Probabilities of God's existence debate

[Alzael]

I don’t follow creationists ideas. For the sake of our friendship let’s just say I believe God created the big bang.

What evidence do you have in support of this? Simply saying:


"I think a such complex and in it's own way organized thing (there is a lot of order in what seems to be caos) such as the universe, simply cannot come into being without creation. It seems a bit obvious, to me, that something must have done something, move something, created something, in other words, acted in some way to create what we call universe. And only because we don't know (and even if we did we still had to understand it) doesn't mean it is not possible."

Is evidence of nothing but personal ignorance and incredulity. It in no way even hints that  there actually is a god that created everything.

Simply because you can't fathom an alternative doesn't mean you get to fill in the blanks with any dumb idea that you desire to believe. That would be patently idiotic. Not only idiotic, but it would preclude one from ever actually learning the truth about anything.

Humans have the bad habit of requiring proof for everything, and on the absence of it, truth is always "molded" to fit our knowledge.

Proof is how we separate fantasy from reality. We have a word for a belief held without proof, that word is "delusion". Lack of proof is how "truth is always "molded" to fit our knowledge" (actual proof would point to a single conclusion). Because if ideas (such as yours above) are considered to be valid without having to provide sufficient proof then every idea becomes valid and words like "truth" and "reality" cease to have any real meaning because "truth" and "reality" are defined solely by whatever the individual wants to make up.

For example, let's take your assertion once again:

"I think a such complex and in it's own way organized thing (there is a lot of order in what seems to be caos) such as the universe, simply cannot come into being without creation. It seems a bit obvious, to me, that something must have done something, move something, created something, in other words, acted in some way to create what we call universe. And only because we don't know (and even if we did we still had to understand it) doesn't mean it is not possible."

Let's assume that this statement actually has any intellectual validity for a moment. If I were to postulate that the universe came into being through the agency of a giant Purple People Eater that lives within the center of a tootsie pop, it's no different than what you have claimed above. We both are using the same evidence for our claims (none), so both ideas are on the same level. If we accept that yours is valid and not in anyway idiotic, we have to accept the same about my Purple People Eater theory. We also have to accept that the Buddhists are equally right, the people who talk about anal-probing aliens are equally right, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc.

Hence, a claim without evidence is not only worthless, but only a fool or a lunatic would give it serious consideration.

This becomes especially dangerous when we start to apply this method of thinking to forming decisions about behaviour.

For example right now there are some fanatical Muslims who would say that they are commanded by Allah to kill all those who will not accept Islam because they are evil and need to be purged. There are also the non-radicals who would say that this goes against what Allah says. However which one is right? Both sides have the same evidence (again, none) to support their argument. So how can one determine truth? Without proof of what Allah really wants it becomes a matter of which side can convince the most people to follow them as opposed to which side is right. And if the people who want to kill those who are not Muslims happen to find an audience that already dislikes certain groups of non-Muslims...........


Or.

If I were to type to the forum about how I believe that saying a few words of spanish over my morning pancakes would turn them into the body of Elvis......someone on this forum would get me medication.

But.

If I were to make the same claim about a few words of Latin over a cracker turning into the body of Christ, I would just be a Catholic.

However what makes one idea crazy and the other not? That, in the words of Sam Harris, is the problem with the religious mentality that you are trying to apply. "It allows people to believe by the millions, what only a single lunatic could believe on his own."

So the bottomline is, have you any actual proof to support your assertion of a god created universe? If not, then we're pretty much finished here aren't we?

This is where our brains part ways. God is not an equation. I don't need to do all that. And even if I wanted to, I could't do it or prove it.

Then it has no use. If you can't prove it or disprove it you cannot separate it from a made-up fantasy. It has no explanatory value.

[ParkingPlaces]

Edit: Sometimes I can't quote for crap. Fixed it.

And you lost me here. What did you mean?

This is the one thing that isn't mysterious. It is considered polite around here to explain edits after something has been posted. I had not nested quotes correctly when I first posted this, so I returned to the post, clicked on the "Modify" button and both fixed the problem and made note of it.

And I tend to make fun of myself when I've made a stupid mistake.

Did you watch any of the video that JeffPT posted? That one explains why something from nothing does not confuse science.

And sorry for misunderstanding where you are coming from. I made some erroneous assumptions. It might be wise for you to start a new thread where you give us some more detail about your POV so that we can discuss such things separate from this thread.

[OtiumDies]

Yes, you could. Black holes don't break the laws of physics, black holes have always existed and black holes are falsifiable. See how you sound just like another theist; trying to make himself feel special by claiming to have access to "special knowledge".

Uh? I AM a theist. And I claim to have no special knowledge. Where that came from?

Can I call you Lu? As in Hell Blazer's/Constanitne "Lu, what took you so long?", which to me is so more terrifying

Anyway, see you missed my point entirely, and at the same time gave me more arguments to support my model. No of course you could not make that boost, simply because the information was not mature enough to affirm that. In other words, we were ignorant to black holes. Now we are not, and now we can have undeniable proof of black holes, we can say it (for sure).

This is where our brains part ways. God is not an equation. I don't need to do all that.

You do if you want your claims to be taken seriously around here.

