (I didn't mention weight) are a part of the laws of motion, which are theories that can be proven and disproven, and from which predictions can be made. Everything anybody has ever experienced can be explained in terms of concepts such as these (yes, even emotions and dreams and the like, though I'm not sure how much we understand the brain and therefore how much anybody could explain things like this to you in terms of elementry physical laws right now. Probably all emotions plus dreams though). I'll admit that consciousness and the experience of being conscious itself is a mystery, but that's no reason to go making stuff up. The wonderful thing about science is, when you don't know something, you're allowed to admit that - you just don't know!

The fact that we witness things with our senses does mean that they exist outside of our minds in some sense (don't waste my time by trying to argue against that), and the physical laws are our best guess as to how they behave. Pretty fucking accurate guess too. So mass and momentum almost certainly exist, and there could be nothing in the physical realm with infinite mass or momentum. So no omnipotent being could exist because nothing can create a physical object of infinite mass.

quote:In reality any being's awareness whether it is omnipotent or not is truly limitless to the physical law of this level of existence in itself because in this level of existence where reality is based upon physical manifestations of metaphysical concepts, such an awareness of omnipotence would mean that the very reality itself would be the being aware and of physical representation and mind.

Ok, my attempt to decode this comes out with "the mind is not describable by physical laws". That would be Cartesian duality, and all I can do is repeat that, just because we don't know for sure that the mind is purely a physical phenomenon, doesn't mean we have to go saying it isn't. To quote Thomas Paine "a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it the superficial appearance of being right". I love that quote.

Also, it's even less likely that the mind is not affected by logic, because that would mean it is not affected by cause and effect. This would be a worrying concept. I'd like to think that I'm going to wake up tomorrow as more or less the same person as I am today. So if the mind is affected by logic, there are things that it's impossible to do with minds, too! I'd like to note that I don't believe in mind as separate from matter.

quote:his seems an impossible existence, but the we are all impossible in existence as we are created of a mind and a body and free will. The difference is God doesn't ahve free will.

Ok, that doesn't make any sense to me. Come up with an English translation and a halfway convincing argument as to why and I'll dignify it with a response.

quote: Originally posted by jsaxton14:

Having just worked quite a bit with relativity I must add one thing:

An infinitely rigid rod would violate causality.

...

(Teh Ferret)

How so?

In special relativity (don't ask me about General or I will cry), everything is a different length for different inertial frames, because events simultaneous in one frame are not simultaneous in another, so if you measure where the front of the rod (a) (it's at x1) and the back of the rod (b) is (it's at x2) in, let's call it frame S, and do the same at the same time for one moving relative to it (S'), then the event "a is at x1" doesn't happen at the same time as "b is at x2" in S' even though it does in S. And when we work it out we see that the observer in S measures a first (according to S' time) (it's at x'1), and then b (it's at x'2), and by the time they've measured b, b has moved on, so the rod is shorter. So x'1 and x'2 are closer together than x1 and x2. I'm not sure how this is relevant though, because the rod could still be completely rigid - it's just that the actual space in S' is smaller in S than it is in S'.



That might take some decoding because that's like, a whole physics lecture in one paragraph. Also I'm crap at explaining things.



[This message has been edited by sp0rkius (edited 11-03-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by ate:

Haha I wasn't even speaking to you and you replied to me, with critism. You must like me...

Wow, if you want me to explain something to your poor under developed mind then ask me nicely until then. GO FUCK YOURSELF. Not really. But seriously, just ask, there's no need for unsettling hostility.





Perhaps if you explicated a bit on your assumptions while making that statement. I wasn't aware I was a "being of awareness". From over here, I'm pretty sure I'm a bag of meat.

And yeah, I'm a physicist. Forgive me if I didn't understand untestable, speculative metaphysics.

Sporkius, you got it right. Just a clarification to anyone without a background in the subject, as velocity increases, approaching the speed of light, time slows down. Thats fairly common knowledge. The thing is, length in the plane of motion decreases by the same factor.

[This message has been edited by SurahAhriman (edited 11-03-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by sp0rkius:

events simultaneous in one frame are not simultaneous in another]

BLASPHEMER!

This lack of an absolute reference frame is AN OFFENSE TO GOD!!!

quote:Originally posted by jsaxton14:

BLASPHEMER!

This lack of an absolute reference frame is AN OFFENSE TO GOD!!!

Then he should have made one. Everything would be alot simpler, assuming he changed enough other stuff to make human life possible.

