Reply
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 240
  1. #121
    Registered User Galt's Avatar
    Join Date: Dec 2007
    Age: 37
    Posts: 719
    Rep Power: 0
    Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50)
    Galt is offline
    Originally Posted by TheCon View Post
    i actually wouldnt necessarily say that purple dragons or flying spaghetti monsters are outside of our comprehension, however I would claim that an utterly perfect being existing outside of space and time who created the universe might be.
    What if I said a property of The Flying Spaghetti Monster was that he was divinely perfect and incomprehensible?
    Now all of a sudden he has to exist for the world to make sense. If that sort of answer made me feel good, I could see myself believing that until the day I die.
    Or what about the possibility of the collusion of several perfect gods? Can there be several of them?
    Originally Posted by TheCon View Post
    At this point, what I am trying to figure out is why all proponents of logic and science aren't simply agnostic. From the way i've heard the discussion in this "thread so far, it seems that science is based around having an open mind and not making claims unless proof is presented. Since there is no proof how do people justify making the claim that "there is no God." It seem logically and scientifically ludicrous to say "there is no God" or "there is a God" when we have no concrete evidence either way.
    Most eminent scientists fall into the group of 99.9% atheist and .1% agnostic, I think. I call myself an atheist, and I defend the stance of atheism, but when it boils down to it, Jesus could be the creator of the universe, and purple dragons could exist. I might also be in a coma right now and just conversing with my own conscious. Some would say this makes me an agnostic.
    I think atheism is still a more accurate description though, because I do not hold any beliefs about the existence of a god or gods.
    http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
    Originally Posted by TheCon View Post
    Thanks for the site, i will definitley be checking out more videos now. I like how he puts it in a very straight forward way with an almost comforting demeanor. He lets you put your guard down and really hear what seem to be quite legitimate arguments.
    There are lots of bright thinkers on there. Popular atheist Sam Harris has a lot of good videos, but if that isn't your thing, so do popular theists such as Reza Aslan and Rick Warren.
    Steven Pinker is an experimental psychologist working at both MIT and Harvard, so if anyone has a nice, comforting way of explaining the ubiquity of supernatural beliefs in humans, it would probably be someone like him.

    You might also benefit from reading the first four arguments for the existence of god on this page:
    http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
    and watch this video, to put things in perspective:
    Last edited by Galt; 05-01-2008 at 02:56 PM.
    Reply With Quote

  2. #122
    Registered User FWTG's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2008
    Age: 44
    Posts: 1,243
    Rep Power: 283
    FWTG will become famous soon enough. (+50) FWTG will become famous soon enough. (+50) FWTG will become famous soon enough. (+50) FWTG will become famous soon enough. (+50) FWTG will become famous soon enough. (+50) FWTG will become famous soon enough. (+50) FWTG will become famous soon enough. (+50) FWTG will become famous soon enough. (+50) FWTG will become famous soon enough. (+50) FWTG will become famous soon enough. (+50) FWTG will become famous soon enough. (+50)
    FWTG is offline
    Originally Posted by Danny23 View Post
    Over all, from reading the Qur'an, Talmud, Kabbalah, and Torah for example, they all point towards Pantheism when describing God and God's existence.

    Heaven is anything you'd like it to be. Doesn't have to be 100 virgins, can be exploring the universe. Or sittin down with God and asking for a history lesson on everything of everything. Heaven doesn't have to be specific to what all religions claims.

    Each religion only has a one sided view of God... if combined together, we'd get a bigger spectrum of knowledge and understanding. But religious leaders or just people in general are thick headed, they'd much rather fight each other claiming their right and the other is wrong, when in reality they're both right... (I can't say that for Christianity though as most of the New Testament is a big controversy)

    So you believe all of the gods or correct except perhaps christianity?

    Which type would you consider youself?

    "Classical pantheism, which is expressed in the immanent God of Kabalistic Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Monism, neopaganism, and the New Age, generally viewing God in either a personal or cosmic manner.


    Biblical pantheism, which is expressed in the writings of the Bible with the understanding of personification linguistics as a cultural communication idiom in Hebrew language. [Isa 55:12] [Acts 17:28]


    Naturalistic pantheism, based on the relatively recent views of Baruch Spinoza (who may have been influenced by Biblical pantheism) and John Toland (who coined the term "pantheism"), as well as contemporary influences.
    "


    "Perhaps the most significant debate within the pantheistic community is about the nature of God. Classical pantheism believes in a personal, conscious, and omniscient God, and sees this God as uniting all true religions. Naturalistic pantheism believes in an unconscious, non-sentient Universe, which, while being holy and beautiful, is seen as being a God in a non-traditional and impersonal sense.