I think as humans we are extremely arrogant, innocent, unexperienced and immature. We should learn that lack of proof it's proof of inexistence. And yet that became very pejorative these days as it's treated in absolute terms. It would be something similar to me saying "he killed her", and you ask "why" and I say "because the trigger was pulled", truth but, that it's not why. But it can be. But it is not in this simple case.

If you can't take me seriously because I can't call 1800Come-now-God and show Him to you, well that just sadden me. Some nice people here took me seriously even knowing I have no factual proof. Why? Maybe because in turn they also have no proof of the contrary, which was very wise of them.

And even if I wanted to, I could't do it or prove it.

No evidence of any kind. Finally, one honest theist.

The fact I believe in what you do not does not make me more or less ignorant, as I'm ignoring no proof that was given to me. Why? Because there is none we can grasp right now. I really need to make a signature were I say some things so people don't readily assume things I like, believe, do or follow. Yes Lu, I'm honest to the BONE MARROW! And I can't say I'm not a little obnoxious, because I am. But as I stated before, I love to be proven wrong, but unfortunately in this case, you can't prove me wrong, as the evidence of absence is absent right now. ;-]

But going around neither can you prove otherwise. Which reminds me Copernicus, not so popular, did not make much sense to most, but nevertheless was correct. Not saying I am, just counter arguing ahead...

Copernicus was persecuted because his evidence contradicted the Bible.

Exactly, exactly my point. How many times in the last century for instance a scientist was ridiculized because he worked out some theory he was unable to proof? And then came along that little technology, experiment, additional information that vindicated him? Same model fits many other non-scientific scenarios.

Just out of curiosity, do you believe in the what Lucifer is?

Lucifer is a Latin word which means "lightbringer" or "morning star". In the Bible, it's a title given to some of its fictional characters.

Just checking... would be insane if you did based on the platform you stand on.

[One Above All]

And I claim to have no special knowledge. Where that came from?

"I magically know something for which there is zero evidence."
That's where that came from. You claim to know something which leaves behind no trace of its existence. That's as special as special gets.

Can I call you Lu? As in Hell Blazer's/Constanitne "Lu, what took you so long?", which to me is so more terrifying

Don't care. My name is not supposed to be terrifying.

Anyway, see you missed my point entirely, and at the same time gave me more arguments to support my model. No of course you could not make that boost, simply because the information was not mature enough to affirm that. In other words, we were ignorant to black holes. Now we are not, and now we can have undeniable proof of black holes, we can say it (for sure).

Wrong. We could certainly make predictions based on what should happen if black holes existed, and thus could test for it. What you theists do is either claim that there's no evidence (yet somehow expect your claims to be given credibility) or claim that there is evidence, but we just can't find it. You're doing both.

I think as humans we are extremely arrogant, innocent, unexperienced and immature. We should learn that lack of proof it's proof of inexistence.

Fine then. What evidence should we find if your god were real?... Right, that's what I thought. None. How does that make it any different from Zeus or Athena or Mars or Thor or Quetzalcoatl?

If you can't take me seriously because I can't call 1800Come-now-God and show Him to you, well that just sadden me.

I can take you seriously, but not your claims. Your claims become meaningless without evidence..

Some nice people here took me seriously even knowing I have no factual proof. Why? Maybe because in turn the also have none to proof of the contrary, which was very wise of them.

It is not up to us to prove you wrong. It's up to you to prove yourself right.

The fact I believe in what you do not does not make me more or less ignorant.

Uh... Yeah, it does. You believe in magic. That's ignorant. We[1] don't. That's less ignorant.

you can't prove me wrong

Define your god for me in clear, concise terms, and I will prove you wrong.

Exactly, exactly my point. How many times in the last century for instance a scientist was ridiculized because he worked out some theory he was unable to proof? And then came along that little technology, experiment, additional information that vindicated him? Same model fits many other non-scientific scenarios.

Did you even read what I wrote? He was persecuted because the evidence didn't fit the dogmatic views of the church. He had proof. You don't.

1.	By which I mean most atheists; not all.

[OtiumDies]

This is the one thing that isn't mysterious. It is considered polite around here to explain edits after something has been posted. I had not nested quotes correctly when I first posted this, so I returned to the post, clicked on the "Modify" button and both fixed the problem and made note of it.

And I tend to make fun of myself when I've made a stupid mistake.

Did you watch any of the video that JeffPT posted? That one explains why something from nothing does not confuse science.

And sorry for misunderstanding where you are coming from. I made some erroneous assumptions. It might be wise for you to start a new thread where you give us some more detail about your POV so that we can discuss such things separate from this thread.

Oh I'm so sorry. As english is not my first language, what the #%!@# I don't even think I have a 1st language, as I have ALL OF THEM! I'm terrible with words and spellings. My edits are usually to correct some spelling thingy or something that after posting I tough not to be clear enough make one understand exactly what I was saying.  Sorry about it. Yeah indeed would sound like I'm "cheating".

Will do from now on sir. Edits will be funny explained and likely will be embarrassed by most of them.

About the video JeffPT posted, yeah I knew that. I watched this video a while back, and is all theorized. Nothing proven, and finally about the thread, yeah probably you are right and I should and will do it.

But I'm do it with more time in my hands, because this kind of post can potentially and very quickly became a flame house.

[Alzael]

The fact I believe in what you do not does not make me more or less ignorant.

