I think I have some solid points for proof that there is no god.

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Funky_Llama
Funky_Llama

18428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#201 Funky_Llama
Member since 2006 • 18428 Posts
[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Well, exactly - it is reasonable to assume that our senses our reliable, even though we can't know for certain. Um... I think we agree, yes? :P

MetalGear_Ninty

Well, as long as you see that proving something is by no means on the same level as disproving something -- in terms of the existence of an entity.

In short: I can 'prove' the existence of pigs, but I cannot disprove the existence of flying pigs.

Yup. Makes sense to me.

Avatar image for WtFDragon
WtFDragon

4176

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#202 WtFDragon
Member since 2004 • 4176 Posts

Im not trying to flame peoples religions and such, but I have some pretty valid points that question whether god is real or not.

Vilot_Hero

An interesting proposal, though not one that I'm inclined to take whollly seriously from the get-go. This, after all, has been a debate which has raged for thousands of years, and it's exceedingly rare, in my experience, to find an atheist who is saying something genuinely new.

-Why do people say "god" answers their prayers when It could of been sheer luck? And compared with statistics, the argument is further questionable. The bible said god answers prayers, but peoples "prayers" are mostly if not all unanswered.Vilot_Hero

This is not a proof, nor is it even a part of a proof.

You may have heard the saying "and sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from madness" in your travels, and I think there is an analog to be made here: any sufficiently improbable instance of a prayer being answered is insdistinguishable from luck. And hey, I will grant that all these prayers that have been answered could just be luck. It could be something substantially more than luck too -- no metric exists by which we could determine the truth of the matter, though, so how can we know?

As to unanswered prayers, I'm reminded of two things -- one is a line from Evan Almighty, and one is a line from a Rolling Stones song. It is very true that we don't always get what we want, especially in response to prayer, but I have learned that we can trust that God will give us what we need. And it really is true: if I pray for courage, do I suddenly become more courageous? Or do I find that I am presented with additional opportunities to demonstrate the quality instead? If I pray for money, does my boss deliver a cheque to my desk the following day, signalling that I've just got a big fat raise? Or do I find myself presented with opportunities to switch jobs or work on additional projects?

God answers every prayer, but do we always participate in the answer we get? Or do we miss the answer we need to get because we have a pre-conceived notion of what the answer should be, or what the answer would be if we were the one answering it? Do we miss what we need because we're too myopic about what we want?

Why do people look up to the bible so much when It could of been written by anyone(It just doesn't logically make sense).Vilot_Hero

Actually, in a sense, it was written by anyone...by several anyones, in fact. Scholars wrote parts of it. So did fishermen. Scribes of kings and lowly peasants all contributed to its pages and teachings.

In the end, we take it on faith that there is something worth considering in the pages of Scripture, in much the same way that we take it on faith that the author of our physics textbook actually possesses the degree in the field that his bio claims he has. When we don't know a book's author personally, we have no ability -- logically speaking -- to judge the book based on what we do know about the author (that is: what the author claims about himself). All we're left with is the contents of the book, the real world around us, and our God-given ability to think rationally. And we have to evaluate the veracity of the text using those three things all at once.

Now, if this was intended as a historical criticism, that is another matter; we have the original manuscripts for almost all books of the Bible (all canons), and we have a very good idea of just how old many of those are. So we can be quite sure that the Bible was not just suddenly written by some wily monk in 1200 AD.

-If everything is made up of matter, then how Is It possible for god to be created or to be in existence, If there was nothing from the start? And If god just magically appeared, then how could he of created the world? Its scientifically impossible.Vilot_Hero

This is actually quite an irrational sentiment, although I'm not sure you see the problem initially. Basically, though, how do we know that matter -- within the confines of the universe -- is the sum total of what is "real"? How do we know that matter, antimatter, energy, dark matter, and all the rest are not components of a subset of a larger reality? How do we know that the universe itself, and all that is in it, is not a subordinate part of a larger existence?