    "
    Reply With Quote

  3. #123
    Registered User Galt's Avatar
    Join Date: Dec 2007
    Age: 37
    Posts: 719
    Rep Power: 0
    Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50)
    Galt is offline
    Originally Posted by Danny23 View Post

    At the same time I'm also studying Cosmology, Physics, Astronomy, and Astrology.
    lol
    Reply With Quote

  4. #124
    Registered User illriginalized's Avatar
    Join Date: Dec 2006
    Posts: 43,193
    Rep Power: 46853
    illriginalized has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) illriginalized has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) illriginalized has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) illriginalized has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) illriginalized has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) illriginalized has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) illriginalized has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) illriginalized has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) illriginalized has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) illriginalized has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) illriginalized has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    illriginalized is offline
    Originally Posted by Galt View Post
    lol
    What's funny about astrology?... I don't study tarot cards, if that's what you're thinkin.
    أشهد أن لا إله إلاَّ الله و أشهد أن محمد رسول الله
    ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

    🚷 Anti-Degeneracy League 🚷

    https://www.twitter.com/eyeonpalestine

    Mossad acronym: ISIS AKA Israeli Secret Intelligence Service
    Reply With Quote

  5. #125
    Registered User illriginalized's Avatar
    Join Date: Dec 2006
    Posts: 43,193
    Rep Power: 46853
    illriginalized has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) illriginalized has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) illriginalized has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) illriginalized has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) illriginalized has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) illriginalized has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) illriginalized has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) illriginalized has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) illriginalized has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) illriginalized has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) illriginalized has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    illriginalized is offline
    Originally Posted by FWTG View Post
    So you believe all of the gods or correct except perhaps christianity?

    Which type would you consider youself?

    "Classical pantheism, which is expressed in the immanent God of Kabalistic Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Monism, neopaganism, and the New Age, generally viewing God in either a personal or cosmic manner.


    Biblical pantheism, which is expressed in the writings of the Bible with the understanding of personification linguistics as a cultural communication idiom in Hebrew language. [Isa 55:12] [Acts 17:28]


    Naturalistic pantheism, based on the relatively recent views of Baruch Spinoza (who may have been influenced by Biblical pantheism) and John Toland (who coined the term "pantheism"), as well as contemporary influences.
    "


    "Perhaps the most significant debate within the pantheistic community is about the nature of God. Classical pantheism believes in a personal, conscious, and omniscient God, and sees this God as uniting all true religions. Naturalistic pantheism believes in an unconscious, non-sentient Universe, which, while being holy and beautiful, is seen as being a God in a non-traditional and impersonal sense.

    "
    lol @types of pantheism.

    I don't have a type.... in pantheism, you don't have to choose a type of philosophy in pantheism. It's all relevant.
    Last edited by Danny23; 05-01-2008 at 03:04 PM.
    أشهد أن لا إله إلاَّ الله و أشهد أن محمد رسول الله
    ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

    🚷 Anti-Degeneracy League 🚷

    https://www.twitter.com/eyeonpalestine

    Mossad acronym: ISIS AKA Israeli Secret Intelligence Service
    Reply With Quote

  6. #126
    Registered User FWTG's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2008
    Age: 44
    Posts: 1,243
    Rep Power: 283
    FWTG will become famous soon enough. (+50) FWTG will become famous soon enough. (+50) FWTG will become famous soon enough. (+50) FWTG will become famous soon enough. (+50) FWTG will become famous soon enough. (+50) FWTG will become famous soon enough. (+50) FWTG will become famous soon enough. (+50) FWTG will become famous soon enough. (+50) FWTG will become famous soon enough. (+50) FWTG will become famous soon enough. (+50) FWTG will become famous soon enough. (+50)
    FWTG is offline
    Originally Posted by Danny23 View Post
    lol @types of pantheism.

    I don't have a type.... in pantheism, you don't have to choose a type of philosophy. It's all relevant.
    ???
    Reply With Quote

  7. #127
    Registered User illriginalized's Avatar
    Join Date: Dec 2006
    Posts: 43,193
    Rep Power: 46853
    illriginalized has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) illriginalized has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) illriginalized has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) illriginalized has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) illriginalized has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) illriginalized has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) illriginalized has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) illriginalized has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) illriginalized has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) illriginalized has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) illriginalized has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    illriginalized is offline
    You're askin what type of pantheist am I. Thing is, they're all relevant. So choosing a type makes no sense really, but that's my opinion.

