Matthew Le God Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 (edited) The difference being that it is perfectly plausible that there is an intelligent entity controlling the universe. Why is it "perfectly plausible"? There is however, no way a man made object could be orbiting the sun unless we put it there. Given that we haven't (to the best of my knowledge anyway) then it is impossible for a teapot to be orbitting the sun. This is unless after the big bang, some atoms aligned them selves perfectly to form a teapot, although that is around a 1 in 10^26 (1 in 100 million million million million) chance by my reckoing. You have missed the point of the analogy. Edited 20 May, 2011 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bucks Saint Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 That is quite a generalisation. No human is the same, many have been created with far weaker "designs" than others, the overwhelming majority of our species throughout time haven't seen their 5th birthday. Some design...! FFS are you being obtuse for the sake of it? When I said "all the same" at the end of the sentence it was in place of "nonetheless" or "no matter what". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 The difference being that it is perfectly plausible that there is an intelligent entity controlling the universe. There is however, no way a man made object could be orbiting the sun unless we put it there. Given that we haven't (to the best of my knowledge anyway) then it is impossible for a teapot to be orbitting the sun. This is unless after the big bang, some atoms aligned them selves perfectly to form a teapot, although that is around a 1 in 10^26 (1 in 100 million million million million) chance by my reckoing. According to one source, the Flying Teapot will be discovered by mankind in 2032. Make of that what you will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 FFS are you being obtuse for the sake of it? When I said "all the same" at the end of the sentence it was in place of "nonetheless" or "no matter what". Why are all humans "bloody amazing" as you claim? How is that evidence of God? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 Why is it "perfectly plausible"? You have missed the point of the analogy. It's plausible because the universe is incredibly large and complex. It is perfectly plausible that there is something intelligent behind it. And I haven't missed the point of the analogy. I know the burden of proof is with the hypothesiser. I have no proof, therefore I am not saying 'God' definitely exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 It's plausible because the universe is incredibly large and complex. It is perfectly plausible that there is something intelligent behind it. And I haven't missed the point of the analogy. I know the burden of proof is with the hypothesiser. I have no proof, therefore I am not saying 'God' definitely exists. So you are saying because something is complex it is plausible that there is something intelligent designing it? Thus the designer must also be complex, yes? If you follow through your own logic you have now started an infinite regression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 You can disprove anything if you have evidence it doesn't exist. You have no proof that there is no God, it's just based on the fact that it doesn't fit your incredibly limited knowledge (I'm not being personal, as a species there is a massive amount we do not know about the universe). It is a belief, which everyone is entitled to, but you cannot tell others a God doesn't exist. How could I ever provide evidence of something if it doesn't exist? It's impossible. How could I ever prove to you that God doesn't exist if he wasn't there - how would I do that? It would be far easier for a believer to come up with evidence of his existence if he did exist though and so far we've got faith and that's about it. Of course I'm not telling people there is no god in a dogmatic fashion - just that it appears as if he doesn't. It's perfectly valid for someone to believe in God just as it's equally valid for me to question that belief and ask why they believe and what they base it on. Fair enough isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 When I mentioned the possibility of other dimensions, I meant it in a scientific sense, not a theological one. Its possible for example that there are other physical dimensions in which our concepts of space, time and distance are utterly irrelevant, hence the comparison I made earlier about fish in a bowl being unable to conceptualise anything outside of it. I have no idea whether or not God exists, I assume in twenty or thirty years time I'll find out one way or the other. In the meantime it seems pointless to dismiss the people who've gone before us and obviously did give some credence to the concept simply on the basis that science has yet to prove or disprove it. You might be right. God might be lurking in an alternative dimension. My money would be on people having the same debate in 30 years time though, as my guess would be the advances in science over that timeframe won't reveal a hidden God, but will merely continue to offer 'him' less places to hide in. Science can't ever disprove something that doesn't and hasn't ever existed - that's simply not possible. I do like Russell's teapot though. If (as many believers seem to be arguing) atheists should actively find proof against the existance of a deity, why do those same believers not actively find proof agaisnt the existance of a indetectable orbiting teapot? There is as much evidence for the existance of both. I'd argue that all theories without evidence to back them should be dismissed as fiction, only to be