Prove that God doesn't exist.

[Kelly]

Ok, for all you Atheists out there: Let's hear your argument against the existence of God. For those of you believers: why should/shouldn't God/religion play a part in politics???

[Lindsay]

Prove that God does exist.

[ArmChair General]

Ok, for all you Atheists out there: Let's hear your argument against the existence of God. For those of you believers: why should/shouldn't God/religion play a part in politics???

Prove that Zues doesn't exist.

[vyo476]

Belief in "God" is just that - belief. Here's what dictionary.com has to say about the word "belief":

1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

Personally, I like 2 and 3 the most, because they reveal the real meaning of the word - faith or confidence in something that isn't immediately provable.

Prove that God exists? Prove that God doesn't exist? Please. Neither is possible.

[Cheshire Cat]

Ok, for all you Atheists out there: Let's hear your argument against the existence of God. For those of you believers: why should/shouldn't God/religion play a part in politics???

Which god do you mean?

[Lindsay]

General, vyo and Cheshire, the three of you just brought a smile to my face.

[Kelly]

Lindsay: 1. Modern science demonstrates that everything (solid matter, stars, planets, us, etc.) in the Universe originated from dust particles. The dust particles came together by gravity, formed planets, so fourth. Therefore, who/what set the particles into their first motion (gravitational pull towards each other)? We can't say gravity, because the particles had to be formed first before they could pull toward one of another. Basically, what I'm asking is what created something out of nothing? Nothing (that we know of) can create something out of nothing, yet we exist. Things don't just appear from nowhere naturally. Things haven't existed forever because we live in finite time. Therefore, SOMETHING actively had to form us, the World, everything. Something had to have an intention to form the first particles from nothing because that doesn't happen as part of the natural process. That 'something,' we call God, Allah, the Divine Being, Etc.
2. We live in a world of cause and effect. Who/what was the first cause? Who/what was the first effect. There cannot be an effect without a cause or vise versa. Therefore, we, the World, etc. had to be placed into existence to be affected. But, furthermore, there HAD to be a first cause. That 'first cause' is God.

Hopefully, these two argument can prove to you that God, in fact does exist. If not, say why and I've got a few more. I've NEVER heard an argument that can debunk these two points. Points like this are why astrophysicists, biologists, scientists of all types believe (rather KNOW) of God's existence. I'm not saying all scientists believe in God, I hope that's obvious. Also, I'm largely paraphrasing Aristotle and Aquinas in my points--I didn't just think this stuff up on my own although I wish I could say I did.

[Cheshire Cat]

Lindsay: 1. Modern science demonstrates that everything (solid matter, stars, planets, us, etc.) in the Universe originated from dust particles. The dust particles came together by gravity, formed planets, so fourth. Therefore, who/what set the particles into their first motion (gravitational pull towards each other)? We can't say gravity, because the particles had to be formed first before they could pull toward one of another. Basically, what I'm asking is what created something out of nothing? Nothing (that we know of) can create something out of nothing, yet we exist. Things don't just appear from nowhere naturally. Things haven't existed forever because we live in finite time. Therefore, SOMETHING actively had to form us, the World, everything. Something had to have an intention to form the first particles from nothing because that doesn't happen as part of the natural process. That 'something,' we call God, Allah, the Divine Being, Etc.
2. We live in a world of cause and effect. Who/what was the first cause? Who/what was the first effect. There cannot be an effect without a cause or vise versa. Therefore, we, the World, etc. had to be placed into existence to be affected. But, furthermore, there HAD to be a first cause. That 'first cause' is God.

Hopefully, these two argument can prove to you that God, in fact does exist. If not, say why and I've got a few more. I've NEVER heard an argument that can debunk these two points. Also, I'm largely paraphrasing Aristotle and Aquinas in my points--I didn't just think this stuff up on my own although I wish I could say I did.
And what actively formed your god? I think it was the EXTRA-SUPER-GOD that created him.

[Lindsay]

But who's to say that this one figure did it all alone? The greeks and romans had a more believable religion (to me) believing that different gods controlled different areas. I'm not an atheist, I tend to lean towards being agnostic, meaning that I don't believe the theory of God can be proven, nor disproven. But you asked to prove he doesn't exist, and I asked to prove that he does. You proved why you believe he does. Therefore I respect you as a ?Christian? Being agnostic, I'm a questioner, as well as a doubter.


"Man has always speculated upon the origin of the universe, including himself. I feel, with Herbert Spencer, that whether the universe had an origin-- and if it had-- what the origin is will never be known by man. The Christian says that the universe could not make itself; that there must have been some higher power to call it into being. Christians have been obsessed for many years by Paley's argument that if a person passing through a desert should find a watch and examine its spring, its hands, its case and its crystal, he would at once be satisfied that some intelligent being capable of design had made the watch. No doubt this is true. No civilized man would question that someone made the watch. The reason he would not doubt it is because he is familiar with watches and other appliances made by man. The savage was once unfamiliar with a watch and would have had no idea upon the subject. There are plenty of crystals and rocks of natural formation that are as intricate as a watch, but even to intelligent man they carry no implication that some intelligent power must have made them. They carry no such implication because no one has any knowledge or experience of someone having made these natural objects which everywhere abound.

To say that God made the universe gives us no explanation of the beginnings of things. If we are told that God made the universe, the question immediately arises: Who made God? Did he always exist, or was there some power back of that? Did he create matter out of nothing, or is his existence coextensive with matter? The problem is still there. What is the origin of it all? If, on the other hand, one says that the universe was not made by God, that it always existed, he has the same difficulty to confront. To say that the universe was here last year, or millions of years ago, does not explain its origin. This is still a mystery. As to the question of the origin of things, man can only wonder and doubt and guess."--Clarence Darrow.


http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/clarence_darrow/why_i_am_an_agnostic.html

[Fred]

And what actively formed your god? I think it was the EXTRA-SUPER-GOD that created him.

Are you going to debate her or demonstrate what a buffoon you are?

[Cheshire Cat]

General, vyo and Cheshire, the three of you just brought a smile to my face.

Glad to be of service to you.

Now, back to the subject.

I just discovered that Flacca is the binding ingredient that keeps the solar system from disappearing.
Kelly, prove that Flacca doesn't exist.

[Cheshire Cat]

Are you going to debate her or demonstrate what a buffoon you are?

It is generally accepted that the burden of proof relies upon the one making the claim. Prove I'm a buffoon.

[Fred]

I dont have too you already have demonstrated it yourself

[Cheshire Cat]

I dont have too you already have demonstrated it yourself

Actually I'm a striped pink pussy, don't you see my avatar?
Or are you blind as well as stupid?

[ArmChair General]

Are you going to debate her or demonstrate what a buffoon you are?

Sounds like your the buffoon to me.

If God Created the Universe, what created God. Its a valid question.

[Kelly]

Sorry fred i thought you were talking to me.

[Kelly]

Arm Chair, nothing created God. God is the only thing that has always existed.

[ArmChair General]

Arm Chair, nothing created God. God is the only thing that has always existed.

Well then that just begs the question, if you can say that God has always existed, then why cant I say that the Universe has always existed?

[Cheshire Cat]

Well then that just begs the question, if you can say that God has always existed, then why cant I say that the Universe has always existed?

Because it goes against her **BELIEF**

[Kelly]

If the Universe had always existed, there would be no beginning and no end. This is obviously impossible because we live in a world of beginnings and ends. However, something had to/has to exist out of what we call 'time' in order to: 1. create matter out nothing. 2. set that matter into motion. If a "super-duper-god" created God, and a "super-duper-duper-god" created that one, it could go on forever into infinity. This is not possible because the Universe, the World, etc. is subject to time, causes and effects, beginnings, etc.--we live in a finite world. Therefore, the regression of God being created by something that created it... cannot go on forever. It has to begin somewhere with one being.

[ArmChair General]

Lindsay: 1. Modern science demonstrates that everything (solid matter, stars, planets, us, etc.) in the Universe originated from dust particles. The dust particles came together by gravity, formed planets, so fourth. Therefore, who/what set the particles into their first motion (gravitational pull towards each other)? We can't say gravity, because the particles had to be formed first before they could pull toward one of another. Basically, what I'm asking is what created something out of nothing? Nothing (that we know of) can create something out of nothing, yet we exist. Things don't just appear from nowhere naturally. Things haven't existed forever because we live in finite time. Therefore, SOMETHING actively had to form us, the World, everything. Something had to have an intention to form the first particles from nothing because that doesn't happen as part of the natural process. That 'something,' we call God, Allah, the Divine Being, Etc.

Thats not proving that there is a God. thats simply making up a reason for something that we dont have answer for yet. Anyone can just make **** up. If your going to propose a theory for the origins of the universe, then do it, but you have to provide evidence. If you say there is a God, ok, then prove it.

2. We live in a world of cause and effect. Who/what was the first cause? Who/what was the first effect. There cannot be an effect without a cause or vise versa. Therefore, we, the World, etc. had to be placed into existence to be affected. But, furthermore, there HAD to be a first cause. That 'first cause' is God.

So then if there can'not be an effect without a cause, who/what created the creator?

Hopefully, these two argument can prove to you that God, in fact does exist. If not, say why and I've got a few more. I've NEVER heard an argument that can debunk these two points. Points like this are why astrophysicists, biologists, scientists of all types believe (rather KNOW) of God's existence. I'm not saying all scientists believe in God, I hope that's obvious. Also, I'm largely paraphrasing Aristotle and Aquinas in my points--I didn't just think this stuff up on my own although I wish I could say I did.