    Edit: Italic
    Last edited by Danny23; 05-01-2008 at 04:04 PM.
    أشهد أن لا إله إلاَّ الله و أشهد أن محمد رسول الله
    ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

    🚷 Anti-Degeneracy League 🚷

    https://www.twitter.com/eyeonpalestine

    Mossad acronym: ISIS AKA Israeli Secret Intelligence Service
    Reply With Quote

  8. #128
    Here's beer Mr Beer's Avatar
    Join Date: Nov 2004
    Location: In the bar
    Posts: 37,603
    Rep Power: 141985
    Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000)
    Mr Beer is offline
    Originally Posted by TheCon View Post
    what has taught us more about the known universe? Logic and rational thinking. What does our ability to make claims through the use of logic about this small sliver of space have to do with a supernatural being? very little. I think logic is a great tool for both the advancement of science and the human race as a whole. I just don't think it is adequate in making claims about a supernatural being or the universe as a whole.
    What's wrong with logic for examining the supernatural? Also, what do you mean by 'universe as a whole'?
    Reply With Quote

  9. #129
    Registered User TheCon's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2006
    Location: Los Angeles, California, United States
    Age: 36
    Posts: 5,040
    Rep Power: 1635
    TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000)
    TheCon is offline
    Originally Posted by Mr Beer View Post
    What's wrong with logic for examining the supernatural? Also, what do you mean by 'universe as a whole'?
    What's wrong is the fact that it is an inadequate tool of analysis. It is a limited aspect of a relativley new and barbaric species of limited intelligence. Applying this tool to the supernatural is ludicrous and presumptious. By the universe as a whole i mean, the entire universe (i.e. not just the earth, or our solar system, or our galaxy, or the thousands of galaxies around our galaxy, but the universe it its entirety).
    Last edited by TheCon; 05-01-2008 at 04:13 PM.
    Loyal fan of the:
    ♦ San Jose Sharks ♦
    ♦ San Francisco Giants ♦
    ♦ San Francisco 49ers ♦
    ♦ Golden State Warriors ♦
    Reply With Quote

  10. #130
    Here's beer Mr Beer's Avatar
    Join Date: Nov 2004
    Location: In the bar
    Posts: 37,603
    Rep Power: 141985
    Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000)
    Mr Beer is offline
    Originally Posted by TheCon View Post
    What's wrong is the fact that it is an inadequate tool of analysis. It is a limited aspect of a relativley new and barbaric species of limited intelligence. Applying this tool to the supernatural is ludicrous and presumptious. By the universe as a whole i mean, the entire universe (i.e. not just the earth, or our solar system, or our galaxy, or the thousands of galaxies around our galaxy, but the uiverse it its entirety).
    Well, you keep saying it's inadequate but you haven't explained why, you just assert it. What are the alternatives? Thinking about it wishfully?

    The universe as a whole is studied by astronomers and physicists using science.
    Reply With Quote

  11. #131
    avatar loading 908's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2007
    Posts: 4,836
    Rep Power: 6223
    908 is a name known to all. (+5000) 908 is a name known to all. (+5000) 908 is a name known to all. (+5000) 908 is a name known to all. (+5000) 908 is a name known to all. (+5000) 908 is a name known to all. (+5000) 908 is a name known to all. (+5000) 908 is a name known to all. (+5000) 908 is a name known to all. (+5000) 908 is a name known to all. (+5000) 908 is a name known to all. (+5000)
    908 is offline
    Reps to OP. I came to the same conclusion as you a while ago. Unfortunately, most people are too narrow-minded to see things that way. Most people want to have some type of answer that they can hold on to and say is their belief... not some type of cycle of hypothetical statements which reaches the conclusion that we in fact can't reach a conclusion on these metaphysical matters.

    I made a thread similar to this a while ago but it just ended in theism/atheism bashing as most do... and seeing as to how this has reached 5 pages I'm assuming this one has as well.
    Force Factor Log: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=142378451&p=833477401#post833477401
    Journal: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=3226291
    **New Jersey Crew (908)**
    *Always Injured, but Still Stronger Than You Crew*
    Reply With Quote

  12. #132
    Registered User TheCon's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2006
    Location: Los Angeles, California, United States
    Age: 36
    Posts: 5,040
    Rep Power: 1635
    TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000)
    TheCon is offline
    Originally Posted by Mr Beer View Post
    Well, you keep saying it's inadequate but you haven't explained why, you just assert it. What are the alternatives? Thinking about it wishfully?

    The universe as a whole is studied by astronomers and physicists using science.
    Originally Posted by TheCon View Post
    What's wrong is the fact that it is an inadequate tool of analysis. It is a limited aspect of a relativley new and barbaric species of limited intelligence. ying this tool to the supernatural is ludicrous and presumptious. By the universe as a whole i mean, the entire universe (i.e. not just the earth, or our solar system, or our galaxy, or the thousands of galaxies around our galaxy, but the universe it its entirety).

    ^^^ this is why. and again, i've already granted science is the best thing ever and is extraordinarily useful. all i am asserting is that logic is not as useful as many atheists and theists alike might claim it to be in terms of metaphysical matters.