No, the fact that you assert a belief without evidence is what makes you ignorant .

[OtiumDies]

"I magically know something for which there is zero evidence."
That's where that came from. You claim to know something which leaves behind no trace of its existence. That's as special as special gets.

That's where you fail to understand what I am saying. I don't know nothing of God, and neither do you. It seem only logical to me to follow an idea that could reward me some day. Why do people play the lottery when they know the odds?  Starting from the point we know nothing of God, I chose to believe in what I think is right, and you chose to believe in what you can prove is right. But since you can't prove what I think is right to be wrong, we are here now, discussing about it.

Say I tell you elephants do fly? What can you do? There goes Lu, grabs that 6 ton elephant and drop it from that 3 mile high cliff. "See OD, looks like a vagina now... all I can see are it's ears, and It can't fly, felt like wall street to JPMorgans' will." Ok let's do the experiment 10 more times just to recheck the data. Unfortunately to me, all 11 elephants will fall.

Is that proof that elephants do not fly? I could say NO. It is not. Why? How can possibly one make that be true. For instance if you take the perspective of someone sitting outside of the fluff, to that person, everything, including the earth itself is flying. And you in the other hand can say that the earth is the one flying, the elephant is only sitting on what is actually flying. And I can counter argue that that is non important and he is flying nevertheless. See how complicated things can become even when some proof is given?

Anyway, see you missed my point entirely, and at the same time gave me more arguments to support my model. No of course you could not make that boost, simply because the information was not mature enough to affirm that. In other words, we were ignorant to black holes. Now we are not, and now we can have undeniable proof of black holes, we can say it (for sure).

Wrong. We could certainly make predictions based on what should happen if black holes existed, and thus could test for it. What you theists do is either claim that there's no evidence (yet somehow expect your claims to be given credibility) or claim that there is evidence, but we just can't find it. You're doing both.

Not wrong!!!
Of course you could make predictions. Math is a really easy thing to work with when the subject is proving something physical. I consider theoretical physics to be way more difficult and more dangerous than practical physics, as one can't just sum up and find proof. He, based on previous facts is guessing what he think is right. To make this clear, once and for all, I'm not saying I have proof God exists, I'll have that proof one day, that's a certainty, but not now, as I yet don't have.

Atheists in other hand claim magic is not possible. That it is impossible to turn lead into gold for instance. Wow, magic... isn't the cosmos just magical?

Just because you can explain it, it doesn't make any less magical. And about the alchemy I mentioned above, isn't that what we do all the time inside thermo nuclear reactors? Just because you can't do it with gold make no less magical than it is (to me of course).

Fine then. What evidence should we find if your god were real?... Right, that's what I thought. None. How does that make it any different from Zeus or Athena or Mars or Thor or Quetzalcoatl?

You well could find some CONCLUSIVE evidence one day on your own. That, I can GUARANTEE to you!

Zeus had a weapon, a thunderbolt, Thor as well had it's own weapon. The one Odin had would never miss it's target. None of these are God, they may well be gods, and if they indeed are gods and they did/do exist, we will have to make a little more complex word distinction than a mere capital letter.

I don't think the entity that, imo, created the universe has any need of a weapon, for many reasons. That sounds way more like the punitive god the three books speak of. My only claim so far here was that I believe in a God that created what we know as universe. Proof? No! Absence of that proof? No again.

What you can proof and what I believe out of faith are not incompatible, thus making the possibility real.
Maybe not probable, but still, possible.

I can take you seriously, but not your claims. Your claims become meaningless without evidence..

That makes me kinda sad, and sorry for you. Funny how we take fiction for facts in a daily basis. And BELIEVE ME WHEN I SAY THAT. We all do, otherwise most of the world would be in the middle of a revolution right now. But when the subject is God... well. Socrates for instance was probably an atheist, and not even he, one of the most clever minds to walk on this earth could prove wrong using his intellect as "weapon of choice" what you require proof for.

It is not up to us to prove you wrong. It's up to you to prove yourself right.

I think this is the most intelligent thing you said to me so far. But unfortunately it's not true. The notion of God, precedes mathematical notions. Thus you are the one that has to prove God does not exist. See, considering human knowledge, the notion of God is way older than facts of science. You guys are the new kids on the block, you are the ones that should given me proof. Why did Galileo had to PROVE Copernicus' theory? Simply because a previous notion was already in place. The notion of God is there for a long long very long time, and even though it morphs itself to fit cultural aspects of different societies and time periods, nevertheless is the notion of a God creator. Now understand, you're the one that has to prove me wrong.

The fact I believe in what you do not does not make me more or less ignorant.

Uh... Yeah, it does. You believe in magic. That's ignorant. We[1] don't. That's less ignorant.

1.	By which I mean most atheists; not all.

I just proved to you alchemy happens in a everyday day basis. What one can call science, other might call magic, and both can be the very same.
 
This goes to Alzael as well!

You are, theoretically speaking, very wrong. Your confortable truth zone does not deal with the existence of God. Mine is a mere assumption based on ancient beliefs, beliefs that to this day were not proven to be wrong, or right for that matter. So, I don't know all. And neither do you! And for this I'm considering all options not proven to be wrong to be possible. I am not excluding what I can't prove to be wrong from a possible scenario, you are. Who's ignoring possible scenarios here? Both of you are. You can't really say to me God is not possible, unless you prove that. And yes, you should be the one to prove God doesn't exist, and not theists proving you he does. Hey we came first baby... get over it. Do as real scientists do and, using facts, prove ME wrong.