They don't prove anything. IN fact, its a pretty weak attempt at sophistry.

You shouldnt use Aquinas, because his entire premis begins with the pre-suposition that God exists. He doesnt prove Gods existence anymore than Aristotle ever did. Furthermore, citing such good company doesn't make an argument.

[Kelly]

I'm a 'he' Cheshire, not a 'her.'

[ArmChair General]

If the Universe had always existed, there would be no beginning and no end. This is obviously impossible because we live in a world of beginnings and ends.

HAHAHA....thats absolutely hilarious. :D :D Hey Cheshire, we need to save that quote.


However, something had to/has to exist out of what we call 'time' in order to: 1. create matter out nothing. 2. set that matter into motion. If a "super-duper-god" created God, and a "super-duper-duper-god" created that one, it could go on forever into infinity. This is not possible because the Universe, the World, etc. is subject to time, causes and effects, beginnings, etc.--we live in a finite world. Therefore, the regression of God being created by something that created it... cannot go on forever. It has to begin somewhere with one being.

Actually, Science states that matter can'not ever just disapear, or appear out of nothing. It just takes different forms. So according to science, the matter that makes up the universe has always been their.

[Coyote]

If the Universe had always existed, there would be no beginning and no end. This is obviously impossible because we live in a world of beginnings and ends.


Do we really? Maybe we live in a world of endless cycles that can loosely be grouped into: birth, death, regeneration....no beginning, no end

[Mare Tranquillity]

Ok, for all you Atheists out there: Let's hear your argument against the existence of God. For those of you believers: why should/shouldn't God/religion play a part in politics???

I'd like to take a shot at both questions please. There is no way to prove that God doesn't exist, it's a logical impossibility. No matter where humans go there will always be some place where we haven't gone or can't imagine going, or never thought about going, and God could be hiding in any of those places. Truthfully, when I look around at humanity I can't say that I'd blame Him for doing it either. There is no way to prove a negative like this.

I think God SHOULD play a part in politics, and just as soon as He shows up I'll acknowledge His right to take part. Until He actually shows up He has no more right to play a part in politics than Harvey the Rabbit.

[ArmChair General]

I guess I should expound on this more:

If the Universe had always existed, there would be no beginning and no end. This is obviously impossible because we live in a world of beginnings and ends.

Its been proven that the universe is expanding. One theory, is that the universe is in a constant state of expansion and collapsing, once it reaches the farthest point of expansion, it begins collapsing again. ONce it collapses, it once again blows back out, and expands again. It keeps doing this, infinitly.

Of course, thats not even getting into black holes. Because the Matter that gets sucked into them, has to go somehwere. One theory, is that it gets sucked into another dimension....

[Cheshire Cat]

I'm a 'he' Cheshire, not a 'her.'

Sorry your parents gave you a girl name

[Kelly]

"Thats not proving that there is a God. thats simply making up a reason for something that we dont have answer for yet. Anyone can just make **** up. If your going to propose a theory for the origins of the universe, then do it, but you have to provide evidence. If you say there is a God, ok, then prove it."
--That IS the answer 'we don't have yet.'

"So then if there can'not be an effect without a cause, who/what created the creator?"
--I think you typed this before I answered it in the last post.

They don't prove anything. IN fact, its a pretty weak attempt at sophistry.

"You shouldnt use Aquinas, because his entire premis begins with the pre-suposition that God exists. He doesnt prove Gods existence anymore than Aristotle ever did. Furthermore, citing such good company doesn't make an argument."
--You have to start with the presupposition that God either does or doesn't exist. To say I shouldn't use Aquinas because of his presupposition is to be closed-minded when investigating the topic. You have to start somewhere. Also, you obviously haven't read much Aristotle (Metaphysics) or much Aquinas (Summa Theologica or Summa Contra Gentiles).
I'm not saying that because Aristotle or Aquinas said it, it's true. I was making sure I wasn't claiming those arguments to be my own.

[Fred]

Actually I'm a striped pink pussy, don't you see my avatar?
Or are you blind as well as stupid?

yeah your a pink pussy allright

got any mpegs?

[God]

I win. Disproving my existance is like trying to prove that there is no magical teacup orbiting the earth RIGHT NOW!

[Fred]

Because it goes against her **BELIEF**

see?
a Buffoon

[Mare Tranquillity]

I win.
How can you be God and only be a member here since April?

[Cheshire Cat]

yeah your a pink pussy allright

got any mpegs?

Yes I do

[Kelly]

Armchair: But matter undergoes accidental and substantial change. "From dust to dust." But it ahd to come into existence at some point.
Coyote: 'Cycles withing cycles" are still cycles--with beginnings and ends.
Cheshire: Kelly is an Irish males name you ignorant b****.

[Kelly]

Sure the universe is expanding and will retract according to your argument. But, it cannot expand and retract in the same instance. Therefore, it is subject to time..beginning and end..eventually. Besides, what set off the universe to expand and retract?

[Kelly]

Also you're speaking of the universe a a thing. What does it expand into? What's left when it retracts?...More space? More universe???

[Kelly]

The universe is obviously finite.

[ArmChair General]

--That IS the answer 'we don't have yet.'

Prove it.

--I think you typed this before I answered it in the last post.
And I debunked your response.


You have to start with the presupposition that God either does or doesn't exist. To say I shouldn't use Aquinas because of his presupposition is to be closed-minded when investigating the topic. You have to start somewhere. Also, you obviously haven't read much Aristotle (Metaphysics) or much Aquinas (Summa Theologica or Summa Contra Gentiles).
I'm not saying that because Aristotle or Aquinas said it, it's true. I was making sure I wasn't claiming those arguments to be my own.[/QUOTE]

To the contrary, the reason why Aquina's Summa Theologica fails is because of his presupposition that God exists. Science doesnt come to a conclusion and then form the facts around it.

[ArmChair General]

Sure the universe is expanding and will retract according to your argument. But, it cannot expand and retract in the same instance. Therefore, it is subject to time..beginning and end..eventually. Besides, what set off the universe to expand and retract?

Who created the creator?

[ArmChair General]

Also you're speaking of the universe a a thing. What does it expand into? What's left when it retracts?...More space? More universe???

I dont know. Its ok to say that, you know.

[ArmChair General]

The universe is obviously finite.

Prove it.

[ArmChair General]

see?
a Buffoon

Yes I do. Its name is Fred.

[Kelly]

I already told you Armchair, the only logical explanation is that it all goes back to one creator. Maybe we were created by aliens or something, but some had to created those aliens and so fourth, but it cannot go on forever because we exist in a finite realm, world, universe, (your choice of word here:___).

[Kelly]

"I dont know. Its ok to say that, you know."
--Of course. But, you admit that the universe is a THING. A thing that expands and retracts (therefore being subject to time=finite). Where did that THING come from? It couldn't just have existed forever.

[ArmChair General]

I already told you Armchair, the only logical explanation is that it all goes back to one creator. Maybe we were created by aliens or something, but some had to created those aliens and so fourth, but it cannot go on forever because we exist in a finite realm, world, universe, (your choice of word here:___).

Well so your not arguing for the existence of God anymore?

[Cheshire Cat]

I already told you Armchair, the only logical explanation is that it all goes back to one creator. Maybe we were created by aliens or something, but some had to created those aliens and so fourth, but it cannot go on forever because we exist in a finite realm, world, universe, (your choice of word here:___).

You still haven't explained where this mysterious creator of your came from.
What created your creator?

[ArmChair General]

"I dont know. Its ok to say that, you know."
--Of course. But, you admit that the universe is a THING. A thing that expands and retracts (therefore being subject to time=finite). Where did that THING come from? It couldn't just have existed forever.

Well I supose Id consider it more of a 'place' than a thing.

[Kelly]

The Only Logical Explanation Is That God Has Always Existed. Stop Asking The Same Question.

[ArmChair General]

The Only Logical Explanation Is That God Has Always Existed. Stop Asking The Same Question.

Thats not logical. You yourself just said, that everything has a beginning. So if everything has a beginning, who/what created the creator?

[Cheshire Cat]

The Only Logical Explanation Is That God Has Always Existed. Stop Asking The Same Question.

So, god could have always existed, but not the universe.
You must live in DOUBLE STANDARD LAND

[Kelly]

That's why (for those of you who give the Bible any credibility) God says He is the only being that transcends space and time. That's why God calls himself 'I who am' in the Bible. It's a reference to the fact (theory in your eyes) that God is the only thing that has no beginning and end--he just is.

[Cheshire Cat]

That's why (for those of you who give the Bible any credibility) God says He is the only being that transcends space and time. That's why God calls himself 'I who am' in the Bible. It's a reference to the fact (theory in your eyes) that God is the only thing that has no beginning and end--he just is.

Oh, this is good, use the fairy tale of the bible to prove your point.

BWWAAHAHAHAHA

[Kelly]

Cheshire, maybe God IS the universe. Haven't you ever heard of Pantheism? Probably not.

[ArmChair General]

That's why (for those of you who give the Bible any credibility) God says He is the only being that transcends space and time. That's why God calls himself 'I who am' in the Bible. It's a reference to the fact (theory in your eyes) that God is the only thing that has no beginning and end--he just is.