These questions always perplex meand i do not believe they will ever be solved:

1. If god created the universe then where did he come from?Who created him because everything has an origin.

2. For what reason would god have created us? Who's to say that he isn't out creating other intelligent life as we speak.

3. If god has no physical being then how could he have created the universe. Did he just snap his fingers and everything appeared.

BTW I do believe god exists and can be found through every religion. I just always contemplate his existence. Remember Socrates once said a life unexamined is a life not worth living.

quote:Originally posted by sp0rkius:

No, but I don't make up deities for them. Why do we have to make up deities when we feel other emotions? Music makes me feel a particular and somewhat exclusive emotion in the same way that prayer does, but I don't worship my guitar. [/QU0TE]

what makes you think people 'make it up?' in fact everybody has parts of their brain that deal exclusivly with religious experiences. did god put it there? i don't know, but when that part of your brain is active, you sure think so; its part of the experience, not a theory concocted afterwards.

[QUOTE]

Everything anybody has ever experienced can be explained in terms of concepts such as these (yes, even emotions and dreams and the like, though I'm not sure how much we understand the brain and therefore how much anybody could explain things like this to you in terms of elementry physical laws right now. Probably all emotions plus dreams though...

That is extremely speculative. not even the best physiologists and brain scientists are willing to tackle the problem of conciousness, but you seem to be willing.

quote: The fact that we witness things with our senses does mean that they exist outside of our minds in some sense (don't waste my time by trying to argue against that



when your are dreaming, don't you think the things you are experiencing are real? how do you know you're not dreaming right now? perhaps your senses are decieving you, or mabye we don't percieve everything. in fact, everything you see is an illusion created by your brain, no more or less valid than a halluncination, and you have no way of telling the difference between the 'reality' of sense-images and the 'fake' internally generated ones. WE ARE ALL IN THE MATRIX!!!

quote: Pretty fucking accurate guess too. So mass and momentum almost certainly exist, and there could be nothing in the physical realm with infinite mass or momentum. So no omnipotent being could exist because nothing can create a physical object of infinite mass.



what about energy? parallel universes? science no more answers the question of the 'first mover' anymore than religion, theology, or philosophy does.

also, where does 'omnipotent' and 'creating a physical object of infinite mass' coincide? i don't understand that part (i slept through physics)



[This message has been edited by kenwih (edited 11-03-2005).]

Kenwih, the point about omnipotence is that such a being should be capable of anything, else it is not omnipotent. But an object of infinite mass is impossible. It would collapse in on itself and create a black hole so immense it would destroy the universe.

As for the possibility that everything I experience is a hallucination, yes. I realized that years ago, and came to the conclusion that it's an irrelevant thought path. If everything I experience isn't real, but I think it is, then there would be no way to determine that. So the only method that can bear any fruit is to assume that what I experience is real, until such time as evidence contradicts that assumption.

ate, so to understand anything "real", one must throw out everything we know about physics and the world around us? Sorry, but thats just delusional. Everything I experience may be false, but there is no discernable point to assuming that and living in a world of built up delusion.

If I wanted to understand God, what learning would I use? I wasn't aware that there was another type beyond "human". Or are you in contact with extra-terrestrials?

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

Kenwih, the point about omnipotence is that such a being should be capable of anything, else it is not omnipotent. But an object of infinite mass is impossible. It would collapse in on itself and create a black hole so immense it would destroy the universe.

[/B[

how do you know that, if you aren't all-knowing? http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)



quote: [B]As for the possibility that everything I experience is a hallucination, yes. I realized that years ago, and came to the conclusion that it's an irrelevant thought path. If everything I experience isn't real, but I think it is, then there would be no way to determine that. So the only method that can bear any fruit is to assume that what I experience is real, until such time as evidence contradicts that assumption.

ate, so to understand anything "real", one must throw out everything we know about physics and the world around us? Sorry, but thats just delusional. Everything I experience may be false, but there is no discernable point to assuming that and living in a world of built up delusion.



he was saying that because we think we percieve things, that they must be out there, i was merely pointing out that that isn't necesarraly the case (although you are right in saying it is not a very functional belief, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth considering)

quote:If I wanted to understand God, what learning would I use? I wasn't aware that there was another type beyond "human". Or are you in contact with extra-terrestrials?

perhaps he meant that god is not logical (what you seem to think is 'human', though there are different kinds of understanding )? mabye you can't learn to differentiate god?