It's kind of like math: subsets and supersets. If the universe is the subset, the Judeo-Christian God is the superset (I'm not going to get into pantheism or panentheism in this discussion). The analogy can be extended: the contents of the subset cannot, by definition, know anything about the rest of the superset, in the same way that an integer variable in a programming language or mathematical calculation cannot be used to store or represent a real or complex numeric variable.

I think science can prove that god is not real.Vilot_Hero

Then you probably don't' understand what science is. Science is the study of that which can be empirically observed or detected, the study of the physical universe and its properties. Now, if we could say for certain that God existed only within the universe, then yes, I suppose science could someday prove or disprove His existence. But if, on the other hand, God exists outside of the universe, then there is no way that science could possibly detect it. Moreover, if God exists outside of time (which is implied by the notion of God being 'eternal'), then there is also no way for science to detect Him either.

Science has no ability to render judgements about metaphysical concepts, so do be careful that you don't over-extend its authority.

Avatar image for WtFDragon
WtFDragon

4176

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#203 WtFDragon
Member since 2004 • 4176 Posts
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Well, exactly - it is reasonable to assume that our senses our reliable, even though we can't know for certain. Um... I think we agree, yes? :P

Funky_Llama

Well, as long as you see that proving something is by no means on the same level as disproving something -- in terms of the existence of an entity.

In short: I can 'prove' the existence of pigs, but I cannot disprove the existence of flying pigs.

Yup. Makes sense to me.

I'm reminded of one rather ardent atheist who attempted to argue, if memory serves, that he could "know" that God did not exist, in the same way that he could "know" that an elephant was not currently hiding behind his couch.

Metal's answer reminded me of my own: yes, there is not an elephant behind your couch, but that certainly does not mean that elephants themselves do not exist.

Avatar image for MattUD1
MattUD1

20715

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#204 MattUD1
Member since 2004 • 20715 Posts
[QUOTE="MattUD1"][QUOTE="FragStains"]

Forgive me for not wading through 18 pages of incessant bantering...but God and science don't mix.

Using scientific and concrete logic can't help you decipher the presence of God. The reason there is no proof of God is because Christians are supposed to have a little thing called faith, that proves to God their obedience to his teachings.

I don't understand why people continue to try to use science to validate faith. It's a bit of an oxymoron.

LJS9502_basic
Science is understanding God's creation, i.e. The Universe?

That doesn't contradict his point.

Yeah, I know. I had misread his point.
Avatar image for MetalGear_Ninty
MetalGear_Ninty

6337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#205 MetalGear_Ninty
Member since 2008 • 6337 Posts
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

While I admit that there are a lot of really poor arguments in OT, I still feel that there are some really compelling arguments, even if they are in the minority. I just don't see how you can say that OT doesn't raise compelling arguments.

I'd disagree with your second point as well, when someone questions their beliefs, that doesn't mean they lock their brain away and throw away the key; personal beliefs should always be questioned.

LJS9502_basic

The reason I don't find compelling arguments is due to the biased nature of the posts. It is mostly stating an opinion. God can neither be proven nor disproven. It comes down to faith. Thus any argument that does not keep this core fact in mind is not compelling. And I have yet to see a compelling argument here. Perhaps we have different standards for what interests us.

You missed my point. I said one who has already questioned their beliefs...and to believe something strongly they should have done so......is past the point of an internet argument swaying them. They should have already thought about what and why they believe and made peace with it.

Meh, I guess so. But I don't think any reasonable user tries to prove or disprove God, but rather state why it is likely or unlikely that he exists. And on the terms of 'bias', an argument raised by a person who is biased does not make the argument inherently flawed.

I don't know, but I just don't agree with this degradation of 'internet debates', afterall the internet is just a medium for communication, I don't see how it would be any different if the medium was speech, television etc. I just probably disagree with you on this one. My beliefs are malleable. I'll never say that I'll never believe in God even though I've thought about it a ****load.