So what your saying is that, God exists because the Bible sais so?

[Kelly]

I'm not using the Bible for credibility. I was explaining WHY those quotes are IN the Bible, not that they're true just because they're IN the Bible. Learn to read!

[ArmChair General]

Cheshire, maybe God IS the universe. Haven't you ever heard of Pantheism? Probably not.

So you don't beileve in the Biblical God then? Your no longer a Monotheist?

make up your mind

[ArmChair General]

I'm not using the Bible for credibility. I was explaining WHY those quotes are IN the Bible, not that they're true just because they're IN the Bible. Learn to read!

Ok, so then whats your point? Thats like me bringing up a Dr Sues book and quoting in here. It has nothing to do with the discussion.

[Cheshire Cat]

Cheshire, maybe God IS the universe. Haven't you ever heard of Pantheism? Probably not.

I've heard of it, not much different than Taoism. Just a new spin on an old idea.
The Scot's are best know for scotch, not philosophy.

[Kelly]

I KNOW that God exists. I BELIEVE that God is the same God in the Bible. I'm not saying that I'm proving the Bible, only that God exists. What you choose to believe (Bible, Koran, Damapaddah, etc) is only THAT belief. Philosophy (proving God's existence) starts with reasoning. Theology or religion starts with Faith (belief).

[Kelly]

Cheshire, Pantheism is just as old as Taoism. Admitt your ignorance!
Armchair, for someone who knows as much about history as you, why would you ever compare a book that contains so much history to a Dr. Seus book?

[Kelly]

"The Scot's are best know for scotch, not philosophy."
What's that supposed to mean? Do you think the Scot's invented Pantheism?

[Cheshire Cat]

"The Scot's are best know for scotch, not philosophy."
What's that supposed to mean? Do you think the Scot's invented Pantheism?
Either them or the Irish, I forget which, they are all drunkards.

[Fred]

Cheshire, Pantheism is just as old as Taoism. Admitt your ignorance!
Armchair, for someone who knows as much about history as you, why would you ever compare a book that contains so much history to a Dr. Seus book?

he probably did it just to get in your pants........
hes like that when he drinks or more than likely he
wanted to piss on your new pumps

[Kelly]

Appreciate it Fred. But I don't think Armchair is gay. I'm a guy.

Nice display or racism (and your ignorance) Cheshire

[Cheshire Cat]

Cheshire, Pantheism is just as old as Taoism. Admitt your ignorance!
Armchair, for someone who knows as much about history as you, why would you ever compare a book that contains so much history to a Dr. Seus book?

That must prove god exists.
Good job, you have me convinced.

[Kelly]

By the way Cheshire, Pantheism (or at least the idea of it) has been around much longer than John Toland (the IRISH author who coined the term)

[ArmChair General]

I KNOW that God exists.

Then you are a liar. You are either lying to yourself, or everyone else.

[Kelly]

"That must prove god exists.
Good job, you have me convinced."
--Cheshire, you should go check your MySpace page, not try to contend with educated people debating worthy topics.

[ArmChair General]

Cheshire, Pantheism is just as old as Taoism. Admitt your ignorance!

True, but the term Pantheist was first coined by a drunk Irish man in the early 1700's.


Armchair, for someone who knows as much about history as you, why would you ever compare a book that contains so much history to a Dr. Seus book?

Actually, besides a few things in the Bible, most of it is utter junk. You and I could improve on these supposedly inerrant texts in this very discussion.

[Kelly]

"Then you are a liar. You are either lying to yourself, or everyone else."
--Armchair, don't get bogged down by semantics. I KNOW the existence of God. You believe I don't and that's fine. Let's discuss the issue here, not technicalities that'll get us nowhere.

[ArmChair General]

"Then you are a liar. You are either lying to yourself, or everyone else."
--Armchair, don't get bogged down by semantics. I KNOW the existence of God. You believe I don't and that's fine. Let's discuss the issue here, not technicalities that'll get us nowhere.

NO thats the utter truth. There is no possible way that you could KNOW that God exists. If there is a way, prove it to me.

[Kelly]

"Actually, besides a few things in the Bible, most of it is utter junk. You and I could improve on these supposedly inerrant texts in this very discussion."
--Sorry you feel that way. But the Bible is something one can only choose to believe or not. It (Bible) itself doesn't PROVE anything. It was written for those who know of something greater than them (God). Really, it was written for everyone. But, since you don't believe in it, I don't hold that remark against you.

[Kelly]

"NO thats the utter truth. There is no possible way that you could KNOW that God exists. If there is a way, prove it to me."

--I feel I already have. The only way we can know anything for certain is by not being able to disprove it (e.g. 'Null hypothesis' for all you scientists out there).

[ArmChair General]

"Actually, besides a few things in the Bible, most of it is utter junk. You and I could improve on these supposedly inerrant texts in this very discussion."
--Sorry you feel that way. But the Bible is something one can only choose to believe or not. It (Bible) itself doesn't PROVE anything. It was written for those who know of something greater than them (God). Really, it was written for everyone. But, since you don't believe in it, I don't hold that remark against you.

Dont get me wrong, there were a few good things in the New Testament. Like Jesus' Golden Rule, allthough it was nothing new, he put it down in a way that was easy to understand and acceptable.

But by far the majority of the NT, and all of the OT, is a statement of intolerance and ignorance.

[Kelly]

Have you realized that you have to use my points to even try to disprove God's existence? Can you even argue against God's existence from an original point? In all probability God exists--from an outside perspective.

[Cheshire Cat]

"That must prove god exists.
Good job, you have me convinced."
--Cheshire, you should go check your MySpace page, not try to contend with educated people debating worthy topics.
My mommy won't let me have a myspace page

[ArmChair General]

"NO thats the utter truth. There is no possible way that you could KNOW that God exists. If there is a way, prove it to me."

--I feel I already have. The only way we can know anything for certain is by not being able to disprove it (e.g. 'Null hypothesis' for all you scientists out there).

What. You have to prove something first.

Can you disprove that Zues doesnt exist? Can you disprove that we aren't running in a simulation on some super alien computer?

No of course not. If you beileve there is a God, present evidence and it will be disproved.

[ArmChair General]

Have you realized that you have to use my points to even try to disprove God's existence? Can you even argue against God's existence from an original point? In all probability God exists--from an outside perspective.

Have you realized, that its not my job to disprove Gods existence. Its your job to prove his existence.

[Kelly]

"But by far the majority of the NT, and all of the OT, is a statement of intolerance and ignorance."
--You're absolutely right. And I can't stand that about the Bible. But, I (and you should to) realize that those statements are the result of sociological (really anthropological) and historical context. Christians believe that the Word of God came to men (who are imperfect--Original Sin) who put their own spin on it to further their own agendas. I know you know this about history and how people manipulate things. "Who wins the war wins the history."

[Cheshire Cat]

Have you realized that you have to use my points to even try to disprove God's existence? Can you even argue against God's existence from an original point? In all probability God exists--from an outside perspective.

Your original point was to "Prove god doesn't exist".

To prove something means the use of science, and acceptable methods of testing. Tests that can repeated by others and get the exact same results.

Your original premise is a false one. It is up to you to prove the actual existence of something, not the other way around. Your question was false to begin with, as is your god.

[Kelly]

"No of course not. If you beileve there is a God, present evidence and it will be disproved."
--So if I had evidence, you would disprove it? There's obviously nothing I can say, demonstrate, or prove to you if your mind's already fixed like it is on a certain belief.

[Kelly]

"Have you realized, that its not my job to disprove Gods existence. Its your job to prove his existence."
--Did you read the title of this thread that you chose to participate in?

[Kelly]

"To prove something means the use of science, and acceptable methods of testing. Tests that can repeated by others and get the exact same results."
--You should go and learn Scientific Method. When a theory cannot be disproved for a certain amount of time, it becomes scientific law. Technically, God's existence is scientific law.

[ArmChair General]

"But by far the majority of the NT, and all of the OT, is a statement of intolerance and ignorance."
--You're absolutely right. And I can't stand that about the Bible. But, I (and you should to) realize that those statements are the result of sociological (really anthropological) and historical context. Christians believe that the Word of God came to men (who are imperfect--Original Sin) who put their own spin on it to further their own agendas. I know you know this about history and how people manipulate things. "Who wins the war wins the history."

Wow! your the first beilever who has ever actually admitted that.

The problem though, is that if these are supposedly inerrant texts, written with divine inspiration. They can't possibly be wrong.

Furthermore, your argument has the sound of Moral Relativism to it. It was ok then, because that was how things were back then....Just like slavery was without a doubt OK to do according to the OT, and in the NT, at the very least it was never objected too, and at the most was supported. Depending on how you interpret certain passages.

[Kelly]

Cheshire, are you afraid to accept God's existence because you're a lesbian and you think you'd go to hell for it if God does exist? If that's the case, please know that I'm not a religious intolerant freak. I don't believe that mess. I'm not the enemy like you probably thing I am. Or, is your signature just another stab at other people that are different from you?

[Cheshire Cat]

"To prove something means the use of science, and acceptable methods of testing. Tests that can repeated by others and get the exact same results."
--You should go and learn Scientific Method. When a theory cannot be disproved for a certain amount of time, it becomes scientific law. Technically, God's existence is scientific law.

Do you still think the earth is flat to?