Useless? Obviously not to them.

quote:how do you know that, if you aren't all-knowing?

Well, the definition of omnipotent, for one. For the rest, I'm a physicist. If god could fundamentally alter the laws of physics to the point where he could create an infinitely massive object, then the resulting universe would be utterly inhospitable to human life. Like gravity not existing anymore.

you didn't answer my question. get outside of your physics box...

Sorry, you used two question marks.

quote:mabye you can't learn to differentiate god?

If that were the case, it would negate every religion, which claims to be the way to God. It's possible, but I rather try to learn something impossible than just not try at all.

And right, I'll just get out of my "physics box" and pretend there aren't any testable truths to the world. From my experiences, people who disparage what science and logic provide humanity are just too stupid or lazy to learn it themselves. So they come up with metaphysical bullshit they consider "deep", with little to no basis on actual philosophy. Quit jerking yourself off about how much you "understand". If this doesn't apply to you, then ignore it, but thats certainly the impression I'm getting.

[This message has been edited by SurahAhriman (edited 11-04-2005).]

huh? elaborate.

quote:Originally posted by ate:

What is the total mass of the universe?

We're not entirely sure. Well, we think we know what it is, but we're still trying to account for what constitutes all that mass. It's actually really interesting. If the mass is high enough, the universe will eventually contract. If it's at a specific number it will reach equillibrium. And if it's not enough, the universe will just keep expanding and getting colder.

It's not infinite, though.

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

huh? elaborate.

Which part?

the point is, you can't prove or disprove the existence of god. the 'proof' about infinite mass doesn't work either. since we don't know everything, we can't know everything about physics. there could be a way for such a thing to happen. of course, it can't be proven, either.

the only way to god is through faith, not logic.

quote:I'v had a talk with my dad about philosophy and theology recently and he's explained alot to me. He as christian said that there is no way to disprove God but there is a way to prove God buy just looking around you, and that atheists shouldn't rely on there logic always, and heres why

No offence, but your dad should be shot.

quote:

That is extremely speculative. not even the best physiologists and brain scientists are willing to tackle the problem of conciousness, but you seem to be willing.

No, and this is a direct fucking quote from myself, "I'll admit that consciousness and the experience of being conscious itself is a mystery". Yet another demonstration of how many theists only see what they want to see and blank out the inconvenient.

I was simply saying that the things our consciousness experiences (emotions, etc, the things you ascribe to God) can be explained by modern biology/psychology, which, I admit, is a guess on my part because I don't know a great deal about those things, but I'm pretty sure we know which hormones do what and how nerves play their part etc. Especially if we're able to manufacture anti-depressants and similar things.

quote:

when your are dreaming, don't you think the things you are experiencing are real? how do you know you're not dreaming right now? perhaps your senses are decieving you, or mabye we don't percieve everything. in fact, everything you see is an illusion created by your brain, no more or less valid than a halluncination, and you have no way of telling the difference between the 'reality' of sense-images and the 'fake' internally generated ones. WE ARE ALL IN THE MATRIX!!!

Oh god you are going to waste my time aren't you. Yes, it's possible that Descartes' "Mischevious demon" is putting these ideas in our head and making us feel that things are real which are not, but even Descartes said that this is the extreme concequence of absolute skepticism and by no means to be taken seriously - in other words, it's possible, but really unlikely. I'm going to copy out reams of Bertrand Russell now because he's much more convincing than me.

"... although this is no logically impossible, there is no reason whatever to suppose that it is true; and it is, in fact, a less simple hypothesis, viewed as a means of accounting for the facts of our own life, than the common-sense hypothesis that there really are objects independent of us, whose action causes our sensations.

The way in which simplicity comes in from supposing that there really are physical objects is easily seen. If the cat appears at one moment in one part of the room, and at another in another part, it is natural to suppose that it has moved from the one to the other, passing over a series of intermediate positions. But if it is merely a set of sense-data, it cannot have ever been in any place where I did not see it; thus we shall have to suppose that it did not exist at all while I was not looking, but suddenly sprang into being in a new place. If the cat exists whether I see it or not, we can understand from our own experience [of hunger] how it gets hungry between one meal and the nest; but if it does not exist when I am not seeing it, it seems odd that appetite should grow during non-existence as fast as during existence. And if the cat consists only of sense-data, it cannot be hungry, since no hunger but my own can be sense-datum to me. Thus the behaviour of the sense-data which represent the cat to me, though it seems quite natural when regarded as an expression of hunger, becomes utterly inexplicable when regarded as mere movements and changes of patches of colour, which are as incapable of hunger as a triangle is of playing football."

quote:

what about energy? parallel universes? science no more answers the question of the 'first mover' anymore than religion, theology, or philosophy does.