Ignorance to me is to ignore something. That can be a fact, or the absence of some fact.

Imagine an apple tree, full of apples. And they are just about right. Some already have fallen to the ground. Can I say that all apples will fall from the tree? I could and probably would be logical, considering my knowledge of trees and apples, but one might just fall over a branch, germinate there and never ever touch the ground. Why would I be ignorant to the fact apples might never fall from the tree, when I really never see that happen. I sure never did, probably neither did you. But is a possibility, that in this case thankfully I can prove, and since the possibility exists, the one assuming that "all apples inevitably fall from their tree" is the ignorant one.

you can't prove me wrong

Define your god for me in clear, concise terms, and I will prove you wrong.

Can't. I don't know him, or if I do, I'm incapable of remembering. This would be like saying "describe J.Lo's "back hole" to me in clear, concise terms." I can... I know it is there, I know exists, I'm almost sure it has a huge diameter, but no I can't be sure. God I wish I could!

I have no pre formulated ideas of what God is like, or even if he has a form, or if he is just a counciousness by which "saved" people connect in some possible after physical life dimension.
Based on how matter behave throughout the cosmos I just think, and that is my own theory that some external (and intelligent, and there goes the assumption) force must have acted to jump start all this.

Did you even read what I wrote? He was persecuted because the evidence didn't fit the dogmatic views of the church. He had proof. You don't.

For the sake of your own mental sake, lol, try to separate God from religion. Religion for sure is bad, and THAT I can prove it to you. God in the other hand might not be. No I can't... get out of here!




Edited for engrish corrections. That happens a lot to me, the guy with no first language.

[ParkingPlaces]

About the video JeffPT posted, yeah I knew that. I watched this video a while back, and is all theorized. Nothing proven, and finally about the thread, yeah probably you are right and I should and will do it.

Your problem with theories will get you in trouble fast around here. Gravity is only a theory but that theory can be used to calculate the path of a rocket and probe between here and anywhere in the solar system. The theory of relativity is only a theory but if we don't use it, our GPS satellites will never be accurate. Theories are the current best explanation for any given phenomena, subject to change when we get more information, but many are adequate right now.

You don't stand on top of a cliff looking over and say gravity is only a theory. I hope not.

 the video is not just a guess. The math backs it up and math backs up gravity and relativity too.

In another response you said:

Based on how matter behave throughout the cosmos I just think, and that is my own theory that some external (and intelligent, and there goes the assumption) force must have acted to jump start all this.

So it sounds like you're fine with theories you like, and think the rest are a bunch of bunk. The math of quantum mechanics is useless because it is just a theory, but your theory that there is some external and intelligent force is Nobel Prize material because you or someone you agree with thought it up.

Why does some other intelligent force have to be the first one? Why can't we be? I'm not saying that we are, and doubt that to be the case. But to rely on the possibility that the ultimate source of intelligence operates in some other way that we cannot even imagine is in fact to imagine that to be the case. How is that better?

Where did intelligent forces originate? The ones you think made us? Universes full of stars? That's just a theory. Identical to our own, but without evidence.

Your explanation is a variation on the old story that the earth is floating through space, but rather sitting atop a turtle. And what is that turtle standing on? Well, it's turtles all the way down,of course. Sadly, cute is not satisfying, and I choose to stick with what we are learning, not with what we are hoping.

We are surrounded by energy and matter. The universe is full of evidence. That we can use when looking for our origins. I am not aware of gaps in our knowledge that are so big that we have to give up. Nor am I aware of magic or mystical forces that we have to rely on. I've never seen or experienced anything that would lead me to believe we live in a woo filled universe, and until I do, I'll stick with knowledge, which I think trumps wishful thinking every time.

Ancient stories do not automatically have validity if they do not apply to anything but guesses. Ancient stories that reflect on human frailties, such as dishonesty and vanity and stuff are fine. Sometimes brilliant. But the many thousands of religions who came up with origin stories did so out of their heads, not because they knew a secret or two that we don't. The variety of origin stories is quite consistent with being fiction. Just as the local library is full of fiction books about all sorts of things, so too are all the stories from different religions.

There is a reason none of them make their way to the science section.

[sun_king]

That's where you fail to understand what I am saying. I don't know nothing of God, and neither do you.

True, its quite hard to know something that doesn't exist

It seem only logical to me to follow an idea that could reward me some day. Why do people play the lottery when they know the odds?  Starting from the point we know nothing of God, I chose to believe in what I think is right, and you chose to believe in what you can prove is right. But since you can't prove what I think is right to be wrong, we are here now, discussing about it.

Pascal's wager rephrased. I don't intend to prove what you think is right or wrong, but if you want to make an impression come up with something other than "you cannot disprove it, so I am right". Try disproving that my personal transport is an invisible fire-breathing Hungarian Horntail

Say I tell you elephants do fly? What can you do? There goes Lu, grabs that 6 ton elephant and drop it from that 3 mile high cliff.

I don't think Lucifer will be in a hurry, you told elephants can fly, you can prove it or live with the fact that you are a liar or delusional. If Lucifer made a statement that "elephants can't fly" then he may be taking a few pachyderms to high altitudes.