[ArmChair General]

"No of course not. If you beileve there is a God, present evidence and it will be disproved."
--So if I had evidence, you would disprove it? There's obviously nothing I can say, demonstrate, or prove to you if your mind's already fixed like it is on a certain belief.

So your admitting you have no evidence?

[Cheshire Cat]

Cheshire, are you afraid to accept God's existence because you're a lesbian and you think you'd go to hell for it if God does exist? If that's the case, please know that I'm not a religious intolerant freak. I don't believe that mess. I'm not the enemy like you probably thing I am. Or, is your signature just another stab at other people that are different from you?
I'm not afraid to accept anything that can be proven. Fear has nothing to do with it.

[ArmChair General]

"Have you realized, that its not my job to disprove Gods existence. Its your job to prove his existence."
--Did you read the title of this thread that you chose to participate in?

Yes, and its a fallacy. Im just pointing this out to you.

[Kelly]

"Wow! your the first beilever who has ever actually admitted that."
--Thanks, there ARE a lot more of us out there (Basilian Catholics, etc.).

"The problem though, is that if these are supposedly inerrant texts, written with divine inspiration. They can't possibly be wrong."
--Not true my friend. Man is imperfect and will always make a mistake or two (not trying to be cynical here). Plus, any Bible available to us today has been through several translations and ,therefore, subject to all sorts of errors. I, and many others read the Bible for the 'big picture.' Part of that big picture is that man is not perfect and screws up things within that picture (Bible). I believe that that is a big message to people who read the Bible.


"Furthermore, your argument has the sound of Moral Relativism to it. It was ok then, because that was how things were back then....Just like slavery was without a doubt OK to do according to the OT, and in the NT, at the very least it was never objected too, and at the most was supported. Depending on how you interpret certain passages."
--Again historical context and human filtering. The proof of this (historical context and human filtering) is in the fact that the Bible seems to contradict itself. 'Do not kill," but the Hebrews killed all sorts of folks. It's crazy to take the Bible literally, word for word. "Big picture!"

[ArmChair General]

"To prove something means the use of science, and acceptable methods of testing. Tests that can repeated by others and get the exact same results."
--You should go and learn Scientific Method. When a theory cannot be disproved for a certain amount of time, it becomes scientific law. Technically, God's existence is scientific law.

You have to actually have a theory first.

Jesus Christ. If I said that there was an invisible flying spaghetti monster flying around in space, but yet I offer no evidence,would you beileve me?

[Kelly]

"So your admitting you have no evidence?"
--Unfortunately, you do not consider what I said to be evidence. I, however, do because it is the only logical answer. Besides, I can't show the picture of God and I that I have on my desk--Just kidding.

[ArmChair General]

"Wow! your the first beilever who has ever actually admitted that."
--Thanks, there ARE a lot more of us out there (Basilian Catholics, etc.).

"The problem though, is that if these are supposedly inerrant texts, written with divine inspiration. They can't possibly be wrong."
--Not true my friend. Man is imperfect and will always make a mistake or two (not trying to be cynical here). Plus, any Bible available to us today has been through several translations and ,therefore, subject to all sorts of errors. I, and many others read the Bible for the 'big picture.' Part of that big picture is that man is not perfect and screws up things within that picture (Bible). I believe that that is a big message to people who read the Bible.


"Furthermore, your argument has the sound of Moral Relativism to it. It was ok then, because that was how things were back then....Just like slavery was without a doubt OK to do according to the OT, and in the NT, at the very least it was never objected too, and at the most was supported. Depending on how you interpret certain passages."
--Again historical context and human filtering. The proof of this (historical context and human filtering) is in the fact that the Bible seems to contradict itself. 'Do not kill," but the Hebrews killed all sorts of folks. It's crazy to take the Bible literally, word for word. "Big picture!"

Sounds like you've filtered Doubt into your faith.

If you doubt that some of the Bible is in-accurate, then why not just doubt the entire thing?

[Cheshire Cat]

Sounds like you've filtered Doubt into your faith.

If you doubt that some of the Bible is accurate, then why not just doubt the entire thing?

No ,no, no

The important parts are right, just the part Kelly disagrees with are wrong.

[ArmChair General]

No ,no, no

The important parts are right, just the part Kelly disagrees with are wrong.

thats what I don't get. It sounds like Kelly is molding her faith, shes picking and choosing what to beileve. As long as it doesnt interfere negatively with her life in a secular society too much, shes willing to go along with it.

It seems to me that Kelly is betraying both faith and reason equally.

[Kelly]

"You have to actually have a theory first."
--God's existence is obviously a theory to you.

Jesus Christ. If I said that there was an invisible flying spaghetti monster flying around in space, but yet I offer no evidence,would you beileve me?
--If you said that there was SOMETHING flying around in space, I'd believe you. If you said that something was a spaghetti monster (lol), I probably wouldn't believe you.
I'm saying that SOMETHING actively created us (through evolution or whatever means). I'm not saying (for the sake of this thread) that thing the God in the Bible, or Zeus, or some guy in the sky with a beard that forms clouds--that's a matter of belief until we actually see what God looks like (if we ever do get to see God in our lifetimes).

[Kelly]

"Sounds like you've filtered Doubt into your faith."
--That was pretty low. Remember, I said BIG PICTURE, not to take everything literally in the Bible. I'm not being selective at all.

[ArmChair General]

--God's existence is obviously a theory to you.

Your theory must be falsifiable. So explain to me how I could disprove your theory of Gods Existence. And then lets test it.


--If you said that there was SOMETHING flying around in space, I'd believe you. If you said that something was a spaghetti monster (lol), I probably wouldn't believe you.
I'm saying that SOMETHING actively created us (through evolution or whatever means). I'm not saying (for the sake of this thread) that thing the God in the Bible, or Zeus, or some guy in the sky with a beard that forms clouds--that's a matter of belief until we actually see what God looks like (if we ever do get to see God in our lifetimes).


OK, and if in a hundred years, nobody was still able to disprove that there is no Flying Spagetti Monster roaming around space, according to your logic, it would then become a scientific Fact that Flying Spaghetti Monsters exist, right?

[ArmChair General]

"Sounds like you've filtered Doubt into your faith."
--That was pretty low. Remember, I said BIG PICTURE, not to take everything literally in the Bible. I'm not being selective at all.

Im not sure how it was low. Its exactly what it looks like. For instance, where in the Bible does it say you can pick and choose what to beileve?

you are a Christian arent you?

[Kelly]

"OK, and if in a hundred years, nobody was still able to disprove that there is no Flying Spagetti Monster roaming around space, according to your logic, it would then become a scientific Fact that Flying Spaghetti Monsters exist, right?"
--Technically, it would be a Scientific Law even though it weren't true. That's how scientific methodology works. While it's the best we've got to go on for now, it's a human invention not perfect. Nor, is it my logic (which is not perfect either).

"Your theory must be falsifiable. So explain to me how I could disprove your theory of Gods Existence. And then lets test it."
--well, don't you feel you've already done that? But, ok, "God exists. We can't know him through our senses, but by observing nature, cause and effect, space and time and their limitations on us and everything we can observe, we can see that we were actively created by something that had the intention to create."

[Kelly]

"Im not sure how it was low. Its exactly what it looks like. For instance, where in the Bible does it say you can pick and choose what to beileve?

you are a Christian arent you?"
--I'm a Catholic. We believe in the big picture approach to the Bible and how it applies to our day and age, not a Fundamentalist who takes the Bible word for word.

[Kelly]

There is about 90% in the Bible that was obviously written by men and about 10% that is divinely inspired in my opinion.

[ArmChair General]

--Technically, it would be a Scientific Law even though it weren't true. That's how scientific methodology works. While it's the best we've got to go on for now, it's a human invention not perfect. Nor, is it my logic (which is not perfect either).

no thats not how it works...sigh....

I think you need to study up on your knowledge of the Scientific Method. (http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node5.html)

--well, don't you feel you've already done that? But, ok, "God exists. We can't know him through our senses, but by observing nature, cause and effect, space and time and their limitations on us and everything we can observe, we can see that we were actively created by something that had the intention to create."

Thats not answering the question...

Again, read up on the Scientific Method. How old are you by the way?

[ArmChair General]

"Im not sure how it was low. Its exactly what it looks like. For instance, where in the Bible does it say you can pick and choose what to beileve?

you are a Christian arent you?"
--I'm a Catholic. We believe in the big picture approach to the Bible and how it applies to our day and age, not a Fundamentalist who takes the Bible word for word.

ahh..your one of those types of Catholics...haha..I know some Catholic Royalists that would eat you alive for that. lol

[Kelly]

"In 1666 Isaac Newton proposed his theory of gravitation. This was one of the greatest intellectual feats of all time. The theory explained all the observed facts, and made predictions that were later tested and found to be correct within the accuracy of the instruments being used. As far as anyone could see, Newton's theory was ``the Truth''.

During the nineteenth century, more accurate instruments were used to test Newton's theory, these observations uncovered some slight discrepancies. Albert Einstein proposed his theories of Relativity, which explained the newly observed facts and made more predictions. Those predictions have now been tested and found to be correct within the accuracy of the instruments being used. As far as anyone can see, Einstein's theory is ``the Truth''.

So how can the Truth change? Well the answer is that it hasn't. The Universe is still the same as it ever was. When a theory is said to be ``true'' it means that it agrees with all known experimental evidence."
--This is what I'm saying about Scientific Method.