That's right, there are some things science doesn't know. But consider this: from the scientific definition of knowledge (the only one that applies here), religion doesn't know anything.

quote:also, where does 'omnipotent' and 'creating a physical object of infinite mass' coincide? i don't understand that part (i slept through physics)

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Omnipotent means being able to do anything. You cannot create a physical object of infinite mass, because it would suck literally everything in, at the speed of light. Also, if mass is energy, it would require an infinite amount of energy, and since the amount of energy in the universe is finite (the universe itself is finite), then that would contravene conservation of energy.

quote:(although you are right in saying it is not a very functional belief, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth considering)

It's not that it's not functional, it's that it's extremely unlikely. All of my clothes could immediately split into their component atoms and distribute themselves around the universe due to quantum uncertainty, but I don't carry a spare set because (while possible) it's extremely unlikely.

quote:the only way to god is through faith, not logic.

That's because gods don't make sense. Because they don't have to make sense. Because they are made up.

We don't know everything. The rationalist accepts this. You seem to be saying that the things we haven't yet found out by logic obviously don't work on the basis of logic (which is completely absurd, because if there is no causality in something then there can be no coherence to that thing whatsoever), and so invent things somewhat randomly to fill the gaps and pretend you do know everything.



[This message has been edited by sp0rkius (edited 11-04-2005).]

Well said, spork.

quote:



We don't know everything. The rationalist accepts this. You seem to be saying that the things we haven't yet found out by logic obviously don't work on the basis of logic (which is completely absurd, because if there is no causality in something then there can be no coherence to that thing whatsoever), and so invent things somewhat randomly to fill the gaps and pretend you do know everything.

what if i told you spirtual experiences where a priori. god (whichever form you choose) is verifiable. but before that is possible, you must believe it, not after.

unfortunatly for you, that is not possible.

the whole point is that the god experience is not a form of knowledge, in the scientific sense. i don't believe in god (i don't ascribe to any particular doctrine, btw), i know god. so can you, if you only begin...

quote:Originally posted by OMr_duckO:



Can God create a huge massive boulder?



As a result of there being no "God", it is impossible. The fallacy with this statement is that it expects God to be true, but that theory is unproven.

quote:Originally posted by OMr_duckO:



Can God pick up that huge massive boulder?



As a result of there being no "God", it is impossible for it to pick up a boulder, or anything for that matter. You can imagine Santa Claus hitting your father with his toy bag for a millenia, but it shall never happen because Santa Claus does not exist.

quote:Originally posted by OMr_duckO:



Can God make a boulder so massive that even he cannot lift it?



As a result of... fuck, read my other arguments.

What Rust said, they are loopholes in God, not in logistics.

See, this is why you're a dumbass. If you knew anything about cosmology you'd know that the universe is not infinite. Beyond the span of our universe doesn't exist. The expanding dimensions havn't gotten that far yet, and the question of what is beyond them is meaningless. But thats complicated, so I don't expect you to get it.

quote:That's the point, you're supposed to 'think' not just use your imagination to take the easiest route out, I guess it's hard for some to grasp though.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Ahem.

Claiming everything is impossible isn't my style. I'll claim it unlikely, improbable, having a small but non-zero chance. Unless it violates one of the fundamental Laws of the universe. Not theory. A basic fact about nature that is the same everywhere. Like conservation of energy. You're the jackass just using your "imagination" and making shit up.

And yeah. Russel's right. If God is real, he gave us terrible reasons to know he was real. Like no physical evidence, horrible errors in all the books, and followers as stupid as you. He wasn't trying to cover up for anything. You see, intelligent people can dally with an idea, without actually accepting it. Russel was explaiing what he would do, in the hypothetical situation, that God exists.

Ken, so God is verifiable. But only if you believe in him Allready. See, this is why we call you guys delusional. Something about faith destroys the ability to reason objectively. If all your senses are wrong, then how would a feeling inside you be even remotely credible as a source of knowledge, especially of something you allready wanted to be true?

Yes, logic is a flawed tool. The fact remains, however, that there is no compelling reason for me to believe in god.

quote:Originally posted by ate:

HAHAHAHAH, I thought you rationalists didn't know everything...