given credence if at any stage in the future, evidence is found to back up their claims. As such, IMO, until evidence is found to the contrary, all Gods (from the bearded to the teapot-shaped) simply don't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 So. What is God? Is it an all knowing English Speaking Person with great powers? Is it a Unified Energy Source? Is it a Being of unimaginable mental awareness or prowess? While my mate was learning hypnosis, he had to find volunteers to try his new skills upon. I always refused 'cos it's rubbish. Anyway I read some of the stuff and became interested in the use of Hypnosis in my promary function of "Getting other people to do what I want" - As a manager or salesman. So the point is that the Human Brain is using 15 to 20% of it's processing capapcity and ability and yes hypnosis does work. Now as part of that same "New Age sh1t" there are areas where you can start to understand that the brain produces energy or receives energy in hypnosis - we did an experiment to give a "Recharge" to a team working at a trade show - didn't sleep for 2 days afterwards.. Anyway, linked into Hypnosis comes studies into the Power of Prayer, intense deep concentration. Also the power of Mass Prayer and the inner feelings and uplifting that people experience from it. So in a Theological argument, some (yes SOME) interpretations of Science can show an inner spirit or energy that we don't understand. That energy when channeled can grow. Is a massive Human Energy source a POSSIBLE definition of God? Is God an etheral Energy source in the cosmos that some can believe they can tune into? Is God the God of the Bible? why should only 25% or so of the Earth's population be correct that THEIR version is actually the right one. If you don't define God, damned difficult to believe in one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 How could I ever provide evidence of something if it doesn't exist? It's impossible. How could I ever prove to you that God doesn't exist if he wasn't there - how would I do that? It would be far easier for a believer to come up with evidence of his existence if he did exist though and so far we've got faith and that's about it. Of course I'm not telling people there is no god in a dogmatic fashion - just that it appears as if he doesn't. It's perfectly valid for someone to believe in God just as it's equally valid for me to question that belief and ask why they believe and what they base it on. Fair enough isn't it? Finally, we have come to an agreement. Refering to your first paragraph, disproving the existence of 'God' is easy. You simply have to observe the entirity of the universe and fully explain every single one of it's functions and the science behind it. Nobody can and I doubt anybody ever will, hence you cannot disprove the existence of 'God'. I'm NOT saying this means he exists, but it leaves the door open to the possibility. If you could disprove the existence of 'God' there would be no religion (but for a few hillbillies and Islamists wallowing in denial and fear). We can't, hence there is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 (edited) If you could disprove the existence of 'God' there would be no religion (but for a few hillbillies and Islamists wallowing in denial and fear). We can't, hence there is. Why so many thousands of different religions all over the world and throughout time then? They can't all be right, they can all be wrong, and thus shows religion is a man made concept. Edited 20 May, 2011 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 So. What is God? Is it an all knowing English Speaking Person with great powers? Is it a Unified Energy Source? Is it a Being of unimaginable mental awareness or prowess? While my mate was learning hypnosis, he had to find volunteers to try his new skills upon. I always refused 'cos it's rubbish. Anyway I read some of the stuff and became interested in the use of Hypnosis in my promary function of "Getting other people to do what I want" - As a manager or salesman. So the point is that the Human Brain is using 15 to 20% of it's processing capapcity and ability and yes hypnosis does work. Now as part of that same "New Age sh1t" there are areas where you can start to understand that the brain produces energy or receives energy in hypnosis - we did an experiment to give a "Recharge" to a team working at a trade show - didn't sleep for 2 days afterwards.. Anyway, linked into Hypnosis comes studies into the Power of Prayer, intense deep concentration. Also the power of Mass Prayer and the inner feelings and uplifting that people experience from it. So in a Theological argument, some (yes SOME) interpretations of Science can show an inner spirit or energy that we don't understand. That energy when channeled can grow. Is a massive Human Energy source a POSSIBLE definition of God? Is God an etheral Energy source in the cosmos that some can believe they can tune into? Is God the God of the Bible? why should only 25% or so of the Earth's population be correct that THEIR version is actually the right one. If you don't define God, damned difficult to believe in one. I look at it this way. If there was actually a creator, someone or something that arranged things so that life in the way we understand it could exist on this planet, its obvious that this particular entity is a long way ahead of us in terms of knowledge, understanding and ability, and therefore it would be nigh on impossible for us to get our heads round the nature of it, describe it, or define it. And you come back to the circular argument of why the hell are we here? Given the sheer improbability of us existing at all to be here and arguing the point, what prompted life to exist? Somebody mentioned the