RE: religion question (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

FullCircle -> RE: religion question (8/1/2009 8:49:24 AM)

I’ve heard this argument before and some will say no one is trying to prove tooth fairies exist bla bla bla. I beg your pardon for assuming this but I think the idea of existence and how it came about is more of a fundamental question that people ask rather than if tooth fairies exist or if Double D cup hookers exist in someone’s basement.

Lack of evidence is not evidence i.e. there was a lack of evidence that x-rays existed at one point but they always existed.

When ruling out the existence of tooth fairies, demons and other things I ask myself if human existence is required to facilitate their existence. The world existed before human beings so the question remains did it all come about by random chance or by design. There is nothing to rule out the existence of god, as the idea of god can exist independently from that of human existence. Tooth fairies require a human tooth, a double d hooker requires a human client. A god or creator does not require a human creation; it could be responsible for the creation of other things and human existence could then have come about as an indirect result of the creation of these other things.

D cup hookers in your basement is no achievement in the grand scheme of things, dependant on money nothing else.



Esinn -> RE: religion question (8/1/2009 11:20:45 PM)

quote:

I’ve heard this argument before and some will say no one is trying to prove tooth fairies exist bla bla bla. I beg your pardon for assuming this but I think the idea of existence and how it came about is more of a fundamental question that people ask rather than if tooth fairies exist or if Double D cup hookers exist in someone’s basement.

Lack of evidence is not evidence i.e. there was a lack of evidence that x-rays existed at one point but they always existed.

When ruling out the existence of tooth fairies, demons and other things I ask myself if human existence is required to facilitate their existence. The world existed before human beings so the question remains did it all come about by random chance or by design. There is nothing to rule out the existence of god, as the idea of god can exist independently from that of human existence. Tooth fairies require a human tooth, a double d hooker requires a human client. A god or creator does not require a human creation; it could be responsible for the creation of other things and human existence could then have come about as an indirect result of the creation of these other things.

D cup hookers in your basement is no achievement in the grand scheme of things, dependant on money nothing else.


Can we start here?

You are missed the point.  Just because something can not be disproved does not put it on equal footing with existence.  My self and the previous poster used analogies you seem to desire to take literal.  I do not know a way to articulate this point in a more straight forward manner.  The quote you struggle for is, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - Carl Sagan (I believe).  I direct you to sentence 2 of this paragraph and to paragraph 2.

It is a logical fallacy to assume something is true only because it has not been disproven.  The fact "there is nothing(I assume you mean no evidence) to rule out the existence of god" is irrelevant to a rational(logical) discussion as are your comments on lack of evidence(your 2nd paragraph) and "X-rays".  Like in the first paragraph I have nothing more to say on this.

What is important:
You are suggesting a god might exist.  I am not sure if you are sincere of playing devils advocate.  Regardless please define god.  As long as your definition is free from logical contradiction and not a negative description(telling what it is not) it is not necessary I accept it but it is a necessity I understand it.

It is logically acceptable to assume if evidence should be present and it is not found absence of evidence is evidence of absence.  An example of this is the LHC search for the Higgs Boson or sparticles.  Both Brian Cox and Brian Greene are 2 that come to mind who have written on this.  I am just throwing this out there for consideration.  I would request no one comment on it at this point in the conversation as it would just be confusing.  There are thousands of examples but another is luminiferous aether.

  1. I am curious if this is something you believe or just devils advocate - but it is not important
  2. I am seeking a definition of god
[8|]

-E



FullCircle -> RE: religion question (8/2/2009 8:50:56 AM)

I've stated my position: evidence does not point to the existence of a god or the non existence of a god thus my role will obviously always be limited to that of devil’s advocate regarding any discussion on the possible existence of god.

By the term 'god' I mean an intelligent entity responsible for the creation of the universe or part thereof, doing so with intent and an ultimate (perhaps unknown to us) aim.

People have different opinions as to what is a logical or rational conversation. Often people simply use such terms as a means of giving the impression their answer to a question is better thought out than that of someone else. It's fine quoting other famed agnostics and atheists but you have to remind yourself you are limiting yourself to their thought process and the era in which they thought it.

You talk of the God Particle which is quite funny considering the level of technology required to prove this particular mathematical theory. In fact the whole idea of the God Particle was created to support another mathematical theory i.e. The standard model of the universe and explain away the holes appearing in it in terms of the amount of mass in the universe. "Guess what?" They say "Mass changes as it passes through a field and since every field has an associated particle we can keep the standard model if we find this elusive particle." Wouldn't it be ‘more logical’ to explore the possibility that the standard model is wrong or missing a key ingredient rather than simply following one path? We know what is going to happen when they don't find it they'll say we need more sensitive measuring equipment or we need more energy in the collision.