Avatar image for Funky_Llama
Funky_Llama

18428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#206 Funky_Llama
Member since 2006 • 18428 Posts

*snip*

WtFDragon

Hello there! Haven't seen you in a while. :)

Avatar image for ithilgore2006
ithilgore2006

10494

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#207 ithilgore2006
Member since 2006 • 10494 Posts

You have no prrof for there being or not being a god. Whatever "points" you come up with, soemone will already have thought of them before, they didn't prove or disprove before, they won't now.

Forget about poving or disproving, if you believe in god, just believe in him, and if you don't, then just don't believe in him, leave everyone else to make up their own mind.

Avatar image for MetalGear_Ninty
MetalGear_Ninty

6337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#208 MetalGear_Ninty
Member since 2008 • 6337 Posts
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Well, exactly - it is reasonable to assume that our senses our reliable, even though we can't know for certain. Um... I think we agree, yes? :P

LJS9502_basic

Well, as long as you see that proving something is by no means on the same level as disproving something -- in terms of the existence of an entity.

In short: I can 'prove' the existence of pigs, but I cannot disprove the existence of flying pigs.

Wouldn't that depend on the definition of flying pigs that one is using?

Yeah, I guess so.

But I meant pigs with big wings like a bird.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180198

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#209 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180198 Posts

Meh, I guess so. But I don't think any reasonable user tries to prove or disprove God, but rather state why it is likely or unlikely that he exists. And on the terms of 'bias', an argument raised by a person who is biased does not make the argument inherently flawed.

I don't know, but I just don't agree with this degradation of 'internet debates', afterall the internet is just a medium for communication, I don't see how it would be any different if the medium was speech, television etc. I just probably disagree with you on this one. My beliefs are malleable. I'll never say that I'll never believe in God even though I've thought about it a ****load.

MetalGear_Ninty

Reasonable indeed. But sometimes we have the unreasonable that think they do just that.

I'm not just singling out internet debates. If I was sitting and talking to some of these users I'd have the same opinion of their "debating"...

Avatar image for Zaeryn
Zaeryn

9070

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 0

#210 Zaeryn
Member since 2005 • 9070 Posts
You can't prove God doesn't exist just like you can't prove God exists.
Avatar image for Funky_Llama
Funky_Llama

18428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#211 Funky_Llama
Member since 2006 • 18428 Posts

Metal's answer reminded me of my own: yes, there is not an elephant behind your couch, but that certainly does not mean that elephants themselves do not exist.

WtFDragon

I think you're shifting the burden of proof there...

Avatar image for Funky_Llama
Funky_Llama

18428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#212 Funky_Llama
Member since 2006 • 18428 Posts
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Well, exactly - it is reasonable to assume that our senses our reliable, even though we can't know for certain. Um... I think we agree, yes? :P

MetalGear_Ninty

Well, as long as you see that proving something is by no means on the same level as disproving something -- in terms of the existence of an entity.

In short: I can 'prove' the existence of pigs, but I cannot disprove the existence of flying pigs.

Wouldn't that depend on the definition of flying pigs that one is using?

Yeah, I guess so.

But I meant pigs with big wings like a bird.

That's is a brilliant little tangent you have there.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180198

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#213 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180198 Posts

Yeah, I guess so.

But I meant pigs with big wings like a bird.

MetalGear_Ninty
If you're going with the physical idea of pigs as defined by science...then couldn't you disprove flying pigs?
Avatar image for MetalGear_Ninty
MetalGear_Ninty

6337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#214 MetalGear_Ninty
Member since 2008 • 6337 Posts

Reasonable indeed. But sometimes we have the unreasonable that think they do just that.

LJS9502_basic

TBH, I tend to just ignore those that are unreasonable as it seems futile to me to debate with them. That's why I'll tend to debate with you, Theokhoth, Domatron etc.