infinite number of monkeys theory, but thats something the scientists do seem to have cracked; the universe is not infinite. It is measurable and quantifiable, and we know how much mass and energy it contains, so infinity is no longer a viable explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 Why so many thousands of different religions all over the world and throughout time then? They can't all be right, they can all be wrong, and thus suggests religion is a man made concept. Well of course it is. Religion is just fear and fantasy, based on stories which are thousands of years old. It's completely irrelevant when it comes to any potential 'God' in the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 Is it really enough for believers to know that their chosen deity can only possibly exist because of the impossibility of disproving a non-existant entity? Of course, by the same logic any unfounded claim has merit, Elvis is alive, and mermaids have wings. Why not worship car salesmen? They might not have mystical powers, but at least there is some evidence that they actually exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 I look at it this way. If there was actually a creator, someone or something that arranged things so that life in the way we understand it could exist on this planet, its obvious that this particular entity is a long way ahead of us in terms of knowledge, understanding and ability, and therefore it would be nigh on impossible for us to get our heads round the nature of it, describe it, or define it. And you come back to the circular argument of why the hell are we here? Given the sheer improbability of us existing at all to be here and arguing the point, what prompted life to exist? Somebody mentioned the infinite number of monkeys theory, but thats something the scientists do seem to have cracked; the universe is not infinite. It is measurable and quantifiable, and we know how much mass and energy it contains, so infinity is no longer a viable explanation. There are billions of planets in the universe without life on. Just because something is unlikely doesn't mean it is impossible. The odds of winning the lottery are small, it doesn't mean people don't win the lottery. Earth is a planet that won the life lottery, billions of other planets didn't. We can only have this discussion because earth did win the lottery, if it didn't then we wouldn't, but that doesn't mean another planet wouldn't have the conditions needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 Well of course it is. Religion is just fear and fantasy, based on stories which are thousands of years old. It's completely irrelevant when it comes to any potential 'God' in the universe. Using God as the plug to a gap in knowledge of the creation of the universe doesn't answer the question of infinite regression it creates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 There are billions of planets in the universe without life on. Just because something is unlikely doesn't mean it is impossible. The odds of winning the lottery are small, it doesn't mean people don't win the lottery. Earth is a planet that won the life lottery, billions of other planets didn't. We can only have this discussion because earth did win the lottery, if it didn't then we wouldn't, but that doesn't mean another planet wouldn't have the conditions needed. So a load of atoms just got exploded by the Big Bang, which in itself was a random event generated from nothing, and we ended up with this situation where the atoms randomly arranged themselves in such a way as to produce sentient creatures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 Using God as the plug to a gap in knowledge of the creation of the universe doesn't answer the question of infinite regression it creates. Surely the beginnings and end of time and the edges of the universe also create an infinite regression. What was before the big bang. How and when will the universe end. Surely it's impossible for the universe to just end, but then it's impossible it can go on forever too. Yes it creates an infinite regression, which is partly why it can't be answered. I'm willing to bet that the human mind is so primative it cannot comprehend the biggest questions and answers in the universe at all. There are probably questions out there we will never even think of because we have no comprehension what-so-ever of the science behind it. With that, I'm bored with this topic. If you want to book any of my philosophy speeches for an after dinner event, PM me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 So a load of atoms just got exploded by the Big Bang, which in itself was a random event generated from nothing, and we ended up with this situation where the atoms randomly arranged themselves in such a way as to produce sentient creatures? Why is that hard to believe? There are billions of planets where it didn't happen. If you play the national lottery and you don't win the jackpot, does that mean that no-one has won the jackpot. Unlikely doesn't mean impossible. If God is such a great life creator why do most of the billions of planets he created not support life? So many planets empty of life shows that life is a fluke, Earth just got lucky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 Surely the beginnings and end of time and the edges of the universe also create an infinite regression. What was before the big bang. How and when will the universe end. Surely it's impossible for the universe to just end, but then it's impossible it can go on forever too. Yes it creates an infinite regression, which is partly why it can't be answered. I'm willing to bet that the human mind is so primative it cannot comprehend the biggest questions and