Is that proof that elephants do not fly? I could say NO. It is not. Why? How can possibly one make that be true. For instance if you take the perspective of someone sitting outside of the fluff, to that person, everything, including the earth itself is flying. And you in the other hand can say that the earth is the one flying, the elephant is only sitting on what is actually flying. And I can counter argue that that is non important and he is flying nevertheless. See how complicated things can become even when some proof is given?

You sound surprisingly similar to a guy we used to know, he is the author of my signature statement. And that's not a good thing.

[Alzael]

This goes to Alzael as well!

You are, theoretically speaking, very wrong.

No, I'm not. As I have shown.

Your confortable truth zone does not deal with the existence of God.

That's because you have yet to give a single viable reason to.

Mine are a mere assumption based on ancient beliefs, beliefs that to this day were not proven to be wrong, or right for that matter. So, I don't know all. And neither do you!

Strawman, no one said we did. Doesn't alter the fact that you have no evidence. Nor make it reasonable to accept your ideas.

And for this I'm considering all options not proven to be wrong to be possible. I am not excluding what I can't prove to be wrong for the possible scenario, you are.

An idea being possible does not mean it isn't stupid to consider it. If you can't prove it, then you have no way of knowing if it is true or not. So there is nothing to be gained by considering it. Your "considering all options" is just wasting your time with options that might be right, instead of following the evidence to the option thatir right.

You can't really say to me God is not possible, unless you prove that

Depends on which god you are talking about. Define what god you mean and we can likely prove that most of them don't exist. I can easily, for example, show that the Christian god does not exist.

 Even if you can't prove it doesn't exist, why think that it does if it adds nothing of value?

. And yes, you should be the one to prove God doesn't exist, and not theists proving you he does. Hey we came first baby... get over it. Do as real scientists do are using facts prove ME wrong.

No. The one making the positive claim has the burden of proof. This is how science and logic work. You are the one claiming a god. Thus you must prove it's existence. If you cannot then the only logical position to take is to reject the claim.

I fully explained the reasons for this to you, which I note that you ignored utterly  (typical for a theist) . Focusing instead on just repeating your earlier statements of ignorance as though they will suddenly become valid through sheer force of repetition. Alas, it does not work that way.

It falls to you to back up and support your own claims. As it stands your claims are indistinguishable from the fevered rantings of a madman, and have just as much intellectual value. That is to say none.

[Boots]

Funny how we take fiction for facts in a daily basis.

Please provide examples?

And BELIEVE ME WHEN I SAY THAT.

Ummm . . . I"m going with "no, not unless you back it up."

[OtiumDies]

I'd like to say thank you for all who welcomed me here, but this is my last post. I won't be reading any replies from now on. For those who wish, they can find me at the bird site @OtiumDies.

Make no mistake, I'm not dropping cuz I can't reply in a organized, intelligent or because I'm out of arguments, but because I'm tired to answer the same question and give back the same arguments that are not refuted in a concise manner.

Now I say something about sociopolitical things, and not even to that people can stop, think 10 minutes about it and say something intelligent. like this "Boots post". Yes Boots I can. For instance, do you think Saddam really did or had anything to do with 911? And if not, why the war then? Why do you pay taxes when the stupiddog tax laws exempt you from it as you are an American working on American soil? Why do they believe Napoleon's soldiers smashed the sphinx nose when 500 years before that nose was not there? Why do people consume aspartame when studies show it damages the brain in a long run? I can talk about this for a week without stoping. Why it is so hard for you to believe in that? Fail.... I'll not go on as I'm talking mostly to rocks.

Some people here are so in the defensive they are unable to see truth when they see it. They are unable to admit someone's truth when they receive it.

The decision of jumping out of here in part is from an extremelly bad humor I got this afternoon from a piece of junk customer. But nevertheless these discussions can't go nowhere near a creative and intelligent goal, to me, and to you guys. As I said in my very first post, I wish NOT to change peoples minds, what I came here for are the discussions, but in a constructive way for both of our believes, not some dumb denying and incoherent ways of thinking. 

Like Alzael, I showed to him he is the one that have to prove me the untruth of God's existence. How? Simple, when we prove something that proof is either about a new subject, or an existing one. If it is an existing one WE'LL HAVE TO EITHER:

A - agree to the current assumptions, and/or maybe add something to it.

OR

B - disagree to the current assumptions, and in doing so we have to provide proof.

So fricking logical, and I must say, very intelligent argument, that I might even use in the future.  Not no, we must go the obnoxious way and go like this:

"This goes to Alzael as well!
You are, theoretically speaking, very wrong."

And he goes like:
"No, I'm not. As I have shown."

WTF...

Well guys I wish you the very best. God bless you all (yeah this was a tease!)

Goodbye,
OtiumDies

[ParkingPlaces]

I'm nice to the guy, he ignores me and then goes away. Thought only the women in my life did that.

What's that phrase we use. Kinda technical. It's on the tip of my tongue.

Oh yea. Bye bye.

[Dante]

I am not excluding what I can't prove to be wrong from a possible scenario, you are. Who's ignoring possible scenarios here?

No, you are. Or you're a fucking moron.

We atheists don't exclude the possible. We take in all evidence. We don't care where the truth leads, nor what the truth says.