When did I say I did?

quote:

You (sp0rkius) said an omnipotent being could create anything, and then you say it's impossible to create an infinite object.

That's right, because there is no omnipotent being!

That was the obvious conclusion of my argument, why did you not spot that, you utter moron!

Sorry, I don't like to flame, but you're either blind or stupid.

quote:

I don't get it. Why would you say you gave us insufficient evidence? Would he be trying to cover up the fact that the people who believed in God actually weren't insane and were right and had all the evidence they could ever ask for, or is he just that dumb.

That wasn't a very 'witty' quote, but Russell is right, there's not enough evidence, and it would be totally reasonable to say that to God. If God were in any way reasonable, which he would be being perfect, he'd accept that. So I guess it's a more advanced version of Pascal's wager. Anyway, why am I trying to justify what somebody else said to some old woman in 1962?

quote:what if i told you spirtual experiences where a priori.

God is not a priori. To me, a priori is the same as self-evident, such as "things that are, are", "things that are not, are not" and "things either are, or are not" (the three laws of thought or whatever they're called). God's existance is not self-evident, apart, perhaps, from Descartes' "god is perfect therefore he must exist because existence is more perfect than non-existence", which, as I think we've already concluded on this board, is flawed in so many ways.

You contradicted yourself in that post by the way:

"

but before that is possible, you must believe it, not after.

...

i don't believe in god

...

i know god

"

which makes me think you're bullshitting, just as I suspect most of you people who deny reason in favour of God are. You don't really believe and you've been convinced by reasonable arguments, but you still want to believe so desperately that you're essentially denying causality itself just to fit the world to your delusion.

quote:

HAHAHAHAH, I thought you rationalists didn't know everything...

No, but we are almost 100% certain we do know some things, such as, nothing violates the law of conservation of energy.

wow, there seems to be no reconciling of our belief structures. you 'rationalists' still can't seem to think for yourselves yet. the reason you can't say (an omnipotent) god can't exist because it is impossible to create an infinite mass, is because it may be possible to create an infinite mass that we don't know about yet. think thats funny? highbrows used to think that it was impossible for rocks to fall out of the sky-now we know they do as meteorites. we used to believe the earth was the center of the universe-now we know it isn't. just 70 years ago, scientists scoffed at the idea of the continents moving...they could not understand a mechanism by which it could work. today we all accept the theory of plate techtonics. i'm not saying it's not a good idea to use our knowledge, i'm saying it's a bad idea to misuse it. such as trying to disprove the exisitence of god, on fallible, human theories. it is accepted that god cannot be proven or disproven, and i haven't tried to do either one, but you think you have disproved god. and you call yourself a rationalist. you are merely using your knowledge to support what you already believe. c'mon, be intellectually honest with us, and yourself.

(sighs, and prepares for the burden of evidence lecture)

quote:Originally posted by sp0rkius:

God's existance is not self-evident...

not to you...

quote: You contradicted yourself in that post by the way:

"

but before that is possible, you must believe it, not after.

...

i don't believe in god

...

i know god

"



i did not contradict myself anymore then being a butterfly contratdicts being a caterpillar. one just has to precede the other, is all.

quote:

No, but we are almost 100% certain we do know some things, such as, nothing violates the law of conservation of energy.



GOTCHA! you should know by now that science is never 100% sure of anything

quote:

If all your senses are wrong, then how would a feeling inside you be even remotely credible as a source of knowledge, especially of something you allready wanted to be true?



i'm sorry, you appear to have misunderstood me. i was merely playing devils advocate when i was talking about all that. you are misusing words as well. 'wanting' something is not faith.



[This message has been edited by kenwih (edited 11-06-2005).]

quote:wow, there seems to be no reconciling of our belief structures. you 'rationalists' still can't seem to think for yourselves yet. the reason you can't say (an omnipotent) god can't exist because it is impossible to create an infinite mass, is because it may be possible to create an infinite mass that we don't know about yet. think thats funny? highbrows used to think that it was impossible for rocks to fall out of the sky-now we know they do as meteorites. we used to believe the earth was the center of the universe-now we know it isn't. just 70 years ago, scientists scoffed at the idea of the continents moving...they could not understand a mechanism by which it could work. today we all accept the theory of plate techtonics. i'm not saying it's not a good idea to use our knowledge, i'm saying it's a bad idea to misuse it. such as trying to disprove the exisitence of god, on fallible, human theories. it is accepted that god cannot be proven or disproven, and i haven't tried to do either one, but you think you have disproved god. and you call yourself a rationalist. you are merely using your knowledge to support what you already believe. c'mon, be intellectually honest with us, and yourself.