So if they don't find it is this evidence that it doesn't exist or evidence that a bigger particle accelerator is required to find it, what does your logic tell you? My logic tells me there is no evidence as yet to support the theory one way or another.

[8|][8|]





Esinn -> RE: religion question (8/2/2009 10:38:09 AM)

quote:

By the term 'god' I mean an intelligent entity responsible for the creation of the universe or part thereof, doing so with intent and an ultimate (perhaps unknown to us) aim.


So this is all god is?  My 11 year old daughter must have helped you with this.  She believes aliens created our known universe.

I was hoping for a little more, your posts hinted to your ability.  Regardless this is no foundation to build an intelligent conversation upon.

Edit:
We can not discuss if evidence points to the existence or non existence of god before knowing what one.

Not even in any main stream theist university would such a vague definition been considered meaningful.

Come-on you are obviously intelligent enough to understand this. If you are not then I guess here is where we should end the conversation.



FullCircle -> RE: religion question (8/2/2009 11:05:47 AM)

I think this definition is more than enough to lead to a discussion, however I feel I'm wasting my time here now.

If you don't want to address any of the points we'll call it a day.

Theist Universities?? UCLA, MIT? The University of John Travolta?[:D]



NihilusZero -> RE: religion question (8/2/2009 11:07:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FullCircle

did it all come about by random chance or by design.

Neither.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FullCircle

There is nothing to rule out the existence of god, as the idea of god can exist independently from that of human existence.

As there is "Nothing" to rule out space monkeys, or purple gnomes from an alternate universe that paint our world with ice cream cone brushes, of invisible dragons living in people's garages.

When someone slaps you in the face do you really give them the benefit of the doubt that there is "nothing to rule out" the possibility that they, at that moment, were actually possessed by trans-dimensional parasite that looks like a centipede shadow?

When we have perfectly sound explanations for how/why things are that do not need imaginative silly ideas, we defer to them. Occam's Razor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FullCircle
A god or creator does not require a human creation;

Except for that pesky part where it does.



Starbuck09 -> RE: religion question (8/2/2009 11:09:02 AM)

I think the definition of what qualifies a god that fullcircle has given is as avalid as any other esinn. Why do you think it falls short?



NihilusZero -> RE: religion question (8/2/2009 11:14:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Starbuck09

I think the definition of what qualifies a god that fullcircle has given is as avalid as any other esinn. Why do you think it falls short?

It is the god of special pleading.

quote:

By the term 'god' I mean an intelligent entity responsible for the creation of the universe or part thereof, doing so with intent and an ultimate (perhaps unknown to us) aim.


If we say that this god's goal can "perhaps be unknown to us" then we can wave our hands at any result and say it  that, surely, it is what the god intended. World peace? That was its aim. Universal anarchy? That was its aim. It's just intellectually convenient (or apathetic, take your pick) to say we might not be "able to understand" because it makes the argument unfalsifiable.



Musicmystery -> RE: religion question (8/2/2009 11:20:36 AM)

quote:

what's your religion and how long have you been said religion?


Why must I have one?



Starbuck09 -> RE: religion question (8/2/2009 11:20:43 AM)

Precisely nihilus and as God as a concept is unknowable and unfalsifiable I thinmk full circle's definition is quite apt. You cannot prove god's existence and to do so is not only an exercise in futility but an affront and dereliction of faith. You can only choose to live by the teachings of a religion and have faith in the god reputed to have handed them down. The teachings themselves and their relative merits can be discussed and dissected for their intellectual worth but god is seperate from logic because if it was not and could be proven then there would be no need for faith and thus no sacrifice required from adhering to a religion.
I have'nt heard the term god of special pleading Nihilus i'm afraid I don't know what it means, it is a well known concept or one of your own devising?



NihilusZero -> RE: religion question (8/2/2009 11:31:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Starbuck09

I have'nt heard the term god of special pleading Nihilus i'm afraid I don't know what it means, it is a well known concept or one of your own devising?

I just described it in the last post you responded to.

Special pleading.



FullCircle -> RE: religion question (8/2/2009 11:31:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero
quote:

ORIGINAL: FullCircle
did it all come about by random chance or by design.

Neither.

Chaos and chance are the opposite of design thus something is either created or it came about by chance.
quote:


There is nothing to rule out the existence of god, as the idea of god can exist independently from that of human existence.
quote:


As there is "Nothing" to rule out space monkeys, or purple gnomes from an alternate universe that paint our world with ice cream cone brushes, of invisible dragons living in people's garages.