Avatar image for WtFDragon
WtFDragon

4176

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#215 WtFDragon
Member since 2004 • 4176 Posts

[QUOTE="WtFDragon"]

*snip*

Funky_Llama

Hello there! Haven't seen you in a while. :)

That's what happens when one has a busy job and a pregnant wife. ;)

Avatar image for qwertyoip
qwertyoip

1681

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#216 qwertyoip
Member since 2007 • 1681 Posts

Im not trying to flame peoples religions and such, but I have some pretty valid points that question whether god is real or not.

-Why do people say "god" answers their prayers when It could of been sheer luck? And compared with statistics, the argument is further questionable. The bible said god answers prayers, but peoples "prayers" are mostly if not all unanswered.

-Why do people look up to the bible so much when It could of been written by anyone(It just doesn't logically make sense).

-If everything is made up of matter, then how Is It possible for god to be created or to be in existence, If there was nothing from the start? And If god just magically appeared, then how could he of created the world? Its scientifically impossible.

I think science can prove that god is not real.

Vilot_Hero

1: why do people say that its sheer luck when it could of been god?

the arguments logic is flawed; it could be used for anything.

2: Why do people look up to the rules of britian or the constitution or the quaran....... when anyone could of wrote it

(your argument doesnt logically make sense)

3: who said god was material?

ever heard of supernatural?

Avatar image for WtFDragon
WtFDragon

4176

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#217 WtFDragon
Member since 2004 • 4176 Posts

[QUOTE="WtFDragon"]

Metal's answer reminded me of my own: yes, there is not an elephant behind your couch, but that certainly does not mean that elephants themselves do not exist.

Funky_Llama

I think you're shifting the burden of proof there...

Not really. The local imperceptibility of an elephant does not imply the global non-existence of elephants. Similarly, the local imperceptibility of God does not imply the global non-existence of God. It was a comment on what was ultimately an irrational statement to begin with, rather than an issue of who has to provide proof.

Avatar image for MetalGear_Ninty
MetalGear_Ninty

6337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#218 MetalGear_Ninty
Member since 2008 • 6337 Posts
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

Yeah, I guess so.

But I meant pigs with big wings like a bird.

LJS9502_basic

If you're going with the physical idea of pigs as defined by science...then couldn't you disprove flying pigs?

That doesn't really matter, as the term 'pig' is just a label.

Technically, the 'flying pig' may not technically be a pig, it may be called something like pigus wingus. But that is besides the point.

Avatar image for Funky_Llama
Funky_Llama

18428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#219 Funky_Llama
Member since 2006 • 18428 Posts
[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

[QUOTE="WtFDragon"]

Metal's answer reminded me of my own: yes, there is not an elephant behind your couch, but that certainly does not mean that elephants themselves do not exist.

WtFDragon

I think you're shifting the burden of proof there...

Not really. The local imperceptibility of an elephant does not imply the global non-existence of elephants. Similarly, the local imperceptibility of God does not imply either the global non-existence of God. It was a comment on what was ultimately an irrational statement to begin with, rather than an issue of who has to provide proof.

Ah, I misread your comment. :x

Avatar image for WtFDragon
WtFDragon

4176

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#220 WtFDragon
Member since 2004 • 4176 Posts
[QUOTE="WtFDragon"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

[QUOTE="WtFDragon"]

Metal's answer reminded me of my own: yes, there is not an elephant behind your couch, but that certainly does not mean that elephants themselves do not exist.

Funky_Llama

I think you're shifting the burden of proof there...

Not really. The local imperceptibility of an elephant does not imply the global non-existence of elephants. Similarly, the local imperceptibility of God does not imply either the global non-existence of God. It was a comment on what was ultimately an irrational statement to begin with, rather than an issue of who has to provide proof.

Ah, I misread your comment. :x

It's still early. I'm just finishing my coffee now, in fact.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180198

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#221 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180198 Posts

That doesn't really matter, as the term 'pig' is just a label.

Technically, the 'flying pig' may not technically be a pig, it may be called something like pigus wingus. But that is besides the point.