We have no agenda.

[OtiumDies]

Dammit peepee, you are making me break my promisse.

No man, yours, Jeff's and that krishna avatar dude was the good I got from here.
Intelligent, concise arguments.
 
Im sorry if I ignored you, but by the time you posted, I had my mind made. Ok I'll not ignore you and reply to you. You said this:

Your problem with theories will get you in trouble fast around here. Gravity is only a theory but that theory can be used to calculate the path of a rocket and probe between here and anywhere in the solar system. The theory of relativity is only a theory but if we don't use it, our GPS satellites will never be accurate. Theories are the current best explanation for any given phenomena, subject to change when we get more information, but many are adequate right now.

You don't stand on top of a cliff looking over and say gravity is only a theory. I hope not.

 the video is not just a guess. The math backs it up and math backs up gravity and relativity too.

True.
It is so good to be slapped in the face with truth. Makes me feel good and reinvigorated. Don't you feel the same? Anyway, back to this.

Gravity is not a theory, it's a law. And relativity can be a theory, but is backed by many laws. Nevertheless you prove to me, like others were unable to, that I can't use the word theory like I was using. But, yeah there is a but, what brought the word theory in the game, was a discussion I was having with Jeff about the big bang, those you've mentioned and pretty easy to be proven right. Right? After all we can test the validity of it right now. The big bang one relies on so much in fixes and it is so impossible to prove as a FACT right now, one should thread carefully. Big bang is more like a bilieve, like the one I have in God's existence, than a theory like relativity is.

Nest you said:

So it sounds like you're fine with theories you like, and think the rest are a bunch of bunk. The math of quantum mechanics is useless because it is just a theory, but your theory that there is some external and intelligent force is Nobel Prize material because you or someone you agree with thought it up.

I'm fine with any plausible theory. Not only the ones favoring me. Want proof? I believe in the big bang, as I say here about 8 times.

Why does some other intelligent force have to be the first one? Why can't we be? I'm not saying that we are, and doubt that to be the case. But to rely on the possibility that the ultimate source of intelligence operates in some other way that we cannot even imagine is in fact to imagine that to be the case. How is that better?

It is not. That's why the word faith is used. Faith is "I don't know, never see it, but do believe in it"
Science prove things like this when explaining dimensions. You know that ant in a piece of paper analogy? Well, science try to explain dimensions to us showing we can see is there because our fixed perspective out 3 diminutional universe forces onto us. I like the beginning of your argument but became weak at the end, and even helped me to counter ague it.

Where did intelligent forces originate? The ones you think made us? Universes full of stars? That's just a theory. Identical to our own, but without evidence.

Your explanation is a variation on the old story that the earth is floating through space, but rather sitting atop a turtle. And what is that turtle standing on? Well, it's turtles all the way down,of course. Sadly, cute is not satisfying, and I choose to stick with what we are learning, not with what we are hoping.

Dupe, been there done that somewhere in in the past 24 hrs. I talked about who created who. Did not explained as many wish, but talked about it.

We are surrounded by energy and matter. The universe is full of evidence. That we can use when looking for our origins. I am not aware of gaps in our knowledge that are so big that we have to give up. Nor am I aware of magic or mystical forces that we have to rely on. I've never seen or experienced anything that would lead me to believe we live in a woo filled universe, and until I do, I'll stick with knowledge, which I think trumps wishful thinking every time.

Of course you are not aware of gaps, if you were, A, you would be rich by now, and B books would have to be reprinted. Take speed for instance, we are lead to believe light is the absolute champion of it. Recently neutrinos screwed light in the arse by more than 10 times fold. Knowledge is not a block of granit that will be unchanged for thousands of years, knowledge is more like the weather. It might, not not, change EVERY SINGLE DAY. And indeed it does.

Ancient stories do not automatically have validity if they do not apply to anything but guesses. Ancient stories that reflect on human frailties, such as dishonesty and vanity and stuff are fine. Sometimes brilliant. But the many thousands of religions who came up with origin stories did so out of their heads, not because they knew a secret or two that we don't. The variety of origin stories is quite consistent with being fiction. Just as the local library is full of fiction books about all sorts of things, so too are all the stories from different religions.

I will answer to this on twitter. Or not. Your choice.

Now I'll go. Bye and sorry if I let you down by not replying to your post. I really did not want to work today, but I had to. @#$@#$

[monkeymind]

Some people here are so in the defensive they are unable to see truth when they see it.

Simple, when we prove something that proof is either about a new subject, or an existing one.

Well, I haven't read any of your posts, but there's your problem. Truth is subjective. One can't see another person's  "truth."

And nothing can be proven.

Bye!

[OtiumDies]

I am not excluding what I can't prove to be wrong from a possible scenario, you are. Who's ignoring possible scenarios here?

No, you are. Or you're a fucking moron.

We atheists don't exclude the possible. We take in all evidence. We don't care where the truth leads, nor what the truth says.

We have no agenda.

And since I'm leaving I can flame. Dante, you dumbass idiot. You make NO SENSE. I have no agenda as well bonehead. Try to think for a change!

[OtiumDies]

Some people here are so in the defensive they are unable to see truth when they see it.

Simple, when we prove something that proof is either about a new subject, or an existing one.