[Kelly]

Let me ask you first, if you will, how old do you think I am?

[ArmChair General]

"In 1666 Isaac Newton proposed his theory of gravitation. This was one of the greatest intellectual feats of all time. The theory explained all the observed facts, and made predictions that were later tested and found to be correct within the accuracy of the instruments being used. As far as anyone could see, Newton's theory was ``the Truth''.

During the nineteenth century, more accurate instruments were used to test Newton's theory, these observations uncovered some slight discrepancies. Albert Einstein proposed his theories of Relativity, which explained the newly observed facts and made more predictions. Those predictions have now been tested and found to be correct within the accuracy of the instruments being used. As far as anyone can see, Einstein's theory is ``the Truth''.

So how can the Truth change? Well the answer is that it hasn't. The Universe is still the same as it ever was. When a theory is said to be ``true'' it means that it agrees with all known experimental evidence."
--This is what I'm saying about Scientific Method.

and your point?

[Kelly]

How old are you and where did you do your graduate work in history?

[ArmChair General]

Let me ask you first, if you will, how old do you think I am?

16 or 17

[Kelly]

"and your point?"
My point is is that I know Scientific Method well and the link you provided me reinforces my previous point about scientific laws and your spaghetti monster, just more eloquently and with beller examples than I.

[Cheshire Cat]

16 or 17
I'm 17, but I look like a MILF

[ArmChair General]

I'm 17, but I look like a MILF

I bet you do. Rooowrr!

[Kelly]

"16 or 17"
Really? Why?

[Kelly]

Sorry Cheshire for the harsh words earlier. Didn't realize your age.

[vyo476]

Wow. This thread went kinda crazy.

Okay, I haven't exactly been privy to everything you guys have posted here in the last few hours, but...well, okay. The only thing I have to say on the matter is that belief in a God, gods, or...ahem...flying spaghetti monsters from space is just that - belief. Some things remain unexplainable - what preceded the Bing Bang, for instance. We live in a universe of cause and effect and while we can see the effect - existence - we still don't fully understand the cause. A belief in God is just a method of comfort and the thing I don't understand is why anyone would want to take that away from them.

You can't "prove" a "belief" that requires "faith." If you could there wouldn't be a point to it.

[ArmChair General]

"and your point?"
My point is is that I know Scientific Method well and the link you provided me reinforces my previous point about scientific laws and your spaghetti monster, just more eloquently and with beller examples than I.

Obviously you don't know the Scientific Method if you think lack of being able to disprove the flying spaghetti monster is proof that it exists.

From the LInk:

Science is best defined as a careful, disciplined, logical search for knowledge about any and all aspects of the universe, obtained by examination of the best available evidence and always subject to correction and improvement upon discovery of better evidence. What's left is magic. And it doesn't work. -- James Randi

Where is your Evidence of Gods existence?

I hope it is immediately obvious to you, that there is nothing about nature, or the complexities of life that offers the slightest corroboration of the doctrine of Catholicism. If the beauty of nature can mean that Jesus is the son of God, then it can mean anything at all.

[ArmChair General]

"16 or 17"
Really? Why?

Well your first question kind of summed it up. And then your continual ignorance of the scientific method. I figured you have to be a teenager.

[Kelly]

"Okay, I haven't exactly been privy to everything you guys have posted here in the last few hours, but...well, okay. The only thing I have to say on the matter is that belief in a God, gods, or...ahem...flying spaghetti monsters from space is just that - belief. Some things remain unexplainable - what preceded the Bing Bang, for instance. We live in a universe of cause and effect and while we can see the effect - existence - we still don't fully understand the cause."--kind of agree

"A belief in God is just a method of comfort"--disagree

"You can't "prove" a "belief" that requires "faith." If you could there wouldn't be a point to it."--agree. I'm not trying to prove the things I have faith in to be true, only that we cannot deny our creation by something greater than us (God). I'm not excluding Evolution either.

[Cheshire Cat]

Sorry Cheshire for the harsh words earlier. Didn't realize your age.

That's ok, my grandparents get harsh to, must be an old age thing.:D :D :D

[ArmChair General]

Wow. This thread went kinda crazy.

Okay, I haven't exactly been privy to everything you guys have posted here in the last few hours, but...well, okay. The only thing I have to say on the matter is that belief in a God, gods, or...ahem...flying spaghetti monsters from space is just that - belief. Some things remain unexplainable - what preceded the Bing Bang, for instance. We live in a universe of cause and effect and while we can see the effect - existence - we still don't fully understand the cause. A belief in God is just a method of comfort and the thing I don't understand is why anyone would want to take that away from them.

You can't "prove" a "belief" that requires "faith." If you could there wouldn't be a point to it.

What patronising condescension!

Its the same as saying, “You and I are too intelligent and well educated to need religion. But ordinary dumb people, need religion.”

In any case, the universe doesn’t owe us comfort, and the fact that a belief is comforting doesn’t make it true.

[Kelly]

"Obviously you don't know the Scientific Method if you think lack of being able to disprove the flying spaghetti monster is proof that it exists."
--You have misunderstood what I said. I was referring to how a Scientific Law comes to be. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about here.
--Also, I didn't say that nature proves Catholicism. I was saying that by observing nature, its efficiency, and even at times its beauty, we can conclude that we we created by design and intent--even if we all started off as seafood.

[vyo476]

What patronising condescension!

Its the same as saying, “You and I are too intelligent and well educated to need religion. But ordinary dumb people, need religion.”

In any case, the universe doesn’t owe us comfort, and the fact that a belief is comforting doesn’t make it true.

I know plenty of intelligent people who believe in God. A lack of knowledge does not represent a lack of intelligence and fear from lack of knowledge is nothing to be ashamed of - quite the contrary.

People use religion to deal with things. Or are you disputing that?

And it DOESN'T NEED TO BE PROVABLY TRUE TO BE A BELIEF. What is your problem with leaving people to their beliefs? Especially people whose beliefs have absolutely no impact on you.

[Kelly]

I agree with you VYO476, but in all fairness, I did start this by asking people to disprove God's existence.

[ArmChair General]

--You have misunderstood what I said. I was referring to how a Scientific Law comes to be. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about here.

Im sorry, but you are wrong.

--Also, I didn't say that nature proves Catholicism. I was saying that by observing nature, its efficiency, and even at times its beauty, we can conclude that we we created by design and intent--even if we all started off as seafood.

OK then, I hope it is immediately obvious to you that there is nothing about the beauty or complexity of nature that offers the slightest corroboration that there is a God. If the beauty of nature can mean that there is a God, then it can mean anything at all.

[Kelly]

"OK then, I hope it is immediately obvious to you that there is nothing about the beauty or complexity of nature that offers the slightest corroboration that there is a God. If the beauty of nature can mean that there is a God, then it can mean anything at all."
--Things that exist have purpose (at least organisms). Since things have purpose, they inevitably exist by purpose.

[Kelly]

"Im sorry, but you are wrong."
--How?

[vyo476]

I agree with you VYO476, but in all fairness, I did start this by asking people to disprove God's existence.

Yes, which puts you at fault as much as them.

This whole "prove it!" "no you prove it!" "no you prove it!" thing that involves something that is by its nature unprovable is not only childish, its positively intellectually destructive. You guys are all pretty intelligent (even Armchair General - you know I love you even if you're psychotic) and yet you've spent the last three hours making this thread one of the longest ones currently getting tossed around - threads this large usually take several weeks to grow like this, and you're all arguing over something that cannot be resolved.

[Kelly]

"Yes, which puts you at fault as much as them."
--True. However, my intention here is dialectics, not a contest to see who's right or wrong although it has turned into that. I really just wanted to engage in a conversation about the topic, but I did know it would probably turn into this. So ,yeah, I'm guilty.

[vyo476]

--True. However, my intention here is dialectics, not a contest to see who's right or wrong although it has turned into that. I really just wanted to engage in a conversation about the topic, but I did know it would probably turn into this. So ,yeah, I'm guilty.

Ah, well, so long as you realize that you threw yourself to the wolves with this one. Debating atheists is almost as infuriating as debating libertarians - it isn't that they're wrong, it's that they're not right.

[ArmChair General]

I know plenty of intelligent people who believe in God. A lack of knowledge does not represent a lack of intelligence and fear from lack of knowledge is nothing to be ashamed of - quite the contrary.

People use religion to deal with things. Or are you disputing that?

And it DOESN'T NEED TO BE PROVABLY TRUE TO BE A BELIEF. What is your problem with leaving people to their beliefs? Especially people whose beliefs have absolutely no impact on you.

If subtle, nuanced religion dominated the world, it would be a better place and I would not be here arguing. The sad truth is that decent, understated religion is numerically negligible. Most believers echo Robertson, Falwell or Haggard, Osama bin Laden or Ayatollah Khomeini. These are not straw men. The world needs to face them.

Furthermore, it seems that The atheists among us are too ready to just sit back and allow society to give special respect to faith, and it goes along with society’s bad habit of labelling small children with the religion of their parents. You’d never speak of a “Marxist child” or a “Captilist child”. So why give religion a free pass to indoctrinate helpless children? There is no such thing as a Christian child: only a child of Christian parents.

[ArmChair General]

--Things that exist have purpose (at least organisms). Since things have purpose, they inevitably exist by purpose.

Why must things that exist have a purpose beyond the empirical physical world in which we live in?