MetalGear_Ninty

I know where you're trying to go with this I think. What is not observed or provable by science doesn't negate the fact that on a different plane of existence more can be out there than we know. And that is fine. And I wouldn't disagree.

But the idea doesn't apply to everything. Sometimes when it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...it's a duck.

Avatar image for Funky_Llama
Funky_Llama

18428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#222 Funky_Llama
Member since 2006 • 18428 Posts
[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="WtFDragon"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

[QUOTE="WtFDragon"]

Metal's answer reminded me of my own: yes, there is not an elephant behind your couch, but that certainly does not mean that elephants themselves do not exist.

WtFDragon

I think you're shifting the burden of proof there...

Not really. The local imperceptibility of an elephant does not imply the global non-existence of elephants. Similarly, the local imperceptibility of God does not imply either the global non-existence of God. It was a comment on what was ultimately an irrational statement to begin with, rather than an issue of who has to provide proof.

Ah, I misread your comment. :x

It's still early. I'm just finishing my coffee now, in fact.

Alas, I don't have that excuse; it's 3 PM where I am. :P

Avatar image for MetalGear_Ninty
MetalGear_Ninty

6337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#223 MetalGear_Ninty
Member since 2008 • 6337 Posts
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

That doesn't really matter, as the term 'pig' is just a label.

Technically, the 'flying pig' may not technically be a pig, it may be called something like pigus wingus. But that is besides the point.

LJS9502_basic

I know where you're trying to go with this I think. What is not observed or provable by science doesn't negate the fact that on a different plane of existence more can be out there than we know. And that is fine. And I wouldn't disagree.

But the idea doesn't apply to everything. Sometimes when it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...it's a duck.

I'm not sure what you mean by the second paragraph, could you elaborate please?

Avatar image for xscrapzx
xscrapzx

6636

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#224 xscrapzx
Member since 2007 • 6636 Posts
[QUOTE="xscrapzx"]

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Why? :|

Funky_Llama

Well because there is not evidence besides what this so called one person says. How crediable is that?

How's that relevant to whether one would have to be omniscient to disprove the existence of God, but no omniscient to prove it?

Well that would just be contradicting themselves, I read it wrong.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180198

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#225 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180198 Posts

I'm not sure what you mean by the second paragraph, could you elaborate please?

MetalGear_Ninty
Oh just that sometimes things ARE what they seem.:P
Avatar image for Funky_Llama
Funky_Llama

18428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#226 Funky_Llama
Member since 2006 • 18428 Posts
[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"]

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Why? :|

xscrapzx

Well because there is not evidence besides what this so called one person says. How crediable is that?

How's that relevant to whether one would have to be omniscient to disprove the existence of God, but no omniscient to prove it?

Well that would just be contradicting themselves, I read it wrong.

Ah. On another note, seeing that you have Braid just made my respect for you double. :P

Avatar image for xscrapzx
xscrapzx

6636

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#227 xscrapzx
Member since 2007 • 6636 Posts
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

I'm not sure what you mean by the second paragraph, could you elaborate please?

LJS9502_basic

Oh just that sometimes things ARE what they seem.:P

What if somebody dresses up as a duck and does a really good job disguising themselves as one? See what I did there.

Avatar image for WtFDragon
WtFDragon

4176

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#229 WtFDragon
Member since 2004 • 4176 Posts
[QUOTE="WtFDragon"]

It's still early. I'm just finishing my coffee now, in fact.

Funky_Llama

Alas, I don't have that excuse; it's 3 PM where I am. :P

I'm not sure, but I think I envy you.

Avatar image for xscrapzx
xscrapzx

6636

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#230 xscrapzx
Member since 2007 • 6636 Posts
[QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"]

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Why? :|

Funky_Llama

Well because there is not evidence besides what this so called one person says. How crediable is that?

How's that relevant to whether one would have to be omniscient to disprove the existence of God, but no omniscient to prove it?