Well, I haven't read any of your posts, but there's your problem. Truth is subjective. One can't see another person's  "truth."

And nothing can be proven.

Bye!

Monkey monkey... monkey mind my arse! You are a smart deceptive one. I see where you want to take me.

Ok, I'll let you take me there. I meant truth as in stablished concepts or social believes, accepted views.... Like in, everybody thinks aspartame do you no harm. If I come up with a diferent view, boy I must prove that, as my idea of the harm that can do, is newer than the idea that is not. It is a new concept, it needs validation, even if the one before had none to stablished itself, which btw we can't prove it hand't.

[monkeymind]

Some people here are so in the defensive they are unable to see truth when they see it.

Simple, when we prove something that proof is either about a new subject, or an existing one.

Well, I haven't read any of your posts, but there's your problem. Truth is subjective. One can't see another person's  "truth."

And nothing can be proven.

Bye!

Monkey monkey... monkey mind my arse! You are a smart deceptive one. I see where you want to take me.

Ok, I'll let you take me there. I meant truth as in stablished concepts or social believes, accepted views.... Like in, everybody thinks aspartame do you no harm. If I come up with a diferent view, boy I must prove that, as my idea of the harm that can do, is newer than the idea that is not. It is a new concept, it needs validation, even if the one before had none to stablished itself, which btw we can't prove it hand't.

Prove it!

[sun_king]

Since you are sticking around, OT, here is a link for you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

And here is a list of logical fallacies, try to figure out how many you have used so far http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

And if Latin a foreign language is involved, its called Dejaa Moo (the feeling that you have heard the same bull before)

Edit: I have been informed by reputed and reliable sources that "Dejaa Moo" is in fact French. So I made the necessary correction in the sentence above. Thanks Historicity.

[OtiumDies]

What exactly?

This is just a Hubble paper cut n paste from wiki, about galaxies.

... This idea had been opposed by many in the astronomy establishment of the time... ...Despite the opposition... ...Hubble's findings fundamentally changed the scientific view of the universe.

Does that illustrate the idea of stablished model > proof given > and change?

c ya guys...

Let me sum this up I was reading this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiable

God is falsifiable... as I keep saying... not a fact, but a possibility. One that if true can be much more interesting than the universe itself.

[JeffPT]

Wow got a fan right away. Following me around, how silly of you.

This is a busy, active site with lots of members.  If you post nonsense, people are always going to be willing to call you out on it. 

I wouldn't consider myself a fan, just someone who reads and responds as I see fit. 

Do you have any proof that a second universe exists? How about what is in the other side of a blackhole?

No, I do not.  But what those are, are possible natural solutions to the problem of how our universe got here.  I can not prove them any more than you can prove that everything was created when some magical sky man snapped his fingers.  But what we do know, is that just about everything that has happened in the past 14 billion years can be explained naturally.  Knowing that, I think it would be a bit of a stretch to suddenly say the universe's inception was anything other than natural.   

Well no one knows right?! I don't have inabilities to comprehend the science behind the current aceptable theory, in fact I do understand it very well, but to me, and this is my personal view, is more plausible the idea of a creationism. You can't prove me wrong! Period! As I can't prove you wrong. I guess we will have to wait and die to check that out.

If neither of us can prove we are right, and if neither of us have any evidence of something supernatural, and if both of us have natural explanations for literally millions of things that occur in our universe, it would seem more logical to conclude that everything is natural, don't you think? 

Very few people say that the god theory of universal creation is impossible.  Without evidence to back it up, however, to act as if it is the ONLY possibility is intellectual suicide.

Agreed. But in your blindness you failed to read the following: TO ME. How many times I said "to me" and how many I said  "I think"? Everybody intelligent enough have their minds locked on something about this subject, is their views, but doesn't mean they discard other possibilities. It would be unwise. But all favor a side, and that's undisputed. I happen to favor the oposite side in which you are standing on. That's all.

I wasn't blind to it, OtiumDies.  But the truth doesn't care about either one of our opinions here.  Conclusions should be based on facts.  If you have no facts to back up your opinions, then you are going to be in for a bumpy ride here at WWGHA.   My conclusion is that I do not know how the universe came into being, but given that we know (again) literally millions of things about our universe that occur completely naturally, it seems a giant stretch to conclude that some sort of supernatural creation was necessary to start it all. 

Nah! Believe it when I say, I have ALL the currently available facts.

... something tells me this isn't correct at all. 

Nothing BEFORE the bing bang has any logic. People that study this, for a living or not, do believe that the universe developed from that insignificant moment called big bang. Beyond that, they know nothing, and is all speculation.

I totally agree.  As does all of science.  And this will be important in regard to your last few sentences. 

This question has no scientific answer. And probably will never have one.

This is perhaps one of the worst parts of Christianity.  "Be satisfied with not knowing things" says religion "Don't even try, its not worth it."  No thank you.   

It sounds like you are saying that natural processes could not possibly be responsible for the creation of anything.  Is that really what you're saying here? 

No! You are saying that. What I said is that if something exists, that something was at some point created. Either by a star, by a blackhole, by the explosion of a star, or by God. And since the big bang is as far back as super intelligent people that study for a living can do, I should say, it is not enough for me. I want to go further back, and in doing so, since the uber smart people have no idea what happened, I choose believe in some creator, just out of faith.