answers in the universe at all. There are probably questions out there we will never even think of because we have no comprehension what-so-ever of the science behind it. With that, I'm bored with this topic. If you want to book any of my philosophy speeches for an after dinner event, PM me. this. Its like arguing about a colour none of us have ever seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 "I would like to thank God for making me an atheist." Think there are two separate arguments going on here. One about the rights and wrongs of religions and conventional Gods and another about the possibility of there being "something" that none of us are really aware of or have any understanding of, but in some way filled in the gaps before the "big bang" and provide some level of reasoning behind creation. Anyone in this day and age that believes in a religion is not far off being mad and/or brainwashed. However, I think "Science" rally struggles to explain a lot of stuff and until it can, it will always leave open thee question of "what else might be out there?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 Surely the beginnings and end of time and the edges of the universe also create an infinite regression. What was before the big bang. How and when will the universe end. Surely it's impossible for the universe to just end, but then it's impossible it can go on forever too. Yes it creates an infinite regression, which is partly why it can't be answered. I'm willing to bet that the human mind is so primative it cannot comprehend the biggest questions and answers in the universe at all. There are probably questions out there we will never even think of because we have no comprehension what-so-ever of the science behind it. With that, I'm bored with this topic. If you want to book any of my philosophy speeches for an after dinner event, PM me. When I said "infinite regression", I was referring to what created the creator. If you use the logic as you did that something complex needs a creator, the creator himself is complex - why doesn't he need a creator? At which point the original logic collapses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 Can someone please give be conclusive proof that electrons 'exist'? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 Surely the beginnings and end of time and the edges of the universe also create an infinite regression. What was before the big bang. How and when will the universe end. Surely it's impossible for the universe to just end, but then it's impossible it can go on forever too. Yes it creates an infinite regression, which is partly why it can't be answered. I'm willing to bet that the human mind is so primative it cannot comprehend the biggest questions and answers in the universe at all. There are probably questions out there we will never even think of because we have no comprehension what-so-ever of the science behind it. With that, I'm bored with this topic. If you want to book any of my philosophy speeches for an after dinner event, PM me. It's certainly not impossible. That's the whole point and the thing I always struggle to get my head around. What was before the big-bang? And what was before that? The idea of the universe having an infinite start and finish is beyond certainly mine and probably most people's ability to comprehend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 I apologise in advance for the sheer level of annoyingness int his bloke's voice, but he makes a very valid point... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 (edited) When I said "infinite regression", I was referring to what created the creator. If you use the logic as you did that something complex needs a creator, the creator himself is complex - why doesn't he need a creator? At which point the original logic collapses. Where all your arguments fall down is trying to apply concepts from our every day life onto something that is beyond our reasoning or scope for imagination. It's not like someone was given a scope to create a website and has made a few errors on it that now need tweaking. Edited 20 May, 2011 by Sour Mash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 (edited) Can someone please give be conclusive proof that electrons 'exist'? Thanks. Single electronic orbitals in a molecule were recently imaged by high speed lasers: http://www.nature.com/physics/highlights/7020-3.html A single electron trapped in a quantum dot detected: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AIPC..772..775S http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005cond.mat.10269G At least they are testable through scientific method, rather than blind faith using prehistoric and bronze age myth to explain things early man couldn't understand. Edited 20 May, 2011 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 Where all your arguments fall down is trying to apply concept's from our every day life onto something that is beyond our reasoning or scope for imagination. It's not like someone was given a scope to create a website and has made a few errors on it that now need tweaking. So it is okay for a creator not to have creator, but not okay for the universe not to have a creator? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 Where all your arguments fall down is trying to apply concept's from our every day life onto something that is beyond our reasoning or scope for imagination. It's not like someone was given a scope to create a website and has made a few errors on it that now need tweaking. So basically you are saying that this creator lives within a part/version of a/the universe which is so far beyond our comprehension that all logic is turned on its head. Therefore, we are essentially debating a object which doesn't obey any of the laws of science that we do, can't be described, has never been seen, has left no trace of itself... ... right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 Just a thought, but which of these two entities is there more evidence for the existance of: 1) God 2) Al Mirage of Skatesville Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 Just a thought, but which of these two entities is there more evidence for the existance of: 1) God 2) Al Mirage of Skatesville Neither of them exist. But I have yet to see a photo of God, where as... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 So basically you are saying that this creator lives within a part/version of a/the universe which is so far beyond our comprehension that all logic is turned on its head. Therefore, we are essentially debating a object which doesn't obey any of the laws of science that we do, can't be described, has never been seen, has left no trace of itself... ... right. It is shame that this place isn't big enough for the billions of people it is required for or still in operation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 (edited) So basically you are saying that this creator lives within a part/version of a/the universe which is so far beyond our comprehension that all logic is turned on its head. Therefore, we are essentially debating a object which doesn't obey any of the laws of science that we do, can't be described, has never been seen, has left no trace of itself... ... right. No. Just saying that its a bit pointless applying every day rules and concepts to something that if it did exist could well be beyond our understanding. Its like a number of posts on this thread saying stuff like "well if God is a creator he's made loads of mistakes", it sounds like you're talking about a bloke sitting in-front of a computer trying to put together a website. Whichever way you come at this subject, it has to be with an open mind and the belief that, as both history and science have continually shown us, there is so much for mankind to still learn and understand. Think about how many things we take for granted today, that just 100 years ago would be beyond most people's comprehension? Edited 20 May, 2011 by Sour Mash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 So it is okay for a creator not to have creator, but not okay for the universe not to have a creator? No. Who knows? Just that there is little point is applying the most basic of our everyday concepts to, something that is possibly far and away more complex than we can currently imagine. You're right though, there are too many questions which we are highly unlikely to ever know or understand in our lifetime, if tehre was a "creator" who/what creted that and so on and so forth.................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 No. Just saying that its a bit pointless applying every day rules and concepts to something that if it did exist could well be beyond our understanding. Its like a number of posts on this thread saying stuff like "well if God is a creator he's made loads of mistakes", it sounds like you're talking about a bloke sitting in-front of a computer trying to put together a website. Whichever way you come at this subject, it has to be with an open mind and the belief that, as both history and science have continually shown us, there is so much for mankind to still and understand. Think about how many things we take for granted today, that just 100 years ago would bebeyond most people's comprehension? Fair enough, but doesn't believing in something that there simply isn't evidence for, just because they hypothetically might be found to exist at some point in the future, not strike you as a little odd? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 20 May, 2011 Author Share Posted 20 May, 2011 is there any reason why the christian god is more likely than a strange god worshipped by an african tribe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 (edited) Fair enough, but doesn't believing in something that there simply isn't evidence for, just because they hypothetically might be found to exist at some point in the future, not strike you as a little odd? Yes. That's why I would say its not a case of "believing in something", but believing in the possibility of there being far more for us to learn and understand about the creation of the universe than we currently do, whether its called "God" etc is neither here nor there, but the idea that history and science shows us we are constantly learning more and more about how the world came about, who is to say what our understanding will be in 50/100/200 years. I don't understand how someone can be certain either way and cannot be curious and open minded as to what was before the big bang (for example), what created that and what was before that. I agree with many on here, that "religion" is a lot of absolute garbage though. Edited 20 May, 2011 by Sour Mash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 Fair enough, but doesn't believing in something that there simply isn't evidence for, just because they hypothetically might be found to exist at some point in the future, not strike you as a little odd? Science is looking for the Higgs Boson as we speak. Havent found it yet though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 (edited) Science is looking for the Higgs Boson as we speak. Havent found it yet though. So? At least it is testable. How do you test for God? Do you believe in unicorns? If not, why not? Edited 20 May, 2011 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwaysaint Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 Couldn't this question be solved with a simple poll? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 Dear Christians, Isn't the world supposed to end tomorrow or something? Surely you will be donating all your cash to Red Cross if you're a true believer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 So? At least it is testable. How do you test for God? Do you believe in unicorns? If not, why not? This is getting boring. So you absolutely believe that our civilization is the pinnacle of all knowledge and understanding, and that if we, together with our current scientific knowledge and capabilities of comprehension, are unassailable, and therefore if we cannot definitively prove the existence of a God, (or whatever you want to call it,) then it simply cannot exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 Dear Christians, Isn't the world supposed to end tomorrow or something? Surely you will be donating all your cash to Red Cross if you're a true believer? Those poor East Coast Yanks, they won't even get to have lunch properly. You lot will have finished watching The one true god - yes the man who will eventually be proven to have caused the big bang (Dr Who of course). Meanwhile down here it will be mid-evening and I'll be tucked into my best bottle of Chataeu Neuf Du-Pape. a far better way to go methinks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 Dear Christians, Isn't the world supposed to end tomorrow or something? Surely you will be donating all your cash to Red Cross if you're a true believer? Clearly demonstrating an indepth knowledge of the Christian faith. The old boy is 89 so I suspect that his judgement day will not be too far away anyway. Do you do jokes on other faiths. Thought not you are bound by your political correctness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 So? At least it is testable. How do you test for God? Do you believe in unicorns? If not, why not? I am surprised that such an intellectual heavyweight has failed to address the spiritual element of believing in God. Why do people who have such a strong faith have such a feeling of cententment. What about the Toronto blessing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 So to conclude, the only plausible way for a deity to exist would be if they are incredibly well hidden. In fact, said deity must have gone to great efforts to hide any evidence of their existence. Although the same deity must also be prone to fits of schizophrenia, because at irregular points of time they have engaged in religious advertising campaigns, sending us their son or appearing before young girls in the guise of a horny bull or multi-armed elephant. Of course during these campaigns they must have scattered plenty of real, tangible evidence of their existance, which they must then have studiously rehidden, for some unknown reason. And of course, the reason all this sounds so crazy, is because this deity occupies an alternative reality with different laws of physics, and not in any way to be misinterpreted as being because said deity simply doesn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambosa75 Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 This is getting boring. So you absolutely believe that our civilization is the pinnacle of all knowledge and understanding, and that if we, together with our current scientific knowledge and capabilities of comprehension, are unassailable, and therefore if we cannot definitively prove the existence of a God, (or whatever you want to call it,) then it simply cannot exist? in a word, probably yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 (edited) I am surprised that such an intellectual heavyweight has failed to address the spiritual element of believing in God. Why do people who have such a strong faith have such a feeling of cententment. What about the Toronto blessing? Has the Toronto blessing healed any amputees? It isn't in any way evidence for God, it is just a mass delusion. They think they will be effected in a certain way, so that is how they behave (in most cases sincerely I'm sure). Doesn't make them any less deluded though. If this is what God does to you, you should hope he doesn't exist... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCeVZ6e2T0E Do you believe in unicorns? If not, why not? Edited 20 May, 2011 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 I don't feel sufficiently qualified to give a definitive answer either way. I see MLG is off on his crusade again. While he feels the need to ram his opinions down others' throats I do not know. If someone decides they believe in God and that works for them then who am I to ridicule them or say they are wrong? If they impose their beliefs on others or try to do something dangerous in the name of their religion then that's a different matter, but I'm not going to write off all religious belief just because of those lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 20 May, 2011 Share Posted 20 May, 2011 I don't feel sufficiently qualified to give a definitive answer either way. I see MLG is off on his crusade again. While he feels the need to ram his opinions down others' throats I do not know. If someone decides they believe in God and that works for them then who am I to ridicule them or say they are wrong? If they impose their beliefs on others or try to do something dangerous in the name of their religion then that's a different matter, but I'm not going to write off all religious belief just because of those lot. Pretty much every religious person "forces" to some extent their children into the same religion. This is why it needs ridiculing - it is dangerous and poisons the whole of society, people don't keep it to themselves no matter how much they say they don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now