[ArmChair General]

"Im sorry, but you are wrong."
--How?

Read it.

http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node5.html

[Kelly]

"Ah, well, so long as you realize that you threw yourself to the wolves with this one. Debating atheists is almost as infuriating as debating libertarians - it isn't that they're wrong, it's that they're not right."
--Yep, I knew what I was/am in for, but it's such a great mental workout--especially when the Atheists are intelligent such as many here on this forum. Intelligent Atheists greatly fascinate me.

[Kelly]

"If subtle, nuanced religion dominated the world, it would be a better place and I would not be here arguing. The sad truth is that decent, understated religion is numerically negligible. Most believers echo Robertson, Falwell or Haggard, Osama bin Laden or Ayatollah Khomeini. These are not straw men. The world needs to face them.

Furthermore, it seems that The atheists among us are too ready to just sit back and allow society to give special respect to faith, and it goes along with society’s bad habit of labelling small children with the religion of their parents. You’d never speak of a “Marxist child” or a “Captilist child”. So why give religion a free pass to indoctrinate helpless children? There is no such thing as a Christian child: only a child of Christian parents."
--Absolute truth! If I could flip a switch and make everyone believe the same things I do, even though I know they're true in my heart, I would not do it. People need to come to their own realizations and interpretations.

[Kelly]

"Why must things that exist have a purpose beyond the empirical physical world in which we live in?"
Because they do. Why else would we come into this world with a desire to know more than what is just necessary to survive and reproduce? Why do we have compassion for other people and even for animals and creatures that have nothing to do with our sustenance or survival? We obviously have a greater purpose than just to exist.

[vyo476]

If subtle, nuanced religion dominated the world, it would be a better place and I would not be here arguing. The sad truth is that decent, understated religion is numerically negligible. Most believers echo Robertson, Falwell or Haggard, Osama bin Laden or Ayatollah Khomeini. These are not straw men. The world needs to face them.

Classic atheist reasoning - "all religious people are extremists." I'm from Massachusetts. I live down the street from a Catholic church. There's an Eastern Orthodox a few miles away. At school in New Hampshire there's a Presbyterian church that's within a stone's throw of the dormitory. None of these people are extremists. I've visited several of the states in the so-called "Bible-Belt" and while they are more given to wearing their religions on their sleeves. When they asked me if I'd accepted Jesus Christ as my personal savior I said that I hadn't and that was that.

Yes, there are extremists. But they get a lot more press because they're more interesting than the more populous, quietly religious masses. What's going to make a headline: "Muslim Extremists Set Off Car Bomb, Kill 8" or "50 Attend Church, Sermon Delivered, Much Praying"?


Furthermore, it seems that The atheists among us are too ready to just sit back and allow society to give special respect to faith, and it goes along with society’s bad habit of labelling small children with the religion of their parents. You’d never speak of a “Marxist child” or a “Captilist child”. So why give religion a free pass to indoctrinate helpless children? There is no such thing as a Christian child: only a child of Christian parents.

Trying to take away a person's faith is rather like trying to take away a person's alcohol. Maybe they'd be better off without it (emphasis on maybe) but how do you suppose they feel? Prohibiting alcohol incensed the drinking population of the United States; a similar prohibition on religion would be even worse.

[Kelly]

Gotta run for now. I promise I'll be back later to respond to any more posts on this thread. Thanks y'all, it's been real!!!

[Sgt Schultz]

"Why must things that exist have a purpose beyond the empirical physical world in which we live in?"
Because they do. Why else would we come into this world with a desire to know more than what is just necessary to survive and reproduce? Why do we have compassion for other people and even for animals and creatures that have nothing to do with our sustenance or survival? We obviously have a greater purpose than just to exist.

Everything that humans do in life boils down to surviving and reproducing. That we've progressed from beyond the basic level is not proof of the existence of god.

[9sublime]

This thread has gone to 14 pages in a day, and i haven't seen any of it. I'm not saying their is not a god, and looking at the world today it seems likely there is something more to life than just living, but it wouldn't surprise me if there wasn't. All I know is that all the world religions are made for man, for the needs of man, BY MAN. If there is a God, or something after this world, we have no idea knowing what it is like, and we will only find out when we die.

[Kelly]

"Everything that humans do in life boils down to surviving and reproducing. That we've progressed from beyond the basic level is not proof of the existence of god."
--That doesn't answer the questions. What does debating about God on the internet have to do with survival? What does reading novels have to do with survival? What does enjoying music have to do with survival? Why do some of us feel guilt after killing a roach? Why do so many people fall in love with members of the opposite sex? There's obviously more to life than mere survival and reproduction. However, I know this thread is long and you probably haven't read it all. I was not saying that these thing prove the existence of God. I was saying that they prove that there's more to lif than just survival and reproduction--that things have a greater purpose than just survival. Why else would we have progressed beyond the basic level? Why else do we have the desire to learn more about different things when we're not hungry or starving to death? With that said Sgt., we were formed, created, or came to be out of purpose--THIS is what states God exists.

[Kelly]

"This thread has gone to 14 pages in a day, and i haven't seen any of it. I'm not saying their is not a god, and looking at the world today it seems likely there is something more to life than just living, but it wouldn't surprise me if there wasn't. All I know is that all the world religions are made for man, for the needs of man, BY MAN. If there is a God, or something after this world, we have no idea knowing what it is like, and we will only find out when we die."
--Agreed! "By the unseen acts of God, we can come to know more about him"--somewhere in the Book of Romans (this is just an example of logic here. I'm not trying to push the Bible on anyone).

--Sublime, no one's trying to prove the validity of any particular religion. We're only debating whether or not God exists.

[9sublime]

--Sublime, no one's trying to prove the validity of any particular religion. We're only debating whether or not God exists.


Yes I know. I'm saying all religions are man made drivel.

[Kelly]

"Yes I know. I'm saying all religions are man made drivel."
--Hope you don't think I was trying to be rude to you mate!!! I was just making sure you knew what had been discussed in this long, long thread.

[9sublime]

Oh no worries then.

[Kelly]

Looks like the "Biblebeaters" are loosing the poll to the "Heretics."
Biblebeaters-2
Heretics-3
Lol!

[Cheshire Cat]

Looks like the "Biblebeaters" are loosing the poll to the "Heretics."
Biblebeaters-2
Heretics-3
Lol!
Heretics currently at 66.6
Be afraid

[Kelly]

Ooooooooh! LOL!

[Kelly]

Oh wow. They really are--66.67%.

[Castle]

Yeah I think God exists but any further explanation could get me in trouble with both sides so I'll end it on that note. :cool:

-Castle

[Kelly]

Castle. Now why would you deprive us like that??? Don't tease us man! Let's hear it!

[9sublime]

Yeah I need to hear this.

[Kelly]

Come on Castle...don't do this to us. Tell us!!!

[Kelly]

'Biblebeaters' have taken the lead over the 'Heretics."
B-beaters 55%
H-tics 44%

This could go either way!!! The anticipation is almost too much to bear!!!

[Lindsay]

Wow. I'm really upset I haven't been back on here to check on this debate. I've missed a lot! I'm still sticking with my first beliefs.

[Kelly]

"Wow. I'm really upset I haven't been back on here to check on this debate. I've missed a lot! I'm still sticking with my first beliefs."
--Oh come on Lindsay, it's not over at all. Why don't you join in with us?! We're hoping Castle joins in too.

[Lindsay]

Well.. I'm still holding firm to my agnostic-beliefs. But I'd really enjoy it if Castle responded!

[Kelly]

By Agnostic, do you mean that God created us and then left, or we can't possibly understand God, or both? I know what Agnosticism is, but there are two interpretations of it. I was just curious what yours is.

[9sublime]

Mine is the second, although I would probably say the first is likely too.

[Lindsay]

I lean towards the agnostic views of "the theory of god cannot be proven nor disproven" and that "there may be a form of a higher power, but not necessarily a god". I don't really agree with the view that "God created us then left", but the theory that "we cannot understand God" seems rather fitting. But I really don't know what I believe in that sense. I believe the universe was created due to the big bang theory, I don't think one power (God) created us. It just seems too farfetched for me. I believe that God was created to form a comfort for people, and it's all escaladed from there. I don't think it's really possible for us to have absolute knowledge of a god. It may be possible, but I, personally, don't have any knowledge. I'm skeptic. I'll withhold my judgement until more evidence appears.

[Truth-Bringer]

And what actively formed your god? I think it was the EXTRA-SUPER-GOD that created him.

This pretty much destroys the Christian God argument. When they say "one can formulate that a designer exists by the existence of the design" - well, then one can formulate based on that same argument that the designer himself must have been designed by someone else, and so on...

for athiests though, they have a problem with the existence of the universe. there is no logical basis to claim permanence, since nothing in the universe appears to be permanent. Therefore, if the universe is not permanent, it must have had a beginning.

If something did indeed once come from nothing, the only logical conclusion I can put forth is that it cannot be understood by the human mind.

Is there a God? I believe there is some creational force in the universe, and some form of spiritual energy. Can I prove it? No. So the only logical answer at this point is "I don't know" when asked - is there a God? Is there something beyond physical existence? Where did we come from? etc....

But hyperdimensional physics looks promising and has already brought some new mysteries to light that can't be explained by modern science. We should know a lot more in 10,000 years.

[Cheshire Cat]

Oh wow. They really are--66.67%.