The thing that rules out space monkeys is the fact a monkey has limited intelligence and as such is not capable of interstellar transport thus any monkeys existing elsewhere in the universe would have to have evolved along exactly the same lines as that of earth monkeys which is virtually impossible to the point of not worth being investigated. It surprises me I have to explain this to internet monkeys.
quote:


When someone slaps you in the face do you really give them the benefit of the doubt that there is "nothing to rule out" the possibility that they, at that moment, were actually possessed by trans-dimensional parasite that looks like a centipede shadow?

It's not something I would consider as there is a more viable explanation. This is not the case when questioning as to if god exists or not. To say god exists is just as viable as to say god doesn’t exist
quote:


When we have perfectly sound explanations for how/why things are that do not need imaginative silly ideas, we defer to them. Occam's Razor.

So do we have a sound idea that god doesn't exist and what is this idea of yours please do tell I'm all ears. Here I am wanting to know of this evidence that demonstrates god doesn't exist? Occam uses the term 'silly' but what is and isn't a silly idea is very subjective, it surprises me he said that. Once again it reinforces what I previously said that for something’s a viable alternative explanation exists and for some things they don’t

quote:

ORIGINAL: FullCircle
A god or creator does not require a human creation;
quote:


Except for that pesky part where it does.

In the interest of discussion then technically it doesn't, but if your kink is semantics then technically it does for some dictionaries.



Starbuck09 -> RE: religion question (8/2/2009 11:40:19 AM)

As I was'nt familiar with the term I did not realise that the second part of your post defined the first. I thought it was a seperate statement that you believed me to be familiar with. There is no need to be curt Nihilus.



NihilusZero -> RE: religion question (8/2/2009 11:45:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FullCircle

Chaos and chance are the opposite of design thus something is either created or it came about by chance.

Interesting logic. Let's see how it holds up in another example:

Black and white are of opposite design and thus something is either black or white.

Strange...I'm seeing a lot of this "orange" thing on CM...

quote:

ORIGINAL: FullCircle

The thing that rules out space monkeys is the fact a monkey has limited intelligence and as such is not capable of interstellar transport thus any monkeys existing elsewhere in the universe would have to have evolved along exactly the same lines as that of earth monkeys which is virtually impossible to the point of not worth being investigated. It surprises me I have to explain this to internet monkeys.

Only because you don't fully understand monkeys. And, besides, these monkeys are from outer space where they've been involved in scientific study for millenia. We just can see the planet they're from and have yet to understand their communications.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FullCircle

It's not something I would consider as there is a more viable explanation. This is not the case when questioning as to if god exists or not. To say god exists is just as viable as to say god doesn’t exist

If you want to discard logic and sensibility, then yes. your god is just as likely as my above-mentioned space monkeys, though. And at least my space monkeys don't play games with people's lives.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FullCircle

So do we have a sound idea that god doesn't exist and what is this idea of yours please do tell I'm all ears.
 Here I am wanting to know of this evidence that demonstrates god doesn't exist?

You won't want to read it all. I'm telling you...

But, if you insist: here it is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FullCircle
In the interest of discussion then technically it doesn't, but if your kink is semantics then technically it does for some dictionaries.

To be more precise, it only requires self-reflective sentience. Conveniently to our myopic concept of deities, we are the only planetary species to have a well-formed version of that skill. You don't find deity-worshiping evident in creature without the imagination to fabricate one.



NihilusZero -> RE: religion question (8/2/2009 11:47:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Starbuck09

As I was'nt familiar with the term I did not realise that the second part of your post defined the first. I thought it was a seperate statement that you believed me to be familiar with. There is no need to be curt Nihilus.

I'm not Curt. I'm Rob.




Starbuck09 -> RE: religion question (8/2/2009 11:53:56 AM)

A pleasure Rob...



NihilusZero -> RE: religion question (8/2/2009 11:54:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Starbuck09

A pleasure Rob...

[:)] [:D]



sweetsub1957 -> RE: religion question (8/2/2009 12:05:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fadedshadow

i'm going to ask this simply out of boredom

what's your religion and how long have you been said religion?



I was raised Catholic, but now I'm a Wiccan/Pagan & have been for 19 years.  I was curious about Wicca for most of my life, but didn't know what it was called for years.  I have a live & let live attitude.....everyone's welcome to their beliefs as long as I am too.  [:D]



Starbuck09 -> RE: religion question (8/2/2009 12:05:48 PM)

I did toy with replying Shirley not but thought that was a little bit too inane[;)]



Tantriqu -> RE: religion question (8/2/2009 12:17:57 PM)


I gained three fabulous things with puberty:
1. a sense of humour
2. a FABulous libido
3. ethical atheism.


Sundays have been my favourite day ever since! Life is so much better without gods: very peaceful.

The world will be a better place once we can spend our sabbaths fucking our little hearts out in the morning and volunteering in the afternoon, and uh, fucking our little hearts out again in the evening.




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125