This is akin to me passing you a giant cardboard box, asking you what's inside, and you saying "It's an elephant! It's an elephant!" with absolutely no evidence at all to back it up.  Where does that analogy fail for you?  You're just making a guess here.  Don't you see that? 

Beg to differ back, no they DO NOT. For someone that uses the word facts so heavily you sure don't walk the talk.
I watched this video a few months back and I'll not watch it again. As you said to me, we need FACTS! This is a theory, and in fact, is in it's very early stages of existence. You should read the description or watch the entire video before posting. It says:

"Lawrence Krauss gives a talk on our current picture of the universe, how it will end, and how it could have come from nothing. Krauss is the author of many bestselling books on Physics and Cosmology, including "The Physics of Star Trek.""

50 dollars says you are lying here.  You didn't watch the video. 

Actually, supernovae happens when the mass of the IRON inside the core of the star reaches a critical mass, and collapses. So... iron was there already. ;P 

No dude.  There is no iron inside the star at the beginning.  As soon as the star begins to FORM iron, it explodes and dies because iron absorbs energy when instead of releasing it like the other elements that are created before it.  The iron was not there already. 

You see?  This is what I was talking about when you don't have all the facts.  In order to properly counter arguments, you have to know those arguments and the facts behind them.

I know that man. You missed the point entirely. Ok, by the book atoms of hydrogen and helium formed in the very early stages of the universe, from protons and neutrons. Ok, ok. Where did the protons came up from? Don't tell me from quarks or I might slam you in the head with that rotten by now irc trout.

You don't want me to tell you that the protons came from smaller particles that flitted in and out of existence when the universe was so hot that protons couldn't form yet, but that's basically what happened.  I'll tell you what though... if you are going to tell me that a magic man in the sky poofed protons together, you might need to hit yourself in the head with your trout. 

Yes it is a bad habit when the truth is impossible to grasp. Which is our main discussion here.

If you are going to assert that the truth is impossible to grasp, then why are you asserting that you have it with your god theory?  You seem to be holding tightly to the argument that we can't know everything, yet you insist there is this creator being that popped everything into being.  How does your brain do that?  You think 2 polar opposite things at the same time. 

And at last, but not even remotely least, in the absence of proof science ALWAYS claim to know. That's what they call theory. They always have one... for EVERYTHING.

What is the current scientific theory as to what caused the big bang?  Here's a hint:  There isn't one.  Nobody knows, nor does science claim to know.  Only religious people do that.  We make guesses at it, but as far as I know, there is no solid theory yet. 

I wish you could see the hypocrisy of your stance.  It is the absence of proof that leads religious people to claim that god is responsible for something.   

Well, be good. Think a lot.

You too, although I would tell you to think a little... because you have to start someplace.  Thinking a lot is far off in the distance for you. 

[sun_king]

OT, the trouble here is that you can't come to a conclusion if there is a god, and if there is one what capabilities it has. Your arguments are based on Pascal's wager which means you don't need to come here to discuss. You are fully capable of arguing with yourself and lose.

<snip>
God is falsifiable... as I keep saying... not a fact, but a possibility. One that if true can be much more interesting than the universe itself.

True, but then so is Optimus Prime, Superman, Silver Surfer and Santa Claus. All of these are possibilities, come back when you have something cogent.

[Boots]

Let me sum this up I was reading this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiable

God is falsifiable... as I keep saying...

How, precisely, is god falsifiable?

[Quartinium]

What about if you find a mommy bird sitting on an egg?  I mean can you take the eggs but not the bird?  The mommy bird but not the eggs?  Are you supposed to leave both of them alone?  It would have been much more helpful if God had been a little clearer about what He wants us to do. 
http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/22-6.htm

That particular quote seems pretty clear, take one or the other.

[MonicaLynn]

I think it is kind of funny seeing everyone trying to prove God to you guys. I gave up on even sharing my experience unless I'm engaged by someone else. Glad to be here nevertheless. Maybe I can hang in for a while. Lol.

[DumpsterFire]

Can't. I don't know him, or if I do, I'm incapable of remembering. This would be like saying "describe J.Lo's "back hole" to me in clear, concise terms." I can... I know it is there, I know exists, I'm almost sure it has a huge diameter, but no I can't be sure. God I wish I could!

OD, I think your beliefs are ridiculous and your analogies are (in this case, literally) for shit, but this statement made me laugh out loud for a good 10 minutes, so I thank you for that. Especially the part about its diameter.

Addendum: Appropriately enough, this is my 69th post. Yay!

[velkyn]

I think it is kind of funny seeing everyone trying to prove God to you guys. I gave up on even sharing my experience unless I'm engaged by someone else. Glad to be here nevertheless. Maybe I can hang in for a while. Lol.

Monica, we offer one-on-one discussions that no one but the partcipants can be in.  Would you like one of those? I'd be happy to discuss anything you'd like to claim. 

[MonicaLynn]

I think it is kind of funny seeing everyone trying to prove God to you guys. I gave up on even sharing my experience unless I'm engaged by someone else. Glad to be here nevertheless. Maybe I can hang in for a while. Lol.

Monica, we offer one-on-one discussions that no one but the partcipants can be in.  Would you like one of those? I'd be happy to discuss anything you'd like to claim.

Went to bed. Sorry for no reply. Ad a long day