What? You didn't believe me? I only lie sometimes.

[top gun]

Ok, for all you Atheists out there: Let's hear your argument against the existence of God. For those of you believers: why should/shouldn't God/religion play a part in politics???

God is one thing. Organized man made religion is quite another. One could believe in a God and still believe in all things evolutionary. It's the man made religions that often don't fit into scientific fact.

I'd point out dinosaurs. No dinosaurs in the Bible or any scripture. No mention of any of the thousands of species of dinosaurs we now know existed through fossilize records, on the "Ark". Yet according to scripture EVERYTHING was created a one time and time on earth only started a few thousand years ago.

Carbon dating and other scientific tests show the earth and creatures once roaming it to be millions of years old. Hence the contradiction. :)

[9sublime]

Exactly. I believe in a higher being, just not one thats been made up by man yet.

[Sgt Schultz]

Exactly. I believe in a higher being, just not one thats been made up by man yet.

A higher being or power does not make it a god either.

[vyo476]

A higher being or power does not make it a god either.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke.

Why not? The higher you go, the closer to Godhood you get. And considering that there are near-infinite depths of existence that we understand nothing about, that we can even conceive of a being capable of doing what God does tends to imply that there are creatures even greater than that out there.

[PLC1]

I didn't read this whole long, long thread. Maybe someone has already made this point:

The title of the thread asks us to prove a negative. Let's see just how easy that is.

I know that there is a god, because I'm him. Now, try to prove that I'm not god.

[vyo476]

I didn't read this whole long, long thread. Maybe someone has already made this point:

The title of the thread asks us to prove a negative. Let's see just how easy that is.

I know that there is a god, because I'm him. Now, try to prove that I'm not god.

You can't just call yourself God. There are a few requisites.

You'll need a garden.

You'll need a couple of kids. Don't worry about the incest, you can let it pass this time.

You're going to have to ignore that little voice in the back of your head that says that you shouldn't be making snakes - or apples.

If you happen see a guy wandering around in the desert, think of him as a publisher - and yourself as a the original self-help author.

You have to channel your pyromania into righteous wrath against large cities with lots of sodomy.


The list goes on, really...just remember one thing. Use contraceptives. You're only going to have one kid and his life, well...it isn't going to be very pleasant. Especially when it ends.

[Cheshire Cat]

You can't just call yourself God. There are a few requisites.

You'll need a garden.

You'll need a couple of kids. Don't worry about the incest, you can let it pass this time.

You're going to have to ignore that little voice in the back of your head that says that you shouldn't be making snakes - or apples.

If you happen see a guy wandering around in the desert, think of him as a publisher - and yourself as a the original self-help author.

You have to channel your pyromania into righteous wrath against large cities with lots of sodomy.


The list goes on, really...just remember one thing. Use contraceptives. You're only going to have one kid and his life, well...it isn't going to be very pleasant. Especially when it ends.
hehe, pretty funny

[PLC1]

hehe, pretty funny

It's pretty funny, but it does nothing to prove that I'm not god.

[9sublime]

It's pretty funny, but it does nothing to prove that I'm not god.

As we don't know what a God, or the God, is, a dictionary defintion is pretty useless. It could be a stupider, more simple being who is in charge of us (it would make some sense). Therefore, you could be a God. You're not though.

[vyo476]

It's pretty funny, but it does nothing to prove that I'm not god.

Fine. Here you go. There is only one God, right? Well fine. I'm God.

Prove me wrong.

All joking aside, you're right about proving negatives. It's a point that hadn't exactly come up yet, but we've discussed how the idea of "proving" whether or not there is a God is impossible. The idea of the discussion is flawed and the method of discussion is flawed...

I'm thinking we've more or less killed this thread.

[vyo476]

Therefore, you could be a God. You're not though.

How do you know that he isn't?

"What if God was one of us...just a slob like one of us..."

[PLC1]

Fine. Here you go. There is only one God, right? Well fine. I'm God.

Prove me wrong.

All joking aside, you're right about proving negatives. It's a point that hadn't exactly come up yet, but we've discussed how the idea of "proving" whether or not there is a God is impossible. The idea of the discussion is flawed and the method of discussion is flawed...

I'm thinking we've more or less killed this thread.

I think you're right. We've demonstrated that you can't prove a negative, and that there is no way to prove whether or not there is a god. Oh, yes, and we've about killed the thread.

But, then, god is always right, isn't he?

[9sublime]

How do you know that he isn't?

"What if God was one of us...just a slob like one of us..."

Bloodhound Gang fan? Probably is a slob like anyone who can make a difference.

[vyo476]

Bloodhound Gang fan? Probably is a slob like anyone who can make a difference.

Joan Osbourne actually. It's something a few of my friends used to sing all the time; I never knew where it came from until fairly recently.

[Justinian]

God was never created nor was professed to have been created. God is everything and everywhere and is the absense of everything. God is the voice that decided to create. It's amazing how people will say there's no such thing as God yet profess man will never understand the universe or its creation. Tell me guys, who or what created life? And because there is life, how do you explain death? What exactly is death to you then? There in lies the hypocracy of atheism. Life is not something that evolved out of nothing because it's scientifically impossible. The first cell of life was created. In other words, the chicken was first. Matter cannot evolve into life just as much as life cannot evolve into other forms of life. There had to have been a chicken before there could be an egg and that is what is God.

[Sgt Schultz]

God was never created nor was professed to have been created. God is everything and everywhere and is the absense of everything. God is the voice that decided to create. It's amazing how people will say there's no such thing as God yet profess man will never understand the universe or its creation. Tell me guys, who or what created life? And because there is life, how do you explain death? What exactly is death to you then? There in lies the hypocracy of atheism. Life is not something that evolved out of nothing because it's scientifically impossible. The first cell of life was created. In other words, the chicken was first. Matter cannot evolve into life just as much as life cannot evolve into other forms of life. There had to have been a chicken before there could be an egg and that is what is God.

There is no hypocrisy in my atheism because I don't believe in deities. Are there things in the universe that can't be explained at our current level of knowledge or understanding? Of course but that in itself is not proof of the existence of a god. Did god come out of nothing or did someone make him/her? Using your own analogy something must have made god.

[Justinian]

There is no hypocrisy in my atheism because I don't believe in deities. Are there things in the universe that can't be explained at our current level of knowledge or understanding? Of course but that in itself is not proof of the existence of a god. Did god come out of nothing or did someone make him/her? Using your own analogy something must have made god.

In your own mind, perhaps but that's not what I wrote or believe at all.

[top gun]

There is no hypocrisy in my atheism because I don't believe in deities. Are there things in the universe that can't be explained at our current level of knowledge or understanding? Of course but that in itself is not proof of the existence of a god. Did god come out of nothing or did someone make him/her? Using your own analogy something must have made god.

You are correct... and even more than that there is as much (ok... a lot more evidence of evolutionary development). But at this point nothing is completely explained.

If some of the things proving a religious foundation that were supposed to have happened in Biblical times happened today that would be definitive and I'm sure almost all would be believers. But there are only these stories passed down from man... and man has often created tales that seem very real but in reality were not... like Aesop's Fables.

Everyone has to be allowed to pick what they want to believe and not be brow beat into submission. That's the main problem I have with evangalists... not necessarily the message but the messenger.

[USMC the Almighty]

Guys -- this entire argument is stupid and trivial. One side can't prove that God does exist, while the other can't prove that He doesn't or give an explanation to countless phenomena that the presence of God would explain.

It's like love. You can't see it, touch it, or hear it. You can't prove that it exists. People would argue that you can see the effects of love, just the same that I would argue I see the effects of God.

Another analogy would be the wind. You can't see the wind. But you see the effects of the wind.

This entire disagreement comes down to whether or not you believe that you have seen the effects of God. Personally, I do believe I've seen the effects of God. Have I seen God personally? No, just as I've never seen love or the wind.

It's about faith.

[9sublime]

I've just realised how bizzare it is that (especially fundamentalist) Christianity is associated with the right wing. An outsider would probably think that the 'weak minded all embracing' or whatever you want to call them liberals would be the ones who 'had faith' in a God.

[top gun]

I've just realised how bizzare it is that (especially fundamentalist) Christianity is associated with the right wing. An outsider would probably think that the 'weak minded all embracing' or whatever you want to call them liberals would be the ones who 'had faith' in a God.

That's an interesting take... I've never thought of it that way.

I think the whole truth is it's more of a willingness to live and let live and not a lack of faith on the "Liberal" side. Many... probably most Liberals believe in God or have some type of faith. The difference is they are open minded enough to not expect to nor want to be able to enforce their faith over onto others by laws or organize to try and influence elected officials into inserting more & more religious dogma into our government as the far right "Conservatives" have.

Unfortunately the right in the past has taken issues like abortion, school prayer, school vouchers, and now even "creationism" (read that fake science) and used these issues to put a wedge between people. The so called religious right is no longer really a church group. It's much more like FOX News... it's a Political Action Committee for the Republican Party and that is very dangerous.

[9sublime]

The right wing are so willing to poo-poo a conspiracy, and most of the time they are bloody ridiculous, but then again so is Christianity with angels, demons, prayers, a God that people never know exists for sure.

[PLC1]

I've just realised how bizzare it is that (especially fundamentalist) Christianity is associated with the right wing. An outsider would probably think that the 'weak minded all embracing' or whatever you want to call them liberals would be the ones who 'had faith' in a God.