(sighs, and prepares for the burden of evidence lecture)

So you're saying conservation of energy could be wrong?

Come on, this is no plate tectonics, this is fundamental. You're basically denying all of physics if you say that, and I think we can be pretty sure that at least some of physics is correct.

"Oh but it may hold in some cases but break down in others", well, maybe that's true, but it's very, very, very unlikely that every single event in this vast and ancient universe has obeyed conservation of energy just by chance.

quote:

not to you...

How is it self-evident? I don't mean simply evident as in "that's a pretty flower, and I'll ignore the idea that the flower could have evolved to be pretty in order to better attract insects for a moment, it's evidence that God exists", I'm talking about how is he plain and simply obvious by his very nature, just as it's obvious that things either exist or they don't. Self-evidence, as opposed to evidence of any kind, is required for something to be a priori, in my opinion.

quote:i did not contradict myself anymore then being a butterfly contratdicts being a caterpillar. one just has to precede the other, is all.

You said you need to believe in God to 'know' god. Then you said you don't believe in God but you 'know' God. That's a contradiction.

quote:

GOTCHA! you should know by now that science is never 100% sure of anything

Hence 'almost'. When will the selective reading end!

quote:

i'm sorry, you appear to have misunderstood me. i was merely playing devils advocate when i was talking about all that.

That doesn't mean you're incapable of being wrong. The point of playing devils' advocate is to put foreward ideas you don't currently believe but which you want to play with... therefore it's practically a favour to you that I should try to prove them wrong, in order to test them.

quote:you are misusing words as well. 'wanting' something is not faith.

No, what I'm saying is that you were prepared to contradict yourself in order to justify your faith, your belief (or your adopted faith if you were playing Devils' advocate), because you wanted to have that belief, not because the belief itself is a desire.



[This message has been edited by sp0rkius (edited 11-06-2005).]

quote:Come on, this is no plate tectonics, this is fundamental. You're basically denying all of physics if you say that...



so what? even supposing physics hasn't missed something, or got something wrong, or only works in certain conditions (like newtonian physics,) and your proof is correct, it only proves that god, if she exists, is bound by the laws of physics that he (presumably) created.

once again, i didn't contradict myself...one leads to the other. just because you have to wear you raincoat to go outside when it is raining, and take it off inside where it is no longer needed, does not make you a hypocrite.



quote:Hence 'almost'. When will the selective reading end!



oops, i guess i should have read more carefully...

i guess i'm wasting my time here, but there are some things that can only be understood after you have experienced to them. but you have to be open to them first.

you say the god experience is dependent on that faith, on that i agree. but you seem to think religious and spriritual people are making it up, or brainwashing themselves. that may very well be true for many, or most of them. but there are things in this world that are not logical. at least, it doesn't appear logical at first.

do yourself a favor, listen to your thoughts for a while, and instead of being your thoughts, observe them. now, who is observing your thoughts? don't try to force the thoughts away, just let them run their course. who is observing you observing your thoughts? if you continue, you will eventually have no thoughts at all, but you will still be.

Silly you. That's childish psychology.

All Chestnut trees have Chestnuts.

This tree has Chestnuts. This tree is a chestnut tree.

All Chestnut tress have leaves.

This tree has leaves. This tree is a Chestnut tree.

An example of how you lead things around.

On other hand, in space, what is the concept of "lifting"? You need gravity for that, unless you also thing the earth is flat and we are held on by magic. It would be pointless to generate such a large rock. Black holes are better and heavier, plus take up less space. Now please behave.

quote:Originally posted by Mojo Hojo:

Silly you. That's childish psychology.

All Chestnut trees have Chestnuts.

This tree has Chestnuts. This tree is a chestnut tree.

All Chestnut tress have leaves.

This tree has leaves. This tree is a Chestnut tree.

An example of how you lead things around.

On other hand, in space, what is the concept of "lifting"? You need gravity for that, unless you also thing the earth is flat and we are held on by magic. It would be pointless to generate such a large rock. Black holes are better and heavier, plus take up less space. Now please behave.

which part? where did i make such a blatant logical error as in your tree example? and what does the little understood concept of gravity have to do with anything? i would say you are assuming a god when you say it would be 'pointless.' and what is so much better about black holes? that is just your opinion, and a childish, unthought out one at that...