    Oh and 908, that is a perfect summary of both my stance and this thread lol.
    Loyal fan of the:
    ♦ San Jose Sharks ♦
    ♦ San Francisco Giants ♦
    ♦ San Francisco 49ers ♦
    ♦ Golden State Warriors ♦
    Reply With Quote

  13. #133
    Here's beer Mr Beer's Avatar
    Join Date: Nov 2004
    Location: In the bar
    Posts: 37,603
    Rep Power: 141985
    Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000)
    Mr Beer is offline
    Originally Posted by TheCon View Post
    ^^^ this is why. and again, i've already granted science is the best thing ever and is extraordinarily useful. all i am asserting is that logic is not as useful as many atheists and theists alike might claim it to be in terms of metaphysical matters.

    Oh and 908, that is a perfect summary of both my stance and this thread lol.
    Yes, you said it's because we are primitive and so on, that does not prove logic/rationality/science to be primitive, it's just an assertion. Just because logic and science is used by primitives does not mean it has a viable alternative. What gets a fire lit faster, a firebow + tinder or wishing really really hard?
    Reply With Quote

  14. #134
    Registered User TheCon's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2006
    Location: Los Angeles, California, United States
    Age: 36
    Posts: 5,040
    Rep Power: 1635
    TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000)
    TheCon is offline
    Originally Posted by Mr Beer View Post
    Yes, you said it's because we are primitive and so on, that does not prove logic/rationality/science to be primitive, it's just an assertion. Just because logic and science is used by primitives does not mean it has a viable alternative. What gets a fire lit faster, a firebow + tinder or wishing really really hard?
    It seems like your responses are out of context from what has been said before. I simply want a justification for thinking that it is perfectly logical and rational to say "God does not exist" and ridiculous to say "God does exist." There's no proof either way. One says "well because logic is capable of answering questions like these and it suggests there's no God so i'm an atheist" the other one says "well religious texts are able to answer questions like these and they suggest a God exists so im a theist." Why can't we all just say the truth? We don't know and we have no conclusive proof either way. Any claims we make are pathetically grounded at best. That way, either we take that and say we are agnostic, choose to believe there is a God, or choose to believe there isn't. Either way, the discussion is mute for now since we are all equally wrong/right.


    Edit: And i want to make it clear, there was never an assertion made. I simply said that this is the way i view it (this is how it seems to me) and asked someone to make the argument that either logic is more effective than religious texts at asserting truths about a supreme being or vice versa.
    Last edited by TheCon; 05-01-2008 at 04:41 PM.
    Loyal fan of the:
    ♦ San Jose Sharks ♦
    ♦ San Francisco Giants ♦
    ♦ San Francisco 49ers ♦
    ♦ Golden State Warriors ♦
    Reply With Quote

  15. #135
    Registered User illriginalized's Avatar
    Join Date: Dec 2006
    Posts: 43,193
    Rep Power: 46853
    illriginalized has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) illriginalized has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) illriginalized has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) illriginalized has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) illriginalized has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) illriginalized has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) illriginalized has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) illriginalized has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) illriginalized has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) illriginalized has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) illriginalized has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    illriginalized is offline
    Why would it matter which lights faster? Instead we should study the science of wishing/thought manifestation on a scientific (quantum physics/mechanics) level. Could you not agree? I believe we should have science of everything instead of thinking about it on a rational level and just disregarding it. Anything is possible...
    أشهد أن لا إله إلاَّ الله و أشهد أن محمد رسول الله
    ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

    🚷 Anti-Degeneracy League 🚷

    https://www.twitter.com/eyeonpalestine

    Mossad acronym: ISIS AKA Israeli Secret Intelligence Service
    Reply With Quote

  16. #136
    Registered User Galt's Avatar
    Join Date: Dec 2007
    Age: 37
    Posts: 719
    Rep Power: 0
    Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50)
    Galt is offline
    Originally Posted by TheCon View Post
    It seems like your responses are out of context from what has been said before. I simply want a justification for thinking that it is perfectly logical and rational to say "God does not exist" and ridiculous to say "God does exist." There's no proof either way. One says "well because logic is capable of answering questions like these and it suggests there's no God so i'm an atheist" the other one says "well religious texts are able to answer questions like these and they suggest a God exists so im a theist." Why can't we all just say the truth? We don't know and we have no conclusive proof either way. Any claims we make are pathetically grounded at best. That way, either we take that and say we are agnostic, choose to believe there is a God, or choose to believe there isn't. Either way, the discussion is mute for now since we are all equally wrong/right.


    Edit: And i want to make it clear, there was never an assertion made. I simply said that this is the way i view it (this is how it seems to me) and asked someone to make the argument that either logic is more effective than religious texts at asserting truths about a supreme being or vice versa.
    Which gods from which texts? How are you weighing their truth-value?