Yes, it is bizarre in a way. You would think that someone who went around telling people to love their neighbors, to give everything away to the poor, and to turn the other cheek would be more in the liberal camp. On the other hand, the idea that you have to believe in certain things or go to hell is far from a liberal agenda.

You raise an interesting question: Would Jesus have been a liberal, a conservative, or something else?

[Mare Tranquillity]

Yes, it is bizarre in a way. You would think that someone who went around telling people to love their neighbors, to give everything away to the poor, and to turn the other cheek would be more in the liberal camp. On the other hand, the idea that you have to believe in certain things or go to hell is far from a liberal agenda.

You raise an interesting question: Would Jesus have been a liberal, a conservative, or something else?

There is a great website http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/ dealing with that exact subject. Jesus' teachings were liberal, extremely liberal, where the Christian Right (which, by the way, is neither "Christian" nor "Right") gets into religion is their identification with the violent, retributive, demented, misogynist, anal-fixated, genocidal monster of the Old Testament. They are deeply embedded in the Law of Moses--they should call themselves Mosaics instead of Christians.

Kurt Vonnegut was a wonderful author and thinker, he once said, "For some reason, the most vocal Christians among us never mention the Beatitudes. But, often with tears in their eyes, they demand that the Ten Commandments be posted in public buildings. And of course that's Moses, not Jesus. I haven't heard one of them demand that the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, be posted anywhere. "Blessed are the merciful" in a courtroom? "Blessed are the peacemakers" in the Pentagon? Give me a break!"

[vyo476]

Yes, it is bizarre in a way. You would think that someone who went around telling people to love their neighbors, to give everything away to the poor, and to turn the other cheek would be more in the liberal camp. On the other hand, the idea that you have to believe in certain things or go to hell is far from a liberal agenda.

You raise an interesting question: Would Jesus have been a liberal, a conservative, or something else?

Better question: what kind of car would Jesus drive? Based on what you said above, PLC, I'm thinking a VW Bus - with a mounted machine gun.

[Eternal]

http://members.aol.com/commongear/TimesGEBusB10.jpg

I think he would drive that one.

[PLC1]

http://members.aol.com/commongear/TimesGEBusB10.jpg

I think he would drive that one.

LOL I can remember seeing those old hippie wagons on the road. They would carry Jesus and his disciples, but in no great comfort, and they would have to rely on divine power and not seat belts. Tune the engine well, and they might be able to do 0 to 60 in the same day with a tail wind. I suppose it beats riding on a donkey.

[vyo476]

LOL I can remember seeing those old hippie wagons on the road. They would carry Jesus and his disciples, but in no great comfort, and they would have to rely on divine power and not seat belts. Tune the engine well, and they might be able to do 0 to 60 in the same day with a tail wind. I suppose it beats riding on a donkey.

Don't forget: modern Jesus turns water into gasoline. Cuts travel costs, plus the whole water-to-wine thing was causing a few too many DUIs.

[Mare Tranquillity]

LOL I can remember seeing those old hippie wagons on the road. They would carry Jesus and his disciples, but in no great comfort, and they would have to rely on divine power and not seat belts. Tune the engine well, and they might be able to do 0 to 60 in the same day with a tail wind. I suppose it beats riding on a donkey.

Only if the way is not strewn with palm fronds for the donkey to walk on.

[PLC1]

Don't forget: modern Jesus turns water into gasoline. Cuts travel costs, plus the whole water-to-wine thing was causing a few too many DUIs.

I wish I could master that water into gasoline trick, but the water into wine thing would have to be used with some discretion.

[icono1]

I think that we created God in our own image then we had God recreate us in his own image.

[r0beph]

That poll is grossly negligent. To force a yes or no conviction is simply ridiculous. I cannot with any conviction state that a god exists. However inversely I cannot state that a god does NOT exist. The problem, and what you are failing to realize, is that the burden of proof never lies on the person who says something does not exist, it lies upon the one who makes the claim for it existing. If I say there is a huge turtle that lives within the center of the earth and it's his slow walk that spins the earth as if a large hamster ball, I'd like you to disprove this. I mean we can't drill that deep into the Earth, no where near it. So please sir, disprove my theory. This is , without a doubt, JUST AS CREDIBLE as the argument that a god exists based on the evidence that you can possibly muster. Your poll forces someone to say NO, which is wrong on all counts, because I can simply say I DO NOT KNOW. The god and/or gods of all religions are equally likely, if you wish to bring forth the prove it wrong argument that violates all scientific tenets. You sir are ignorant in your postulation of argument, you sir are incorrect in your attempt at proving by null disproof. You sir are why I dislike sheeple. You sir need to go, sit in a corner, read your book, and come back when you have an argument better suited for those over the age of 5. You sir, annoy me. Good DAY.

[ArmChair General]

That poll is grossly negligent. To force a yes or no conviction is simply ridiculous. I cannot with any conviction state that a god exists. However inversely I cannot state that a god does NOT exist. The problem, and what you are failing to realize, is that the burden of proof never lies on the person who says something does not exist, it lies upon the one who makes the claim for it existing. If I say there is a huge turtle that lives within the center of the earth and it's his slow walk that spins the earth as if a large hamster ball, I'd like you to disprove this. I mean we can't drill that deep into the Earth, no where near it. So please sir, disprove my theory. This is , without a doubt, JUST AS CREDIBLE as the argument that a god exists based on the evidence that you can possibly muster. Your poll forces someone to say NO, which is wrong on all counts, because I can simply say I DO NOT KNOW. The god and/or gods of all religions are equally likely, if you wish to bring forth the prove it wrong argument that violates all scientific tenets. You sir are ignorant in your postulation of argument, you sir are incorrect in your attempt at proving by null disproof. You sir are why I dislike sheeple. You sir need to go, sit in a corner, read your book, and come back when you have an argument better suited for those over the age of 5. You sir, annoy me. Good DAY.

Yah we've been through this several times on this forum. Most people don't understand that basic logic.

[rejs7]

Ok, for all you Atheists out there: Let's hear your argument against the existence of God. For those of you believers: why should/shouldn't God/religion play a part in politics???

It is impossible to prove that 'god' does not exist - Betrum Russell's Martian teapot is a very good example for this.

'God' has no part to play in politics - because 'god' is some jumped up semitic tribal myth that has been perpetuated ad nausem to make good boys and girls behave, and the make the not so good ones feel guilty for feeling that being a black sheep is such a bad thing.

The day that 'god' becomes relevent is the day that Nasa discovers a teapot orbting Phobos, or the day your need snow shoes in hell.

[USMC the Almighty]

The day that 'god' becomes relevent is the day that Nasa discovers a teapot orbting Phobos, or the day your need snow shoes in hell.

Absolutely wrong. The idea of God or a "Creator" is what allows for the American model of democracy where the government is subservient to the people. In secular governments like those in Europe, the system is set up so that the government rules the people (i.e. owns their rights) -- an entirely different model.

[rejs7]

Absolutely wrong. The idea of God or a "Creator" is what allows for the American model of democracy where the government is subservient to the people. In secular governments like those in Europe, the system is set up so that the government rules the people (i.e. owns their rights) -- an entirely different model.

Actually it is the idea of checks and balances that allows the United States to creak along in its misgovernance. The founding fathers were not Christians on the whole, and any idea of a divine order is utter tosh. The people have very little to say in how the country is run, aside from voting for which of the elite will govern them. True domocracy can be seen in Switzerland or ancient Athens.

The American government is no more subserviant to the people than a master is to his dog - anyone who thinks otherwise is merely fooling themselves into thinking that the vox populi actually matters anymore.:cool:

[USMC the Almighty]

Actually it is the idea of checks and balances that allows the United States to creak along in its misgovernance.

We're talking about two totally different things. I'm referring to citizens and their sovereignty over government and you're talking about government's separation of powers.

My point is that when the Declaration profoundly stated that "all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights..." they weren't making a ceremonial referrence to God.

They were asserting that the Creator gives people their rights (i.e. Jefferson's "Natural Rights of Man") and then the citizens, as the sovereign, loan power to the government in order to provide for the "common defense", "maintain peace and tranquility", etc. This is significant because for the first time in the history of government, they were saying that the government does not own the people, instead, the people own the government and this would not be possible without the presence of the Creator.

True domocracy can be seen in Switzerland or ancient Athens.

First of all -- America was founded to be a republic, not a democracy. Secondly, to call Athens a "true democracy" is quite naieve, when you consider their narrow definition of a citizen (the only ones who could vote) -- it was adult males who had completed military training, i.e. no slaves, children, women, etc.


The people have very little to say in how the country is run, aside from voting for which of the elite will govern them.

The American government is no more subserviant to the people than a master is to his dog - anyone who thinks otherwise is merely fooling themselves into thinking that the vox populi actually matters anymore.:cool:


For a time, the government was subservient to the people (in the manner of Locke and then Jefferson's philosophies). This started to change with the "Progressive Era" of TR's "active government", continued by Wilson, and secured by FDR's "welfare state" who's legacy is a perpetual cycle of gov't dependence.

[rejs7]

My point is that when the Declaration profoundly stated that "all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights..." they weren't making a ceremonial referrence to God.

First of all -- America was founded to be a republic, not a democracy. Secondly, to call Athens a "true democracy" is quite naieve, when you consider their n