Well that would just be contradicting themselves, I read it wrong.

Ah. On another note, seeing that you have Braid just made my respect for you double. :P

Hell ya Braid is awesome!

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180198

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#231 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180198 Posts
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

I'm not sure what you mean by the second paragraph, could you elaborate please?

xscrapzx

Oh just that sometimes things ARE what they seem.:P

What if somebody dresses up as a duck and does a really good job disguising themselves as one? See what I did there.

I'd not want to know the one that actually believes that to be a duck.....
Avatar image for MetalGear_Ninty
MetalGear_Ninty

6337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#232 MetalGear_Ninty
Member since 2008 • 6337 Posts
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

I'm not sure what you mean by the second paragraph, could you elaborate please?

LJS9502_basic

Oh just that sometimes things ARE what they seem.:P

Yep.

Perhaps I've watched The Matrix trilogy too many times. :P

Avatar image for xscrapzx
xscrapzx

6636

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#233 xscrapzx
Member since 2007 • 6636 Posts
[QUOTE="WtFDragon"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

[QUOTE="WtFDragon"]

Metal's answer reminded me of my own: yes, there is not an elephant behind your couch, but that certainly does not mean that elephants themselves do not exist.

MattUD1

I think you're shifting the burden of proof there...

Not really. The local imperceptibility of an elephant does not imply the global non-existence of elephants. Similarly, the local imperceptibility of God does not imply either the global non-existence of God. It was a comment on what was ultimately an irrational statement to begin with, rather than an issue of who has to provide proof.

The only problem I see with your argument is that we know elephants exist because we have stuffed animals, political symbols, TV shows featuring elephants. We don't know if God exists, because we can't taste, see, hear, feel, smell God.

To be honest with you, if we do find god I don't know if he would appreciate it if we "tasted" him. :lol:

Avatar image for xscrapzx
xscrapzx

6636

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#234 xscrapzx
Member since 2007 • 6636 Posts
[QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

I'm not sure what you mean by the second paragraph, could you elaborate please?

LJS9502_basic

Oh just that sometimes things ARE what they seem.:P

What if somebody dresses up as a duck and does a really good job disguising themselves as one? See what I did there.

I'd not want to know the one that actually believes that to be a duck.....

:lol:

Avatar image for MattUD1
MattUD1

20715

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#235 MattUD1
Member since 2004 • 20715 Posts
[QUOTE="MattUD1"][QUOTE="WtFDragon"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

[QUOTE="WtFDragon"]

Metal's answer reminded me of my own: yes, there is not an elephant behind your couch, but that certainly does not mean that elephants themselves do not exist.

xscrapzx

I think you're shifting the burden of proof there...

Not really. The local imperceptibility of an elephant does not imply the global non-existence of elephants. Similarly, the local imperceptibility of God does not imply either the global non-existence of God. It was a comment on what was ultimately an irrational statement to begin with, rather than an issue of who has to provide proof.

The only problem I see with your argument is that we know elephants exist because we have stuffed animals, political symbols, TV shows featuring elephants. We don't know if God exists, because we can't taste, see, hear, feel, smell God.

To be honest with you, if we do find god I don't know if he would appreciate it if we "tasted" him. :lol:

Yeah, I know stupid example. I was actually hoping no one quoted me. When I first thought of that response it seemed to work but as I was putting my pants on I was thinking about it...
Avatar image for WtFDragon
WtFDragon

4176

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#236 WtFDragon
Member since 2004 • 4176 Posts

To be honest with you, if we do find god I don't know if he would appreciate it if we "tasted" him. :lol:

xscrapzx

Minor quibble: if the Judeo-Christian God does in fact exist, which I of course believe, then I have in fact tasted Him. And do so each Sunday. We Catholics like giving things fancy names, and in this case the word of the day is Eucharist.