    What evidence do you have that a transcendental being has tried to communicate with human beings?

    And another question, is there a limit to transcendental beings, forces, and powers? Could the first being, or god, be too complex for us to understand, but wouldn't there then be the possibility of another greater god that neither us or our local being could understand, and then one for that being as well, and so on?
    Originally Posted by TheCon View Post
    Why can't we all just say the truth? We don't know and we have no conclusive proof either way. Any claims we make are pathetically grounded at best. That way, either we take that and say we are agnostic, choose to believe there is a God, or choose to believe there isn't. Either way, the discussion is mute for now since we are all equally wrong/right.
    Exactly, just like The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
    Last edited by Galt; 05-01-2008 at 04:54 PM.
    Reply With Quote

  17. #137
    Registered User TheCon's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2006
    Location: Los Angeles, California, United States
    Age: 36
    Posts: 5,040
    Rep Power: 1635
    TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000)
    TheCon is offline
    Originally Posted by Galt View Post
    Which gods from which texts? How are you weighing their truth-value?

    What evidence do you have that a transcendental being has tried to communicate with human beings?

    And another question, is there a limit to transcendental beings, forces, and powers? Could the first being, or god, be too complex for us to understand, but wouldn't there then be the possibility of another greater god that neither us or our local being could understand, and then one for that being as well, and so on?

    Exactly, just like The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
    all gods from all texts, im not. None. I don't know. Yes. Yes, sure like the flying spaghetti monster...
    Loyal fan of the:
    ♦ San Jose Sharks ♦
    ♦ San Francisco Giants ♦
    ♦ San Francisco 49ers ♦
    ♦ Golden State Warriors ♦
    Reply With Quote

  18. #138
    Registered User Galt's Avatar
    Join Date: Dec 2007
    Age: 37
    Posts: 719
    Rep Power: 0
    Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50)
    Galt is offline
    Originally Posted by TheCon View Post
    None.
    No evidence, right. So how do you know which god you are even talking about?

    Originally Posted by TheCon View Post
    I don't know.
    That's what I thought, you would figure the worlds greatest scientists would be aware and thrilled if there were some good evidence suggesting any intelligence other than human had tried to contact us.


    Originally Posted by TheCon View Post
    Yes.
    Why? Why can't there be two gods? Or an infinite number of gods who can't be aware of another. Turtles all the way down!


    Edit*********
    Looks like I caught you before you made your mind up about the universe and all of the gods people have ever written about in books. Okay, I'll respond to this one too:
    Originally Posted by TheCon View Post
    all gods from all texts, im not.
    But some of the gods conflict with each other, in that they demand to be the only god. Also, have you even seen what most of the gods purport to do in the world? A lot of it is pretty mundane and unconvincing.

    Here is a quote by Hawking that I think is relevant, in which he talks about the Pope's misguided ideas about the universe:
    Throughout the 1970s I had been mainly studying black holes, but in 1981 my interest in questions about the origin and fate of the universe was reawakened when I attended a conference on cosmology organized by the Jesuits in the Vatican. The Catholic Church had made a bad mistake with Galileo when it tried to lay down the law on a question of science, declaring that the sun went round the earth. Now, centuries later, it had decided to invite a number of experts to advise it on cosmology. At the end of the conference the participants were granted an audience with the pope. He told us that it was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the big bang, but we should not inquire into the big bang itself because that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work of God. I was glad then that he did know the subject of the talk I had just given at the conference -- the possibility that space- time was finite but had no boundary, which means that it had no beginning, no moment of Creation. I had no desire to share the fate of Galileo, with whom I feel a strong sense of identity, partly because of the coincidence of having been born exactly 300 years after his death! [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), pp. 115-16.]
    Last edited by Galt; 05-01-2008 at 05:12 PM.
    Reply With Quote

  19. #139
    Registered User TheCon's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2006
    Location: Los Angeles, California, United States
    Age: 36
    Posts: 5,040
    Rep Power: 1635
    TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000) TheCon is just really nice. (+1000)
    TheCon is offline
    Originally Posted by Galt View Post
    No evidence, right. So how do you know which god you are even talking about?


    That's what I thought, you would figure the worlds greatest scientists would be aware and thrilled if there were some good evidence suggesting any intelligence other than human had tried to contact us.



    Why? Why can't there be two gods? Or an infinite number of gods who can't be aware of another. Turtles all the way down!


