Does God exist? (11 Viewers)

[Garygaz]

haha, quantum physics
not really
quantum mechanics
quantum theory
quantum chemistry
quantum of solace



that's actually untrue.
but not quantum physics, imo

i see what you're saying, but i think it's a little dumb. effectively:

2000 years ago some guy did lots of fantastic stuff.
people followed him
christianity became like, important
God invented
WE CAN'T DISPROVE THIS INVENTION
THEREFORE IT POSSIBLY EXISTS

well, yes, but that's not really a statement of any substance, and it makes me question what you're all bickering about...

Hate to punch a massive hole in your argument, but.......



I never mentioned Christianity.

i.e: im just arguing for the partial chance of the existence of the supernatural in general.

 

[Ben Netanyahu]

That's not really a hole
it's something there for decoration.
the God invented part is what's important

 

[Garygaz]

That's not really a hole
it's something there for decoration.
the God invented part is what's important

Not so much as you can't disprove god, as much as there is a gap that science can't answer for. Nor anything, hence the possibility that something unprecedented happened. No, I am not saying it is definitely god/supernatural, I'm just saying because it's above any human to answer, no one can give a definitive answer.

 

[Ben Netanyahu]

you're arguing a pointless fact

 

[Cookie182]

True it does, (remembering I'm agnostic) I still think there are certain questions that science hasn't answered about anti-matter, higgs particle and what not that may indeed be answered, yet its just a belief I have that unless some of the questions I posted above can be answered, then there is still that gap which could be filled by anything.

A notable point of tension is that "agnostic" is not philosophically considered acceptable to the question, "Do you believe in God?"

This is simply a premise in contrast with the default state of non-belief that all humans have, in which at some point you either accept (your a theist) or reject (your an atheist). The degree of "how much" you reject this statement by is really irrelevant (subjective concept) it’s simply how you weight the evidence.

Agnosticism per se is an epistemic position- an answer to the question "Do you think knowledge of God is attainable?” The agnostic must still be either:

An agnostic theist (I believe in god but don't believe knowledge on god is possible)

An agnostic atheist (I do not believe in god and do not believe knowledge is possible).

That really is the differences between the labels. See "George H Smith's: A Case Against God (1979)" [http://www.scribd.com/doc/13016082/Atheism-and-the-Case-against-God *Please read. Seriously, before continuing this debate read this work of art.]] for some really clear definitions. I think it is important to make this distinguishment once and for all. Note, under this paradigm the atheist simply "rejects" the alternative hypothesis made by the theist. Atheism is interdependent on religion existing in the first place. Therefore it is a not a "belief system" or "religion" on its own- a common fallacy made by the theist. It therefore requires no "proof" to. The only time this can conflict is when a very strong atheist (don’t like to label but anyway) makes the claim "there is no god. I'm certain." Having said that, in a practical sense most atheists accept the philosophical possibility, but based on the weight of the evidence see the chance of this being very small (but it is not really possible to speak for everyone).

Think of it in terms of a courtroom. The atheistic position in our society is "they are innocent" until the theist (prosecutor) must prove beyond any reasonable doubt they are guilty. If they fail to produce the evidence, rationality calls for rejection. Notably, they could have been guilty and there was just a lack of evidence to support this (i.e. a god could exist) however that would be a tenable position and bring under scrutiny our methods of testability. We must conclude innocence in this situation (god doesn't exist) until the evidence can suggest otherwise. Having "faith" or judging on a whim brings a court into contempt- we would arrest a judge if they attempted this. It leads to a society where reason and truth are disrespected, where lies and power are promoted above virtue and patience. The strangest thing is- as a society we have developed these stringent conditions for our legal system, a highly rational way of thinking- yet we have completely exempt religious thinking from the same process. A good example of what happens when religion is analysed to an extent can be seen in the Kitzmiller v Dover (2004) trial- Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The jury can not give the answer "I don't know" at the end of the trial.

 

[ad infinitum]

The term Atheist simply denotes one who is not persuaded by the claims of the theist. The term Agnostic refers to a confused, muddle headed, cowardly apologist who is confused about the term Atheism. Both terms are completely unnecessary, and are complete void of any actually description of what the individual stands for. We do not need these words, as we do not need to define ourselves as Anti-Astrologers or Aracists. We only need to use words of substance such as reason and evidence to dismantle the macabre theocrats in our midst.

 

[Kwayera]

Uh, not really.

 

[ad infinitum]

Not so much as you can't disprove invisible Horatio God from CSI: God, as much as there is a gap that science can't answer for. Nor anything, hence the possibility that something unprecedented happened. No, I am not saying it is definitely invisible Horatio God from CSI: God, I'm just saying because it's above any human to answer, no one can give a definitive answer.

reductio ad absurdum

 

[Lukybear]

Can I just ask Cookie, why is it assumed that all humans begun in the state of non-belief? I am curious of how you intepreted this? As this definition of belief vs non-belief, is biased. It is not physical, for example the colour of one's skin, but taught. This concept of belief vs non-belief is taught to us at a certain age, and it is at this time, our "belief or non-belief" state is set?

Take the analogy of a person who has never eaten ice-cream. When the ice-cream is introduced the person either like or dislike the ice-cream. And previous to that, there is not a definite view of favour or dislike about ice-cream, and therefore he cannot dislike or like ice-cream.

 

[ComingUpForAir]

ARE YOU RETARDED OR DELUSIONAL?
The singularity which occurred at the beginning of the big bang required a temperature of infinite, which is impossible.

Retarded - Delayed in development; Having mental retardation
Delusion - a mistaken or unfounded opinion or idea

Your comments manage to satisfy the definitions precisely....I hope you may one day realize their hilarious absurbity
I read 'bradcubes' post..and much like you, he merely asserts a profound ineptitude with regards to scientific terminology.
It seems that I must spell it out for you, how do I say, slowly..
The scientific method merely attempts to negate and subvert human intuition, a safeguard against the crude thought-proccess our minds natural employ.
'Science' does not pertain to annex some 'ultimate reality', it only provides answers to things in our perception of reality....and thus, due to our flawed and relativist perceptions, it can never provide ultimate 'answers'. This notion can be demonstrated by simply picking some well established field of science and continually asking 'why'..at some point you will get the response 'we dont know'. This does not have anything to do with 'the limitations of science', rather our minds delving into concepts they themselves did not evolve around, and thus have no mechanisms for understanding.
I'll repeat it again, nothing you say is new or intelligent, its merely what every idiot concludes when they begin to ponder the universe.

 

[Carrotsticks]

The term Agnostic refers to a confused, muddle headed, cowardly apologist who is confused about the term Atheism.

Wtf? an agnostic person is a person who doesn't believe in god specifically, but believes that there is a 'greater force' out there somewhere. They still hold the values of atheists, but quietly believe that there is something out there.

 

[Lukybear]

Whilst we're on the topic of the Big Bang. I just want to point out that this theory, is not solid. I.e. the expansion of the universe 500 light years at t=1 second when nothing can travel past the speed of light.

 

[ad infinitum]

Can I just ask Cookie, why is it assumed that all humans begun in the state of non-belief? I am curious of how you intepreted this? As this definition of belief vs non-belief, is biased. It is not physical, for example the colour of one's skin, but taught. This concept of belief vs non-belief is taught to us at a certain age, and it is at this time, our "belief or non-belief" state is set?

Take the analogy of a person who has never eaten ice-cream. When the ice-cream is introduced the person either like or dislike the ice-cream. And previous to that, there is not a definite view of favour or dislike about ice-cream, and therefore he cannot dislike or like ice-cream.

lol.....a puzzled mind spewing a word puzzle that does not require a refutation.

 

[ad infinitum]

Wtf? an agnostic person is a person who doesn't believe in god specifically, but believes that there is a 'greater force' out there somewhere. They still hold the values of atheists, but quietly believe that there is something out there.

Lol? Someone who believes in a 'high force out there somewhere' is a Diest. "They hold the same values as athiest"? LOL there are no values attributed to Atheism other than the conslusion that there are no good reasons to beleive in a god. Another extremely muddled mind.

 

[tommykins]

Wtf? an agnostic person is a person who doesn't believe in god specifically, but believes that there is a 'greater force' out there somewhere. They still hold the values of atheists, but quietly believe that there is something out there.

hahahahahahahhahahahah

 

[Cookie182]

Well, to help out Gaz I am going to (correct me if I'm wrong) assume you are actually a very "weak theist" to make things specifically. I haven't seen you once argue against god, yet constantly defend the theistic view as a "possibility" against all the atheist arguments present.

To Luckybear, a good question but I believe an easy one.

Essentially, since our definition presents a very simplistic game: 0 or 1, it’s binary; you believe or don't. Therefore we must start with the "neutral" position to be fair (perhaps I didn't clarify this earlier). This is the reference point I call the default state. The position where a young child simply has no knowledge of anything theological; our natural position. If they were never exposed to the "god hypothesis" they would live out a natural life etc without it. Perhaps, if they were also voided any scientific knowledge they would develop alternative "supernatural" beliefs to explain phenomenon (like storms etc) which really has deep roots in how religion began in the first place, but no, they would not "come to Christ" so to speak. Therefore, at some point in development a person faces the "god hypothesis" and either accepts/rejects. Sadly, most children are exposed at a young age, given a variety of environmental factors etc and it is "imposed" so to speak (child abuse IMO).

Nevertheless, it is easy to say that "atheism" (simply being non-belief) is hardly distinguishable from the natural state of no belief, as it requires that you "adopt nothing" so to speak other then ask for evidence when your exposed to the god proposition and don't accept it upon this evidence not being presented.

In my personal opinion, I have therefore been "atheistic" all my life. I had no belief in God through my young years and subsequently rejected accepting the alternative hypothesis that "god exists" at any level of significance as so as the proposition was presented to me- i.e. around the age of 8 I remember.

Hope that cleared it up a bit

 

[Kwayera]

Wtf? an agnostic person is a person who doesn't believe in god specifically, but believes that there is a 'greater force' out there somewhere. They still hold the values of atheists, but quietly believe that there is something out there.

Incorrect.

 

[Cookie182]

Lol? Someone who believes in a 'high force out there somewhere' is a Diest. "They hold the same values as athiest"? LOL there are no values attributed to Atheism other than the conslusion that there are no good reasons to beleive in a god. Another extremely muddled mind.[/QUOTE]

The good reasons are?

Lets test it at alpha=.05

Will I get a t-value >tcritical and subsequently reject the null that god does not exist?

 

[Carrotsticks]

Lol? Someone who believes in a 'high force out there somewhere' is a Diest. "They hold the same values as athiest"? LOL there are no values attributed to Atheism other than the conslusion that there are no good reasons to beleive in a god. Another extremely muddled mind.

Perhaps my sarcasm was too subtle.

 

[tommykins]

there was no sarcasm in ur post m8