Avatar image for xscrapzx
xscrapzx

6636

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#237 xscrapzx
Member since 2007 • 6636 Posts
[QUOTE="xscrapzx"]

To be honest with you, if we do find god I don't know if he would appreciate it if we "tasted" him. :lol:

WtFDragon

Minor quibble: if the Judeo-Christian God does in fact exist, which I of course believe, then I have in fact tasted Him. And do so each Sunday. We Catholics like giving things fancy names, and in this case the word of the day is Eucharist.

OH NO! I'm an idiot.... why didn't I remember that. I'm catholic too... ya but I meant in the sense of actually going up to him and licking him. :lol:

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180198

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#238 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180198 Posts
[QUOTE="xscrapzx"]

To be honest with you, if we do find god I don't know if he would appreciate it if we "tasted" him. :lol:

WtFDragon

Minor quibble: if the Judeo-Christian God does in fact exist, which I of course believe, then I have in fact tasted Him. And do so each Sunday. We Catholics like giving things fancy names, and in this case the word of the day is Eucharist.

God tastes like bread and wine?
Avatar image for 69ANT69
69ANT69

8472

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#239 69ANT69
Member since 2007 • 8472 Posts
You Sir ... FAIL! :P
Avatar image for WtFDragon
WtFDragon

4176

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#240 WtFDragon
Member since 2004 • 4176 Posts
[QUOTE="WtFDragon"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"]

To be honest with you, if we do find god I don't know if he would appreciate it if we "tasted" him. :lol:

LJS9502_basic

Minor quibble: if the Judeo-Christian God does in fact exist, which I of course believe, then I have in fact tasted Him. And do so each Sunday. We Catholics like giving things fancy names, and in this case the word of the day is Eucharist.

God tastes like bread and wine?

In a sense. It might be more accurate to say that the bread and wine retain the 'accidentals' (read Aristotle) of bread and wine, while becoming Christ 'substantially' (again, read Aristotle).

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180198

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#241 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180198 Posts

In a sense. It might be more accurate to say that the bread and wine retain the 'accidentals' (read Aristotle) of bread and wine, while becoming Christ 'substantially' (again, read Aristotle).

WtFDragon

I don't need to read Aristotle. I'm Catholic. I know what Eucharist is. The bread still tastes as bread and the wine as wine. This is the most misunderstood part of Catholicism and you'll get comments about vampires and cannibals.

Eucharist is more about sharing in the sacrifice of the death and resurrection as a community.

Avatar image for WtFDragon
WtFDragon

4176

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#242 WtFDragon
Member since 2004 • 4176 Posts
[QUOTE="WtFDragon"]

In a sense. It might be more accurate to say that the bread and wine retain the 'accidentals' (read Aristotle) of bread and wine, while becoming Christ 'substantially' (again, read Aristotle).

LJS9502_basic

I don't need to read Aristotle. I'm Catholic. I know what Eucharist is. The bread still tastes as bread and the wine as wine. This is the most misunderstood part of Catholicism and you'll get comments about vampires and cannibals.

Eucharist is more about sharing in the sacrifice of the death and resurrection as a community.

Nice to meet another Catholic! :) Sorry if I seemed presumptuous.

As to your analysis, I quite agree.

Avatar image for xscrapzx
xscrapzx

6636

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#243 xscrapzx
Member since 2007 • 6636 Posts
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="WtFDragon"]

In a sense. It might be more accurate to say that the bread and wine retain the 'accidentals' (read Aristotle) of bread and wine, while becoming Christ 'substantially' (again, read Aristotle).

WtFDragon

I don't need to read Aristotle. I'm Catholic. I know what Eucharist is. The bread still tastes as bread and the wine as wine. This is the most misunderstood part of Catholicism and you'll get comments about vampires and cannibals.

Eucharist is more about sharing in the sacrifice of the death and resurrection as a community.

Nice to meet another Catholic! :) Sorry if I seemed presumptuous.

As to your analysis, I quite agree.

I as well!