    Edit*********
    Looks like I caught you before you made your mind up about the universe and all of the gods people have ever written about in books. Okay, I'll respond to this one too:

    But some of the gods conflict with each other, in that they demand to be the only god. Also, have you even seen what most of the gods purport to do in the world? A lot of it is pretty mundane and unconvincing.
    I said yes to the question of whether or not there could be an infnite number of Gods. and "I don't know" to whether there is a limit "to transcendental beings, forces, and powers?" Then I said "yes" to the possibility of "the first being, or god, be too complex for us to understand, but wouldn't there then be the possibility of another greater god that neither us or our local being could understand, and then one for that being as well, and so on?"
    The fact that a lot of God's contradict one another is irrelevant. The way I or anyone else knows what God they are talking about is that they choose the one they like best. None of this runs contrary to the fact that no matter what side you take (besides agnosticism) you are still equally right/wrong.
    Loyal fan of the:
    ♦ San Jose Sharks ♦
    ♦ San Francisco Giants ♦
    ♦ San Francisco 49ers ♦
    ♦ Golden State Warriors ♦
    Reply With Quote

  20. #140
    Here's beer Mr Beer's Avatar
    Join Date: Nov 2004
    Location: In the bar
    Posts: 37,603
    Rep Power: 141985
    Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000)
    Mr Beer is offline
    Originally Posted by TheCon View Post
    It seems like your responses are out of context from what has been said before. I simply want a justification for thinking that it is perfectly logical and rational to say "God does not exist" and ridiculous to say "God does exist." There's no proof either way. One says "well because logic is capable of answering questions like these and it suggests there's no God so i'm an atheist" the other one says "well religious texts are able to answer questions like these and they suggest a God exists so im a theist." Why can't we all just say the truth? We don't know and we have no conclusive proof either way. Any claims we make are pathetically grounded at best. That way, either we take that and say we are agnostic, choose to believe there is a God, or choose to believe there isn't. Either way, the discussion is mute for now since we are all equally wrong/right.


    Edit: And i want to make it clear, there was never an assertion made. I simply said that this is the way i view it (this is how it seems to me) and asked someone to make the argument that either logic is more effective than religious texts at asserting truths about a supreme being or vice versa.
    OK, well you can't prove or disprove a non-falsifiable matter like God with science and you can't prove or disprove anything at all with faith. So in that sense, you cannot make a final determination about God with either. However, I disagree with your line of reasoning in that you appear to be saying "well neither answers the question, therefore they are equally valid."

    For a start, two methods than give the same inconclusive result are not neccessarily equally valid. We know that logic/rationality/science produces tangible results, it's the superior method. In fact, it IS a method, unlike faith. There's a choice between something that works and something that doesn't.

    Secondly, while logic cannot disprove God, it can certainly demonstrate the unlikeliness of God. And since God is not falisfiable, that's the best answer we will ever get.
    Reply With Quote

  21. #141
    Banned hokiebird's Avatar
    Join Date: Nov 2007
    Posts: 2,042
    Rep Power: 0
    hokiebird is on a distinguished road. (+10) hokiebird is on a distinguished road. (+10) hokiebird is on a distinguished road. (+10) hokiebird is on a distinguished road. (+10) hokiebird is on a distinguished road. (+10) hokiebird is on a distinguished road. (+10) hokiebird is on a distinguished road. (+10) hokiebird is on a distinguished road. (+10) hokiebird is on a distinguished road. (+10) hokiebird is on a distinguished road. (+10) hokiebird is on a distinguished road. (+10)
    hokiebird is offline
    Originally Posted by TheCon View Post
    So its half way into the quarter and im sitting in my upper division philosophy class this morning discussing yet another reason why it is more logical to accept atheism. Although I am a Roman Catholic, I am also a philosophy major and the two seem very incompatible at times. I've been questioning a lot latley (like any good philosopher) why I hold the beliefs that i do. Long story short, it seems to me that in the case of religion at least, one could make the argument that reason is simply insufficent. Just because we have an abundance of evidence and facts surrounding us, and even though logic and reason itself fly into the face of there existing the God of narrow theism, I can't help but take a step back.

    Who are we, such tiny specs of life, to make any claim about the formulation and development of the universe, or the origins or existence of a supernatural being. Sure, we may believe this or that to be true, but that is simply faith (faith in God, faith in logic etc.) Again, when it comes to religion (and it seems religion only at this point) both the theist and the atheist seem to be equal. They both have faith in things the other claims is inadequate. Anyway i'd like to here more reasons aside from logic that atheists use to support their claims (since it seems logic is such an inadequate quality of a relativley primal species).

    Cliffs:

    The view that God exists on religious ground and the belief that God does not exist on logical grounds both seem equally inadequate. Give me a reason to believe one is less inadequate than the other.

