Does God exist? (12 Viewers)

[Slidey]

I S L A M

its only 5 letters, but man, it makes a hell alot of sense

p.s. please dont go by the media, its bias..unbeliveably BIAS..absolutely BIAS! :mad1:

It makes about as much sense as the Muslims who blows themselves up in the name of it.

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

TBH I don't think I'd believe in the existence of a God until he actually walked into my lounge room and even then I'd probably put it down to Dad having a bad hair day.

I don't know if that makes me overly sceptical or if it's just a reflection of the fact that we really can't prove it either way.

 

[Ennaybur]

But I think one can be agnostic and atheist simultanously - for example, I cannot PROVE there is no god (agnostic) but I also don't BELIEVE there is one (atheist).


Also,
http://abstrusegoose.com/strips/Veritas_Vos_Liberabit.PNG

hey cat sup?

I just sent you a message epitomising my *facepalm* at christians :\

 

[*TRUE*]

um. Hi there... ?


edit: read my post plz.

edit edit: you can't just redefine things kthx. Keep in mind the etymology and this:

Hi.
I read it.

How bout you. Maybe you do not understand what i am saying?

 

[Ennaybur]

*sigh* obviously not :|

 

[Kwayera]

hey cat sup?

I just sent you a message epitomising my *facepalm* at christians :\

Oh?

*awaits it*

 

[Slidey]

TBH I don't think I'd believe in the existence of a God until he actually walked into my lounge room and even then I'd probably put it down to Dad having a bad hair day.

I don't know if that makes me overly sceptical or if it's just a reflection of the fact that we really can't prove it either way.

Well God produces instant orgasms when he enters the room so you'd definitely know if he did or not.

Eh, I think TRUE's definition isn't exactly uncompromising or anything. I've heard all sorts use it before and I tend to agree with it. I'd consider myself agnostic, and depending on the person I'll tell them that.

I tell fundies I'm atheist because I want nothing to do with them and don't want them thinking there's actually a chance I'll believe in their God.

I tell normal people I'm agnostic because hey, we might even be able to have an interesting casual discussion about it.

 

[Ennaybur]

Oh?

*awaits it*

haven't got it? :S

 

[*TRUE*]

haven't got it? :S

I dont think PM's get through all the time actually.

 

[*TRUE*]

TBH I don't think I'd believe in the existence of a God until he actually walked into my lounge room and even then I'd probably put it down to Dad having a bad hair day.

I don't know if that makes me overly sceptical or if it's just a reflection of the fact that we really can't prove it either way.

If God walks into your loungeroom it will probably be MY dad having a bad hair day

 

[Kwayera]

No

 

[Ennaybur]

I dont think PM's get through all the time actually.

lol it was an sms

 

[Kwayera]

Oh why didn't you say so!

*goes to check phone*


EDIT: HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA. AND THEY SPELLED IT WRONG.

 

[Enteebee]

My definition is the correct one.
An atheist disbelieves in God.
Either they disbelieve out of faith , or the disbelieve out of proof to the contrary.
An agnostic doesnt think there is proof either way.

An agnostic is someone who believes it cannot be proven either way, it is an epistemological position... but you can still have beliefs based on probabilities from the best current data, obviously your beliefs are not 'proven' absolutely, but most people don't need that sort of validation.

 

[Ennaybur]

How BAD was that Dr Who episode!?

which one?

 

[*TRUE*]

An agnostic is someone who believes it cannot be proven either way, it is an epistemological position... but you can still have beliefs based on probabilities from the best current data, obviously your beliefs are not 'proven' absolutely, but most people don't need that sort of validation.

Tell me about your probabilities from the best current data?
And why shouldnt you have validation if you claim absolute truth?
PS: Im truly interested , not trying to be a pain

 

[BradCube]

Scientific objections to (1) are often fielded from a perspective which endorses non-deterministic, or properly random, interpretations of quantum mechanics. If particles can spontaneously emerge in a non-deterministic way then causes may not be necessary in order for things to exist (though, I think one would be right to ask 'what kind of underlying fabric allows for such spontaneous existence in the first place?').

Yeah I actually expected that to come up, but to be honest I find it very problematic. The statement I made "whatever begins to exist must have a cause" stems from the first principle of causality and can be expressed as "from nothing, nothing comes". Any proof (or disproof) would surely rely on premises less obvious than this first.

I find the whole quantum fluctuations and virtual particles argument wholly unconvincing (probably for the same reason that you seem to be suggesting). For virtual particles do not come from nothing at all, they rely on quantum foam (a sea of fluctuating energy) which is something isn't it?

If things could truly begin to exist without cause, I don't see how we should expect any less or be surprised in real life if this happened. After all, if the whole universe can come from nothing for no reason, why can't any object pop into existence for no reason?

Oh and by the way Kfunk, this isn't really a rebuttal of what you have said. It's just a way of summarizing my response to your thoughts and those who posted before you

 

[Enteebee]

[quote*TRUE*]Tell me about your probabilities from the best current data?[/quote]

The best current data we have shows absolutely no evidence that could prove an omnipotent god or anything supernatural at all... Of course these things may exist in data that we have not yet been able to/will never be able to collect, but that's also the realm full of flights of fantasy and it doesn't make sense to base our reality on such things (plus, we just don't... we can't as far as I can tell).

stems from the first principle of causality and can be expressed as "from nothing, nothing comes". Any proof (or disproof) would surely rely on premises less obvious than this first.

Causality requires time, do you understand this? What is this "first principle of causality" anyway?

 

[BradCube]

The entire concept of a 'cause' requires a before, "before" time is nonsense.

Unless the cause originates from something timeless - ie a timeless eternal God?

 

[*TRUE*]

The best current data we have shows absolutely no evidence that could prove an omnipotent god or anything supernatural at all... Of course these things may exist in data that we have not yet been able to/will never be able to collect, but that's also the realm full of flights of fantasy and it doesn't make sense to base our reality on such things (plus, we just don't... we can't as far as I can tell).



Causality requires time, do you understand this? What is this "first principle of causality" anyway?

Thanks...can you also tell me how it is we can be sure that time began when it did and that time ever = 0? What evidence is available to us?