Avatar image for Funky_Llama
Funky_Llama

18428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#244 Funky_Llama
Member since 2006 • 18428 Posts
[QUOTE="WtFDragon"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="WtFDragon"]

In a sense. It might be more accurate to say that the bread and wine retain the 'accidentals' (read Aristotle) of bread and wine, while becoming Christ 'substantially' (again, read Aristotle).

xscrapzx

I don't need to read Aristotle. I'm Catholic. I know what Eucharist is. The bread still tastes as bread and the wine as wine. This is the most misunderstood part of Catholicism and you'll get comments about vampires and cannibals.

Eucharist is more about sharing in the sacrifice of the death and resurrection as a community.

Nice to meet another Catholic! :) Sorry if I seemed presumptuous.

As to your analysis, I quite agree.

I as well!

Me too!

...um... I just wanted to join in.

Avatar image for Blood-Scribe
Blood-Scribe

6465

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#245 Blood-Scribe
Member since 2007 • 6465 Posts
Those have got to be some of the most trite arguments against god that I've seen, and around here, that's really saying something. I'm getting tired of hearing arguments from both sides, but really, there's way better arguments than that.
Avatar image for N-I-N
N-I-N

294

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#246 N-I-N
Member since 2008 • 294 Posts

well believing in God just makes it easier for some people to exist without constantly questioning the reason for their being. Plus i like to believe that after i die there is something more to existance than a continuous cycle of reproduction.

Avatar image for curono
curono

7722

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 21

User Lists: 0

#247 curono
Member since 2005 • 7722 Posts

I am an atheist, and convinced of my ways.

The bible isn't a reliable source to prove god. How reliable is a source which tells that a man killed thousands and thousands of men equipped only with his sword. I have nothing against the bible, but as a fact source it is deceiving. Half of what it says are fables and other half are semi-probable facts.

Whether if god exists or not is not an important question. The most important question in any religious debate isthis: Does your beliefs make you feel well and guided?

Avatar image for Theokhoth
Theokhoth

36799

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#248 Theokhoth
Member since 2008 • 36799 Posts

-Why do people say "god" answers their prayers when It could of been sheer luck?

Why do people say it's sheer luck when it could have been God? See, it works both ways. I don't believe luck exists.

And compared with statistics, the argument is further questionable. The bible said god answers prayers, but peoples "prayers" are mostly if not all unanswered.

The Bible doesn't say God answers all prayers.:|

-Why do people look up to the bible so much when It could of been written by anyone(It just doesn't logically make sense).

"Coulda, coulda coulda." "Coulda" isn't much of an argument.

-If everything is made up of matter, then how Is It possible for god to be created or to be in existence, If there was nothing from the start? And If god just magically appeared, then how could he of created the world? Its scientifically impossible.

No it isn't.:|

I think science can prove that god is not real.

Not by the definitions of science, it can't.

Vilot_Hero
Avatar image for Funky_Llama
Funky_Llama

18428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#249 Funky_Llama
Member since 2006 • 18428 Posts

well believing in God just makes it easier for some people to exist without constantly questioning the reason for their being. Plus i like to believe that after i die there is something more to existance than a continuous cycle of reproduction.

N-I-N

At least you admit it's a crutch. :x

Avatar image for N-I-N
N-I-N

294

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#250 N-I-N
Member since 2008 • 294 Posts
[QUOTE="N-I-N"]

well believing in God just makes it easier for some people to exist without constantly questioning the reason for their being. Plus i like to believe that after i die there is something more to existance than a continuous cycle of reproduction.

Funky_Llama

At least you admit it's a crutch. :x

Yeah, but without it we wouldnt have much of a basis for Morals , we would probably still be living in caves, killing and raping each other.

At least the belief in God, and therefor a religion, instills some basic Morals and principals upon us, so we can continue to invent new and interesting weapons to mass murder with, all the while watching other people live their own fictional lives on a TV set.

Were still animals in shirts and ties, thats my opinion ofcourse.