    Sorry pal, being a Roman whatever will not get you to Jesus..... you need to make your mind up and quit being wishy washy...
    Reply With Quote

  22. #142
    Here's beer Mr Beer's Avatar
    Join Date: Nov 2004
    Location: In the bar
    Posts: 37,603
    Rep Power: 141985
    Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mr Beer has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000)
    Mr Beer is offline
    Hey hokie, spend less time picking at other Christians for their brand of beliefs and more time worrying about why you lie about your stats online.
    Reply With Quote

  23. #143
    Registered User Galt's Avatar
    Join Date: Dec 2007
    Age: 37
    Posts: 719
    Rep Power: 0
    Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50)
    Galt is offline
    Originally Posted by TheCon View Post
    I said yes to the question of whether or not there could be an infnite number of Gods.
    Can you define 'god' explicitly here?
    Originally Posted by TheCon View Post
    and "I don't know" to whether there is a limit "to transcendental beings, forces, and powers?"
    Just like we can't truly know if The Flying Spaghetti Monster actually exists.
    Originally Posted by TheCon View Post
    Then I said "yes" to the possibility of "the first being, or god, be too complex for us to understand, but wouldn't there then be the possibility of another greater god that neither us or our local being could understand, and then one for that being as well, and so on?"
    So what is the point of these gods, for what purpose do you imagine them in the universe?
    Originally Posted by TheCon View Post
    The fact that a lot of God's contradict one another is irrelevant.
    The way I or anyone else knows what God they are talking about is that they choose the one they like best.
    I think many of those gods would have to disagree.
    But anyway, where is your evidence that this ultimate transcendence occasionally makes itself known at all, let alone specifically in a certain genre of literature?


    Originally Posted by TheCon View Post
    None of this runs contrary to the fact that no matter what side you take (besides agnosticism) you are still equally right/wrong.
    No, we can take sides based on probabilities here, and there will either be or not be deities and spirits in existence. The fact that people can be wrong does not mean that there can not also be an objective truth to be discovered(or never to be discovered).
    There is absolutely no evidence for or against Russell's Teapot. It transcends our ability to perceive it.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russels_Teapot
    The same goes for The Transcendental Argument For The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
    One last point that you seem to be overlooking from the first Steven Pinker video I posted, and I'm not sure how you missed it:

    "Now as soon as soon as we're having this conversation, as long as we are trying to persuade one another of why you should do something or should believe something, you are already committed to reason. We are not engaged in a fistfight. We're not bribing each other to believe something. We're trying to provide reasons. We're trying to persuade, to convince.
    As long as you?re doing that in the place first place, you're not hitting someone with a chair, or putting a gun to their head, or bribing them to believe something. You've lost any argument you have against reason. You've already signed on to reason whether you like it or not. So the fact that we're having this conversation shows that we are committed to reason.
    "
    Reply With Quote

  24. #144
    I lift, therefore I am. Enso's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2007
    Location: North Carolina, United States
    Age: 49
    Posts: 7,747
    Rep Power: 5907
    Enso is a name known to all. (+5000) Enso is a name known to all. (+5000) Enso is a name known to all. (+5000) Enso is a name known to all. (+5000) Enso is a name known to all. (+5000) Enso is a name known to all. (+5000) Enso is a name known to all. (+5000) Enso is a name known to all. (+5000) Enso is a name known to all. (+5000) Enso is a name known to all. (+5000) Enso is a name known to all. (+5000)
    Enso is offline
    Keep it simple: The universe is, therefore logically something made it so.
    When you get to the top of the mountain, keep climbing
    Reply With Quote

  25. #145
    Registered User Galt's Avatar
    Join Date: Dec 2007
    Age: 37
    Posts: 719
    Rep Power: 0
    Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50)
    Galt is offline
    Originally Posted by Enso View Post
    Keep it simple: The universe is, therefore logically something made it so.
    Stephen Hawking, the eminent physics community, and pretty much all of humanity's best scientists, disagree with you based on established evidence.
    Not sure if you knew this or not yet, just wanted to make sure.
    Reply With Quote

  26. #146
    I lift, therefore I am. Enso's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2007
    Location: North Carolina, United States
    Age: 49
    Posts: 7,747
    Rep Power: 5907
    Enso is a name known to all. (+5000) Enso is a name known to all. (+5000) Enso is a name known to all. (+5000) Enso is a name known to all. (+5000) Enso is a name known to all. (+5000) Enso is a name known to all. (+5000) Enso is a name known to all. (+5000) Enso is a name known to all. (+5000) Enso is a name known to all. (+5000) Enso is a name known to all. (+5000) Enso is a name known to all. (+5000)
    Enso is offline
    Originally Posted by Galt View Post
    Stephen Hawking, the eminent physics community, and pretty much all of humanity's best scientists, disagree with you based on established evidence.
    Not sure if you knew this or not yet, just wanted to make sure.
    Nothing is something.

    Not sure if you knew this or not yet, just wanted to make sure.



    Creation itself is self-evident. What else are you guys looking for?
    Last edited by Enso; 05-01-2008 at 08:16 PM.
    When you get to the top of the mountain, keep climbing
    Reply With Quote

  27. #147
    Registered User Galt's Avatar
    Join Date: Dec 2007
    Age: 37
    Posts: 719
    Rep Power: 0
    Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50) Galt will become famous soon enough. (+50)
    Galt is offline
    Originally Posted by Enso View Post
    Nothing is something.

    Not sure if you knew this or not yet, just wanted to make sure.



    Creation itself is self-evident. What else are you guys looking for?
    http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpo...1&postcount=22
    I wasn't trying to offend you with the part asking whether or not you knew about it yet, no reason to get defensive.
    Look at the above post, and I urge you strongly to consider that Stephen Hawking is probably correct in his assessment.
    Last edited by Galt; 05-01-2008 at 08:32 PM.
    Reply With Quote

  28. #148
    Yes. Resonator's Avatar
    Join Date: Nov 2007
    Age: 32
    Posts: 2,732
    Rep Power: 1137
    Resonator is a jewel in the rough. (+500) Resonator is a jewel in the rough. (+500) Resonator is a jewel in the rough. (+500) Resonator is a jewel in the rough. (+500) Resonator is a jewel in the rough. (+500) Resonator is a jewel in the rough. (+500) Resonator is a jewel in the rough. (+500) Resonator is a jewel in the rough. (+500) Resonator is a jewel in the rough. (+500) Resonator is a jewel in the rough. (+500) Resonator is a jewel in the rough. (+500)
    Resonator is offline
    Originally Posted by Enso View Post
    Keep it simple: The universe is, therefore logically something made it so.
    This is why philosophy is dangerous if taken the wrong way, like the OP is doing now. With logic, 1 + 1 = 2, and this logic is obviously correct due to our mathematics that can be reproduced in real world application. With faith, nothing requires proof, real world application, or any sort of replicable testing. The OP is making the false assumption that our logic is flawed due to our "inadequate" intellectual ability. The only reason he feels that our intellectual ability is flawed is due to his believing in a supernatural being, which is devaluing life and what it is capable of.
    Reply With Quote

  29. #149
    Registered User themesomorph's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2008
    Age: 36
    Posts: 30
    Rep Power: 0
    themesomorph will become famous soon enough. (+50) themesomorph will become famous soon enough. (+50) themesomorph will become famous soon enough. (+50) themesomorph will become famous soon enough. (+50) themesomorph will become famous soon enough. (+50) themesomorph will become famous soon enough. (+50) themesomorph will become famous soon enough. (+50) themesomorph will become famous soon enough. (+50) themesomorph will become famous soon enough. (+50) themesomorph will become famous soon enough. (+50) themesomorph will become famous soon enough. (+50)
    themesomorph is offline
    Originally Posted by Mr Beer View Post
    OK, well you can't prove or disprove a non-falsifiable matter like God with science and you can't prove or disprove anything at all with faith. So in that sense, you cannot make a final determination about God with either. However, I disagree with your line of reasoning in that you appear to be saying "well neither answers the question, therefore they are equally valid."

    For a start, two methods than give the same inconclusive result are not neccessarily equally valid. We know that logic/rationality/science produces tangible results, it's the superior method. In fact, it IS a method, unlike faith. There's a choice between something that works and something that doesn't.

    Secondly, while logic cannot disprove God, it can certainly demonstrate the unlikeliness of God. And since God is not falisfiable, that's the best answer we will ever get.
    Would you say it is more reasonable (what is reasonable is logical) to believe in God or not?
    Reply With Quote

  30. #150
    I lift, therefore I am. Enso's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2007
    Location: North Carolina, United States
    Age: 49
    Posts: 7,747
    Rep Power: 5907
    Enso is a name known to all. (+5000) Enso is a name known to all. (+5000) Enso is a name known to all. (+5000) Enso is a name known to all. (+5000) Enso is a name known to all. (+5000) Enso is a name known to all. (+5000) Enso is a name known to all. (+5000) Enso is a name known to all. (+5000) Enso is a name known to all. (+5000) Enso is a name known to all. (+5000) Enso is a name known to all. (+5000)
    Enso is offline
    Originally Posted by Galt
    Look at the above post, and I urge you strongly to consider that Stephen Hawking is probably correct in his assessment.
    I am a fan of Stephen Hawking, though I am not overly knowledgeable about his work...though I do have 'A Briefer History In Time'.

    I simply feel creation itself is self evident and speaks for itself. You want proof? Simply look at it. Anything more and you can easily get lost in the parts.

    Physicist also admit in nature everything is inherently empty correct? Therefore, everything is supported by nothing...or something they can't see (my conclusion).
    Last edited by Enso; 05-01-2008 at 08:40 PM.
    When you get to the top of the mountain, keep climbing
    Reply With Quote

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts