whywontgodhealamputees.com

Main Discussion Zone => General Religious Discussion => Topic started by: Augusto on February 24, 2012, 01:53:42 PM

Title: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Augusto on February 24, 2012, 01:53:42 PM
I’d like to start by pointing at revelations in the bible; most of them have been proven to become true. So, if anyone would like to shed some light on this, like “maybe all those prophecies have been manipulated after they actually happened” either way, I think WWII allowed Jews to return to their holly land, which is something pretty much unique in history, for we know (as an example) American natives will never recover their land.

Now there is this Jewish Christian group earning popularity, which is making Jesus part of their beliefs in Israel, something most of us would have imagine impossible. And I’m concerned about the possibility of missing reality because of arrogance.

Since nobody can prove God’s existence, neither his non-existence, I would like to discuss on this forum about what is more likely to be the truth.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: One Above All on February 24, 2012, 01:59:07 PM
I’d like to start by pointing at revelations in the bible; most of them have been proven to become true.

Which ones?

Since nobody can prove God’s existence, neither his non-existence,

Depends on your definition of "god". The biblical YHWH, for example? Disproven ad nauseam.

I would like to discuss on this forum about what is more likely to be the truth.

No gods whatsoever is the truth.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Nick on February 24, 2012, 02:04:53 PM
Didn't it also say He would return within a generation of the Jews going home?  I think a generation has come and gone.  Like Nostradamus...much of the bible is worked and reworked to meet your needs.  Like a few years back when some group thought the bible was coded and could be read with a computer.  My opinion is that there were many god/man sects at that time among the Romans.  None were meant to be taken as historical.  Gnostic (finding the meaning of life stuff) was what they were all about.  But Rome came apart, the church filled the void, books were destroyed and the Dark Ages came about.  All of a sudden we have Jesus as a real person.  The rest is history.

There is no proof for a sky daddy.  Just watching religious people should be proof of that alone.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Augusto on February 24, 2012, 02:09:37 PM
Your reply (Lucifer) gives no light whatsoever in any point; I already gave some initial arguments, so stop asking questions and offering absolutes.

I do mean YHWH, and just because you know of some immoralities and errors in the bible, doesn't mean he doesn't exist. For we know the nature of people, and people were those who wrote the bible, all of them Jews, which were compared to a whore by God himself, therefore, any errors and evil claims related to God are most likely related to Jewish people contaminating the word of God.

Please stop trolling so we can have a real debate. I am not trying to win this, I just want to share the little I know and see what you can tell me (anyone is invited), so we get a common consensus.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 24, 2012, 02:11:59 PM
A bunch of jews who thought the land was theirs were trying to take it back long before WWII. After the war they were still killing the British, who controlled it, on a regular basis until the Brits gave up and gave it to them. Proof positive that terrorists win sometimes.

The jews did it because they read that it was theirs in their holy books. And being that they had holy books, the jews took is serious. And killed people, including many innocents,  to get what they wanted. They also kill many innocents every year to keep it. They're happy. And you're happy. I guess that works for some people.

And don't be so sure that the native American's won't get this country back. If they can hold their cultures together while ours disintegrates under the pressure of racial zealots, homophobes, women-haters, bible-bashers and those idiots who advertise overpriced infrared fireplaces on late night TV, they'll get it back soon enough. And I hope so. They were much nicer to these two continents than we have been.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: One Above All on February 24, 2012, 02:30:13 PM
Your reply (Lucifer) gives no light whatsoever in any point; I already gave some initial arguments, so stop asking questions and offering absolutes.

You made assertions, not arguments. I asked you to back them up, per the rules you agreed to when you registered. If you offer no evidence, then your argument (based on the aforementioned assertions) will be dismissed.

I do mean YHWH, and just because you know of some immoralities and errors in the bible, doesn't mean he doesn't exist.

There are errors in describing YHWH itself. Its very definition is logically inconsistent.

For we know the nature of people, and people were those who wrote the bible, all of them Jews,

No, we don't. We know what they wrote, but we don't know if they were telling the truth. Do you also apply this level of... "scrutiny" to the Qur'an?

which were compared to a whore by God himself,

Its chosen people are whores? Say it isn't so! Wait, wasn't Jesus a Jew?

therefore, any errors and evil claims related to God are most likely related to Jewish people contaminating the word of God.

Like Jesus. Gotcha.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: velkyn on February 24, 2012, 02:32:02 PM
I’d like to start by pointing at revelations in the bible; most of them have been proven to become true. So, if anyone would like to shed some light on this, like “maybe all those prophecies have been manipulated after they actually happened” either way, I think WWII allowed Jews to return to their holly land, which is something pretty much unique in history, for we know (as an example) American natives will never recover their land.
No, they haven’t been proven to have become true.  Lucifer is right to ask you “which ones”?  I suspect that you find this question troubling since you would have to find the prophecy and then prove that it was correctly “interpreted” and then if the event that you would claim to have fulfilled it actually happened.   

I think it’s disgusting that Christians are so arrogant and ignorant to think that “ooooh WWII allowed Jews to return” whilst ignoring that 6 million Jews, Romany, mentally disabled, homosexuals, were murdered, along with millions of soldiers who died in combat, disease, etc.  All to make your little fantasies of “Revelation” come true.
Quote
Now there is this Jewish Christian group earning popularity, which is making Jesus part of their beliefs in Israel, something most of us would have imagine impossible. And I’m concerned about the possibility of missing reality because of arrogance.
  Wee, Jews for Jesus aka just more Christians who can’t leave their cultural ties behind.   Um, so what?  A bunch of people who go from one religion to another picking and choosing.  Gee, that gives me so much trust in their judgment and claims to have any “truth”.   It also amuses me that you attack Jews and claim that it’s their fault the bible is so screwed up, but oh you are desperate for them to “serve their place” in your fantasies.  I’m also amused at a god that can’t do anything to fix its magic book.  and please, free will is no argument, since Christians constantly claim that their god interferes with humans constantly with “miracles”.
Quote
Since nobody can prove God’s existence, neither his non-existence, I would like to discuss on this forum about what is more likely to be the truth.
Oh I can show that your little Christian god doesn’t exist.  Your god likes contests to show how powerful he is per your bible.  Your god likes to show evidence that he exists, per the bible. There is nothing in it that says that your god only wants “faith” so he hides himself.   So, how about a pair of altars, you praying for your god to light it, and me with a Zippo. We’ll see who gets a fire first.   Or is the bible wrong? 

Augusto, if you’d take a moment to read some of the forum, you’d see that you have nothing new to share.  You are welcome to try, but be aware we’ve “been there, done that”.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Augusto on February 24, 2012, 03:07:13 PM
Lucifer: I'm not even reading you anymore, so give your time some better use.

Velkin: You're right in the sense it would take me too much time to create a biblical study of the prophecies, and that we would never agree on every single detail, so I prefer to discuss in general terms (unless someone have a link to an article disproving prophecies).

In general, they were captive by different empires, such as Egyptian, Persian, Babylonian and Roman empires; all this is in different prophecies. So, they were eventually expelled from the holy land and God said He would gather them from all corners of the earth to their land after all this, because they were not good people, and because their deeds were not good, He would still do it not because of them, but because of His name, so all nations would know there is one God.

So I wonder: How many times this has happened in humanity? How many religions claim their people are evil, instead of saying they're super cool? How many religions are full of prophecies that we see come true?

Because a lot of empires and people in the bible were propheticed to be eliminated from the face of earth, and that their memory would be erased from history, and recently we found this "unknown" towns/cities/empires actually did existed, but there is not enough information to say what they were or anything else except that they were totally eliminated from earth.

So, I'm not kissing Israel's ass or anything like that. I'm merely pointing that WWII made possible for them to recover their land, on the expenses of a price of blood, so they would shut their mouth and be humble.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: One Above All on February 24, 2012, 03:09:06 PM
Lucifer: I'm not even reading you anymore, so give your time some better use.

Already did. Reported you to the mods.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: monkeymind on February 24, 2012, 03:15:54 PM
Velkin: You're right in the sense it would take me too much time to create a biblical study of the prophecies, and that we would never agree on every single detail, so I prefer to discuss in general terms (unless someone have a link to an article disproving prophecies).

I KNEW you were going to say that!
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: velkyn on February 24, 2012, 03:35:36 PM
Lucifer: I'm not even reading you anymore, so give your time some better use.

Velkin: You're right in the sense it would take me too much time to create a biblical study of the prophecies, and that we would never agree on every single detail, so I prefer to discuss in general terms (unless someone have a link to an article disproving prophecies).
Nice dodge there. You know you’ll fail so you suddenly don’t have enough time.  Pick one, Augusto, and show how it was “fulfilled”.  That’s when we can see if we agree or disagree on the details.  In “general terms”, your bible and its prophecies fail.

Quote
In general, they were captive by different empires, such as Egyptian, Persian, Babylonian and Roman empires; all this is in different prophecies. So, they were eventually expelled from the holy land and God said He would gather them from all corners of the earth to their land after all this, because they were not good people, and because their deeds were not good, He would still do it not because of them, but because of His name, so all nations would know there is one God.
And those “prophecies” are often from books that were written *after* the supposed events.  That’s really convenient isn’t it?  The Jews don’t believe in JC as a messiah.  He didn’t fulfill their prophecies.  You can see them in a nice format right here: http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=374:messiah-the-criteria&catid=68:the-jewish-messiah&Itemid=481  No earthly rulers bowed down before this Jesus Christ, he built no temple, etc. Christians had to invent a “second coming” to excuse that problem.  That’s what you call trying to move the goalposts so your nonsense has a chance of remaining unquestioned.
Quote
So I wonder: How many times this has happened in humanity? How many religions claim their people are evil, instead of saying they're super cool? How many religions are full of prophecies that we see come true?
  How many religion’s claim that those other religious people are evil?  Oh lots.  See, Christians claim that the Jews are wrong.  Muslims claim that the Christians are wrong. And all have come from the other. No prophecies have come true, not for any religion not even yours.  You see, Augusto, you want to claim prophecies are true but you think you can get away with not supporting that, and claim to want only to talk in “generalities”.  Those generalities are false too.  Now that I think about it, I’m guessing you haven’t a clue about what prophecies are in play and what verses to even look up.  You just have blindly accepted what your fellow Christian have said as the truth.   Take for instance, the claim about Israel being gathered.  Some Christains want that to just be the founding of the modern state of Israel, but it doesn’t say that, it says when all Jews are returned and that the messiah will be the one to do so.  I see no stampede to get back to a little country that has to fight with its neighbors for water and land.  How many more centuries will be taken in Christians claiming they’re real sure now that it’s the end times, changing what the prophecies “really” meant from the supposed “truths” from the century before?  God sure does mumble a lot evidently.
Quote
Because a lot of empires and people in the bible were propheticed to be eliminated from the face of earth, and that their memory would be erased from history, and recently we found this "unknown" towns/cities/empires actually did existed, but there is not enough information to say what they were or anything else except that they were totally eliminated from earth.
Hmmm, and funny how puny humans have demonstrated that God’s promises that they would be erased from history and never be found again are false by finding them again.  Poor god I guess he just can’t quite achieve what he promised.  Tyre is still hale and hearty and your god promised that no one would ever find it again after it was supposedly destroyed. It wasn’t and has been around continually.  I guess archeologists are stronger than your god  But some of the towns with magical events around them, hmmm, no one can find them at all.  No Sodom and Gomorrah with burny marks all over them.  No evidence of any city in Egypt suffering any of the magical plagues.  Heck, no evidence of any “exodus” at all.  No magical palace of Solomon or David.  Your god hasn’t a very good track record.   

Quote
So, I'm not kissing Israel's ass or anything like that. I'm merely pointing that WWII made possible for them to recover their land, on the expenses of a price of blood, so they would shut their mouth and be humble.
“Shut their mouths and be humble”  Gee, what a good Christian you are.  :D   

Now, I generally am not on over the weekend so I’ll let my fellow forum mates educate you.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Augusto on February 24, 2012, 03:40:43 PM
When entering to this forum I assumed I was going to find some of the best examples of clear/analytical minds (because this page have some deep arguments), but I see anger and confusion instead in most forum members.

Is anyone capable of reason? I would rather that some people commit to be reasonable so I can read their responses ONLY, this will help us to ignore the reading of flaming, trolling and spam, and to go forward on this debate I propose, instead of ending up in nothing.

So please, those who want to debate with reason and weight, please let me know, for I will be only reading posts of specific persons, this will help me to focus in those replies and reply faster. Others could just address to them if they have something to add, because so far I see, there are not too many believers on this forum, and because of the huge number of members I find myself on a difficult situation in which I cannot read and reply to everything, not to mention I waste my time reading useless posts.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Frank on February 24, 2012, 03:41:52 PM
How many religions are full of prophecies that we see come true?

So far? None.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: One Above All on February 24, 2012, 03:42:37 PM
Let me translate Augusto's latest post:
"What?! I'm supposed to prove me right?! Hell no! You're going to accept what I say without question! If you don't, you're an idiot and a troll!"
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: monkeymind on February 24, 2012, 03:46:06 PM

[SNIP] I will be only reading posts of specific persons, this will help me to focus in those replies and reply faster.
Have you read the rules?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Augusto on February 24, 2012, 04:00:01 PM
Velkyn: The reason I "dodge" the study of prophecies is because it have been studied already, there is no point in using our time to replicate something that have been already established.

About the failure to Jesus to fulfill certain prophecies, it have been discussed before, and it is the way it should happen, either way other prophecies could not become true. For example, if Jesus would have rebuilt the temple in his first coming, Jewish people would have believed in him and another prophesy would have been broken, specifically the one about Jewish and non Jewish people.

It was necessary that Jewish deny the Messiah so his word would come to us. From the logical point of view, Jesus is the only possible Messiah and there is no chance that another Messiah could come today or in the future, and the construction of the temple, for example, is not “excused” by his second coming, but NECESSARY.

As for the rest of your arguments, I find just a problem in explaining everything to you as if this were a religion class, I mean, you need more information. I admire your desire to post on a logic way, but you just need to know more. I wonder if there is someone in here that knows enough.

Please don’t take this in a bad way Velkyn.

Edit: Yes monkeymind, I have. And I'm not forced to reply everyone, not trollers, not flammers, not spammers, and not disrespectul people, for they are breaking the most obvious rules.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Quesi on February 24, 2012, 04:00:50 PM
I know I’m really excited to learn that the prophesies are coming true, and I can’t wait to hear more!  Does this mean that the Rapture is coming soon?  I’d really like to have an idea of how much time I have to prepare. 

But I have a question.    If the omnipotent, omniscient God wrote all of those prophesies, and everything else in the scriptures, why did he have to make it all so confusing?  I mean, there is a lot of cryptic stuff in the Bible.  And if you don’t mind my saying so, some contradictory stuff too.

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

And this working on the Sabbath stuff.  I mean, should people who work on Sundays really be put to death?  My daughter takes ballet classes on Sundays, and I would hate to see her very nice ballet teacher put to death.  Especially before the Spring performance. 

And what the descendents of bastards being banned from the congregation of the Lord for 10 generations?  I mean, what is that all about?  I’ve done some reading on that one, and even the “experts” can’t agree as to whether that is a kid born out of wedlock, a kid born to a Jew and a non-Jew, a kid born to a prostitute, a kid conceived in rape by a family member of the mother.   

http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/23-2.htm

So why didn’t God write scriptures that were easy for all of us to understand, and not so open to sinful interpretations? 

Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: monkeymind on February 24, 2012, 04:05:14 PM
Quote
The reason I "dodge" the study of prophecies is because it have been studied already, there is no point in using our time to replicate something that have been already established.

Since there is nothing new under the sun. I mean this stuff has been studied for hundreds of years right? I guess there is no point in using our time-eh?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Augusto on February 24, 2012, 04:18:39 PM
Hello Quesi: First of all, I want to know if you're willing to sustain a civil debate, so I can read and reply your posts.

Assuming you are, I must tell you:

This debate is NOT about the veracity of the content of the bible, but about the existence or non existence of God.

Nevertheless I find your reply somehow pertinent to the subject, and I am aware of a huge amount of evil things written in the bible, not to mention errors and contradictions. So, instead of talking of these examples you are addressing I will refer about all of them:

The bible also says the Jews were evildoers, people who several times turned their hearts to other gods, people who ignored God's commands and so on. So I believe (and this is corroborated) the bible have been manipulated and its content changed over the years, furthermore I consider even when it was written, a lot of things were included for human / particular reasons, and those things were not part of God's actions or will.

So, if one is to seek for God, what should he do?
- Follow the Holy Spirit (everyone knows the differences between good and evil) and do what is good.
- Believe in Him, for he has given us the ability to BELIEVE in the divinity, and this is something inside every single human being.
- Be humble, for we are nothing in the existence.

So what about religions? What about miracles? What about heaven, do you know how heaven is?

I say, if you truly love GOOD, you don’t need any promise of heaven or miracles or whatever, you will simply do good. You can adopt a child or a dog, plant a tree, give money away and be a moral person. What you can do depends on the level of goodness you have in your soul.

Monkeymind: From this point I will not be reading or replying to you, so use your time as you please.

Edit: For everyone, I think it is better for me to stick on this topic only (by now).
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: One Above All on February 24, 2012, 04:22:13 PM
This debate is NOT about the veracity of the content of the bible, but about the existence or non existence of God.

So you assume the Bible to be true for the purpose of debate and the point of said debate is to prove or disprove the existence of a being described in the Bible and nowhere else. You don't see a problem with that?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: monkeymind on February 24, 2012, 04:22:24 PM
Monkeymind: From this point I will not be reading or replying to you, so use your time as you please.

Why not?

I just asked if you read the rules. Obviously you have not. Or, care not to follow them.

It is good that you want to stick to the topic, but sometimes topics stray.
Quote
Discussion threads are for discussion of the topic at hand, not simply advertising one's opinions. As such, forum members are expected to back up assertions they make, and not engage in stonewalling, shifting goalposts, changing the subject, or employing similar tactics to avoid addressing points raised against their arguments.

Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: monkeymind on February 24, 2012, 04:26:04 PM
Quote
The reason I "dodge" the study of prophecies is because it have been studied already, there is no point in using our time to replicate something that have been already established.

Since there is nothing new under the sun. I mean this stuff has been studied for hundreds of years right? I guess there is no point in using our time-eh?

Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Quesi on February 24, 2012, 04:26:57 PM
Hello Quesi: First of all, I want to know if you're willing to sustain a civil debate, so I can read and reply your posts.

Assuming you are, I must tell you:

This debate is NOT about the veracity of the content of the bible, but about the existence or non existence of God.

Nevertheless I find your reply somehow pertinent to the subject, and I am aware of a huge amount of evil things written in the bible, not to mention errors and contradictions. So, instead of talking of these examples you are addressing I will refer about all of them:

The bible also says the Jews were evildoers, people who several times turned their hearts to other gods, people who ignored God's commands and so on. So I believe (and this is corroborated) the bible have been manipulated and its content changed over the years, furthermore I consider even when it was written, a lot of things were included for human / particular reasons, and those things were not part of God's actions or will.



The Jews manipulated the content of the Bible? 
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: monkeymind on February 24, 2012, 04:31:35 PM
What does this:

Quote
The bible also says the Jews were evildoers, people who several times turned their hearts to other gods, people who ignored God's commands and so on. So I believe (and this is corroborated) the bible have been manipulated and its content changed over the years, furthermore I consider even when it was written, a lot of things were included for human / particular reasons, and those things were not part of God's actions or will.


Have to do with the probability of the existence of God?

And how do you propose a debate when you are not willing to speak with certain individuals? There are debate rooms, if you choose to engage only one person at a time. This thread is not for that.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Augusto on February 24, 2012, 04:34:08 PM
Yes Quesi, even the Jews, but not only them; every single religion have done modifications to the bible with different reasons.

As for your specific question about the Jews, here is part of an article I found using Google:

"Before the days of the print, Bibles were copied in handwriting by scribes. They were organized in a guild that in the centuries before Jesus became part of a well known political party: the Pharisees. Eventually, they became the Talmudic rabbis we see today. This method was not only cumbersome and expensive, but it also created room for errors; actually all modern Hebrew Bibles carry with them unfixed errors. Typographical errors which couldn't be validated with an older version were left as they were, testimony to the care of the scribes. However, this method also allowed creating intentional manipulations of the text for political reasons. The old copies would eventually deteriorate beyond recognition and the new ones would carry the desired changes to posterity. It could be almost a perfect system for the Pharisees, however, at certain point they committed an error and today we can see clear signs of their alterations."

This is a historical fact, and you can find this article by following this link for further information, most likely I would recommend you to keep studying the subject:

http://www.roytov.com/articles/bible.htm

Edit: What do you want monkeymind? I did read your posts, if you want to participate I can change my mind and take you into consideration, I just ask you to follow the most basic rules of comunication. Would you agree?

Asuming you agree, I will reply your previous comments:

"Since there is nothing new under the sun. I mean this stuff has been studied for hundreds of years right? I guess there is no point in using our time-eh?"

It is of my interest to arrive to the conclusion of what is more probable, the existence of God or His non-existence, this topic deals about that, because it have been impossible to demonstrate any of this arguments, so I want to discuss on probabilities, and I am willing to deviate from the main subject as I see fit for the sake of covering certain base, but not all of it because if I wanted to discuss with people who know nothing of the subject I would not be discussing the subject in here, I would discuss it with random people in the street.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: shnozzola on February 24, 2012, 04:35:43 PM
This debate is NOT about the veracity of the content of the bible, but about the existence or non existence of God.

I say, if you truly love GOOD, you don’t need any promise of heaven or miracles or whatever, you will simply do good. You can adopt a child or a dog, plant a tree, give money away and be a moral person. What you can do depends on the level of goodness you have in your soul.

Augusto, I feel like I do “love” good, and try to do good.  It’s not really for me to say whether or not I am good, but I generally try to treat all, even those I disagree with, with respect.  I do not know whether or not god exists.  I’m leaning toward no.  I believe I am considered an agnostic atheist.  What do you think will happen to me at death, if, in fact, I am considered good, but do not believe in god?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Quesi on February 24, 2012, 04:36:06 PM
Yes Quesi, even the Jews, but not only them; every single religion have done modifications to the bible with different reasons.

As for your specific question about the Jews, here is part of an article I found using Google:

"Before the days of the print, Bibles were copied in handwriting by scribes. They were organized in a guild that in the centuries before Jesus became part of a well known political party: the Pharisees. Eventually, they became the Talmudic rabbis we see today. This method was not only cumbersome and expensive, but it also created room for errors; actually all modern Hebrew Bibles carry with them unfixed errors. Typographical errors which couldn't be validated with an older version were left as they were, testimony to the care of the scribes. However, this method also allowed creating intentional manipulations of the text for political reasons. The old copies would eventually deteriorate beyond recognition and the new ones would carry the desired changes to posterity. It could be almost a perfect system for the Pharisees, however, at certain point they committed an error and today we can see clear signs of their alterations."

This is a historical fact, and you can find this article by following this link for further information, most likely I would recommend you to keep studying the subject:

http://www.roytov.com/articles/bible.htm

So itis possible that NOTHING in the Bible is true?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: monkeymind on February 24, 2012, 04:39:39 PM
Augusto: Are you an anti-semite?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Augusto on February 24, 2012, 04:43:29 PM
monkeymind: I edited my previous post for you, let me know if you're interested in taking part of this debate or not. As soon as I see you trolling again I will ignore you for good.

I am not anti-anyone, I just dont like to fall in useless exchanges.

shnozzola: I do not know what awaits you in the afterlife, while some people claim you'll be to hell, I believe a good God would take your heart into consideration and NOT any kind of ritual life. Nevertheless, arriving to a positive conclusion on this topic should be of interest for those who consider themselves to love "good".

The book of Apocalypses refers to the rapt of 144.000 persons and say this are the one who are consecrated to the Lord, those who are virgin, for they haven't been contaminated with women.

My interpretation of this words is that this "women" that contaminate humans are religions, so this prophecy should be talking of a rapt of men and women equally, people of good heart who are not hypocrite religious fanatics.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: jaimehlers on February 24, 2012, 04:45:49 PM
Lemme see if I've got this straight.  Augusto wants to have a clean, civil discussion with members of this forum.  Very laudable.  So he starts out by accusing people of trolling in public, then states that he won't discuss things with people who he decides are trolling, flaming, or whatever.  So instead of abiding by the forum's rules and reporting such individuals who he thinks are breaking those rules (reporting people who are breaking the rules counts as legitimate), he's just going to ignore them instead.  That suggests one of two things; either Augusto didn't read the rules very thoroughly, or he is objecting to the adversarial tone of certain people.

I'm going to give him the chance to explain himself, and it would be smart for him to do so.  Because right now, it appears as if he's saying people are "trolling' as an excuse to avoid answering the questions or statements they raise.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: One Above All on February 24, 2012, 04:46:39 PM
<snip>

Quit trolling, jaimehlers. ;)
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Nick on February 24, 2012, 04:47:00 PM
So the bible with its errors is not the word of God.  You would think a almighty God of the universe would be able to fix this problem along the way.  Maybe a cliffsnotes version.  You know those shifty Catholic monks copied the bible from one language to another for 1000s of years.  Yet Protestants take it like it is gold. 

Let me ask you, would it be so bad if there were no god?  The one you pretend to believe in is sure wanting.  Is He a rookie God or something?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: monkeymind on February 24, 2012, 04:48:45 PM
monkeymind: I edited my previous post for you, let me know if you're interested in taking part of this debate or not. As soon as I see you trolling again I will ignore you for good.

I am not anti-anyone, I just dont like to fall in useless exchanges.

I was referring to this rule:

Quote
Responses to a thread must be on-topic and should contribute constructively to the discussion at hand. New threads must be in line with the description and/or FAQ of the board in question, as well as these Rules.
and this
Quote
Discussion threads are for discussion of the topic at hand, not simply advertising one's opinions. As such, forum members are expected to back up assertions they make, and not engage in stonewalling, shifting goalposts, changing the subject, or employing similar tactics to avoid addressing points raised against their arguments.

So not only are you not on topic, you don't have the option of ignoring whomever you choose.

I find your discussion pretty useless regarding the topic. Please get on topic and discuss the probabilities of God's Existence. This is why I came to this thread.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: monkeymind on February 24, 2012, 04:51:57 PM
Augusto:
Quote
I am not anti-anyone, I just dont like to fall in useless exchanges.
I am  referring to multiple comments about the Jews which seem to be disparaging.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 24, 2012, 05:00:02 PM
Augusto, you started out this thread with the following statement:

Quote
I’d like to start by pointing at revelations in the bible; most of them have been proven to become true.

When velkyn asked for details, you responded with:

Quote
You're right in the sense it would take me too much time to create a biblical study of the prophecies, and that we would never agree on every single detail, so I prefer to discuss in general terms (unless someone have a link to an article disproving prophecies).

Then in a later post, you complained:
Quote
When entering to this forum I assumed I was going to find some of the best examples of clear/analytical minds (because this page have some deep arguments), but I see anger and confusion instead in most forum members.

So, you want to assume the prophecies are true, to speak in generalities and complain about our lack of intellectual prowess. You laugh off our questions and comments about the prophecies because of course they're true.

So what's to debate? You've already declared yourself the winner and us a bunch of looser's.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: monkeymind on February 24, 2012, 05:03:00 PM
I’d like to start by pointing at revelations in the bible; most of them have been proven to become true. So, if anyone would like to shed some light on this, like “maybe all those prophecies have been manipulated after they actually happened” either way, I think WWII allowed Jews to return to their holly land, which is something pretty much unique in history, for we know (as an example) American natives will never recover their land.

Now there is this Jewish Christian group earning popularity, which is making Jesus part of their beliefs in Israel, something most of us would have imagine impossible. And I’m concerned about the possibility of missing reality because of arrogance.

Since nobody can prove God’s existence, neither his non-existence, I would like to discuss on this forum about what is more likely to be the truth.

So you start by pointing out revelations (but you don't want to discuss prophesy) about Jews returning to their Holy Land and the rising popularity of a Jewish Christian group are the reasons you believe in the existence of God?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Augusto on February 24, 2012, 05:07:35 PM
I do not wish to report anyone, and I will not for there is not a rule that forces me to report people. Neither this community have a rule that forces me to reply everyone, much less when I said I will not even read their posts because of reasons based in the rules of this forum.

As I said before, I want this topic to direct in the right direction and my posts are directed to that matter as long as I see fit. So, instead of accusing me with crazy charges, better go and report trollers, spammers and such.

God is everywhere, so by talking of salvation I'm talking of God's existence, by talking of prophecy I'm talking of God's existence, same thing by talking of the distortion of the Bible, because it is a common tool to disprove God. So I am not deviating from the topic and I will continue replying to those members I want to discuss with, ignoring those who act inappropriately. Nevertheless, people like "Lucifer" can perfectly ask someone in the debate to offer me his point of view, and of he wants to take part of the debate he can just ask me to take him into consideration by PM. All he has to do is follow the basic rules of this forum and any civil conversation.

ParkingPlaces: What I don’t want to do is to dictate a class of theology to forum members, I am open to anyone who want to disprove prophecies and we can discuss the subject in an open way, as I said: "unless someone have a link to an article disproving prophecies".

So, feel free to disprove prophecies, just don’t ask me to dictate a class because the topic is not called "Augusto explains all prophecies" nevertheless I have offer some responses to some people like Velkyn regarding to the subject, the topic is to discuss a different subject and everyone is free to offer arguments.

I am not laughing at anyone, the goal is to keep an open mind and reach a consensus ParkingPlaces; feel free to make your point against God existence if you like.

Monkeymind: Part of your question have been answered to ParkingPlaces, as for my reasons to believe in God, I have various reasons, which I'm planning to explain later, as the debate progresses, by now you guys who want to debate the veracity of prophecies might want to do some researches and post some arguments. Later on we can change the approach and talk of other subjects such as praying (talking to God) and life experiences.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: monkeymind on February 24, 2012, 05:14:49 PM
So, by your reasoning (GOD is Everywhere) the fact that there are so many different versions of the bible and Holy books and stories about God(s). There must be a God?


ADEDD:
Please
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: jaimehlers on February 24, 2012, 05:24:31 PM
I do not wish to report anyone, and I will not for there is not a rule that forces me to report people. Neither this community have a rule that forces me to reply everyone, much less when I said I will not even read their posts because of reasons based in the rules of this forum.

As I said before, I want this topic to direct in the right direction and my posts are directed to that matter as long as I see fit. So, instead of accusing me with crazy charges, better go and report trollers, spammers and such.
It's your prerogative to report or not report people, but if you're going to accuse people of trolling, spamming, or flaming, in public no less, yet you aren't willing to actually report them so the forum staff can do something about them, then your accusations ring false.  It sounds much more like you're just trying to give an excuse for why you won't answer them, instead of because they were doing something that's against the forum rules.  If you really want this topic to go in the right direction, you would do well to drop the accusations, because those distract from the subject even under the best of circumstances.  It also wouldn't hurt to seriously consider why someone might be asking you questions, instead of simply not answering them because they don't seem to be on subject.

As far as the Bible goes, you admitted early on that the Bible was likely changed by the Jews.  Now, I have to ask, was it just the Jews who changed things, or just got them wrong, or could Christians have done the same thing?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Quesi on February 24, 2012, 05:30:47 PM
Well I’m back from picking up my daughter from soccer camp, and I’m delighted to jump back into this discussion with my own recap.

Let me see if I understand it so far.

The Jews contaminated the Bible, therefore the Bible can’t be trusted.  (I mean, they did write it!)

There is a prophesy in the Bible that states the Jews will return to Israel, and the Jews have returned to Israel. 

But since we have already established that the Jews put whatever they wanted into the Bible, isn’t it possible, (even probable?) that their return to Israel is not the fulfillment of a prophesy, but a fulfillment of their stated desire to return to Israel?

I say that since the whole Bible is suspect, I would like to propose that we discuss the “probabilities of God’s existence” without referencing the Bible. 

Doesn’t that make sense?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: monkeymind on February 24, 2012, 05:31:42 PM
Ok, Augusto you said
Quote
I’d like to start by pointing at revelations in the bible; most of them have been proven to become true.

Then you gave the examples of Jews returning to their Holy land and rising popularity of a Jewish Christian group (supposedly these examples support your claim) of most revelations have been proven true. 

To start, please show where scripture, or whatever other sources you have, that show these 2 examples are evidence of revelations coming true, and then show how that gives a probability of God's existence.


ADDED: And please explain how we can know which were "doctored" by the Jews and which are true revelations of God.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Augusto on February 24, 2012, 05:55:56 PM
Well Monkeyball I have several reasons to believe in God, one of those is this:

Jeremiah 31: (Bringing the remnant of Israel from all corners of the earth to be a nation again)

7 For thus saith the LORD; Sing with gladness for Jacob, and shout among the chief of the nations: publish ye, praise ye, and say, O LORD, save thy people, the remnant of Israel.

8 Behold, I will bring them from the north country, and gather them from the coasts of the earth, and with them the blind and the lame, the woman with child and her that travaileth with child together: a great company shall return thither.

9 They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.

10 Hear the word of the LORD, O ye nations, and declare it in the isles afar off, and say, He that scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd doth his flock.

Ezekiel 36 (Why this is done)

22 Therefore say unto the house of Israel, thus saith the Lord GOD; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went.

23 And I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the heathen shall know that I am the LORD, saith the Lord GOD, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes.

31 Then shall ye remember your own evil ways, and your doings that were not good, and shall lothe yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and for your abominations.

This is said after the announcement of several different torments Israel was going to suffer, all of them already happened, I would recommend anyone who wants to discuss Ezekiel to take 20 minutes to read this book, so, Israel was going to be without home and be disseminated around the earth and He would bring them back home, which happened after WWII.

Then I wonder why this people would have this kind of text, in which they're accused of being a “whore”, just imagine this kind of thing in any other country imagine this being part of the proclamation of liberty in your country so you get an idea of the bizarre of it, which is UNIQUE, and because of this, I believe it was truly inspired by God.

Because of Ezekiel, I understood the story of the Tower of Babel as God's way to show us His existence, basically he did not wanted us to be together because he knew we would eventually deny of Him, he blessed Israel, not because they were good or better than any other people, but because he wanted people to see how they were blessed by God and use this as a testimony to the nations (this even before Jesus arrival, therefore pointing at the incredible idea that EVERYONE on earth could become part of the people of God = citizens of Israel). Israel is the testimony of God to humanity, and yes, I know it is not enough, that is why we are free to BELIEVE or not, to be good or evil, and at the end we will meet his judgment. This also fits the profile of the last days, see, the Bible says Islam is going to wage war against Israel to destroy it, Jesus will say to those who seek for him at the judgment claiming to follow him “I never knew you”.

Basically, the story that prophecies are telling is not about Israel but about humanity, which is also unique. I do believe in God, and I have several reasons, maybe you all should read the books of prophecies and decide, maybe if you follow Him in TRUTH and not as religious fanatics you’ll get to listen to His voice, as I did.

Quesi: While you are pretty much right, you are not entirely right. History researches can offer some light in what we can believe and what we cannot, as well as the Holy Spirit. Without the Bible, you couldn't know what God is this and what he wants from you, so I invite you to read it (specially the New Testament). I can tell you the Bible still contains what God wants you to know, and what you need to know.

You are right since we can discuss of God's existence without the Bible, so let's say: there are two options, one... with something bigger than us, something with intelligence that have created existence. The other option is, there is nothing bigger, there is no something bigger than us that have created existence, and existence exists by chance. Since none of these claims can be demonstrated, I invite you all to offer your arguments, so we can decide what is more LIKELY.

Question, is it more likely that God exist or that God doesn't exist?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: monkeymind on February 24, 2012, 06:02:13 PM
Quote
Question, is it more likely that God exist or that God doesn't exist?

It is more likely that God does not exist.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Augusto on February 24, 2012, 06:12:34 PM
Well monkeymind, then tell me, if nothing superior exist, and you embrace evolution, how come an insect can look like this?:

http://desdeguate.com/wp-content/blog/Marzo/fotografias-increibles-animales-ii.jpg

An insect, which cannot even think in our level have evolved and have the ability to fly, and those amazing eyes, this just happened because of the survival of the strongest? the confection of lungs, wings, the stomach system, the circulatory system, the way everything works in life is simply explained by "random" and "the survival of the strongest"?

Also tell me, if God does not exist, who created existence, I mean, who created the potato that was before the big bang in the infinite? (this is before the existence of time itself (because time came to existence after the big bang along with everything else)

I don’t expect you to have the answers, because not even the science can answer to this; fact is, evolution is REAL, but the theory is NOT complete, because it cannot explain the “intelligence” behind its design. Neither can the science explain what was before everything, see… all that exist cannot exist out of the nowhere, out of nothing. There was indeed “something” before the universe, and that is the “potato”; now… who created it?

I don’t think you guys know, but there are some light particles that “know” when they are being observed. There is much more than we know, and everything points to an intelligent creator.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: jaimehlers on February 24, 2012, 06:16:47 PM
Augusto:  You did not answer my question.  If some of the Jews could have changed the text of the Bible, whether deliberately or inadvertently, could not some of the Christians have done the same?

And if you can say that some people changed the Bible, how can you reasonably trust in the Bible as an unimpeachable source to verify God's existence?  Without knowing for sure what was changed, you have to be skeptical of all of it (including the New Testament, because there is nothing to prove that this was not altered either) until you can confirm parts of it as true.

Also, I have to bring up a point.  If you think that something intelligent created existence...what created that something?  Like the old woman in that tired old joke, it's "turtles all the way down".  If you're going to posit that existence needed a separate being to create it, then it is only logical to posit that the separate being needed something to create it, and so on.  If not, you tacitly admit that there is "no something" at some point.  So, to apply Occam's Razor and consider the simplest explanation first, if there is "no something" at some point, why could it not have been at the point at which the universe began?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: monkeymind on February 24, 2012, 06:18:15 PM
Well monkeymind, then tell me, if nothing superior exist, and you embrace evolution, how come an insect can look like this?:

http://desdeguate.com/wp-content/blog/Marzo/fotografias-increibles-animales-ii.jpg

An insect, which cannot even think in our level have evolved and have the ability to fly, and those amazing eyes, this just happened because of the survival of the strongest? the confection of lungs, wings, the stomach system, the circulatory system, the way everything works in life is simply explained by "random" and "the survival of the strongest"?

Also tell me, if God does not exist, who created existence, I mean, who created the potato that was before the big bang in the infinite (this is before the existence of time itself (because time came to existence after the big bang along with everything else).

There you go changing the subject again!

Ezekiel had temporal lobe epilepsy, and the multiple falls on his head had him saying all kinds of things. Do you believe his story about the three men surviving Nebuchanezzars furnace? Geesh!

Anyways, his prophesy of the Babalonians sacking Jerusalem did happen but not when he said it would. Why didn't they stone him for that? I just don't know what to believe.

Kewl insect. Study evolution and then we can talk about that in more detail. Experience tells me that discussing evolution with you would be pointless. However, I am willing to try if you start a thread in the section called Evolution & Creationism. I do have to go to a dinner in a few minutes, however.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: voodoo child on February 24, 2012, 06:19:37 PM
Men created god, humans created time.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Augusto on February 24, 2012, 06:39:50 PM
Monkeymind: The Ezekiel argument is not serious monkeymind, hyper religiosity is something you cannot relate to Ezekiel, and compared to others, like Daniel (for example) you get to see a huge difference; hypergraphia is also not really something you can accuse this guy of, because he only wrote one book, which is shorter than Harry Potter or pretty much any novel. This book is formed by different revelations he received in different times, so... are you implying he shouldn't write them?

Now, this of Ezekiel being unable to speak is not described as such in the bible. It would be more like he didn't speak when people was going to visit him unless God told him to say something. Whenever he had to say something he would, instead, go and tell what he had to tell to people.

Finally, this “doctor” also did the same with Samson, he is trying to become famous, and that’s it. As for evolution, I would like you to brief me of what you know of evolution, thanks by the way, for being a worth contributor to the topic.


Jaimehlers: Man, most people don’t know of the errors in the bible, most people don’t even read the bible. Do you think that will prevent them from going to heaven if God exists?
As for Occam’s razor, you just have to consider evolution before choosing “where to cut”, let’s see what Monkeymind have to say about that particular subject.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: nogodsforme on February 24, 2012, 06:42:03 PM
Hello Augusto;

1)You have stated that Jews contaminated and corrupted the bible. Which parts did the Jews mess up? Are there any original texts anywhere that show what the bible was meant to say? If not, then how do we know that the bible was messed up from the original text?

2)Where in the bible is Islam mentioned? Islam came along about 400 years after Emperor Constantine and his cronies decided what to include in the bible. They had no idea that Islam was on the way. By the time King James had his version written, the Muslims had a mighty empire and a very advanced culture. Was that when stuff about Islam was put into the bible?

3)A lot of the "fulfilled prophecies" depend on re-interpreting events after they happen and picking bible verses that seem to relate. Or people read something in the bible and then worked really hard to make that something happen. How can we tell if a prophecy is really fulfilled or not? Why didn't god make the prophecies clear and indisputable?

Like this: "On the eleventh day of the ninth month, in the first year of the second millenium, bad guys will fly airplanes into tall buildings in the most powerful country's largest city. Keep all airplanes on the ground that day and investigate all young men from Abu Dhabi with limited flight training." How hard is that?

4) Seems that god purposely made the Jews to be the fall guys of history. "Chosen" but not allowed to get god's true message, then persecuted all over the place, then nearly exterminated, finally given a homeland and then, when Jesus returns, all sent to hell for not having gotten the true message. What is the point of doing that to the Jews? Does not seem loving or caring to me.

5) You made the statement that evolution cannot happen because there are unique insects, made by god. So a loving god made all the insects, including flies and mosquitoes. And all the disease germs like malaria and the plague for the insects to carry. Why did a loving god make disease germs? Doesn't evolution explain diseases better than a loving god?

I post and wait all atremble for your terrible wrath of accusations of trolling.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: jaimehlers on February 24, 2012, 06:45:45 PM
nogodsforme:  Augusto has decided to stop throwing accusations of "trolling" around.  Instead, he is ignoring people who in his opinion aren't "worthwhile contributors" to the topic.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: jetson on February 24, 2012, 06:57:50 PM
Augusto,

Welcome to the forum!  For some reason, you have garnered the attention of the moderators already.  I just read through this thread, and it is clear to me that you are determined to create specific conditions for a debate.  Well, we have a special debate section where you can do just that.  Just send a message to a moderator, and a debate can be set up specifically for your topic.

But in this particular section of the forum, you are not free to dictate how the discussion goes, who you will or will not respond to, and what the rules will be.  You are of course free to ignore members, and avoid supporting your assertions, but then you would be crossing into rule breaking territory, and possibly gaining more attention than you probably want from the moderation team.

Take this message as an opportunity to consider that you are new here, and it might benefit you greatly to get to know the members a bit before you get too deep in discussion.  That is up to you, of course.  But it works well, based on my experience.

Thanks!

Jetson
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Astreja on February 24, 2012, 06:59:23 PM
God is everywhere, so by talking of salvation I'm talking of God's existence, by talking of prophecy I'm talking of God's existence...

Unsupported assertion.  You can't just assume your god exists; you have to provide something substantial and objective to support your premise.  Until you give us something to go on, your argument is just going to sink into the quicksand like so many before it.

Quote
...feel free to make your point against God existence if you like.

Okay.  Here's 3, for a start:
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Augusto on February 24, 2012, 07:13:28 PM
Hello Augusto;

1)You have stated that Jews contaminated and corrupted the bible. Which parts did the Jews mess up? Are there any original texts anywhere that show what the bible was meant to say? If not, then how do we know that the bible was messed up from the original text?
You should just let the Holy Spirit to guide you, or limit to do what you know without a doubt that God wants you to do, it's pretty simple actually because every human being knows what is good, you can just say "in the name of God, or in the name of Love" which should be about the same for a loving God. He wants what is good for you and for others; I'll go deeper on this subject in another time.

2)Where in the bible is Islam mentioned? Islam came along about 400 years after Emperor Constantine and his cronies decided what to include in the bible. They had no idea that Islam was on the way. By the time King James had his version written, the Muslims had a mighty empire and a very advanced culture. Was that when stuff about Islam was put into the bible?
Honestly, I do not know what you mean. Muslims and their book are wrong, if that helps.

3)A lot of the "fulfilled prophecies" depend on re-interpreting events after they happen and picking bible verses that seem to relate. Or people read something in the bible and then worked really hard to make that something happen. How can we tell if a prophecy is really fulfilled or not? Why didn't god make the prophecies clear and indisputable?

Like this: "On the eleventh day of the ninth month, in the first year of the second millenium, bad guys will fly airplanes into tall buildings in the most powerful country's largest city. Keep all airplanes on the ground that day and investigate all young men from Abu Dhabi with limited flight training." How hard is that?
I must tell you, first because a lot of them would not happen if they were told exactly as they were going to happen, for example: I'll let Hittler rise so you and others get killed and at the end my word will come true", in this case, Hittler would never have been able to reach the power. Another reason is because things are the way they are and you cannot ask revelation being an atheist. I had one question to God, which was "what is your porpoise for people who are born with deformities?" and I got my answer. Not everyone gets their answer by God though; most likely you have to seek for your answers.

4) Seems that god purposely made the Jews to be the fall guys of history. "Chosen" but not allowed to get god's true message, then persecuted all over the place, then nearly exterminated, finally given a homeland and then, when Jesus returns, all sent to hell for not having gotten the true message. What is the point of doing that to the Jews? Does not seem loving or caring to me.
Actually they're not going to be send to hell like that, and there is a message for you. How many times those guys defied God and Him rescue and saved them in his mercy. You must understand how Israel can be not a country, but also a person, and that person can be the reflect of YOU.

So, what are you going to do? They spit on Christ, they denied of God, they went after other gods (because EVERYTHING can become a God, such as money, sex, power, music or whatever), and they have been punished since ever, they have cried in pain just like you or any of us, because life is hard, nevertheless God did not allow them to die, and so, you and I are still alive. Just think, if you don’t believe in God, but would like to be happy, keep reading me because I’ll explain later why the most simple things in the bible lead to your happiness, and don’t think you’ll have to go to any church or temple, because IS NOT like that at all.

Also think, how this country allowed to be described as worth of pity instead of glory, isn’t it weird and against logic? Now, I invite you to read Mathews (even if you already did), and ask yourself: Why am I discussing about God’s existence instead of just doing what is good for me and for the people I love.

I have to tell you, the enemy of humanity is not God, but religion.


5) You made the statement that evolution cannot happen because there are unique insects, made by god. So a loving god made all the insects, including flies and mosquitoes. And all the disease germs like malaria and the plague for the insects to carry. Why did a loving god make disease germs? Doesn't evolution explain diseases better than a loving god?
How about this?: God created evil and good because he created everything, and so gave us free will to choose what we want in our lives. You cannot be good without evil, and you cannot know happiness without knowing sadness, therefore you will know sadness so you value what is good and fight for it.

Even more, you are here to learn, grow and make a choice. No matter what your situation is, you can embrace heaven, for heaven can be inside you. This means you can be happy even in adversity, and you need NOTHING if you know how.


I post and wait all atremble for your terrible wrath of accusations of trolling.

I hope you tremble, because I sent you something big.

Edit: Here is some "evidence" if you "need" something to do what is good:

http://ezinearticles.com/?Conscious-Particles,-Fields-and-Waves&id=546242

Nevertheless I will be posting more and more reasons to believe in God, the God of the Bible and not Zeus or any other. It would be good if some people help sharing their reasons not to believe in God so this doesn't become a speech.
You guys will help me buid my reasons, or I will help you to build yours, at the end we all will earn no matter what the result is.

I'm waiting for you guys.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Astreja on February 24, 2012, 07:26:00 PM
You should just let the Holy Spirit to guide you, or limit to do what you know without a doubt that God wants you to do, it's pretty simple actually because every human being knows what is good, you can just say "in the name of God, or in the name of Love" which should be about the same for a loving God.

How does one distinguish this process from self-hypnosis or wishful thinking, Augusto?  I can meditate for 2 or 3 seconds on just about any spiritual woo-woo that I want, from any religious or philosophical tradition, and immediately get a wild rush of energy down My spine.

I don't think the Holy Spirit is anything more than a trick of our nervous systems.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Babdah on February 24, 2012, 07:33:45 PM
I think WWII allowed Jews to return to their holly land, which is something pretty much unique in history, for we know (as an example) American natives will never recover their land.

Ok, this is not unique, the roman ran them out only to give it back to them the Muslims took it over a few time only to be chased out by the crusades. So in all honestly this is not unique.
 
Now there is this Jewish Christian group earning popularity, which is making Jesus part of their beliefs in Israel, something most of us would have imagine impossible. And I’m concerned about the possibility of missing reality because of arrogance.

No not really, Jeezus and his "followers" apply pressure and over time there will be people incorporating jeezus in there belief system. "If you cant beat them join"

Since nobody can prove God’s existence, neither his non-existence, I would like to discuss on this forum about what is more likely to be the truth.

We are here, and life would of been so much better if religion was not. No other animal has created a religion, and if there were a god, i am sure monkeys would of created one also.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: shnozzola on February 24, 2012, 07:35:37 PM
4) Seems that god purposely made the Jews to be the fall guys of history. "Chosen" but not allowed to get god's true message, then persecuted all over the place, then nearly exterminated, finally given a homeland and then, when Jesus returns, all sent to hell for not having gotten the true message. What is the point of doing that to the Jews? Does not seem loving or caring to me.
^^ If that doesn't cure the Christian God belief.................... :)
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Augusto on February 24, 2012, 07:46:55 PM
Astreja, you don't need to pray, you can just limit yourself to believe and do something good just for the sake of it.

I don’t know you, but let's say you are capable of adopting a child, or at least a homeless dog. DO IT, then keep on with your life, later on, decide if you want to say you did it in the name of God, or in the name of random chaos, or just because you are good.

I can tell you this: if you do mostly bad things, eventually your own heart will accuse you, and you will feel bad for things you did, your actions will have their weight in your soul, but if you do good to others, you will have peace, you will have something difficult to explain that will be visible even in your face, and people will be able to see it, just as you see it in the faces of certain people.

This is "the measure of your heart", you can call it Karma, or the presence of the Holy Spirit or being possessed by demons, it's basically this "force" that is meant to be used to help others, and build your soul, or to damage others and destroy your soul. Truth is, you don’t have to pray at all, whenever you see a sunset, or get a loving kiss, you can simply say “thanks God”, you don’t even need to say it, it is enough if you feel it, and if you show you are grateful with your actions, to make this world a better place, and to let others share your joy. If you do this, you should be ending up believing in God, and you will know for sure you have not been under hypnotism.

What should be done when one suffer? It is something long, and I don’t think this is the right topic, maybe we should keep on topic and if God wins this debate, I could find permission to talk about the soul, and what is good for anyone else.

Nevertheless, I will be explaining a few things that are said in the bible that have been proven to be good for people as the debate progresses, because this will fit as evidence in favor of God's existence.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Babdah on February 24, 2012, 07:56:11 PM
I can tell you this: if you do mostly bad things, eventually your own heart will accuse you, and you will feel bad for things you did, your actions will have their weight in your soul, but if you do good to others, you will have peace, you will have something difficult to explain that will be visible even in your face, and people will be able to see it, just as you see it in the faces of certain people.

This is "the measure of your heart", you can call it Karma, or the presence of the Holy Spirit or being possessed by demons, it's basically this "force" that is meant to be used to help others.....

edger allen poe said it best with  "Tell Tale Heart", it is called guilt no force needed, your own feelings that have nothing to do with god, But then again how come a psychopath never feels this not even when he is facing his own death.
 

Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Frank on February 24, 2012, 08:00:34 PM
If I were you lot I would stop answering this guy. It's just a mixture of preaching and gibberish. He'll be asking you to come with him to Guyana next.

Stay away from the kool aid. You have been warned. :police:
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Augusto on February 24, 2012, 08:11:53 PM
I can tell you this: if you do mostly bad things, eventually your own heart will accuse you, and you will feel bad for things you did, your actions will have their weight in your soul, but if you do good to others, you will have peace, you will have something difficult to explain that will be visible even in your face, and people will be able to see it, just as you see it in the faces of certain people.

This is "the measure of your heart", you can call it Karma, or the presence of the Holy Spirit or being possessed by demons, it's basically this "force" that is meant to be used to help others.....

edger allen poe said it best with  "Tell Tale Heart", it is called guilt no force needed, your own feelings that have nothing to do with god, But then again how come a psychopath never feels this not even when he is facing his own death.

See, you cannot repent forever, let's say, there is this cheating husband who cheats on his wife, when caught he cries and feels like garbage, this happens again just the same, but this time there is a change in his mind, he feels like a liar, like an actor, like being capable of keep doing it over and over and reach forgiveness because of his wife.

Then this guy keeps doing it and each time he does it, he remembers his tears, eventually he is caught, only that this time, he is not able to truly regret. He has lost the ability to cry, and up to some degree, he has lost his love for his wife. This is what happens with remorse.

Now, because of the size of certain crimes, some murderers can avoid remorse as an strategy to avoid emotional suffering, no matter if they're actually psychopaths or not. Finally, psychopaths not always kill, it is a condition, but it's not equal to become a criminal, therefore:

a) Avoiding or eliminating guilt is not exclusive of psychopaths, for anyone can do this.
b) Committing crimes is not exclusive of psychopaths, for regular people can do this.
c) Psychopaths can choose not to ever commit a crime, as so everyone else.

Therefore, there is no point in your argument, but I thought it would be useful for you to read this.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 24, 2012, 08:24:26 PM
I find it somewhat ironic that if you complicate your life by adding a religion, you get to simplify everythingelse by invoking god and prophecy and sin and your own redemption.

I like things ugly and gritty and real. And I like having the inability to simply explain most every human action. I prefer complexity over god did it and responsibility over Adam and Eve did it.



Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: ILOVEYOU on February 24, 2012, 08:25:47 PM
Also tell me, if God does not exist, who created existence, I mean, who created the potato that was before the big bang in the infinite? (this is before the existence of time itself (because time came to existence after the big bang along with everything else)

There was indeed “something” before the universe, and that is the “potato”; now… who created it?

A potato is not GOD. A potato is a created thing. Why would you think a potato existed before the Big Bang, if that is what you believe to be true?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 24, 2012, 08:26:23 PM
Removed double post caused by the stupid server over capacity problem. This one duplicated my post #62.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Augusto on February 24, 2012, 08:37:41 PM
I find it somewhat ironic that if you complicate your life by adding a religion, you get to simplify everythingelse by invoking god and prophecy and sin and your own redemption.

I like things ugly and gritty and real. And I like having the inability to simply explain most every human action. I prefer complexity over god did it and responsibility over Adam and Eve did it.

This is offtopic man, I am not talking, neither supporting any religion. And what you consider simple might be a lot more complex than you know, it would also be good that you read the name of this topic and try to come up with something related to the subject and not to your personal taste.

Should I start reporting people?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Babdah on February 24, 2012, 08:38:16 PM
Augusto,

god makes many promises such as in Matthew 7:7, Matthew 21:22, Luke 11:9, and the "Tremendous" one in Psalm 91, but then again he doesn't. So one of two thing are the outcome of this, he does not care or he is not real, i seem to to believe the latter.  The one i should of followed Proverbs 26:4: Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 24, 2012, 08:39:57 PM
I find it somewhat ironic that if you complicate your life by adding a religion, you get to simplify everythingelse by invoking god and prophecy and sin and your own redemption.

I like things ugly and gritty and real. And I like having the inability to simply explain most every human action. I prefer complexity over god did it and responsibility over Adam and Eve did it.

This is offtopic man, I am not talking, neither supporting any religion. And what you consider simple might be a lot more complex than you know, it would also be good that you read the name of this topic and try to come up with something related to the subject and not to your personal taste.

Should I start reporting people?

Cheating husbands are on topic?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Augusto on February 24, 2012, 08:43:08 PM
Would you like me to leave dude? I have no patience for jokes, trolling, spamming, flamming and so on.

I just got in here today, and today I can go if my presence is not welcome.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 24, 2012, 08:57:52 PM
Would you like me to leave dude? I have no patience for jokes, trolling, spamming, flamming and so on.

I just got in here today, and today I can go if my presence is not welcome.

I was making an observation on all of your reasons for believing. All of which seem rather twisty and turny. And I should point out that I've been posting here for several years and you're the first person to threaten to report me. Which might, you know, mean that you are a bit uppity for a new guy or something.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: jetson on February 24, 2012, 09:08:02 PM
I’d like to start by pointing at revelations in the bible; most of them have been proven to become true. So, if anyone would like to shed some light on this, like “maybe all those prophecies have been manipulated after they actually happened” either way, I think WWII allowed Jews to return to their holly land, which is something pretty much unique in history, for we know (as an example) American natives will never recover their land.

Now there is this Jewish Christian group earning popularity, which is making Jesus part of their beliefs in Israel, something most of us would have imagine impossible. And I’m concerned about the possibility of missing reality because of arrogance.

Since nobody can prove God’s existence, neither his non-existence, I would like to discuss on this forum about what is more likely to be the truth.

Augusto,

Your opening post is mostly philosophical, would you agree?  You seem to want to anchor this discussion on facts that you have not actually shown to be true.  That's fine, as long as you are willing to accept that they might not be true.  Your very first sentence is your opinion, as opposed to "most of them have been proven to become true".  There is no evidence that conclusively proves that revelations in the Bible are mostly true.  If there are, you should point out that evidence.

Your last sentence refers to the idea that no one can prove God's existence, or non-existence.  While this is technically true, most of the members on this site are atheists, which means they do not believe there is a real god, and most of them believe this because no god has ever been shown to exist.

So, you would like to focus this discussion on what is more likely to be true. 

In my opinion, given that all gods appear to be man-made, and completely imaginary, I have little reason to think that a god is more likely than no god.  As well, the world as I see it appears to be exactly the way a world would look without a god in control.  The suffering of humanity by itself, much less the suffering of other animals, and all of the extinctions and disasters that have tormented this planet since its birth.

Of course, I could be wrong, but I am betting that any god as amazing and powerful and loving as the one that many Christians claim is real, would never allow so much suffering. 

Suffering alone clearly shows me that there is no god.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: 12 Monkeys on February 24, 2012, 09:23:44 PM
I can tell you this: if you do mostly bad things, eventually your own heart will accuse you, and you will feel bad for things you did, your actions will have their weight in your soul, but if you do good to others, you will have peace, you will have something difficult to explain that will be visible even in your face, and people will be able to see it, just as you see it in the faces of certain people.

This is "the measure of your heart", you can call it Karma, or the presence of the Holy Spirit or being possessed by demons, it's basically this "force" that is meant to be used to help others.....

edger allen poe said it best with  "Tell Tale Heart", it is called guilt no force needed, your own feelings that have nothing to do with god, But then again how come a psychopath never feels this not even when he is facing his own death.

See, you cannot repent forever, let's say, there is this cheating husband who cheats on his wife, when caught he cries and feels like garbage, this happens again just the same, but this time there is a change in his mind, he feels like a liar, like an actor, like being capable of keep doing it over and over and reach forgiveness because of his wife.

Then this guy keeps doing it and each time he does it, he remembers his tears, eventually he is caught, only that this time, he is not able to truly regret. He has lost the ability to cry, and up to some degree, he has lost his love for his wife. This is what happens with remorse.

Now, because of the size of certain crimes, some murderers can avoid remorse as an strategy to avoid emotional suffering, no matter if they're actually psychopaths or not. Finally, psychopaths not always kill, it is a condition, but it's not equal to become a criminal, therefore:

a) Avoiding or eliminating guilt is not exclusive of psychopaths, for anyone can do this.
b) Committing crimes is not exclusive of psychopaths, for regular people can do this.
c) Psychopaths can choose not to ever commit a crime, as so everyone else.

Therefore, there is no point in your argument, but I thought it would be useful for you to read this.

Can the same be said for child fucking priests?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: 12 Monkeys on February 24, 2012, 09:26:46 PM
Well monkeymind, then tell me, if nothing superior exist, and you embrace evolution, how come an insect can look like this?:

http://desdeguate.com/wp-content/blog/Marzo/fotografias-increibles-animales-ii.jpg

An insect, which cannot even think in our level have evolved and have the ability to fly, and those amazing eyes, this just happened because of the survival of the strongest? the confection of lungs, wings, the stomach system, the circulatory system, the way everything works in life is simply explained by "random" and "the survival of the strongest"?

Also tell me, if God does not exist, who created existence, I mean, who created the potato that was before the big bang in the infinite? (this is before the existence of time itself (because time came to existence after the big bang along with everything else)

I don’t expect you to have the answers, because not even the science can answer to this; fact is, evolution is REAL, but the theory is NOT complete, because it cannot explain the “intelligence” behind its design. Neither can the science explain what was before everything, see… all that exist cannot exist out of the nowhere, out of nothing. There was indeed “something” before the universe, and that is the “potato”; now… who created it?

I don’t think you guys know, but there are some light particles that “know” when they are being observed. There is much more than we know, and everything points to an intelligent creator.
how come a crow can do this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beZ2VedCoxw
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Augusto on February 24, 2012, 09:29:31 PM
Your opening post is mostly philosophical, would you agree?  You seem to want to anchor this discussion on facts that you have not actually shown to be true.  That's fine, as long as you are willing to accept that they might not be true.  Your very first sentence is your opinion, as opposed to "most of them have been proven to become true".  There is no evidence that conclusively proves that revelations in the Bible are mostly true.  If there are, you should point out that evidence.

Actually, by pointing at the books of revelation I just offered part of the bible I consider to be truth, giving you guys the possibility to use it against my point of view if you find that possible; let's say, if I say "I believe Noah's story is 100% truth, would people ask me to prove it, or just jump and say all the errors and stuff about Noah's story? that's exactly the same in this case, you can use this information against me, by pointing out errors or contradictions in the prophecies or not, it's up to you.

Your last sentence refers to the idea that no one can prove God's existence, or non-existence.  While this is technically true, most of the members on this site are atheists, which means they do not believe there is a real god, and most of them believe this because no god has ever been shown to exist.

So, you would like to focus this discussion on what is more likely to be true.

That's right, and that is why the subject is interesting and worth of being debated, because if we cannot KNOW, we could at least calculate what is more probable, and on base of that, we could determine what is the "logic" way of thinking. Now... I would like to request this topic to be moved to the debate zone you mentioned and to invite some people who actually know of the subject (maybe you can recommend some members?) so we can get the best out of this debate on basis of mutual respect and keeping an open mind.

In my opinion, given that all gods appear to be man-made, and completely imaginary, I have little reason to think that a god is more likely than no god.  As well, the world as I see it appears to be exactly the way a world would look without a god in control.  The suffering of humanity by itself, much less the suffering of other animals, and all of the extinctions and disasters that have tormented this planet since its birth.

This you're saying is very important, I can simply tell you, YHWH is not to be seen by men, as you know, and that apostasy have been prophetized, also that earth have been in power of Satan, but it would be more important to determine, aside from those details the "probability".

Of course, I could be wrong, but I am betting that any god as amazing and powerful and loving as the one that many Christians claim is real, would never allow so much suffering.

Suffering alone clearly shows me that there is no god.

Suffering is the other side of joy, and without suffering you would not know joy (as I said before), also, it is WE who create suffering for the most part.

Edit: I don't know what you're implying with this video 12 Monkeys, that animals can have intelligence too? I haven't said the opposite, if it reffers to evolution, it doesn't explain anything at all. Imagine, ants working together to collect certain biological materials to transform into a fungus to eat, being born knowing how to work and what to do, this queen, ready to produce children during all of her life... do you think this could have come up as the result of non intelligent evolution?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: 12 Monkeys on February 24, 2012, 09:36:26 PM
forget it your not worth it
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Augusto on February 24, 2012, 09:38:44 PM
forget it your not worth it

Basically, this is exactly the way believers act when facing someone they cannot turn to their faith. Isn't interesting the similarities between atheism and theism? it's almost like you have faith in your beliefs, instead that you're free.

I would like to use this as more evidence of God's existence, along with the negative Darwins I'm getting, all of this instead of reasons, and this member "Frank" who acts like a pastor, advicing people not to discuss with me, for I might "confuse them":

If I were you lot I would stop answering this guy. It's just a mixture of preaching and gibberish. He'll be asking you to come with him to Guyana next.

Stay away from the kool aid. You have been warned. :police:
.

Now, besides the lack of solid argument, isn't this pretty much like a religion?

This is a good argument, because if this is in many ways like a religion, what is this offering to you guys? who are you following? it is a good time to meditate.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 24, 2012, 09:44:30 PM
Augusto

At the risk of sounding repetitive,( and I'm pretty sure you'll report me because that's the kind of guy you are):

I find it somewhat ironic that if you complicate your life by adding a religion, you get to simplify everything else by invoking god and prophecy and sin and your own redemption.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Augusto on February 24, 2012, 09:50:41 PM
Augusto

At the risk of sounding repetitive,( and I'm pretty sure you'll report me because that's the kind of guy you are):

I find it somewhat ironic that if you complicate your life by adding a religion, you get to simplify everything else by invoking god and prophecy and sin and your own redemption.

Actually, I did answer this before, so I wonder why you post this for the thirth time. I told you I do not believe in religion, now let me be more specific: ALL RELIGIONS ARE FALSE. As for the rest, it does not make things more simple, it makes them more important. God makes your life important, and every single action will be more important as well.

I hope this helps you, so you don't feel the need of spamming with a 4th post with the same argument, and... you don't know the kind of guy I am, don't think you do.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: jetson on February 24, 2012, 09:51:47 PM
Now... I would like to request this topic to be moved to the debate zone you mentioned and to invite some people who actually know of the subject (maybe you can recommend some members?) so we can get the best out of this debate on basis of mutual respect and keeping an open mind.
For the debate section of the forum, you will need to find someone who wants to debate you.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Boots on February 24, 2012, 09:53:43 PM
I'll bite on the original question: which is more likely, existance or non-existance of biblegod?

Non-existance, hands down.

1) You saying "someone must have created the universe" simply moves the question back.  Who created god?  Why do you get to have a causeless beginning and I don't?

2) I find the belief in the existance of a diety who is grand and wise enough to create the universe from nothing, yet stupid and myopic enough to only place a guardian angel in front of the gate of Eden AFTER THE FRUIT WAS EATEN rather than in front of the BLEEEEEDIN TREE *BEFORE* its fruit was eaten, to be laughable.

3) A god who tortures and kills innocents for "mysterious reasons" has, at best, inscrutable motives.  It is not considered "good" to destory for the sake of destruction, or to harm innocents when they could be saved, ergo YHWH cannot be "good."  And I have no interest in a diety who is not good.

4) Intelligent Design?  Seriously??  Having yoru food-hole and your air-hole open at the same place puts you at risk of choking to death eveyr time you take a bite or a sip.  PRetty unintelligent design if you ask me.

I dont' have time to list more.  But maybe I will later if the spirit (so to speak) moves me.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Alzael on February 24, 2012, 09:54:05 PM
I hope this helps you, so you don't feel the need of spamming with a 4th post with the same argument, and... you don't know the kind of guy I am, don't think you do.

Actually, your behaviour indicates a lot about who you are so far. At least as far as your online self. It's very telling so far.

Actually, I did answer this before, so I wonder why you post this for the thirth time. I told you I do not believe in religion, now let me be more specific: ALL RELIGIONS ARE FALSE. As for the rest, it does not make things more simple, it makes them more important. God makes your life important, and every single action will be more important as well.

Preaching is against the rules Augusto. Kindly refrain.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Augusto on February 24, 2012, 09:57:36 PM
Let's wait then, such person have not posted in here yet. I sent you a PM jetson, about the flamming, spamming, trolling and offtopic that is going on in here. I'm sure you'll be able to see it by yourself. I would like to ask you to keep an eye in here, because, you know... basically I'm a muslim in islamic territory, and people like to break the rules against me because I'm new in the comunity, and because I'm different.

Pretty much like in school. May I count on you to keep an eye and guarantee everyone (and not just me) follow the rules?

Boots: Please check my previous replies in this topic, your arguments have been answered.

Alzael: I don't know what you mean by preaching, but it's nice you are doing your work, have you found anyone else in here breaking the rules, or just me? Thanks in advance.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: jetson on February 24, 2012, 10:07:59 PM
Let's wait then, such person have not posted in here yet. I sent you a PM jetson, about the flamming, spamming, trolling and offtopic that is going on in here. I'm sure you'll be able to see it by yourself. I would like to ask you to keep an eye in here, because, you know... basically I'm a muslim in islamic territory, and people like to break the rules against me because I'm new in the comunity, and because I'm different.

Pretty much like in school. May I count on you to keep an eye and guarantee everyone (and not just me) follow the rules?


This forum has a group of moderators that are more than happy to keep threads on track when they get out of hand.  We do allow some freedom though, so we rely on the "Report to Moderator" link as a centralized way to manage complaints.

Maybe you should go to the Introduction section and post about yourself, and your personal beliefs.

This forum does not tolerate preaching, or assertions without evidence and facts to support them.  So, if you're willing to share your opinions, expect them to be directly challenged.  If you provide solid facts and evidence for what you claim, then you will get more respect.  Mohammed flying on a white horse to heaven will not get a lot of repeat, just like Jesus rising from the dead does not.  Neither of them are acceptable claims in modern times, for example.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 24, 2012, 10:12:48 PM
Suffering is the other side of joy, and without suffering you would not know joy (as I said before), also, it is WE who create suffering for the most part.

I'll elucidate. I don't need a kid to be stuck in a wheel chair for his entire short life before he dies due to MD or some other horrible disease just so I can experience joy.

Occasionally stubbing my toe would be quite adequate.

What part did I play in my friend Nancy's deafness. In my friend Jack's leg lost to diabetes. In my friend Andy's impending death due to prostate cancer? Don't give me this blanket "we create suffering" crap. There are better explanations, all natural, and none of which require that I play "payback time" my whole life because A&E were compulsive. Don't run around laying guilt trips on people when it's all in your head. Spouting off about a loving god and then going all grovelly is sicking to watch.

You want spam? I can get you a link for Viagra. Or get you an offer to help some poor Nigerian prince. Would that make you feel better?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Historicity on February 24, 2012, 10:17:14 PM
An insect, which cannot even think in our level have evolved and have the ability to fly, and those amazing eyes, this just happened because of the survival of the strongest? the confection of lungs, wings, the stomach system, the circulatory system, the way everything works in life is simply explained by "random" and "the survival of the strongest"?

Insects don't have lungs.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Augusto on February 24, 2012, 10:28:20 PM
There is an interrogative sentence and an afirmative sentence, the first talks of an insect, the second talks of a random organism and not about... thank you for that precious piece of trolling.

You know guys? maybe I am in the wrong place, I don't want you to provoque me, causing us all a bad time without reason. I wish you all luck in your worship to "Random", the god of yours.

Let me know by PM if there is anyone that want to represent the atheist side on a debate, if there is, "good", if there isn't "good too", but I'm stopping this open troll topic right now, at least consider me out.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Asmoday on February 24, 2012, 10:34:13 PM
The argument of good requiring evil / bad and happiness requiring sadness also falls flat on the face if you bring it up in conjunction with a (supposedly) omnipotent creator.

If there happens to be such a thing as an omnipotent creator, which God is according to his followers, then good and happiness have no requirements. With an omnipotent creator the only reason for the existence of something is that the creator wants it to exist. There are no necessities in such a case.
If God had wanted, he could have created a world without evil and without suffering where people still appreciate good and happiness in the same way as they appreciate both now. The only reason for suffering to exist in this world is because God likes people to suffer.


The claim that good requires evil also creates some rather severe problems regarding some of the core elements of the Christian myth.
What about heaven? How will people appreciate it to be in heaven if there is no evil and no sadness in heaven?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Historicity on February 24, 2012, 10:39:20 PM
I’d like to start by pointing at revelations in the bible; most of them have been proven to become true.
Which ones?

Your reply (Lucifer) gives no light whatsoever in any point; I already gave some initial arguments, so stop asking questions and offering absolutes.

After a couple pages of evasion, you finally identified 2:
Well Monkeyball I have several reasons to believe in God, one of those is this:

Jeremiah 31: (Bringing the remnant of Israel from all corners of the earth to be a nation again)
...
Ezekiel 36 (Why this is done)
...
This is said after the announcement of several different torments Israel was going to suffer, all of them already happened, I would recommend anyone who wants to discuss Ezekiel to take 20 minutes to read this book, so, Israel was going to be without home and be disseminated around the earth and He would bring them back home, which happened after WWII.

Jeremiah was a defeatist saying that the Babylonians would level Jerusalem which was a probability.  He also said they would make a comeback.  Since he believed in the Joseph to Moses story that was a guess.

Ezekiel was living in Babylon during the captivity in a period when the Babylonians had backed off oppression and were allowing the Jewish neighborhoods considerable rights.  Ezekiel had hope that the Babylonians would go further and allow the return.  For that purpose he became a hack prophet at the court sucking up to the king and making failed prophecies.

And the Jews were allowed to return and rebuild the temple.  These events happened about 590 to 538 BCE.

That fits better than WW2. 
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Historicity on February 24, 2012, 10:41:23 PM
There is an interrogative sentence and an afirmative sentence, the first talks of an insect, the second talks of a random organism and not about... thank you for that precious piece of trolling.
No, you had 2 rhetorical questions.  The first talks of a winged insect and the second of lungs and wings.

You are a liar.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: monkeymind on February 24, 2012, 10:41:34 PM
Monkeymind: The Ezekiel argument is not serious monkeymind, hyper religiosity is something you cannot relate to Ezekiel, and compared to others, like Daniel (for example) you get to see a huge difference; hypergraphia is also not really something you can accuse this guy of, because he only wrote one book, which is shorter than Harry Potter or pretty much any novel. This book is formed by different revelations he received in different times, so... are you implying he shouldn't write them?

Now, this of Ezekiel being unable to speak is not described as such in the bible. It would be more like he didn't speak when people was going to visit him unless God told him to say something. Whenever he had to say something he would, instead, go and tell what he had to tell to people.

Finally, this “doctor” also did the same with Samson, he is trying to become famous, and that’s it. As for evolution, I would like you to brief me of what you know of evolution, thanks by the way, for being a worth contributor to the topic.


Jaimehlers: Man, most people don’t know of the errors in the bible, most people don’t even read the bible. Do you think that will prevent them from going to heaven if God exists?
As for Occam’s razor, you just have to consider evolution before choosing “where to cut”, let’s see what Monkeymind have to say about that particular subject.

I was pulling your chain about Ezekiel hitting his head, but serious about him being wrong about the time of Jerusalem getting sacked.

We can talk about evolution, but not here. Of course in my opinion the probabilities of a creator are 0 because evolution answers all the questions about the history of life on earth through heredity, mutation and natural selection. Start a thread in the appropriate section (Evolution & Creationism) and we can discuss it there.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: monkeymind on February 24, 2012, 11:01:10 PM
BTW Augusto, My sister is Muslim and my best friend is Muslim. My other family members are all Christian. I love them all, and I am equally tough on their beliefs. I just think it is silly to believe in anything supernatural.

I have a brother in law that is a conspiracy theorist and believes aliens control our world. I'm tough on those beliefs too.

My wife is a new ager who believes in homeopathy and the law of attraction. I am equally tough on those beliefs.

The common thread: No reason to believe anything without evidence. Nearly everything can be explained as part of nature and virtual nothing supernatural can be confirmed. What can't be explained (YET) it's easy for me to say "I don't Know."
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Astreja on February 25, 2012, 12:26:19 AM
Astreja, you don't need to pray, you can just limit yourself to believe and do something good just for the sake of it.

Augusto, I don't need to "limit Myself to believe" in order to do good in the world.  I have never believed in your god, and I know that I've done far more good than bad in My lifetime.  Your belief and your deity are surplus to My requirements.

Quote
I don’t know you, but let's say you are capable of adopting a child, or at least a homeless dog. DO IT, then keep on with your life...

Been there, done that.  All of My 7 cats are former alley cats, or the offspring of former alley cats.  (Freyja, Mama Cat to 5 of the kittehs, is no longer with My household.   :()

Quote
...later on, decide if you want to say you did it in the name of God, or in the name of random chaos, or just because you are good.

I can't think of a single good reason to say why I did _________.  It's enough that it got done.  I can state unequivocally that I refuse to give someone else credit for My own actions, as I wouldn't give them the blame either.

Quote
I can tell you this: if you do mostly bad things, eventually your own heart will accuse you, and you will feel bad for things you did...

This tends to be the case with most individuals who experienced good nurturing and early childhood development.  It isn't universal, though.  People with psychological conditions such as psychopathy and narcissistic personality disorder do not tend to be remorseful.

Quote
...and , your actions will have their weight in your soul...

Soul?  Weight?  You mean, like weighing the heart against Ma'at's feather in order to enter the Egyptian afterlife?  ;)

Quote
Truth is, you don’t have to pray at all, whenever you see a sunset, or get a loving kiss, you can simply say “thanks God”, you don’t even need to say it, it is enough if you feel it, and if you show you are grateful with your actions, to make this world a better place, and to let others share your joy. If you do this, you should be ending up believing in God, and you will know for sure you have not been under hypnotism.

Augusto, I am 54 years old.  I have been awed by many things in this world:  Double rainbows; aurora borealis; the view from the top of Mt. Saint-Hilaire, Quebec; Prokofiev's Alexander Nevsky performed live by a symphony orchestra and a choir; and a total eclipse of the sun on a clear, bitterly cold day in Winnipeg in February 1979.

I've won amazing battles after multiple failures, and I've had unnervingly close calls where the wrong decision -- Or a decision put off till the morning --  would have cost Me My life.  I've given birth.  I've kept deathbed vigils.

I don't need your god, for I have the entire universe.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 25, 2012, 12:40:12 AM
...and a total eclipse of the sun on a clear, bitterly cold day in Winnipeg in February 1979.

I must be a sinner. It was cloudy on that day in Oregon. All I got to see was the streetlights turn on in the middle of the morning.

Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Astreja on February 25, 2012, 12:52:32 AM
...and a total eclipse of the sun on a clear, bitterly cold day in Winnipeg in February 1979.

I must be a sinner. It was cloudy on that day in Oregon. All I got to see was the streetlights turn on in the middle of the morning.

Nah.  You just didn't do what I did:  I spent a day or so hunched over a kitchen table with a bunch of very odd reference books (Golden Dawn; Key of Solomon the King; that kind of stuff) and a bottle of India ink, creating an amulet for the express purpose of clearing the skies over Winnipeg.

Seriously.  This was in My über-woo days, and I actually did that in the run-up to the 1979 eclipse.  I saw the first star break through the clouds at about 9 p.m. on the night of February 25, the day before the eclipse. By the time the eclipse started, there wasn't a cloud in sight.

Of course, this caused such a disruption in the meteorological system that it was followed by 3 solid months of cloudy days...  Don't try this at home, kids.  ;D
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 25, 2012, 01:01:45 AM
I couldn't woo my way out of a wet paper bag. Good on you for using the force.  ;D
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Add Homonym on February 25, 2012, 04:00:35 AM
Not that I believe the prophecy anyway, because it is not written clearly, and requires many spin on old books:

Did the Jews return to their holly[sic] land? The Palestinians are the original Jews, but converted to Islam. The diaspora was composed of Roman genetics, and the mitochondria from 4 palestinian women. The Jews then changed their religion. If you don't sacrifice cattle, you are not a Jew. Either the Jews never left the holly[sic] land, or they never came back.

Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: monkeymind on February 25, 2012, 09:27:49 AM
Good morning Augusto:

I hope you don't mind me asking. Are you Persian? You "sound" a lot like my Persian friend.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Graybeard on February 25, 2012, 09:33:23 AM
You should just let the Holy Spirit to guide you, ...it's pretty simple actually because every human being knows what is good,
If every human knows what is good, why do we need a guide?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Augusto on February 25, 2012, 09:37:33 AM
Monkeymind: Not Persian, just not from USA.

Astreja: I cannot say anything to that except: "You've earned my respect"

Add Homonym: Could you explain this?

If every human knows what is good, why do we need a guide?

Hello Sir, the answer is simple: There is good and there is evil, and we humans can experience both, we can act driven by either, Jesus asks us to do what’s good and ignore evil.

Imagine there were a religion talking of selfishness and hate, well... there is actually, but we are not talking about religions, more like "probabilities of God's existence", let me know if you're interested in taking part of this debate, and if you are, please read my previous posts.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: shnozzola on February 25, 2012, 09:50:10 AM
Perhaps I shouldn’t bring this up in this thread, but, as far as the evolution debate goes, it is sad how closed minded creationists are, especially when evolution, unlike the existence of some type of a “god”, is proven, accepted, and moving on for people who read and study the science behind it .  The thing creationists miss is the vast amount of time needed, and frankly, I have become very much more in awe, understanding  the randomness that led to all I can observe, than thinking some kind of perfect omnipotence is responsible.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: 12 Monkeys on February 25, 2012, 10:50:32 AM
Monkeymind: Not Persian, just not from USA.

Astreja: I cannot say anything to that except: "You've earned my respect"

Add Homonym: Could you explain this?

If every human knows what is good, why do we need a guide?

Hello Sir, the answer is simple: There is good and there is evil, and we humans can experience both, we can act driven by either, Jesus asks us to do what’s good and ignore evil.

Imagine there were a religion talking of selfishness and hate, well... there is actually, but we are not talking about religions, more like "probabilities of God's existence", let me know if you're interested in taking part of this debate, and if you are, please read my previous posts.
how did a perfect being make a mistake and allow evil in the first place?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: 12 Monkeys on February 25, 2012, 10:54:12 AM
There is an interrogative sentence and an afirmative sentence, the first talks of an insect, the second talks of a random organism and not about... thank you for that precious piece of trolling.

You know guys? maybe I am in the wrong place, I don't want you to provoque me, causing us all a bad time without reason. I wish you all luck in your worship to "Random", the god of yours.

Let me know by PM if there is anyone that want to represent the atheist side on a debate, if there is, "good", if there isn't "good too", but I'm stopping this open troll topic right now, at least consider me out.
oooooooooooooh such tough talk :-[ ....also you dont believe in religion......so don't you just have a random God?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: changeling on February 25, 2012, 12:39:42 PM
^^^He doesn't have a religion, he has a relationship don't ya know.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: monkeymind on February 25, 2012, 12:50:38 PM
I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt Augusto. I thought you said that you were Muslim (somewhere in this thread) so I threw you an olive branch. It was also a way for me to determine more about you in an attempt to understand your point of view. Perhaps off topic (but in an attempt to more easily address the topic in a way you would understand) ...BUT definitely not trolling.

BTW Augusto, My sister is Muslim and my best friend is Muslim. My other family members are all Christian. I love them all, and I am equally tough on their beliefs. I just think it is silly to believe in anything supernatural.

I have a brother in law that is a conspiracy theorist and believes aliens control our world. I'm tough on those beliefs too.

My wife is a new ager who believes in homeopathy and the law of attraction. I am equally tough on those beliefs.

The common thread: No reason to believe anything without evidence. Nearly everything can be explained as part of nature and virtual nothing supernatural can be confirmed. What can't be explained (YET) it's easy for me to say "I don't Know."

Then I said this:

Good morning Augusto:
I hope you don't mind me asking. Are you Persian? You "sound" a lot like my Persian friend.

How is that racial?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Alzael on February 25, 2012, 01:30:03 PM
Let's wait then, such person have not posted in here yet. I sent you a PM jetson, about the flamming, spamming, trolling and offtopic that is going on in here. I'm sure you'll be able to see it by yourself. I would like to ask you to keep an eye in here, because, you know... basically I'm a muslim in islamic territory, and people like to break the rules against me because I'm new in the comunity, and because I'm different.

Pretty much like in school. May I count on you to keep an eye and guarantee everyone (and not just me) follow the rules?

The persecution card? Gee, I've never seen a theist play that one before.  &)


Alzael: I don't know what you mean by preaching, but it's nice you are doing your work, have you found anyone else in here breaking the rules, or just me? Thanks in advance.

Don't try to make smart ass comments to the mods. You don't have the skills for it.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Augusto on February 25, 2012, 02:59:13 PM
Alzael: Depends on the mod, because I "shouldn't" need any skill to convince anyone to follow the rules, should I? (like this offtopic post of yours).

Monkeymind: Perhaps I made a mistake, If I did, I apologize in all honesty.

In general, I apologize for showing myself not so friendly, but as you all might see, I've got 9 negative Darwins already, and if you check the reasons for that, and the number of haters I'm getting you'll be able to understand. So, maybe I am or I have been acting in a bad way to some of you, but I ask for a little of understanding, just picture yourself talking about God's non-existence in a church and you will be able to understand my position in this partially intollerant comunity.

So, once again, thanks to those who have decided to act in a civil, intelligent and open way, and my apology to those who have been or feel attacked by me in any way without justification, because I cannot know for sure who is who in the little time I have been amongst you.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: monkeymind on February 25, 2012, 03:02:32 PM
Apology accepted!


Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: kin hell on February 25, 2012, 07:22:54 PM
>snip< 
I had one question to God, which was "what is your porpoise for people who are born with deformities?" and I got my answer.
>snip<
my bold

Obviously you were praying to the Roman god Mercury

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_poisoning
 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_poisoning)
Quote
Consumption of whale and dolphin meat, as is the practice in Japan, is a source of high levels of mercury poisoning.

(http://i608.photobucket.com/albums/tt164/kin-hell/Screenshot2012-02-26at111059AM.png)


Mercury (hermes) was a trickster god and a thief before he became the messenger he is now known as.
Obviously this merciless (a word coming from his name) deforming and torturing of innocents above (as represented by "do this in my name") was done while he was in his trickster mode.


Oh wait, ....you are saying there are no other gods but your version, and he explained why he does this despicable horror everyday?

A just and loving god (creator of everything) as proven by the suffering and evil that permeates our entire existence?

Surely it would be more rational to argue that the very existence of random suffering and evil indicates there is no just loving and merciful god.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Augusto on February 25, 2012, 07:38:26 PM
There is a 1 on 1 debate taking place in the debate room. You should ask Azazel to use your arguments is you think it might be useful, this, because a debate between me and the whole comunity wasn't possible because of different reasons.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Ate The Ism on February 26, 2012, 03:17:15 PM
There is a 1 on 1 debate taking place in the debate room. You should ask Azazel to use your arguments is you think it might be useful, this, because a debate between me and the whole comunity wasn't possible because of different reasons.
I'll quote Hitchens here: "I make my living scrutinizing words, it's what I do; not a word of what you said makes any sense to me."

The probability of any god's existence is untestable but when isolating a god we can evaluate the specific claims made by that god. The Judeo-Christian god, being a victim of contradictory manuscripts and no contemporaneous evidence, is much easier to debunk and the probability of this god's existence is maybe 1 per cent.

You could make a "gap" argument, the idea that whatever can't be explained (yet) by science is accredited to faith in a creator. I say, then, what Neil deGrasse Tyson has said in response to Bill o'Reily: "Then god is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance that gets smaller and smaller as time goes on."

If you think that there's anything to talk about then you need to make the argument for your god. If you cannot make a sound argument then you and all other religious fanatics need to shut up about it.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: velkyn on February 27, 2012, 10:56:47 AM
Velkyn: The reason I "dodge" the study of prophecies is because it have been studied already, there is no point in using our time to replicate something that have been already established.
wow, that's quite a fail, Auggie.  Nice ot see you run away from supporting your lies, by claiming that they've already been studied already.  I knwo they have, and I know by yuor ignorance that you haven't a clue about just what has been determined about them. 

Quote
About the failure to Jesus to fulfill certain prophecies, it have been discussed before, and it is the way it should happen, either way other prophecies could not become true. For example, if Jesus would have rebuilt the temple in his first coming, Jewish people would have believed in him and another prophesy would have been broken, specifically the one about Jewish and non Jewish people.
  More claims with no support.  IF JC would have fulfilled the prophecies the Jews would have accepted him.  I do enjoy how you then have to re"interpret" other verses to make up some that you claim are about jews and non jewish people. 

Quote
It was necessary that Jewish deny the Messiah so his word would come to us. From the logical point of view, Jesus is the only possible Messiah and there is no chance that another Messiah could come today or in the future, and the construction of the temple, for example, is not “excused” by his second coming, but NECESSARY.
ROFL!  No, it was not necessary.  That again comes from more Christian "interpretation" in yuor desperate need to be the "Chosen people". 

Quote
As for the rest of your arguments, I find just a problem in explaining everything to you as if this were a religion class, I mean, you need more information. I admire your desire to post on a logic way, but you just need to know more. I wonder if there is someone in here that knows enough.
What a liar.  You make claims, so you need to support them.  This is in essence a religious class and one of the best things about it, is that it shows how ignorant Christians are about the claims they make.  I don't take it in a bad way at all.  YOu do a lovely job in confirming all I know about Christians. 
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: moxieman on February 28, 2012, 09:36:37 AM
Hey guys,
I feel like I'm butting in, but what Augusto initially brought up made some sense to me. I felt like it could have used a little development, so if you don't mind here I go:

    The bible as a text claims that certain events that have not occurred will occur in a particular order. The example I will use comes from the book of Ezekiel. In chapter 5, the narrator acts as God's mouthpiece. God premises that Israel as a nation has been rebellious, and proceeds to claim He will move against them. He spends around three books saying things like "I will scatter you to every corner of the earth," this goes on for a while.

    All this boring stuff, to claim that a people will be scattered and a nation destroyed is no big claim. We've seen this kind of thing happen over and over across history. The prophesy that makes me think, and sometimes wonder, is the one that follows:

After the condemnation, another promise is made: in Ezekiel 11:17, God tells his people that

"I will gather you from the nations and assemble you from the countries over which
you have been scattered, and I will restore to you the land of Israel. "

Which as Augusto pointed out has no historical antecedent, making the logical argument to probability a lot weaker. Then in Ezekiel 36, the promises that are made take a more practical nature. in verses 34-35

"the desolate land shall be tilled, which was formerly a wasteland exposed to the
gaze of every passer-by.  This desolate land has been made into a garden of Eden, they shall say. "The
cities that were in ruins, laid waste, and destroyed are now repeopled and fortified."

     We understand that after the Jewish people returned to Israel, they were met with a wasteland. Swampland had invaded most of their fertile ground in their absence, there was very little water and so on. It was at this point they invented drip irrigation, and now they have these farms stretching over what was once desert and swamp. Now Israel is considered to be the breadbasket of the West.
     The point I would like to consider is the possibility that certain prophesies are true, and what this could imply about the Bible as a whole, and thusly of the probability of God's existence.

Sorry for the long post. It's my first time on a forum like this. I used to be a really devout Christian (I even visited Israel once, which is how I learned about the above) but right now I have to consider the possibility that I was wrong, and I'm hoping I can dialogue intelligently with people about it here. And that's my piece.



 
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: monkeymind on February 28, 2012, 09:47:36 AM
Hey guys,
I feel like I'm butting in, but what Augusto initially brought up made some sense to me. I felt like it could have used a little development, so if you don't mind here I go:

I wouldn't be so quick to agree with Augusto, he went to another forum and was de-converted as a Christian believer, and is now claiming to be an atheist.


I'll read your post in a bit and see if I have something to offer.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: velkyn on February 28, 2012, 10:15:43 AM
Mox, 

Yep, a claim of scattering and a claim of gathering.  We know that Ezekiel was likely written after the various conquerings of the Israelites. Always nice to write a “prophecy” that already has the events happened.  And considering the number of Jews in American, Europe, Russia, etc. I don’t see them back in anything like the area of what ancient Israel (or Judah) has covered.  Are we still waiting or is it that Christians want to claim something that hasn’t happened yet at all?  It seems that christians want any little bit of evidence for their nonsense to be considered a “fulfillment” when it is anything but that.

Quote
Which as Augusto pointed out has no historical antecedent, making the logical argument to probability a lot weaker. Then in Ezekiel 36, the promises that are made take a more practical nature. in verses 34-35
"the desolate land shall be tilled, which was formerly a wasteland exposed to the
gaze of every passer-by.  This desolate land has been made into a garden of Eden, they shall say. "The cities that were in ruins, laid waste, and destroyed are now repeopled and fortified."
We understand that after the Jewish people returned to Israel, they were met with a wasteland. Swampland had invaded most of their fertile ground in their absence, there was very little water and so on. It was at this point they invented drip irrigation, and now they have these farms stretching over what was once desert and swamp. Now Israel is considered to be the breadbasket of the West.
Funny how the Israelis didn’t invent drip irrigation at all.  that was done in Afghanistan in 1866, at Colorado U in the 1910s and in Germany in the 1920s.  And ROFL, what a claim, that Israel is the “Breadbasket of the west”.  Not even remotely, Mox. If you really are questioning your religion, you need to do actual research and not make things up that can so easily be shown to be wrong.  Israel is almost totally dependent on imports for its grain and feed needs: http://www.globaltrade.net/f/market-research/pdf/Israel/Agriculture-Animal-Husbandry-Hunting-Fishing-Israel-Grain-and-Feed-Annual.html . I guess your god has failed rather dramatically.  So, no reason to think that any prophecies have been fulfilled at all. 
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: nogodsforme on February 28, 2012, 04:45:10 PM
[snip]
     We understand that after the Jewish people returned[?] to Israel, they were met with a wasteland. Swampland had invaded most of their fertile ground in their absence [well a lot can happen in 3000 years...], there was very little water and so on. It was at this point they invented drip irrigation, and now they have these farms stretching over what was once desert and swamp. Now Israel is considered to be the breadbasket of the West.
     The point I would like to consider is the possibility that certain prophesies are true, and what this could imply about the Bible as a whole, and thusly of the probability of God's existence.
[snip]
bold and italics mine-ngfm
Arab Palestine under the Ottomans was a "swampy, desert wasteland" the same way that the United States was a barren wasteland when the native people farmed, fished and hunted there. Amazing how thousands of people were able to survive in cities, towns and villages for centuries without water or agriculture. I guess the Europeans showed up just in time.[1]

At least the Israelis bought the land from the Arabs when they first arrived in the 19th century. They didn't start claiming land from the local people by violent conquest in the US style until the 20th century.

In both cases a false narrative was created to excuse colonial incursions. In both cases the colonists called themselves "pioneers" as if they were going into an uninhabited wilderness. In both cases settlers were sent illegally into the other people's territory and were backed up by soldiers when the local people tried to enforce treaties and agreements. If there were no people there, why did conflict break out? With whom were the "pioneers" constantly fighting? And over what?

One last point. The Israelis have worked hard to build a new country since 1948--nobody can argue with that. But it took warfare, acts of dispossession, massive immigration, extreme militarism and billions of US dollars to create and maintain this supposed evidence for biblical prophecy. I did not think that the Promised Land was meant to be a police state. :P
 1. I mean returned in the case of the Jews with no real connection to the Middle East migrating from Europe. I guess as an African-American I should be able to return to Senegal and claim me some good land...my people were in Africa more recently than the Jewish people's ancestors were in Israel
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: freakygin on February 28, 2012, 09:49:13 PM
Hello...
I'm still new in this forum.
First of all, i'm sorry for my bad english.
English is not my primary language.

Ok, cut to the case, here we go.
I must admit. I'm VERY EXCITED when i found this forum.
To think there is another people who think exactly like me.

OK, here's my problem.

A friend of mine once argued with me on certain topic (Religion of course, Christian to be exact).
Which i really don't give a shit about what she said.
I just don't believe in God, so leave me alone. I'm not forcing her to believe in what i believe anyway (which is Science).
I even say "Okay" when she told me i am going to hell if i don't believe in Jesus.
Then we have a argument.

When i can almost feel i'm going to win that argument.
Then suddenly she beat my argument with this analogy.

One day, there is a scruffy looked man go to a barbershop.
When that man getting shaved and haircut. The barber keep talking about there is no God.
Because this world is not perfect, and thus God is not perfect.
Look at those people in the world. So many suffering.
If there is a God, then he just abandoned his precious creation (Humans).
Bla bla bla (I'm sorry, i can't remember most of it)

And then, after getting shaved, that man go outside for a while and then back to the barbershop.
That man said : "THERE IS NO HAIRDRESSER IN THIS PLACE" to the person who just shaved and cut his hair.
The barber said : "what are you talking about? I'm right here. I just shaved and give u a haircut"
The man replied : "What about those people outside? I see a lot of people with scruffy look"
Barber : "When they look like that, it's not because there is no Hairdresser! It's because they're not coming to see me!"
The man smiled and said : "Exactly! Those people u mentioned before, that doesn't mean God didn't exist. It's just because people are not coming to see Him"

Well, i paused for a while.
I tried to argue more, but it feels like i'm already losing...

Can someone help me to answer that?
I don't like feeling like a loser after she came up with that.

Again, i'm sorry for my bad english.
It's quite difficult to translate everything from your native language to english without missing it's point.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: wright on February 28, 2012, 10:18:18 PM
Welcome to the forum, freakygin. Actually, your English is pretty good; even your grammar is better than some primary English-speakers we've seen here. Please post an introduction in that sub-forum; I'm always curious about non-US members (I haven't traveled much).

Your Christian friend's argument fails in a number of ways, but the most obvious to me is that no believer can point to physical evidence. To use her analogy, there are a lot of competing barber shops with advertising going back millennia, and all of them claiming to offer the best haircut EVER.

Yet, every single person going into those barber shops comes out just the same as when they went in, without a hair missing. And most of them claim they did get their hair cut.

When an atheist asks how these people know they got haircuts despite having nothing physical to show for it, they say things like "Well, it's all on the inside, so it doesn't show, but once you get one yourself you'll know!"

In other words, no objective evidence. All advertising and some very persuasive receptionists chatting the customers up. No scissors, razors or combs. And people to continue to pay for it! It makes me a little craaaazyyy sometimes...  :o

Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: sun_king on February 28, 2012, 11:03:23 PM
It is my opinion that you refrain from any further discussion, it is pointless. If you absolutely insist...

There are people in the world who have no belief in Jesus and yet live a life of peace and prosperity. The oil rich arabs, the Indians, the Chinese, the Japanese and so on. So apparently Jesus has no monopoly in issuing prosperity. And there are a lot of Christians who suffer, the Jesus protection shield seems to be temporarily disabled.

The man from the barber story just looked around the street. Maybe he missed the ones with immaculately cut hair, the work of other barbers, perhaps even better ones. (David Beckham should have walked by) Maybe he should have seen the Lion (Panthera Leo) who needs no haircut and yet looks majestic.

I am not suggesting that there are other deities, but I have found that Christians are easily annoyed if someone says there is a better god out there and he/she is awesome.

Its amusing that the preachers still churn out such ludicrous stories to lure the gullible, it wont stand a chance against anyone with an ounce of common sense.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 28, 2012, 11:47:16 PM
Welcome moxieman and freakygin.

Moxie, it's not prophecy when it's used as instructions. If the jews of the world saw that they were supposed to take back Israel, because it was in the bible, and they did it, that is why. Not because of prophecy. We have a bunch of fundamentalist christians here in the United States that are trying to help the Israeli's not because they care about jews but because they want the prophecy fulfilled. There is something in the prophecy about a red calf, so american christian cattlemen bred the right color calf to help out.

It isn't prophecy when the story is used to give instructions on how to insert tab A into slot B.

freakygin, the story was an analogy, meant to tell the christian version of a cute story. It only has meaning if one is willing to voluntarily fall for it. That's the nice thing about fiction. It can support other fictions quite nicely.
Title: I know God lives through faith and the Holy Ghost
Post by: Garret on March 04, 2012, 09:26:22 AM
I haven't really ever given much thought to try and logically prove that God lives.

I have however come to know that God truly is real.  I know that God is my Heavenly Father and I am His son.

How do I know this?

Through a basic principle called faith.

"...faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true."

I have read the word of God and had a desire to know if they were true.  That desire took me to have faith by praying to know.  Many times I have prayed for confirmations concerning God, Jesus Christ, and commandments and I have received witnesses by the Holy Ghost.

These witnesses that have helped me know that God is real, that Jesus Christ is our Savior, and that we are God's children are more real to me than if God had, with an audible voice, spoke to me.

I know God is real and He is my father.  Not because of logic but because I have exercised faith.
Title: Re: I know God lives through faith and the Holy Ghost
Post by: Aaron123 on March 04, 2012, 02:17:36 PM
I haven't really ever given much thought to try and logically prove that God lives.

I have however come to know that God truly is real.  I know that God is my Heavenly Father and I am His son.

How do I know this?

Through a basic principle called faith.

"...faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true."

I have read the word of God and had a desire to know if they were true.  That desire took me to have faith by praying to know.  Many times I have prayed for confirmations concerning God, Jesus Christ, and commandments and I have received witnesses by the Holy Ghost.

In short; you used circular logic and wishful thinking.  Sorry, but reality doesn't work that way.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Nick on March 04, 2012, 02:34:38 PM
I know I'm going to reget this...ok, you said the Holy Ghost witnessed to you.  Care to explain this (assuming you were not high).
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: ParkingPlaces on March 04, 2012, 02:43:48 PM
Garrett

What is your explanation for the various people that have been here who say that they were serious christians and they prayed and prayed for the type of signs you say you have gotten, and they got nothing. Why would your god be nice to you and ignore others who sincerely wanted their faith to be real.

And if you're in the mood, why does your god require faith just like all the gods you agree don't exist (hindu, etc.) There have been thousands of gods claimed, and none showed up directly. Including yours. Is he so unimaginative that he has to use the same method as non-existing gods? Or is that just a coincidence?

Welcome by the way. We may sound a bit dubious of your claims, but as long as you remain calm and collected and don't panic, you'll be safe. We bark, but we don't bite.
Title: Re: I know God lives through faith and the Holy Ghost
Post by: velkyn on March 05, 2012, 10:36:08 AM
I haven't really ever given much thought to try and logically prove that God lives.
I have however come to know that God truly is real.  I know that God is my Heavenly Father and I am His son.
How do I know this?
Through a basic principle called faith.
"...faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true."
other religions claim faith too, are they as valid as yours? 

Your god sure did an about face when Paul needed to excuse this god for not doing anything and now with Alma making the same excuse in the Book of Mormon.  We go from a god that does miracles, and his “son” supposedly even says believe in the miracles even if you can’t believe in him; to a god that now needs only “faith”.  You and your fellow Mormons aren’t any more based on reality than a Baptist, or a Hindu or any other religious person.

Quote
I have read the word of God and had a desire to know if they were true.  That desire took me to have faith by praying to know.  Many times I have prayed for confirmations concerning God, Jesus Christ, and commandments and I have received witnesses by the Holy Ghost.

These witnesses that have helped me know that God is real, that Jesus Christ is our Savior, and that we are God's children are more real to me than if God had, with an audible voice, spoke to me.

I know God is real and He is my father.  Not because of logic but because I have exercised faith.

Funny how others can claim that the good ol’ Holy Spirit did things for them too and get completely different answers. Why would that happen?
Title: Re: I know God lives through faith and the Holy Ghost
Post by: Boots on March 05, 2012, 02:13:19 PM
I haven't really ever given much thought to try and logically prove that God lives.

I have however come to know that God truly is real.  I know that God is my Heavenly Father and I am His son.

How do I know this?

Through a basic principle called faith.

"...faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true."

I have read the word of God and had a desire to know if they were true.  That desire took me to have faith by praying to know.  Many times I have prayed for confirmations concerning God, Jesus Christ, and commandments and I have received witnesses by the Holy Ghost.

These witnesses that have helped me know that God is real, that Jesus Christ is our Savior, and that we are God's children are more real to me than if God had, with an audible voice, spoke to me.

I know God is real and He is my father.  Not because of logic but because I have exercised faith.

Garrett,  two things.
1) You should be made aware (if you are not already) that the human brain has evolved in such a way as to always "complete patterns."  There have been many studies done on this phenomenon which I'm too lazy and to cite (sorry, sue me), but if you've ever seen those pictures that could be different things but really aren't anything, that's an example.  It's a survival mechanism that we still experience all the time; it's why people see Jesus in toast and George Washington in potato chips and other such nonesense.  Our experiences and expectations significantly inform these pattern completions.  Basically, we see what we want/expect to see even when it's not there.  This happens to every human, and it has happened to you.  My best guess is that they happend to you every time you prayed/"received witness."

2) Here is a post of mine from a few years back.  It may give you something to think about . . . I invite (nay encourage!!) you to read it.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=1326.0
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: dctrtuba on March 06, 2012, 01:48:11 AM
I'm not here to debate.
There are a lot of Christians who believe in God.
There are also a good number who have seen what they believe in.
There's no refuting that kind of proof. 
If you're staring at someone in the face.....it's pretty hard to disprove that the person is there.
Human reason/philosophy is pointless, when it comes to understanding things that we really have no business debating about.
I strongly suggest to really reconsider your strong opinions about things of which you have no understanding. 
You aren't going to always have tangible facts.  But there are ways to get them.  Your heart has to be open, otherwise, all that you will have to rely on are useless musings of the mind.  That won't help you...take it or leave it.
There's a very good reason why we have to go looking for truth.  Truth is a treasure to be found. 
Figuratively speaking, eyes have two states....closed and open.
That's all that I can say.  I am a very cerebral person.  However, there's no going back to trusting my education, after my eyes were opened.  All that I can tell you, is that the Bible is not lying about what it says.  It up to you, and your heart to go find what I already know to be truth.  If you truly give God a chance, and open your heart to Him, you'll see that I'm very much telling the truth.  Let me tell you, the spiritual realm is initially an extremely frightening experience.  If you're not open, all that you'll ever know is your intellect, and this dying world.   I didn't make the rules.  Ask God, if you are upset that things aren't designed the way that you want them to be.

Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: voodoo child on March 06, 2012, 01:53:55 AM
way too many gods not any evidence for any of them. If people like to turn off their brain to reality so be it.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Aaron123 on March 06, 2012, 02:08:31 AM
I'm not here to debate.
There are a lot of Christians who believe in God.
There are also a good number who have seen what they believe in.
There's no refuting that kind of proof. 
If you're staring at someone in the face.....it's pretty hard to disprove that the person is there.

There are a lot of muslims who believe in Allah.
There are also a good number who have seen what they believe in.
There's no refuting that kind of proof. 

There are a lot of Hindus who believe in Shiva.
There are also a good number who have seen what they believe in.
There's no refuting that kind of proof. 


Which one do I go with?


Quote
Human reason/philosophy is pointless, when it comes to understanding things that we really have no business debating about.
I strongly suggest to really reconsider your strong opinions about things of which you have no understanding. 


Arguing from ignorant.


Quote
You aren't going to always have tangible facts.  But there are ways to get them.  Your heart has to be open, otherwise, all that you will have to rely on are useless musings of the mind.  That won't help you...take it or leave it.

This is little more than a thinly-veiled plead to believe in god.


Quote
There's a very good reason why we have to go looking for truth.  Truth is a treasure to be found. 
Figuratively speaking, eyes have two states....closed and open.
That's all that I can say.  I am a very cerebral person.  However, there's no going back to trusting my education, after my eyes were opened.  All that I can tell you, is that the Bible is not lying about what it says.  It up to you, and your heart to go find what I already know to be truth.  If you truly give God a chance, and open your heart to Him, you'll see that I'm very much telling the truth.  Let me tell you, the spiritual realm is initially an extremely frightening experience.  If you're not open, all that you'll ever know is your intellect, and this dying world. 


Appealing to woo, appealing to guilt, appealing to emotions, appealing to consequences... nothing of substance.


Quote
I didn't make the rules.  Ask God, if you are upset that things aren't designed the way that you want them to be.

Considering that I don't believe that god exists, asking him about something would be rather silly, wouldn't it?  Kinda like asking Harry Potter why I can't use magic and fly on broomsticks.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: naemhni on March 06, 2012, 08:03:55 AM
Hi, Doctor Tuba, welcome to WWGHA.  I suspect you're going to be a "drive-by", but I'll respond anyway, as I need the practice.

I'm not here to debate.

Then I suggest you read the rules before posting further.  Preaching is not permitted here, and if you make claims, you will be expected to make an attempt to back them up.

Quote
There are a lot of Christians who believe in God.

Really?  I thought all Christians were atheists.    &)

Quote
There are also a good number who have seen what they believe in.

No doubt there are, but, contrary to how the old saying goes, "seeing is not believing", or at least it shouldn't be.  The human mind is not nearly so accurate in its perception of the world as most people think it is.  It is surprisingly easy to see things that don't exist -- and I'm not just talking about drugs, either.

Quote
There's no refuting that kind of proof.

Actually, there is, but it requires being willing to examine things objectively.

Quote
If you're staring at someone in the face.....it's pretty hard to disprove that the person is there.

Have you ever heard of pareidolia?  If not, I'd recommend you read up on it a bit.  It's but one of the many ways that one can be seeing a face that isn't really there.

Quote
Human reason/philosophy is pointless, when it comes to understanding things that we really have no business debating about.

What would some such things be?

Quote
I strongly suggest to really reconsider your strong opinions about things of which you have no understanding.

Like what?  If you want to tell me, for example, that I have no business holding strong opinions about molecular biology, I'll readily agree because my understanding of that field is quite limited.  If you demand my silence on certain other matters, however, you will receive an objection.  (A hint for you, if you're talking about what I think you're talking about: I majored in philosophy, and I finished with an A-minus average.  And even at that, I wouldn't even say that I'm the best-informed WWGHA regular on the subject, either.)

Quote
You aren't going to always have tangible facts.  But there are ways to get them.

Indeed there are.  Unfortunately, you don't seem to realize them.

Quote
Your heart has to be open, otherwise, all that you will have to rely on are useless musings of the mind.  That won't help you...take it or leave it.

Can you name any other objective truths that were discovered and universally agreed on by people "having open hearts" and refusing to use their intellect?  For example, was Neptune discovered by monks praying and having its existence revealed to them in a dream, or was it discovered by people examining the behavior of Uranus, realizing that another planet must be causing anomalies in that behavior, and pointing their telescopes at the part of the sky where that other planet said the mathematics said the planet would probably be found?

Quote
There's a very good reason why we have to go looking for truth.  Truth is a treasure to be found.

That doesn't even make any sense.

Quote
Figuratively speaking, eyes have two states....closed and open.

No, actually, there are quite a few more than that: nearsighted, farsighted, astigmatic, cataractic...

Quote
That's all that I can say.  I am a very cerebral person.

The first sentence seems to contradict the second one.  (And by the way, truly cerebral people don't say that they are.)

Quote
However, there's no going back to trusting my education, after my eyes were opened.

"I've already made up my mind!  Don't confuse the issue with facts!"

Quote
All that I can tell you, is that the Bible is not lying about what it says.

Which part is it telling the truth about?  That snakes and donkeys can talk?  That bats are birds?  That rabbits chew the cud?  That insects have four legs?  Those are the easy ones.

There are others that aren't instantly recognizable as lies, but can be determined to be so after minimal research: that there was a flood that covered the entire planet, that it was ridden out by a family in a 450-foot long boat, that half a million people (conservatively estimated) wandered around the Sinai desert for forty years.

There are also lies of different natures as well.  A number of the books in the new testament, for example, are known to be forgeries (1 Peter and 2 Peter being the most obvious examples).

There are other things, too, that can't be called "lies", exactly, but which should nonetheless horrify you.  Check Deuteronomy for the various "remedies" that are prescribed for sexual assault, for example.  In our society, fines and/or imprisonment are generally agreed to be the proper response.  Requiring the victim to marry her rapist?  Not so much -- but it's what Yahweh commands.

Quote
It up to you, and your heart to go find what I already know to be truth.

No, if you want me to believe it, it is up to you to convince me.

Quote
If you truly give God a chance, and open your heart to Him, you'll see that I'm very much telling the truth.

Listen, friend: most of the atheists here are former believers.  (I happen to be an exception, but that's a separate discussion.)  And they weren't casual believers, either, they were very serious about it.  When they felt their faith slipping, they were tremendously distraught.  Many of them prayed and prayed and prayed, explicitly telling Yahweh that they felt their faith fading and imploring him to give them strength, to give them some kind of a sign, so that they wouldn't stop believing in him.  Yahweh utterly ignored them, with the result that they ended up going thru months and even years of emotional anguish in coming to disbelief.

It is extraordinarily presumptuous of you to stroll in here on your very first post and assume that no one here has ever "given Yahweh a chance".  We all have.  More than once.

Quote
Let me tell you, the spiritual realm is initially an extremely frightening experience.

Please define "the spiritual realm".  Do not use weasel words.

Quote
If you're not open, all that you'll ever know is your intellect, and this dying world.

Reality exists whether I want it to or not.  There's no such thing as things that exist, or phenomena that happen, only if I "open my heart to them".  If I step on a tack, it will hurt my foot, even if I didn't know the tack was there.  Why should Yahweh be any different?

Quote
Ask God, if you are upset that things aren't designed the way that you want them to be.

And on Easter morning, should I also ask the Easter Bunny why I didn't get any candy?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: changeling on March 06, 2012, 08:26:59 AM
I seriously doubt that we will see dctrtuba again.
He probably went back to his pajama party all giggly about
giving those atheists what for.

Moderator edit: no need to change member name.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: kin hell on March 06, 2012, 09:16:58 AM
I'm not here to debate.
So you've come here to preach to non-believers .......well reap what you sow you presumptuous git.

your dogma chased your catechism up each others one-eyed holiness.
 your ability to debate (apart from at mass) has subsequently left the building.

Quote
There are a lot of Christians who believe in God.
And many many more who only pretend to.

Quote
There are also a good number who have seen what they believe in.
I feel sorry for your abused cattle. Although I guess if god is everywhere he's just as likely to be there.
"You found god where Homes? 
 ....it's alimentary my dear Watson"

Quote
There's no refuting that kind of proof. 
True.  Bullshit will always prove to be Bullshit.

Quote
If you're staring at someone in the face.....it's pretty hard to disprove that the person is there.
More bullshit and why you are getting it so confused 
Exodus 33:20 and 33:23
Quote from: biblegod
"Butt" he said "you cannot see my face, for no-one may see me and live......"
".....Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back parts: butt my face shall not be seen."
....just leave your cattle alone....

Quote
Human reason/philosophy is pointless,
...only to those who can't

Quote
when it comes to understanding things that we really have no business debating about.
...much better to just insert ones sorry arsed head up the nearest bullish bovine's bunghole  and believe you have found your god.

Quote
I strongly suggest to really reconsider your strong opinions about things of which you have no understanding. 
...you seem to forget, oh pointyhead, that you are the practitioner of non-reason, not us.
It is your job to have no understanding, it is ours to watch you practise whatever form of moronism it is you choose to use instead of reality.
We will continue to think and consider long after you've gullibly adopted your faith's no-think prerequisite.

Quote
You aren't going to always have tangible facts. 
Can you describe an intangible fact for me so I'll know it when I meet it.


Quote
But there are ways to get them.

But I bet they those ways aren't as much fun as the ways to get an STD

Quote
Your heart has to be open, otherwise, all that you will have to rely on are useless musings of the mind.
I knew it.  Nowhere near as much fun..
 
Quote
That won't help you...take it or leave it.
If I can't have any fun, I think I'll pass.

Quote
There's a very good reason why we have to go looking for truth.
Yeah somebody has to be the blind in the blind leading the blind.

Quote
Truth is a treasure to be found. 
and a fool and his money are soon parted.

Quote
Figuratively speaking, eyes have two states....closed and open.
Figuratively speaking
There are only n kinds of people in the world the rational numbers and the irrational numbnuts. The open minded and the closed minded.

Quote
That's all that I can say. 
That's total bullshit

Quote
I am a very cerebral person. 
The nut inside the nut, nutting stuff out about the nuttiness of not knowing nuttin'. Butternut

Quote
However, there's no going back to trusting my education, after my eyes were opened.
I am so inexpressibly glad you are not here to debate.
Dumb, and proud of it, is not a convincing arguement.

Quote
All that I can tell you, is that the Bible is not lying about what it says.
Excellent I'll rush out then and start killing homosexuals,
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."  (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
 and fortunetellers,
    A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)
 and people who've hit their parents,   
 Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death.  (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
 and of course anyone who has cursed their parents.
    1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness.  (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)
    2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death.  They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

Quote
It up to you, and your heart to go find what I already know to be truth. 
Why do me and my heart have to go out and find what you know to be truth, haven't you just left your stomach bile truth right here on the floor?
Hey look, I can see the carrots and the schtick both.

Quote
If you truly give God a chance,

Fuck off, I am not here to debate you, just fuck the fuck right off.

Quote
and open your heart to Him, you'll see that I'm very much telling the truth.

More bullshit

Quote
Let me tell you, the spiritual realm is initially an extremely frightening experience.

Yeah and your cattle hate it even more so.
Theist cowboys crooning restful ballads hoping the source of all knowledge won't stampede before they get a chance to wrest their weary heads.

Quote
If you're not open, all that you'll ever know is your intellect,
Don't worry you've managed to make my intellect a much "lesser" evil listening to your presumptuous preaching

Quote
and this dying world. 

...would you please make some attempt of getting your story straight
4 One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.Ecclesiastes 1:4


Quote
I didn't make the rules.
neither did your silly god invention

Quote
Ask God, if you are upset that things aren't designed the way that you want them to be.
Why would I bother?
Your god is still sulking that a monkey did write the entire works of Shakespeare.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: monkeymind on March 06, 2012, 09:25:29 AM
Damn Kin, if you don't start a compilation of these treasures, I' gonna. So many gems in one post!

your dogma chased your catechism up each others one-eyed holiness.
There are only n kinds of people in the world the rational numbers and the irrational numbnuts.
       The open minded and the closed minded.
The nut inside the nut, nutting stuff out about the nuttiness of not knowing nuttin'. Butternut
Theist cowboys crooning restful ballads hoping the source of all knowledge won't stampede
       before they get a chance to wrest their weary heads.
Your god is still sulking that a monkey did write the entire works of Shakespeare.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: velkyn on March 06, 2012, 10:23:59 AM
I'm not here to debate.
There are a lot of Christians who believe in God.
There are also a good number who have seen what they believe in.
There's no refuting that kind of proof. 
Sure there is, lots of refuting of people who have no evidence at all.   All theists make claims about their gods and none of them have evidence.  So, by yuor claims, we can think that any god, that has a person claiming that they are real, is just as valid as any other god, even the Christian one. 

And of course, more claims that we can't "understand" such nonsense that spews from the mouths of theists.  Having been one, that's not hard at all.   You are anything but a "very cerebral person" if you make baseless claims and are too ignorant to realize your arguments would mean that all gods are real.  Plus we get the usual claims of how the theist in question, you, have some magical formula to contact god and get him in your "heart".   So, what's your way, other than your vague claims of opening your heart.  I have, have prayed when losing my faith and tah-dah, your god has failed to show me it exists ever single time.   You have "made the rules", Tuba, because your version of god is just one more made up by one more Christian. 

Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Boots on March 06, 2012, 10:47:41 AM
Dammit.  It seems like every time I make (what I believe to be) a relevant point or ask a good question, it gets hijacked by some nutter, or ignored.  I'm just *sniff* not good enough . . .   :'(

Edit: No, I ain't lettin' this one go.

You know drtuba, if you looked up ONE POST from the one you posted, you'll see that I already addressed the fact that we humans do, sometimes--in fact, often--perceive things that arent' there.  Just like I myself did, as described in the link I provided IN THAT SAME GORAM POST.

But since you're not here to debate, ie. you're not hear to learn, I fully expect you not to even be reading THIS, let alone other stuff you've already missed.  Jackass.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: ParkingPlaces on March 06, 2012, 11:40:08 AM
kin, you need to rely a little less on quoting when you rant. No matter how much fodder they provide, there is no need to go all academic on us. A wall of words is a wall of words. We've seen it all before. It's your response we're interested in.

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

No matter. I managed to read between the lines so I made you a karma apple anyway. Great fun!



Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: bgb on March 06, 2012, 11:50:28 AM
God, how I love this forum!!!   ;D
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: kin hell on March 06, 2012, 04:06:41 PM
Thanks for the kind words folks

The "I'm not here to debate" precursor to preaching is just so mindbogglingly unacceptable, it's like a trigger.


Anyway  really glad you enjoyed it, it's great to gouge some value from these drive-by tossers.

My personal favourite was (shamelessly still smiling to myself) ;)


Quote
There's a very good reason why we have to go looking for truth.
Yeah somebody has to be the blind in the blind leading the blind.

again thanks
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: dctrtuba on March 07, 2012, 07:25:33 PM
Thanks very much for the feedback.  I don't appreciate being cussed out for offering an opinion though.  Guys, you have to learn to express your beliefs without insulting the other person.  You also have to learn to respect other people's opinions.  Oh well.  I thought this somewhere to come, where one can be respected.  Apparently not.  This is just a bashing forum. 
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: GodlessHeathen on March 07, 2012, 07:36:11 PM
So, if anyone would like to shed some light on this, like “maybe all those prophecies have been manipulated after they actually happened” either way, I think WWII allowed Jews to return to their holly land, which is something pretty much unique in history

I believe the Old Testament prophets promised that all 12 tribes would return to Israel. Only two have returned, Judah and Benjamin. There is not a trace of the other 10. Either they never existed in the first place or were so absorbed into the surrounding cultures that their identity was completed lost. Either way, where does that leave the promise you cite? Consider also the fact that present day Israel occupies only a tiny sliver of the land that was supposed to have been granted to them by the God of the Bible.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: jetson on March 07, 2012, 07:39:37 PM
Thanks very much for the feedback.  I don't appreciate being cussed out for offering an opinion though.  Guys, you have to learn to express your beliefs without insulting the other person.  You also have to learn to respect other people's opinions.  Oh well.  I thought this somewhere to come, where one can be respected.  Apparently not.  This is just a bashing forum.

I'm sorry you were bashed.  Can you consider that what you offered did not sound like an opinion?  It sounded more like preaching, and factual remarks about things that the atheists here would simply not accept based on your assertion.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Ambassador Pony on March 07, 2012, 07:47:09 PM
Thanks very much for the feedback.  I don't appreciate being cussed out for offering an opinion though.  Guys, you have to learn to express your beliefs without insulting the other person.  You also have to learn to respect other people's opinions.  Oh well.  I thought this somewhere to come, where one can be respected.  Apparently not.  This is just a bashing forum.

The offending post was looked at, as per you report, and action was taken. This is how this forum works. I think the team did a fair job of getting to it quickly, too. That's the business side of this and I thought it was bang up

As a regular member, I'll echo what Jetson said. Opinions are written certain ways, and what you wrote did not include the hallmarks I would expect to see in one.

Furthermore, why should I respect your opinions? I don't think I should respect your opinion, so much as I respect your right to have one. There's a difference, IMO.

In my culture, many folks use a lot of profanity in common speech. Can you get beyond that and show some understanding? Not sure if the poster you are referring to comes from such a culture, but does this respect thing go two fucking ways, or what?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: dctrtuba on March 07, 2012, 07:52:36 PM
Yes, but I didn't mean to insult anyone.
I have had lots of conversations with athiests, and they offer very well thought-out concepts.
It was nice to see some of the people actually give constructive criticism for what I said. 
I wasn't trying to preach at all, and was looking for an athiest's perspective....which I did get from a couple of people.  That was awesome.
I went through a very long time in my life where I studied the heck out of science and philosophy.  Everyone will come up with a different conclusion, because there is so much information to consider.  What is important, is to gather all of the information, then make a decision.
I'm more than willing to put down my beliefs and listen....as I did when I spent time discussing beliefs with athiests.  Yes, I should've worded my post differently.  And there a difference between just cussing, and being cussed AT.  The latter is what I have a problem with.
Since I was insulted so badly, I'm deleting my account. 
I hope that everyone has a nice afternoon.  I mean no insult to anyone, or anyone's beliefs.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: ParkingPlaces on March 07, 2012, 08:02:29 PM
Thanks very much for the feedback.  I don't appreciate being cussed out for offering an opinion though.  Guys, you have to learn to express your beliefs without insulting the other person.  You also have to learn to respect other people's opinions.  Oh well.  I thought this somewhere to come, where one can be respected.  Apparently not.  This is just a bashing forum.

You were lecturing us, dctrtuba. You were talking down to us. It was not you saying that it was your opinion, it was you saying that it was fact and that we are doing it wrong.

You are entitled to your views, of course. There are better ways to get them across then saying to a bunch of people who adamantly disagree with you that"I strongly suggest to really reconsider your strong opinions about things of which you have no understanding. "

That is not peaceful talk. That is not a casual observation. That is not sweetness and light and jesus loves us level conversation. You were saying point blank that you are right, we are wrong, and you left no room for discussion. You also jumped into the middle of a discussion without addressing any of the issues.

But you did say you were "Not here to debate".

Well, we're not here to pussyfoot around with people who swear there is a loving god but act like bullies. Or at least I'm not.

Addendum:

As I wrote this, I strongly suggest to really reconsider your strong opinions about things of which you have no understanding.  posted something reasonable and then disappeared. Had he used that frame of mind and tone perhaps we could have had some interesting discussions. We wouldn't have agreed on much, I'm sure, but we could have kept things civil.

C'est la vie.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: naemhni on March 07, 2012, 08:07:24 PM
Thanks very much for the feedback.

Quote
I don't appreciate being cussed out for offering an opinion though.

I respectfully submit that you should make an effort to grow a thicker skin.  If you participate in Internet discussion forums, you're going to get far worse than what you got here.  Someone once called me a "fucking moron" because I had never heard of Socotra Island.  Better get used to that kind of thing.

Quote
Guys, you have to learn to express your beliefs without insulting the other person.

I am not aware of any civil rights movement that ever made any progress in getting injustice redressed by being unremittingly courteous and deferential.

Quote
You also have to learn to respect other people's opinions.

That depends on what the opinions actually are, doesn't it?  Do you respect the opinions of white supremacists, for example?  (Or, if you are a white supremacist, do you respect the opinions of the civil rights activists of the Sixties?)

Or perhaps you're saying that religious opinions should always be treated with respect?  You believe that, unlike any other type of doctrine, religion deserves its own suit of armor (http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2009/11/armor-of-god.html)?

Quote
Oh well.  I thought this somewhere to come, where one can be respected.  Apparently not.  This is just a bashing forum.

I don't see that you've been bashed.  Actually, you received a reasonably warm reception.  (Granted, you were challenged on what you were saying, but you should have expected that.)  The people who get bashed are the ones who tell us that we are going to spend all eternity being ass-raped in hell by demons -- sometimes adding that they intend to murder us so that our punishment may begin as soon as possible.  People who do that get it in the chest from us with both barrels -- metaphorically speaking, of course.  You weren't like that, so you didn't.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Babdah on March 07, 2012, 08:09:51 PM
I went through a very long time in my life where I studied the heck out of science and philosophy.  Everyone will come up with a different conclusion, because there is so much information to consider.

 I spent many years studying the bible and trying to understand, but the problem came when i started reading other myths in the world and seen recurring themes that I know are not fact in anyway shape or form.

What is important, is to gather all of the information, then make a decision.

Have you considered this? Have you taken time to try and figure out what these "spiritual beings" are? Or have you chalked it up to god.

I'm more than willing to put down my beliefs and listen....as I did when I spent time discussing beliefs with athiests.

Then what is the point if you just listen and not consider that your beliefs are in fact just the same as say the greek gods or even the hindus?


 
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: jetson on March 07, 2012, 09:15:11 PM
Yes, but I didn't mean to insult anyone.
I have had lots of conversations with athiests, and they offer very well thought-out concepts.
It was nice to see some of the people actually give constructive criticism for what I said. 
I wasn't trying to preach at all, and was looking for an athiest's perspective....which I did get from a couple of people.  That was awesome.
I went through a very long time in my life where I studied the heck out of science and philosophy.  Everyone will come up with a different conclusion, because there is so much information to consider.  What is important, is to gather all of the information, then make a decision.
I'm more than willing to put down my beliefs and listen....as I did when I spent time discussing beliefs with athiests.  Yes, I should've worded my post differently.  And there a difference between just cussing, and being cussed AT.  The latter is what I have a problem with.
Since I was insulted so badly, I'm deleting my account. 
I hope that everyone has a nice afternoon.  I mean no insult to anyone, or anyone's beliefs.

No one wants you to leave the forum, but of course you are free to stop posting if this doesn't suit your style.  You can also choose to take a look around, get to know some of the members a little, participate in the current discussions, and read some of the old ones when you can.  Keep in mind that there are theists, and former theists here as well.

Consider our initial approach, and what others have said to you about it.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Boots on March 07, 2012, 09:16:01 PM
Yes, but I didn't mean to insult anyone.
I have had lots of conversations with athiests, and they offer very well thought-out concepts.
It was nice to see some of the people actually give constructive criticism for what I said. 

Well, dctrtuba, I flung a direct insult your way because what you posted was already addressed in my post just above yours.  I suppose it was hypocritical of me to jump on you for not reading the whole thread when I did the same thing.  You have my apologies for that.

that being said, I respectfully request you read my post just before your first one, addressing your argument that you can't argue against things you see/hear/feel, because you certainly CAN.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: kin hell on March 07, 2012, 10:14:59 PM
Thanks very much for the feedback.
you're welcome

Quote
I don't appreciate being cussed out for offering an opinion though.

You should be thanking me for making it so easy for you to be able to play the so sadly predictable theists perennial "victim" card.

Quote
Guys, you have to learn to express your beliefs without insulting the other person.

Oh yeah mate and I suppose
Quote
I strongly suggest to really reconsider your strong opinions about things of which you have no understanding.
isn't dismissive, presumptuous and insulting?

Quote
You also have to learn to respect other people's opinions. 
replay for hilarious hypocrisy
Quote
I strongly suggest to really reconsider your strong opinions about things of which you have no understanding.


Quote
Oh well.  I thought this somewhere to come, where one can be respected.  Apparently not.
 
and your first words were what?
Quote
I'm not here to debate.
you don't even show enough respect to allow the possibility of dissension, conversation or discussion regarding the "pronouncements" you came here to make.
You weren't offering a, different but respectful, opinion in any respectful way, you were perching yourself on your pompous preaching pulpit, and loudly proclaiming from a position of previously denied right of redress to the very people whose site you were visiting as a guest.

I mean step right into our perfumed hallowed halls, and yes we understand that we are forced to accept that you are forbidding us any response to the great steaming turd you feel so necessary to dump on our floor.

Quote
This is just a bashing forum.
So run home sobbing to mommy then.
You're "not here to debate us", so you must just be here to be bashed.

are you abashed?

you should be.

Of course if you'd like to qualify every insulting and dismissively presumptuous observation and "suggestion" you made in your "I'm not here to debate" post, then I, like most humanist rationalists, would be happy to listen to what you have to say.

But don't ever come here expecting to meet "turn the other cheek" christians who meekly bow to your desires.




Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: ParkingPlaces on March 07, 2012, 10:59:19 PM

Addendum:

As I wrote this, I strongly suggest to really reconsider your strong opinions about things of which you have no understanding.  posted something reasonable and then disappeared. Had he used that frame of mind and tone perhaps we could have had some interesting discussions. We wouldn't have agreed on much, I'm sure, but we could have kept things civil.

C'est la vie.

Boy, I sure messed up that post. Just wanted to make it clear what I meant to say. Someone taught me about cut and paste and forgot to tell me it was easy to paste the wrong thing. And sadly I didn't notice until after the available edit time period closed.

What it was supposed to say was:

As I wrote this, dctrtuba posted something reasonable and then disappeared. Had he used that frame of mind and tone perhaps we could have had some interesting discussions. We wouldn't have agreed on much, I'm sure, but we could have kept things civil.

They say "live and learn". I'm past that. Barely alive and learning nothing. Just thought I'd clarify...
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: velkyn on March 09, 2012, 08:55:19 AM
Thanks very much for the feedback.  I don't appreciate being cussed out for offering an opinion though.  Guys, you have to learn to express your beliefs without insulting the other person.  You also have to learn to respect other people's opinions.  Oh well.  I thought this somewhere to come, where one can be respected.  Apparently not.  This is just a bashing forum.

ah, so you were looking for external validation and not a discussion at all. 

Quote
I went through a very long time in my life where I studied the heck out of science and philosophy.  Everyone will come up with a different conclusion, because there is so much information to consider.  What is important, is to gather all of the information, then make a decision.
I'm more than willing to put down my beliefs and listen....as I did when I spent time discussing beliefs with athiests.  Yes, I should've worded my post differently.  And there a difference between just cussing, and being cussed AT.  The latter is what I have a problem with.
Since I was insulted so badly, I'm deleting my account. 
I hope that everyone has a nice afternoon.  I mean no insult to anyone, or anyone's beliefs.
You made baseless claims and insisted that no one knew as much as you.  In that there is no way for a human to get "all of the information, one must make a decision based on what one can find out, and that information on this world, indicates that there are no gods or supernatural nonsense. 

I am guessing that you really would have no problems with people cussing at you *if* you thought yuo had a chance at convincing them you were right.  But since you have no evidence of your claims, you pick up your skirts and go off in a huff

"You can leave in a taxi. If you can't get a taxi, you can leave in a huff. If that's too soon, you can leave in a minute and a huff." Groucho Marx
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: caveat_imperator on March 09, 2012, 01:13:54 PM
OK, here's my problem.

A friend of mine once argued with me on certain topic (Religion of course, Christian to be exact).
Which i really don't give a shit about what she said.
I just don't believe in God, so leave me alone. I'm not forcing her to believe in what i believe anyway (which is Science).
I even say "Okay" when she told me i am going to hell if i don't believe in Jesus.
Then we have a argument.

When i can almost feel i'm going to win that argument.
Then suddenly she beat my argument with this analogy.

One day, there is a scruffy looked man go to a barbershop...(snipped)

Well, i paused for a while.
I tried to argue more, but it feels like i'm already losing...

Can someone help me to answer that?
I don't like feeling like a loser after she came up with that.

I remember that story. Here's an improved version:
Quote
A Christian went to his favorite barbershop for his weekly haircut and beard trimming. In the course of their conversation, they touched upon the subject of God. The barber said: "Look man, I don't think that God exists as you believe."

"Why do you think that?" asked the Christian.

"Well, it's so easy; you only have to go out in the street to realize that God does not exist. If God existed, would there be so many sick people? Would there be abused or crippled children? If God existed, there would be no suffering or pain. Would there be murder or even war? I can not imagine a loving God who would permit ANY of these things."

The Christian didn't want to enter into an argument and could think of no immediate response to the barber's logic. The barber finished his job and the Christian fellow left the shop. The moment he stepped out the door he saw a man sitting on the curb whose long hair and beard were in need of a barber's attention (It looked so long, dirty and untidy).

The Christian turned and reentered the barber shop and said to the barber: "You know what? Barbers absolutely do not exist!"

"How can you say that barbers do not exist?" exclaimed the barber. "Well, I'm here and I'm a barber. I just cut your hair!!!"

"No!" the Christian exclaimed. "Barbers do not exist; because if they did exist, there would be no people with long hair and stringy beard like that man out there in the street, sitting on the curb."

"Wow, what a stupid argument," the barber replied "I see where this is going. So, would you agree that some people like their hair long?"

"Well, yes" admitted the christian.

"And do you know anyone who wants to suffer the horrible things that go on in the world?" continued the barber.

"No... but that's not the point. The point is that there are people with long hair." said the christian.

"Assuming that I didn't just address that, which I did, there is the detail that you purport that god is omnipotent. I'm not. I can't remedy everyone's 'long hair' problem; god is supposed to be able to. Furthermore, I do this as a career, not out of the goodness of my heart. I don't give everyone I can free haircuts, because I have to make a living. Is this why god allows horrific suffering?" the barber queried.

"La la la la la! I'm not listening!" cried the christian, who then stuck his fingers in his ears and ran out of the barbershop.

I can't remember where I got it, though. It might have even been this forum.
Title: Re: I know God lives through faith and the Holy Ghost
Post by: Betelnut on March 09, 2012, 06:29:42 PM
I haven't really ever given much thought to try and logically prove that God lives.

I have however come to know that God truly is real.  I know that God is my Heavenly Father and I am His son.

How do I know this?

Through a basic principle called faith.

"...faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true."

I have read the word of God and had a desire to know if they were true.  That desire took me to have faith by praying to know.  Many times I have prayed for confirmations concerning God, Jesus Christ, and commandments and I have received witnesses by the Holy Ghost.

These witnesses that have helped me know that God is real, that Jesus Christ is our Savior, and that we are God's children are more real to me than if God had, with an audible voice, spoke to me.

I know God is real and He is my father.  Not because of logic but because I have exercised faith.

I actually like this.  I prefer it when Christians just say that there is no logic or reasoning behind their beliefs--that their beliefs are based on faith and nothing else.  Because then it just becomes a matter of saying, "Oh okay, that's cool.  I like pizza but not green beans."  It is when Christians try to use "rationality" and "reason" that they really trip themselves up because, as we know, there is no rationality in faith. 

Christians--stop trying to make sense of it all!  Believe, if you must, but don't try to argue about it!  You are doomed to fail if you do.  It was when Christians started to try to "prove" their beliefs that secularism really started to flourish.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Dgj2301 on March 17, 2012, 06:33:07 PM
I have a masters degree in physics. I have  been an athiest for all my life. I have recently turned to christianity. I turned to it because I needed answers to aspect of my life. I needed a better life. I have always respected religion even as an athiest. I have always believed that people have the right to believe in what they want. a friend invited me to his church. These people were the kindest people ever. The preacher was good at making the bible revelant to the world of today, very inspirational.  These christians take their faith seriously. They live good lives and are not hypocrites. Seems like they teach love, integrity, strength. They help each other our. Many people lack those qualities, even religious people but not the congregation I witnessed. The world is cruel. I decided to join them. The whole notion of god and prayer in still odd to me but the idea of living like jesus seems like the way to be happy. Prayer feels refreshing, a way to clear the mind. The christians I know have very high succesful marriage rates. People here have hit rock bottom and came to the top because of religion. Personally I think its the love, strength and convidence  that they learned that caused them to rise. I have turned to religion for a better life and so far it is working. Is it god? I may never know but the bible has touched me.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: HAL on March 17, 2012, 06:38:14 PM
Welcome to the forum Dgj2301.

I have a masters degree in physics. I have  been an athiest for all my life. I have recently turned to christianity. I turned to it because I needed answers to aspect of my life.

Not to be too harsh right off the bat, but I personally don't believe you yet. I'd like to hear more before I would believe your story. I've been here a long time and stories like these are very suspicious to me.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Ambassador Pony on March 17, 2012, 06:41:10 PM
Bm
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Dgj2301 on March 17, 2012, 06:49:45 PM
 I was going through hard time. I was weak. I needed ways of dealing wit my problems. the preacher was very inspirational so I started to read the bible. It helped me personally. the thought of a god is still a mystery and some things they believe seem preposterous. But the messages that I understood and believed is what helped me.

Why does it seem suspicious? I would like to hear why.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Ambassador Pony on March 17, 2012, 06:51:43 PM
It's like cafeteria!
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: HAL on March 17, 2012, 06:56:00 PM
Again, not trying to be harsh,

... the thought of a god is still a mystery and some things they believe seem preposterous. But the messages that I understood and believed is what helped me.

Why does it seem suspicious? I would like to hear why.

You claim you have a masters in physics, right? You must be a logical and rational thinker to have achieved that. You need evidence of things. You test a hypothesis. You use the empiricism. Yet you abandon all that for an unproven set of myths just to have a good feeling?

That's hard for me to swallow. Very hard.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Dgj2301 on March 17, 2012, 07:07:03 PM
Yes, I do need evidence. I am not saying I belive in god. I am a person of logic. You make good arguement and I just realized that I posted in a thread irrelevant to the message I have tried to give. but the lifestyle jesus wants to people to live, in my opinion seems like a good way. he may have not been a god but he has made an impact. he was probably just a genius, an einstein of his past and people were probaby dumb as ever back then. the christians I know from the church I go to, most have careers in science.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: JeffPT on March 17, 2012, 07:31:04 PM
Yes, I do need evidence. I am not saying I belive in god. I am a person of logic. You make good arguement and I just realized that I posted in a thread irrelevant to the message I have tried to give. but the lifestyle jesus wants to people to live, in my opinion seems like a good way. he may have not been a god but he has made an impact. he was probably just a genius, an einstein of his past and people were probaby dumb as ever back then. the christians I know from the church I go to, most have careers in science.

Can you give us the exact lifestyle that Jesus wants people to live?  Not what the people at the church told you that Jesus wants from you, but exactly what Jesus wants you to do.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: HAL on March 17, 2012, 07:31:40 PM
Yes, I do need evidence. I am not saying I belive in god. I am a person of logic. You make good arguement and I just realized that I posted in a thread irrelevant to the message I have tried to give. but the lifestyle jesus wants to people to live, in my opinion seems like a good way. he may have not been a god but he has made an impact. he was probably just a genius, an einstein of his past and people were probaby dumb as ever back then.

OK, so you like this person's morals, the guy called "Jesus". Use them then. You don't have to believe in gods to use a morality that suits you.

Quote
the christians I know from the church I go to, most have careers in science.

Most have careers in science? So? That means nothing as far as their beliefs in gods goes. Either what they believe can be verified or it can't. Their career choices don't make their beliefs correct. You should know that. That's why I don't trust your claim that you are educated in physics. C'mon, what's going on here?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Dgj2301 on March 17, 2012, 08:03:15 PM
Yes, I do need evidence. I am not saying I belive in god. I am a person of logic. You make good arguement and I just realized that I posted in a thread irrelevant to the message I have tried to give. but the lifestyle jesus wants to people to live, in my opinion seems like a good way. he may have not been a god but he has made an impact. he was probably just a genius, an einstein of his past and people were probaby dumb as ever back then. the christians I know from the church I go to, most have careers in science.

Can you give us the exact lifestyle that Jesus wants people to live?  Not what the people at the church told you that Jesus wants from you, but exactly what Jesus wants you to do.

My opinion is that he wants us to live a life with high self-esteem, high integrity. I believe his messages tell us to be strong and not let things get in our way. Those are the ones that are important to me. I think there are a lot of good metaphors and parables. I know you don't need a Bible to learn those thing but I think the bible along with the friendship of others with the same belief can help keep you in check. Sometimes we do lose ourselves. I was told that I am barely scratching the surface with jesus.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Dgj2301 on March 17, 2012, 08:15:05 PM
Yes, I do need evidence. I am not saying I belive in god. I am a person of logic. You make good arguement and I just realized that I posted in a thread irrelevant to the message I have tried to give. but the lifestyle jesus wants to people to live, in my opinion seems like a good way. he may have not been a god but he has made an impact. he was probably just a genius, an einstein of his past and people were probaby dumb as ever back then.

OK, so you like this person's morals, the guy called "Jesus". Use them then. You don't have to believe in gods to use a morality that suits you.

Quote
the christians I know from the church I go to, most have careers in science.

Most have careers in science? So? That means nothing as far as their beliefs in gods goes. Either what they believe can be verified or it can't. Their career choices don't make their beliefs correct. You should know that. That's why I don't trust your claim that you are educated in physics. C'mon, what's going on here?

You are right, I don't have to believe in god to believe in his morals. That was my intention in the beginning, to learn the morals and gain knowledge. I agree with a lot of it. Faith, imagination is the argument for their belief in god.  I guess, I am trying to force myself to believe in god, to become a Christian. My girlfriend, a girl I want to eventually marry is getting baptized. I can become a Christian and live like them but one of the requirements is to believe in god and I do not want to be a hypocrite yet I don't want to gullible.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: kin hell on March 17, 2012, 09:25:21 PM
Yes, I do need evidence. I am not saying I belive in god. I am a person of logic. You make good arguement and I just realized that I posted in a thread irrelevant to the message I have tried to give. but the lifestyle jesus wants to people to live, in my opinion seems like a good way. he may have not been a god but he has made an impact. he was probably just a genius, an einstein of his past and people were probaby dumb as ever back then.

OK, so you like this person's morals, the guy called "Jesus". Use them then. You don't have to believe in gods to use a morality that suits you.

Quote
the christians I know from the church I go to, most have careers in science.

Most have careers in science? So? That means nothing as far as their beliefs in gods goes. Either what they believe can be verified or it can't. Their career choices don't make their beliefs correct. You should know that. That's why I don't trust your claim that you are educated in physics. C'mon, what's going on here?

You are right, I don't have to believe in god to believe in his morals.

I suspect you didn't mean that comment to imply "god's" morals are real, as in human morality as handed down by god.
You don't have to believe in god to have morals, as I'm sure your prior atheist life is evidence enough...


 
Quote
That was my intention in the beginning, to learn the morals and gain knowledge.

You are faintly condemning everyone outside of xianity to a inferred lack of morals, and you certainly only gain knowledge of the xian myth and its effect in the world by learning about xianity. There is little other knowledge to gain as the secular-like search for knowledge is somewhat frowned upon when faith is the only allowed tool.


Quote
I agree with a lot of it.
Yes but I guarantee you the morality with which you feel sympatico is not xianity's alone, it is a prevalent humanist philosophy that xianity has adopted from what came before.
It has nothing to do with gods.



Quote
Faith, imagination is the argument for their belief in god.

No mate, that is their requirement for belief in god. So far they've offered no compelling arguement or evidence at all.
Again you cannot say their good behaviour is evidence of god as it is countered by the good behaviour of atheists which obviously requires no gods.


Quote
I guess, I am trying to force myself to believe in god, to become a Christian.

.....good luck  ;)  Do you think you could force yourself to believe in the hindu pantheon?
Absence of intellectual honesty is the only way you'll ever believe the myth, and no doubt you'll be always subject to cognititive dissonance every day of your life.



Quote
My girlfriend, a girl I want to eventually marry is getting baptized.
So now the real motive appears  ;)


Quote
I can become a Christian and live like them but one of the requirements is to believe in god and I do not want to be a hypocrite
....well you could have a lobotomy, ;) otherwise how are you going to believe in something that just isn't true, and you know isn't true?


Quote
yet I don't want to gullible.

....well there goes any shot you might have of truly believing.
I don't know what to suggest bloke. It sounds very much as though you are in a classic quandary where the girl of your dreams is getting baptised, and you must be complicit in  her delusion to remain with her.

That's tough. I really cannot say more than I cannot imagine living a lie (ie displaying a false belief in god) is a good basis for a marriage, but that is only my opinion.

good luck mate, I watch with humanist empathy.   

There is no bloody god.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: JeffPT on March 17, 2012, 09:50:55 PM
My opinion is that he wants us to live a life with high self-esteem, high integrity. I believe his messages tell us to be strong and not let things get in our way. Those are the ones that are important to me. I think there are a lot of good metaphors and parables. I know you don't need a Bible to learn those thing but I think the bible along with the friendship of others with the same belief can help keep you in check. Sometimes we do lose ourselves. I was told that I am barely scratching the surface with jesus.

A few things...

Yes, you are probably just scratching the surface with Jesus.  You don't get to the bottom of it until you're an atheist.  When you are a fully invested believer, you're in the middle of it, not the bottom. 

Friendship is good, but you don't need to join a religious cult in order to get them (and yes, they're all cults).  The friendship thing is just how they lure you in.  At the heart of it, however, organized religion is more into exclusion than inclusion.  Sure, once you're in, you're in the 'good guy' club; but with regard to others who don't share the same views, religious belief can be a good catalyst for shunning them.  Don't get me wrong here... being part of the 'good guy' club can feel great, and it might be just what you need to make your life better, but at the heart of it all, sits a big, fat, bloated lie.  Maybe it would be better to join a chess club, or a book club or something, don't you think? 

In what part of the bible did you find Jesus speaking about living with high self esteem and integrity?  I'd like to read some of the passages you found that led you to believe that. 
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Dgj2301 on March 18, 2012, 02:09:42 AM
Yes, I do need evidence. I am not saying I belive in god. I am a person of logic. You make good arguement and I just realized that I posted in a thread irrelevant to the message I have tried to give. but the lifestyle jesus wants to people to live, in my opinion seems like a good way. he may have not been a god but he has made an impact. he was probably just a genius, an einstein of his past and people were probaby dumb as ever back then.

OK, so you like this person's morals, the guy called "Jesus". Use them then. You don't have to believe in gods to use a morality that suits you.

Quote
the christians I know from the church I go to, most have careers in science.

Most have careers in science? So? That means nothing as far as their beliefs in gods goes. Either what they believe can be verified or it can't. Their career choices don't make their beliefs correct. You should know that. That's why I don't trust your claim that you are educated in physics. C'mon, what's going on here?

You are right, I don't have to believe in god to believe in his morals.

I suspect you didn't mean that comment to imply "god's" morals are real, as in human morality as handed down by god.
You don't have to believe in god to have morals, as I'm sure your prior atheist life is evidence enough...


 
Quote
That was my intention in the beginning, to learn the morals and gain knowledge.

You are faintly condemning everyone outside of xianity to a inferred lack of morals, and you certainly only gain knowledge of the xian myth and its effect in the world by learning about xianity. There is little other knowledge to gain as the secular-like search for knowledge is somewhat frowned upon when faith is the only allowed tool.


Quote
I agree with a lot of it.
Yes but I guarantee you the morality with which you feel sympatico is not xianity's alone, it is a prevalent humanist philosophy that xianity has adopted from what came before.
It has nothing to do with gods.



Quote
Faith, imagination is the argument for their belief in god.

No mate, that is their requirement for belief in god. So far they've offered no compelling arguement or evidence at all.
Again you cannot say their good behaviour is evidence of god as it is countered by the good behaviour of atheists which obviously requires no gods.


Quote
I guess, I am trying to force myself to believe in god, to become a Christian.

.....good luck  ;)  Do you think you could force yourself to believe in the hindu pantheon?
Absence of intellectual honesty is the only way you'll ever believe the myth, and no doubt you'll be always subject to cognititive dissonance every day of your life.



Quote
My girlfriend, a girl I want to eventually marry is getting baptized.
So now the real motive appears  ;)


Quote
I can become a Christian and live like them but one of the requirements is to believe in god and I do not want to be a hypocrite
....well you could have a lobotomy, ;) otherwise how are you going to believe in something that just isn't true, and you know isn't true?


Quote
yet I don't want to gullible.

....well there goes any shot you might have of truly believing.
I don't know what to suggest bloke. It sounds very much as though you are in a classic quandary where the girl of your dreams is getting baptised, and you must be complicit in  her delusion to remain with her.

That's tough. I really cannot say more than I cannot imagine living a lie (ie displaying a false belief in god) is a good basis for a marriage, but that is only my opinion.

good luck mate, I watch with humanist empathy.   

There is no bloody god.

You make good points. I really don't have anything to debate on here.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Dgj2301 on March 18, 2012, 02:49:56 AM
My opinion is that he wants us to live a life with high self-esteem, high integrity. I believe his messages tell us to be strong and not let things get in our way. Those are the ones that are important to me. I think there are a lot of good metaphors and parables. I know you don't need a Bible to learn those thing but I think the bible along with the friendship of others with the same belief can help keep you in check. Sometimes we do lose ourselves. I was told that I am barely scratching the surface with jesus.

A few things...

Yes, you are probably just scratching the surface with Jesus.  You don't get to the bottom of it until you're an atheist.  When you are a fully invested believer, you're in the middle of it, not the bottom. 

Friendship is good, but you don't need to join a religious cult in order to get them (and yes, they're all cults).  The friendship thing is just how they lure you in.  At the heart of it, however, organized religion is more into exclusion than inclusion.  Sure, once you're in, you're in the 'good guy' club; but with regard to others who don't share the same views, religious belief can be a good catalyst for shunning them.  Don't get me wrong here... being part of the 'good guy' club can feel great, and it might be just what you need to make your life better, but at the heart of it all, sits a big, fat, bloated lie.  Maybe it would be better to join a chess club, or a book club or something, don't you think? 

In what part of the bible did you find Jesus speaking about living with high self esteem and integrity?  I'd like to read some of the passages you found that led you to believe that.

I really appreciate your comments and you are pretty much accurate. One thing is, I have many friends. Different groups but I don't connect many of them  i would say that i connect more with my family but unfortunately,  its full of drama. I have been hanging out with these Christians for over 2 before I decided to study the bible. They were all good friends of mine, always inviting me out. Always welcoming me with a hug.  Everybody knows each other unlike 99% of churches i have been to. they don't seem like they were discriminating. I think their heart in the right place.  I have friends in that church I knew since elementary school. They recently got baptized and nothing has really changed. Only thing that has changed is we don't go out getting drunk, sleeping with every female.

Jesus teaches about integrity and high self-esteem pretty much every where.

Not that I am saying it works 100% of the time, but what is the best way that you can think of to teach morals and values to a high populated and rebellious civilization.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: HAL on March 18, 2012, 07:47:26 AM
I have been hanging out with these Christians for over 2 before I decided to study the bible. They were all good friends of mine, always inviting me out. Always welcoming me with a hug.  Everybody knows each other unlike 99% of churches i have been to. they don't seem like they were discriminating. I think their heart in the right place. 

OK they're nice people - we get that. Their heart is in the right place, uh-huh. What about their minds? Are you being skeptical in front of them? Are you challenging their claims of the supernatural? Are you asking for verification of miracles and the like? It sounds like to me, well, you are just being indoctrinated into a group that believes in things that have no good evidence. If you were challenging their claims I doubt they'd be so accepting of you. If you aren't using your scientific training in this regard, well, all I have to say is, shame on you.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Samuelxcs on March 18, 2012, 08:01:53 AM
If someone challenged an atheists beliefs of god, the supernatural, giant space mutants, etc they may respond in a good or bad way, just like a theist might. An atheist may call you deluded if you believe that god is real, a theist may try to convert you to one of their own if you are an atheist. People should consider all the possibilities of what is real and what is not as long as they make sense. We could be descendants of sponges for all we know, unless we have a time machine that can take us back to before the earth was created, how will we ever know if even the big bang made it and the rest of the things in the universe? Human technology is good, but it does not tell us all the answers we still do not know.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: DumpsterFire on March 18, 2012, 09:26:56 AM
If someone challenged an atheists beliefs of god, the supernatural, giant space mutants, etc they may respond in a good or bad way, just like a theist might. An atheist may call you deluded if you believe that god is real, a theist may try to convert you to one of their own if you are an atheist. People should consider all the possibilities of what is real and what is not as long as they make sense. We could be descendants of sponges for all we know, unless we have a time machine that can take us back to before the earth was created, how will we ever know if even the big bang made it and the rest of the things in the universe? Human technology is good, but it does not tell us all the answers we still do not know.

This is a fair statement, but if one's primary criteria for determining the possibility that something is real is that it make sense then xianity, god, and the bible simply do not make the cut. There are answers we do not and may never know, but it is shallow and shortsighted to have to fill that desire for answers with anything for which no tangible evidence has ever existed. And it is heinous to seek to impose such a shallow worldview upon others.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Samuelxcs on March 18, 2012, 09:31:48 AM
If someone challenged an atheists beliefs of god, the supernatural, giant space mutants, etc they may respond in a good or bad way, just like a theist might. An atheist may call you deluded if you believe that god is real, a theist may try to convert you to one of their own if you are an atheist. People should consider all the possibilities of what is real and what is not as long as they make sense. We could be descendants of sponges for all we know, unless we have a time machine that can take us back to before the earth was created, how will we ever know if even the big bang made it and the rest of the things in the universe? Human technology is good, but it does not tell us all the answers we still do not know.

This is a fair statement, but if one's primary criteria for determining the possibility that something is real is that it make sense then xianity, god, and the bible simply do not make the cut. There are answers we do not and may never know, but it is shallow and shortsighted to have to fill that desire for answers with anything for which no tangible evidence has ever existed. And it is heinous to seek to impose such a shallow worldview upon others.

That is all true, but Christians are always going to be on this planet, how will people make them see reality? Religious wars are always going to exist until someone gets rid of all believers of a god.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: JeffPT on March 18, 2012, 09:50:52 AM
I have been hanging out with these Christians for over 2 before I decided to study the bible. They were all good friends of mine, always inviting me out. Always welcoming me with a hug.  Everybody knows each other unlike 99% of churches i have been to.

Let me ask you something.  If you wanted to create your own religion, how would you treat other people if you wanted them to join it?  You would do exactly what those people are doing.  It's a fantastic way to lure you in. 

they don't seem like they were discriminating.

The people that don't take their religion seriously, probably won't discriminate much.  But you said these people take their religion seriously.  In order to do that, they HAVE to discriminate.  Discrimination against many different groups has roots in the bible.  Jews, atheists, pagans, 'witches', homosexuals, etc. 

I think their heart in the right place.  I have friends in that church I knew since elementary school. They recently got baptized and nothing has really changed.

I am sure they are, for the most part, great people.  And that's good.  But adopting a religion just because they are nice to you is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? 

Only thing that has changed is we don't go out getting drunk, sleeping with every female.

They grew up, you mean. 

Jesus teaches about integrity and high self-esteem pretty much every where.

Please list any passages from the bible that you may feel backs up this statement.  I am interested in reading them, because I have read the bible, and I do not recall a single thing in praise of self esteem.  I actually think it is more of the opposite, where you are supposed to think of yourself as the lowest of the low, created from the dirt, and requiring a salvation in the form of Jesus' self sacrifice, without which you would be undeserving of a place in heaven when you die.  'Everywhere' is a bit of an over generalization I think.

Not that I am saying it works 100% of the time, but what is the best way that you can think of to teach morals and values to a high populated and rebellious civilization.

Good parenting and role modeling is better at teaching moral values than fear of reprisal by an invisible sky wizard.   
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Dgj2301 on March 18, 2012, 11:23:18 AM
I have been hanging out with these Christians for over 2 before I decided to study the bible. They were all good friends of mine, always inviting me out. Always welcoming me with a hug.  Everybody knows each other unlike 99% of churches i have been to.

Let me ask you something.  If you wanted to create your own religion, how would you treat other people if you wanted them to join it?  You would do exactly what those people are doing.  It's a fantastic way to lure you in. 

they don't seem like they were discriminating.

The people that don't take their religion seriously, probably won't discriminate much.  But you said these people take their religion seriously.  In order to do that, they HAVE to discriminate.  Discrimination against many different groups has roots in the bible.  Jews, atheists, pagans, 'witches', homosexuals, etc. 

I think their heart in the right place.  I have friends in that church I knew since elementary school. They recently got baptized and nothing has really changed.

I am sure they are, for the most part, great people.  And that's good.  But adopting a religion just because they are nice to you is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? 

Only thing that has changed is we don't go out getting drunk, sleeping with every female.

They grew up, you mean. 

Jesus teaches about integrity and high self-esteem pretty much every where.

Please list any passages from the bible that you may feel backs up this statement.  I am interested in reading them, because I have read the bible, and I do not recall a single thing in praise of self esteem.  I actually think it is more of the opposite, where you are supposed to think of yourself as the lowest of the low, created from the dirt, and requiring a salvation in the form of Jesus' self sacrifice, without which you would be undeserving of a place in heaven when you die.  'Everywhere' is a bit of an over generalization I think.

Not that I am saying it works 100% of the time, but what is the best way that you can think of to teach morals and values to a high populated and rebellious civilization.

Good parenting and role modeling is better at teaching moral values than fear of reprisal by an invisible sky wizard.

Believe me, these group of people do take their religion seriously. I'm just talking about this specific church. I know many Christians that just feel they need religion to make their bad life seem like its OK. Maybe I just like those people rather than their religion. But I have always challenged them. It really goes no where. I challenged them about a soul and I told them I wanted proof and they said that you just half to believe and I told them it won't be that easy. I have told that that the whole ideal of heaven and hell seems ridiculous.

Maybe I am not taking it seriously because go over the bible and they write notes for me. I'll look over their notes and look for the passages.

And good parenting don't always create good morals. My parents never thought me good morals. I was always alone. I picked them up one my own.

Anything I didn't reply to is because I agree with the rest of what you said.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Ambassador Pony on March 18, 2012, 12:28:17 PM
I have a friend who got married to a christian fundy. When they were dating, he went through the motions with her a lot, went to church, let it go when she told him him his parents were going to hell...etc.

Anyway, soon after they got married, he stopped going to church. He had had enough, and as a rational person, he just could not do it anymore. Anyway, she was married to him at that point and they persist to this day.

So, you have a bright light at the end of the tunnel, young man. You can marry that girl you are hot for, then, if you change your mind about all that religious bullshit, she'll stick with you. Maybe.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Dgj2301 on March 18, 2012, 12:42:34 PM
I have a friend who got married to a christian fundy. When they were dating, he went through the motions with her a lot, went to church, let it go when she told him him his parents were going to hell...etc.

Anyway, soon after they got married, he stopped going to church. He had had enough, and as a rational person, he just could not do it anymore. Anyway, she was married to him at that point and they persist to this day.

So, you have a bright light at the end of the tunnel, young man. You can marry that girl you are hot for, then, if you change your mind about all that religious bullshit, she'll stick with you. Maybe.

Thank you. I have dated so many women and they were the most pathetic, insecure, and unloyal people I have ever met. This girl, unfortunately has her issues but I have never cared about anybody as much as her. I am not perfect either and she has continued to stick by my side. She told me that she gave in to religion because she did it for me and wanted resolve her issues so we can move forward. I know I shouldn't deal with a girl with issue from the beginning but I see she has come a long way since she has become religious and I decided to stick by her because of her continuous effort. Not to be big headed but I can have almost any girl I want, in any way I want but I decided to choose her. I want to sacrifice something for her. Even if it is my atheism. But my stubborn personality makes it difficult
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: ParkingPlaces on March 18, 2012, 01:09:41 PM
Dgj2301

A little info from an old guy.

Everything you do until you're well into your 40's will involve glands, pheromones, self-esteem and crap. You won't know the last part until you're over 50 and you start looking back and kicking yourself for all the dumb things you did while trying to fulfill your evolutionary role as a semen provider.

There is no advice I can give to prevent this behavior. But maybe, now that you know what is happening, you can occasionally catch yourself in the act and ask "WTF am I doing?"

Think about two things. Integrity and grace. Because those are the two things you'll wish you had at this time in your life when you get to be my age.

A atheist friend of mine married a fundy back in the 70's, and he's still married to her. All it cost him was close to 40 years of going to church at least twice every week and helping raise a beautiful but equally fundy daughter. So it can be done. But she'd better be something special, or a year form now you'll be wanting out.

I last saw my friend about three years ago, and in private asked him about religion. He said he's still an atheist, he just lies about it. I couldn't do that. Live a lie with someone I love. And I couldn't love someone who wanted to change me that much.

You know what they say. "A man marries a woman hoping she never changes. A woman marries a man looking to change him".

And they call marriage a victimless crime.  ;D



Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Dgj2301 on March 18, 2012, 01:34:17 PM
Dgj2301

Think about two things. Integrity and grace. Because those are the two things you'll wish you had at this time in your life when you get to be my age.

I have though about those things, especially after being kicked down in life. I picked myself back up with out religion and currently seeking more knowledge. I am also reading the Torah and the Qur'an.

I know becoming a Christian for a woman while having doubts of a god is hypocritical but as you say, being a semen carrier, I am doing what I can for my offspring and I want to give them a life that was better than mine.

I'm only 29, I feel that I am more mature than people my age. I seek answers and knowledge rather than looking for quick fixes  by drinking and partying. I am still lost and have much more to learn about life. That's why I am in this forum to get opinions.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: nogodsforme on March 18, 2012, 01:52:03 PM
You are searching and at thispoint in your life, you will find something. I liked this Christian boy in college and tried to dump my atheism for him. It did not work because I had to lie to myself. 

If you lived in Saudi Arabia at this point in your life,  you would meet a lot of muslims and Islam would start to make sense to you. You would meet a cute muslim girl with issues and you would marry her. Many people who convert to Islam say they like the feeling of community.

Same thing if you lived in Thailand. You would find yourself being drawn to Buddhism and the cute Thai Buddhist girl with issues who would stick by you.

If you lived in ancient Egypt, it would be the sun god Ra and the hot Nefertiti with issues who would stick by you.....
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Boots on March 18, 2012, 03:14:30 PM
Jesus teaches about integrity and high self-esteem pretty much every where.

Not that I am saying it works 100% of the time, but what is the best way that you can think of to teach morals and values to a high populated and rebellious civilization.

Know what?  My karate school teaches the same thing.  Plus, I get the bonuses of no gods, physical fitness, and the ability to defend myself, with the cameraderie that comes along with training partners/friends with the same "beliefs" if you will.

there are hot chicks there, too.   ;D  Not that *I* care, I'm happily married--but there may be some in a karate dojo near you.

So, you don't need religion.  Maybe you need SOMEthing, adn that's perfectly repsectable.  But you DON'T need religion.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: velkyn on March 19, 2012, 11:38:35 AM
I have a masters degree in physics. I have  been an athiest for all my life. I have recently turned to christianity. I turned to it because I needed answers to aspect of my life.
ah, feeling that old mortality creeping up on you?  A lot of people who were raised Christian find it again when they realize that they don’t like the idea of dying. 

Quote
I needed a better life. I have always respected religion even as an athiest. I have always believed that people have the right to believe in what they want. a friend invited me to his church. These people were the kindest people ever. The preacher was good at making the bible revelant to the world of today, very inspirational.
Sounds just like any cult.  And why did you respect religion as an atheist?   

Quote
These christians take their faith seriously. They live good lives and are not hypocrites. Seems like they teach love, integrity, strength.
  All Christians take their faith seruiosly or they wouldn’t be Christians.  And you’ve not met many Christians if you don’t think they’re hypocrites and that they only teach love integrity and strength.  We have plenty of Christians here who are liars, who hate those who are not like them, who have no strength at all but will do anything to for external validation. 

Quote
They help each other our. Many people lack those qualities, even religious people but not the congregation I witnessed. The world is cruel. I decided to join them. The whole notion of god and prayer in still odd to me but the idea of living like jesus seems like the way to be happy. Prayer feels refreshing, a way to clear the mind. The christians I know have very high succesful marriage rates. People here have hit rock bottom and came to the top because of religion. Personally I think its the love, strength and convidence  that they learned that caused them to rise. I have turned to religion for a better life and so far it is working. Is it god? I may never know but the bible has touched me.
  Again, sounds like any cult. 
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: ParkingPlaces on March 19, 2012, 11:55:49 AM
I'm only 29, I feel that I am more mature than people my age.

Don't take this the wrong way. This is advice, not a criticism. At your age, I'm sure I said exactly the same thing to myself. In fact I know I did. I was wrong.

Maturity is not something that you can self-diagnose. Not at your age. I would suggest you ask for others for input before basing your decisions on your own opinion of how good they will be. And I'm talking friends and such. We anonymous internet folks don't know you well enough to offer reliable or useful life-altering input. (This advise is universal, rather than being aimed directly at you. So it's fine to heed it. In fact, it's mandatory.)

By the time you're 85 or so, you can probably do it. Decide for yourself if you are mature, that is. Prior to that, there will always be cooler heads willing to dispute your claim. Listen to them.

I'm 60, and I know better than to declare myself mature. In matters more important than which kind of soup to buy, I am willing to ask for feedback. And criticism. And accept both.

I didn't know this at your age. But now you do. Use this info wisely.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: screwtape on March 20, 2012, 02:17:38 PM
but the lifestyle jesus wants to people to live, in my opinion seems like a good way.

You should try Buddha for morals. I'd say he was better than jesus H.  Buddha did not demand belief in gods.  In fact, he said trying to figure out whether gods existed or not was a futile waste of time. Buddha's morals were simpler: end suffering.  And no one needed to be slaughtered as a sacrifice to a god to do it.

Bodhisattva's are buddhists who pledge to not enter nirvana until everyone is enlightened.  They promise to be reincarnated to help everyone achieve enlightenment.  Do you know any xians who are willing to wait to get into heaven until everyone can go?  I don't.  I have heard them delight in looking forward to my burning in hell.  To me, bodhisattvas are much more kind and selfless than even jesus H.  And this is from ordinary people, not avatars of god.

he may have not been a god but he has made an impact.

Not as much as Paul.  Most of xianity is based on Paul's malarkey, not jesus'.

he was probably just a genius,

Actually, he was probably mentally ill, like most prophets. 

Since you are in a science field, I recommend you read this link:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/gv/outside_the_laboratory/

Then, check this one out:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/1e/raising_the_sanity_waterline/

Then, dump your girlfriend.  She's a rube.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Dgj2301 on March 20, 2012, 05:05:40 PM
So many to reply to but, I decided to stop my Bible Study. There are a lot of things that I just can not do and I refuse to give up my dignity. They want you to free your mind and use your heart. From my experience, emotions make you irrational. My girlfriend is critisizing my decisions. She was baptized two days ago and ever since, she has been putting distance between us. I do want to continue to read the Bible, the torah, and the qur'an, but for fun. All these replies made me realize I was losing myself because I was vulnerable.

And about prophets being crazing, i remember watching the history channel and I forgot which civilization it was but the homes or bedrooms of the prophets were exposed with monoethylamine coming out of the ground. At the moment I work at a pharmaceutical company and monoethylamine is really dangerous.

And, really buddist believe in no god? I will look into this.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: JeffPT on March 20, 2012, 10:44:52 PM
From my experience, emotions make you irrational.

Pardon my profanity, but AMEN to that. 

Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Dgj2301 on March 20, 2012, 11:06:49 PM
From my experience, emotions make you irrational.

Pardon my profanity, but AMEN to that.

I met with one of them today and he kept contradicting himself. He was telling me that maybe I should take my time, then he was saying I should get it done asap in case I die soon. I told him that I was going to read the whole bible, he said I should only read part of it. Then I asked what was the point of the bible if I should only read part of it. He said to help us out and understand the pain before jesus so I told him that maybe it would be a good idea to read it to under stand god more and he changed the subject. There were just so many more contradictions to mention

If there is no god then there must be a devil because my girlfriend stop talking to me today but another, younger, not religious girl was on my jock today. My girlfriend told me to follow my heart and let my brain rest. I told her that every time I do that, I make the wrong decisions. They say when you are in love, you don't use the right side of your brain. I had a talk with my cousin and she mentioned how religion caused so much pain in the world. I think I am finally gaining my sanity back.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: wright on March 20, 2012, 11:39:56 PM
Welcome to the forum, Dgj.



I met with one of them today and he kept contradicting himself. He was telling me that maybe I should take my time, then he was saying I should get it done asap in case I die soon. I told him that I was going to read the whole bible, he said I should only read part of it. Then I asked what was the point of the bible if I should only read part of it. He said to help us out and understand the pain before jesus so I told him that maybe it would be a good idea to read it to under stand god more and he changed the subject. There were just so many more contradictions to mention

There's a pretty big red flag, right there. I mean, if he didn't even want to argue about context, he probably realizes how riddled with contradiction and appalling "morality" his holy book is. Poor guy is probably struggling with his faith already; I can sympathize with that.

Quote
My girlfriend told me to follow my heart and let my brain rest. I told her that every time I do that, I make the wrong decisions... I think I am finally gaining my sanity back.

Sounds like it, dude. Well done, in my opinion. Not an easy thing when your glands are telling you one thing and your reason another.

Best of luck.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Dgj2301 on March 21, 2012, 12:56:21 AM
Welcome to the forum, Dgj.



I met with one of them today and he kept contradicting himself. He was telling me that maybe I should take my time, then he was saying I should get it done asap in case I die soon. I told him that I was going to read the whole bible, he said I should only read part of it. Then I asked what was the point of the bible if I should only read part of it. He said to help us out and understand the pain before jesus so I told him that maybe it would be a good idea to read it to under stand god more and he changed the subject. There were just so many more contradictions to mention

There's a pretty big red flag, right there. I mean, if he didn't even want to argue about context, he probably realizes how riddled with contradiction and appalling "morality" his holy book is. Poor guy is probably struggling with his faith already; I can sympathize with that.

Quote
My girlfriend told me to follow my heart and let my brain rest. I told her that every time I do that, I make the wrong decisions... I think I am finally gaining my sanity back.

Sounds like it, dude. Well done, in my opinion. Not an easy thing when your glands are telling you one thing and your reason another.

Best of luck.

Another thing is that they keep talking about how they are not "helping" me out to get numbers yet they teach you how to become a "disciple " which is to recruit more Christians.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: screwtape on March 21, 2012, 07:30:21 AM
And, really buddist believe in no god? I will look into this.

They are split.  Some do, some do not.  But it is not an explicit requirement to believe in a god.  And unlike jesus H, whether the Buddha existed or not is irrelevant.  His teachings/ practices are useful.  They do not require faith or mysticism, just practice.  It is more of a philosophy or approach to life than a religion.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: JeffPT on March 21, 2012, 10:58:19 AM
If there is no god then there must be a devil because my girlfriend stop talking to me today but another, younger, not religious girl was on my jock today.

Girlfriends come and go.  Compromising your own logical faculties in order to maintain a belief in something just so you can get the fringe benefits would be something you'd have to live with the rest of your life. 

My girlfriend told me to follow my heart and let my brain rest.

Not to be judgmental, but maybe she needs to put her brain back to work. 

I think I am finally gaining my sanity back.

That's good because it's something you don't want to lose. 
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Dgj2301 on March 21, 2012, 05:51:54 PM
Yeah So I started reading the bible and looked at scriptures that i was told included rape and murder. Yeah, very Godly. So i was being brainwashed to think that the bible was some sort of love story. I was only fed pieces. And it seemed like my Christian friend got nervous and tried to convince me of read the entire bible.

I downloaded a buddah book from amazon and i liked the the first page. it straight out read my mind. i hope I don't get brainwashed by this book.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: OtiumDies on March 23, 2012, 11:10:05 PM
This initial part is a bit off topic but I'd like to say it anyway. I'm fond of some texts called Hermetic Scriptures. There it is said that even though the soul is immortal, mind is not. And if you don't seek, and of course attain eternal life, your soul will still be, but your mind, or the "you" part, will be no more. It's said that if you attain this eternal life for your soul AND mind, you can travel the stars, and all the cosmos, and appreciate God's creation. I associate this very quickly with the current religions' idea of heaven and hell. Be good (ha! find how...), and go (you, your mind) to... heaven, the stars! Or not and go to hell, down, to rot in the earth.

Anyway, digressing to much here...

While I do believe in God, I don't believe in men, and when I hear words like "bible" "koran" etc my ear starts to itch. Specially when is well know to us how the religions we have today came into being and what role they played in the last 2k years. That said, that punitive god many mentioned here, is not my God. My God won't come to me, he'll wait me to go to him.

Today with this "Ancient Aliens" frenzy people are more and more questioning the existence of God. But I liked what Mr. Daniken said at some point, he said "Those are aliens. My God doesn't need a spaceship to come here."  Neither do mine Mr Daniken, dang we must have the same God for God!

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.
 
Sounds more reasonable that the universe was created, than it simply came to be after some big explosion. Maybe if Georges Lemaitre had explained what was BEFORE the explosion, maybe... this self created big bang would have sounded more reasonable than a God theory to me. In a few words, if something exists, something created that.

You don't see that ANYWHERE in the universe. Something being created out of nothing. Atoms of iron simply don't materialize. Nickel decays into them. And nickel in turn are made from silicon, which is made from oxygen and so on. And Hydrogen is created out of a soup, that... came into be own it's own. :o  Sounds like mad man theory to me. Something not from the cosmos must have created the cosmos, and not necessarily this something lives inside the cosmos. The cosmos could well be part of this something. 

Humans have the bad habit of requiring proof for everything, and on the absence of it, truth is always "molded" to fit our knowledge.
 
And to close, I believe people should try disconnect God from religions and religious scriptures that served as tools of control. They are by no means honest and enlightening. These religions are deceptively close to what their true purpose is, and very very far away from what God teachings should lead you to.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: JeffPT on March 24, 2012, 12:03:35 AM
Today with this "Ancient Aliens" frenzy people are more and more questioning the existence of God. But I liked what Mr. Daniken said at some point, he said "Those are aliens. My God doesn't need a spaceship to come here."  Neither do mine Mr Daniken, dang we must have the same God for God!

It's not a frenzy; it's just gullible and naive people watching the History Channel and giving them some ratings so they can occasionally put on worthwhile programming for the rest of us. 

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.

Do you think that your inability to comprehend how the universe could have come into being without a supernatural creation has anything to do with whether or not it actually did?  Why do you think that the universe could not have been born out of an unknown, yet altogether natural process (such as 2 larger universes colliding, or out the other side of a black hole for instance)? 

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. 


Sounds more reasonable that the universe was created, than it simply came to be after some big explosion.

Perhaps that's because you don't have all the facts available to you.  All you are doing here is applying your logic to a question for which you haven't gathered enough facts.  The people who study this stuff for a living tend to think that the universe was created after some big explosion (expansion really).  Unless you have evidence to refute them, why do you think it is reasonable to question their theories?  Have you actually listened to their reasoning?  Until you have, don't you think that the conclusions they make are going to be more reliable than yours? 

Maybe if Georges Lemaitre had explained what was BEFORE the explosion, maybe... this self created big bang would have sounded more reasonable than a God theory to me. In a few words, if something exists, something created that.

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? 

You don't see that ANYWHERE in our universe.  Something being created out of nothing.

Beg to differ, but yes we do. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Atoms of iron simply don't materialize. Nickel decays into them. And nickel in turn are made from silicon, which is made from oxygen and so on.

Umm.  All of that stuff is made when a star becomes a red giant and then explodes in a supernova.  I don't know where you're getting your information.  It's a very interesting process.  Some elements do decay into others, but that's not the primary way we got those you mentioned. 

Perhaps if you cite some of your sources for this information, we could look them over for you.  Here are a few that go into the process in some detail.. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova
http://www.universetoday.com/46644/supernova/

And Hydrogen is created out of a soup, that... came into be own it's own.

No.  Hydrogen formed after the big bang in a process called fusion when the environment reached a temperature cooled enough to allow for the formation of nuclei and atoms from the ambient protons and neutrons that were speeding all around and crashing into each other.   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis

Sounds like mad man theory to me.

I think you need to do more studying.  Your grasp on this stuff is a bit lacking I think.  I'm no expert myself, but I've done a little reading. 

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

Bad habit of requiring proof?  You think it's bad to require proof?  Can you explain the drawbacks of requiring proof in order to determine truth? 

In the absence of proof, science doesn't claim to know.  Only religion does that. 

Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: ParkingPlaces on March 24, 2012, 12:32:39 AM
You don't see that ANYWHERE in the universe. Something being created out of nothing. Atoms of iron simply don't materialize. Nickel decays into them. And nickel in turn are made from silicon, which is made from oxygen and so on. And Hydrogen is created out of a soup, that... came into be own it's own. :o  Sounds like mad man theory to me. Something not from the cosmos must have created the cosmos, and not necessarily this something lives inside the cosmos. The cosmos could well be part of this something.

Welcome OtiumDies. I trust you understand that not many of us will agree with you. Most of us will respect your views as long as you state them as well as you did here. But again, most of us won't agree.

The world of science has an explanation for the formation of iron and nickel and such. It makes sense to the astronomers, the math works well with what we observe, and the time required for those things to happen exists. So weren't not perplexed by such things. Instruments can detect the formation of such materials in stars, and we're pretty sure we've got that part right.

We could be wrong, but not as wrong as you want us to be. Further discovery will build upon the knowledge we have now, and of course we might find something that might turn some of the theories upside down, or sideways, or make them drift a little to the left of right, but I doubt they are totally off base.

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

We don't require proof. We seek it. And in lieu of absolute certainty we use hypothesis and theory after making observations and measurement. We watch our world and our universe and work backwards from what we have now to what we think must have been in the past. While most creationists, for instance, insist that all dinosaurs died in the flood, they make no attempt to explain why different species are found in different levels of rock. Why the primitive reptiles of the Permian Period are never found buried with the dinosaurs alive in the Jurassic and Cretaceous Period. Or why humans are never found with dinosaurs, something one would expect if dinosaurs and all but a few humans all died at the same time. Science can provide an explanation for what is observed. Religion cannot.

Something from "nothing" is a problem for those who want it to be. But energy and matter pop back and forth all the time, and it does not confuse the physicists nearly as much as you want it to.

And we don't go back further than the big bang. Not theory wise. There is of course speculation about what may have happened or what may be out past our universe, but we have absolutely no evidence to tell us what happened prior to that event. So guess what. We say we don't know. If the world of science was full of sinister and dastardly people, they would make something up, tell us it is true, and we mindless followers of mindless scientists would have something to say on the matter in terms every bit as specific as we do about evolution or star formation. But at the point where the information stops, the world of science stops too. It knows better than to make stuff up. That is a useless endeavor.

We on this side of the issue are always amused by how christians (and I assume, many other religions) can be totally perplexed about "something" coming from "nothing" and then say it had to be a god who always was and always will be. None of you ever question where he came from. How he came to exist in the first place when you all insist that something can't come from nothing. You say he isn't of this dimension and he is not of time and conjure up other excuses, but the bottom line is that christians in general aren't the least bit bewildered by the most bewildering of prospects: An infinite deity far more complex than the universe we inhabit. The one that christians say couldn't exist because there is no mechanism for such things. Dismissing that question with a quick flip of the wrist is not the sort of thing you want to do if you are also trying to convert non-believers.

We get christians of all stripes here on the forum. And occasionally we get those of you who think the churches of the world are part of the problem. I also have personal friends who feel exactly the same way. At least generally. But the most common thing we find in christians is that they all have their own version of what they think is true. We often bandy around the number 38,000, as the number of different christian groups. And that of course does not include truly individual christians such as yourself who put your own spin on the perfect word of god. Nobody has yet explained why one book can spin off so many versions of your religion. Personally I would think the resulting inconsistencies would count as a great clue as to the accuracy of the book. Or lack thereof. But then again, I am one of those that require proof. Or at least plausibility. And christianity strikes out every time in that department.

About all we can hope to do (you and me and the others here) is explain our side of the argument so that in the future neither of us will be as perplexed by what those we disagree with think. So long as you present your side of the story with serious and thoughtful writing, most of us here (I can't guarantee all, of course) will treat you with the respect you deserve. Things might get a little heated every now and then if one sides wants answers and the other side ignores that request, but otherwise it may well be possible for us to have an intelligible discussion.

I hope so. And again, welcome.

Edit: Sometimes I can't quote for crap. Fixed it.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: OtiumDies on March 24, 2012, 01:32:15 AM
Wow got a fan right away. Following me around, how silly of you.
I feel like because I do believe in what you don't, I'm automagically down range.


Quote from: JeffPT
It's not a frenzy; it's just gullible and naive people watching the History Channel and giving them some ratings so they can occasionally put on worthwhile programming for the rest of us.

I really don't think the idea of ancient visitors all impossible. And truth to be told, TV is no vehicle to gather information. Actually TV is no vehicle to nothing worthwhile in the real sense of this word.

Quote from: JeffPT
Do you think that your inability to comprehend how the universe could have come into being without a supernatural creation has anything to do with whether or not it actually did?  Why do you think that the universe could not have been born out of an unknown, yet altogether natural process (such as 2 larger universes colliding, or out the other side of a black hole for instance)? 

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

Quote from: JeffPT
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.

Quote from: JeffPT
Perhaps that's because you don't have all the facts available to you.  All you are doing here is applying your logic to a question for which you haven't gathered enough facts.  The people who study this stuff for a living tend to think that the universe was created after some big explosion (expansion really).  Unless you have evidence to refute them, why do you think it is reasonable to question their theories?  Have you actually listened to their reasoning?  Until you have, don't you think that the conclusions they make are going to be more reliable than yours? 

Nah! Believe it when I say, I have ALL the currently available facts. 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. Since your're so trendy, how can they tell that the background noise that is believed to be leftovers from the big bang it really is if they can't "see" that far? Could that be another universe slamming ours and creating some? Well, I don't know that. And me, you, the owner of this site, and the scientists that study this for a living can only speculate wether that was or was not created by some entity. You can't refute this! This question has no scientific answer. And probably will never have one.
 
Quote from: JeffPT
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.


Quote from: JeffPT
Beg to differ, but yes we do. 
youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

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.""

It COULD! Possibility... and possibly is not fact. And if someone prove this theory to be right it will simply hurt fundamental laws of physics, that men that do this for a living fiercely believe in. Mass is energy, and that, is just like real state, you can't simply invent some more.

Quote from: JeffPT
Umm.  All of that stuff is made when a star becomes a red giant and then explodes in a supernova.  I don't know where you're getting your information.  It's a very interesting process.  Some elements do decay into others, but that's not the primary way we got those you mentioned. 

Perhaps if you cite some of your sources for this information, we could look them over for you.  Here are a few that go into the process in some detail.. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova
http://www.universetoday.com/46644/supernova/

No they are NOT!

Sunny, I wound't rely on wikipedia for nothing. I bet if I go there now (and I did and it is), the info on this will be correct, but on many many occasions I caught brutal errors on important documents on wikipedia. Specially when dates are involved. Not reliable man. But I'm digressing.

Stars... beautiful eh?! They are, in the early stages basically hydrogen, helium and dust. As the star burns it's fuel, hydrogen and helium start to fuse to form different elements. And this product fuses again to for more heavier elements, all the way down to iron! Which on my example is where I started to work, but downwards. Iron is the heavier element a star, accordingly to very smart people that do this for a living believe, can produce with it's own gravitational force. So everything heavier than iron is necessarily created on the event of a supernovae, but iron, and lighter elements CAN and DO form inside starts.

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 

Quote from: JeffPT
No.  Hydrogen formed after the big bang in a process called fusion when the environment reached a temperature cooled enough to allow for the formation of nuclei and atoms from the ambient protons and neutrons that were speeding all around and crashing into each other.   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis

I think you need to do more studying.  Your grasp on this stuff is a bit lacking I think.  I'm no expert myself, but I've done a little reading. 

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.

And to the second part of your reply, yes... YESSSS ALWAYS! I always need to do more studying. Too much to learn and so little time to live! I'm lacking A LOT. I know that. You too, need to read more, but that just a wild guess.

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

Quote from: JeffPT
Bad habit of requiring proof?  You think it's bad to require proof?  Can you explain the drawbacks of requiring proof in order to determine truth? 

In the absence of proof, science doesn't claim to know.  Only religion does that. 

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

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.

Well, be good. Think a lot. :)
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: OtiumDies on March 24, 2012, 03:35:30 AM
Quote from: ParkingPlaces
Welcome OtiumDies. I trust you understand that not many of us will agree with you. Most of us will respect your views as long as you state them as well as you did here. But again, most of us won't agree.

The world of science has an explanation for the formation of iron and nickel and such. It makes sense to the astronomers, the math works well with what we observe, and the time required for those things to happen exists. So weren't not perplexed by such things. Instruments can detect the formation of such materials in stars, and we're pretty sure we've got that part right.

We could be wrong, but not as wrong as you want us to be. Further discovery will build upon the knowledge we have now, and of course we might find something that might turn some of the theories upside down, or sideways, or make them drift a little to the left of right, but I doubt they are totally off base.

Noooooo, no no no no no, NO man! Thats why J there is so arid with me. lol No! You got me all wrong. I think is my rotten engrish... well I hate languages, including my own. I'm more like a numbers guy, but I'm digressing.

You got it all wrong! Are you two insane? I give you 10 dollars if you show me anyone in the whole wide world that refuses the current and correct idea of mass formation. Oh.. wait. I think the confusion might be because Ni is actually heavier than Fe... Is that it? Actually stars do form Ni, but is unstable and most of it decays into Fe. Dunno where we missed each other there. I believe in everything you believe, but I do believe in something you do not. That’s basically it. But I love to be proven wrong, it is the easiest way to learn. :P

Quote from: ParkingPlaces
We don't require proof. We seek it. And in lieu of absolute certainty we use hypothesis and theory after making observations and measurement. We watch our world and our universe and work backwards from what we have now to what we think must have been in the past. While most creationists, for instance, insist that all dinosaurs died in the flood, they make no attempt to explain why different species are found in different levels of rock. Why the primitive reptiles of the Permian Period are never found buried with the dinosaurs alive in the Jurassic and Cretaceous Period. Or why humans are never found with dinosaurs, something one would expect if dinosaurs and all but a few humans all died at the same time. Science can provide an explanation for what is observed. Religion cannot.

I’m gonna cut this in some parts to make it easier for me.

You guys are implying I do believe in all that stuff. I don’t. See, we don’t have to fit in those pre determined casts where you are this or that. Why would we? Because some idiot or brilliant man brainstormed last year, or some two thousand years ago? I rather not. I prefer read about all those things, and brainstorm myself. Gimme the data and I’ll crunch it.

I don’t follow creationists ideas. For the sake of our friendship let’s just say I believe God created the big bang. :] You have your idea, I have mine, we can’t prove it, all we can do is drink this Heinecken and talk about it. :P


Quote from: ParkingPlaces
Something from "nothing" is a problem for those who want it to be. But energy and matter pop back and forth all the time, and it does not confuse the physicists nearly as much as you want it to.

If you are talking about quantum physics the information indeed moves from point A to B, but is instantaneously, no energy is added or subtracted. So one banana can go from here to the other side of the universe, but it would still, be a banana, in some way... :P

Quote from: ParkingPlaces
And we don't go back further than the big bang. Not theory wise. There is of course speculation about what may have happened or what may be out past our universe, but we have absolutely no evidence to tell us what happened prior to that event. So guess what. We say we don't know. If the world of science was full of sinister and dastardly people, they would make something up, tell us it is true, and we mindless followers of mindless scientists would have something to say on the matter in terms every bit as specific as we do about evolution or star formation. But at the point where the information stops, the world of science stops too. It knows better than to make stuff up. That is a useless endeavor.

Your ideas are not so different than mine. I don’t think God is behind every door, controlling every single grain of sand in the whole of the universe. Actually in my mind goes like this: I think science IS God, but God is not science, in fact he is the creator of it. To make the audience happy, I can’t prove any of this :P and that’s pretty much where I stop.

Quote from: ParkingPlaces
We on this side of the issue are always amused by how christians (and I assume, many other religions) can be totally perplexed about "something" coming from "nothing" and then say it had to be a god who always was and always will be. None of you ever question where he came from. How he came to exist in the first place when you all insist that something can't come from nothing. You say he isn't of this dimension and he is not of time and conjure up other excuses, but the bottom line is that christians in general aren't the least bit bewildered by the most bewildering of prospects: An infinite deity far more complex than the universe we inhabit. The one that christians say couldn't exist because there is no mechanism for such things. Dismissing that question with a quick flip of the wrist is not the sort of thing you want to do if you are also trying to convert non-believers.

Well, I guess I’m creating my own version then. Because that’s not what I believe in. As far as we know, inside our universe something cannot be created out of nothing. I don’t think God created itself, and we don’t know the other side to know if he exists how he was created. For all we know God can be the consciousness of this bubble we call universe, like a huge void whale and therefore the universe itself. We don’t know, and I agree with you thus far when you say people that follow let’s call mainstream religions are the blind sheep. Away with the pagans as well... :P And I also believe that God must be more complex than it’s creation, that’s the logical assumption, but to my view entirely possible. The universe is unimaginably complex, but if I, or more likely God, added one grain of sand to it, it will be more complex than it is now. So more complex things than the universe itself seem like a valid and possible scenario.

 


Quote from: ParkingPlaces
We get christians of all stripes here on the forum. And occasionally we get those of you who think the churches of the world are part of the problem. I also have personal friends who feel exactly the same way. At least generally. But the most common thing we find in christians is that they all have their own version of what they think is true. We often bandy around the number 38,000, as the number of different christian groups. And that of course does not include truly individual christians such as yourself who put your own spin on the perfect word of god. Nobody has yet explained why one book can spin off so many versions of your religion. Personally I would think the resulting inconsistencies would count as a great clue as to the accuracy of the book. Or lack thereof. But then again, I am one of those that require proof. Or at least plausibility. And christianity strikes out every time in that department.

Ok, now I’m feeling kinda unwelcome. hehe Let me break that down.

I’m not a christian.
I don’t think churches are the problem, I think they are part of the problem.
My version is not the truth, I never said that! I have my own believes, but they tend to morph as I learn. I’m young, I rather take my time, learn, read a lot, study, talk to other people that believe what I believe, and specially with those that do not. Then is crunch time! ;-]
 
Quote from: ParkingPlaces
About all we can hope to do (you and me and the others here) is explain our side of the argument so that in the future neither of us will be as perplexed by what those we disagree with think. So long as you present your side of the story with serious and thoughtful writing, most of us here (I can't guarantee all, of course) will treat you with the respect you deserve. Things might get a little heated every now and then if one sides wants answers and the other side ignores that request, but otherwise it may well be possible for us to have an intelligible discussion.

I hope so. And again, welcome.

Thanks man! I tough I was being banned, taken to the pillory or had my hand cut off or something. lol

Quote from: ParkingPlaces
Edit: Sometimes I can't quote for crap. Fixed it.
And you lost me here. What did you mean?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: voodoo child on March 24, 2012, 03:53:19 AM
 
OtiumDies

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

who created god? around and around we go.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: OtiumDies on March 24, 2012, 04:34:48 AM
who created god? around and around we go.

Don't know. What was before the big bang?

I could speculate that if multiple universes exist, each one could have it's own God, who in turn could create another like Him. But that would be fail in essence, because we will go around once more.

Or, I could use the notion of infinity and eternity, the same infinity and eternity the universe will expand to, but backwards and applied to our God here. If God created the universe, and the universe is infinite and eternal, why can that be applied to God itself but backwards? I'm sleepy, does that make sense?

Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: One Above All on March 24, 2012, 04:37:12 AM
Don't know. What was before the big bang?

What you're asking makes no sense. The Big Bang was the beginning of time and space; both of which are requirements for existence and interaction. If your claim that your god created/caused the Big Bang was to be given one iota of credibility, it would require you to completely rewrite space-time equations to allow for space and time before they began. You can see where that might be a problem.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: OtiumDies on March 24, 2012, 05:24:52 AM
What you're asking makes no sense. The Big Bang was the beginning of time and space; both of which are requirements for existence and interaction. If your claim that your god created/caused the Big Bang was to be given one iota of credibility, it would require you to completely rewrite space-time equations to allow for space and time before they began. You can see where that might be a problem.

And that's where we go back to the word theory. As in God theory, or the big bang theory, or that girl is virgem theory, and so on.

We humans are so sure of ourselves, that is so wrong! All we actually had were mere 300 years of good applied and theoretical science and we thing we can be so sure of things when history teaches us over and over and over again we are not "ready yet".

I entirely got your concept of the creation, but I don't think you are grasping mine. If God created the big bang, then he created the universe itself, he is out of these equations. He is the Father of them.

And since we are in theory land the string theory has some weird ideas, that I'm not entirely familiar with, for example about dimensional membranes with spaces in between them that generate universes when they touch. How E = mc2 would behave there? I'm asking ... lol I'll look into it tomorrow.

If not by string theory, I'll tacke your argument with something more real. A blackhole for instance. It breaks the so cherished "laws". Well does that mean we will have to rewrite all our facts about our universe? I guess not, we just have to understand more than we do now. And maybe, just maybe things behave differently in different parts of the universe (another theory that emerged recently). Does E = mc2 is respected 100% of the time even inside our own universe and the things that reside inside? No. Some one could say "yes, because inside a blackhole time stops" lol, but no.

Our own laws of physics are not respected inside this body, and these are created by the universe, which is much complex, that in turn... well you know where I'm going. And since most people that don't think are lobo-church sided, and people that do think are skeptical, I guess it will take twice the mount of time to discover the real truth about what created the universe.

Now I'm gonna count some sheep and crash. Big crunch, here and now.

See u guys hopefully tomorrow
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: One Above All on March 24, 2012, 05:26:40 AM
A theory is not a guess. A theory is an explanation of how the facts fit together. Theories also make predictions as to what we should find if the theory is correct and are falsifiable. The Big Bang has all three. Your guess does not.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: OtiumDies on March 24, 2012, 05:32:03 AM
A theory is not a guess. A theory is an explanation of how the facts fit together. Theories also make predictions as to what we should find if the theory is correct and are falsifiable. The Big Bang has all three. Your guess does not.

Agree.  You got this point. 100% The big bang has all of them.

But that does not explain why can't God come before the big bang and thus break the very laws that celestial bodies do break.

 :o :o :o gnite
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: One Above All on March 24, 2012, 05:34:06 AM
You're missing a couple of steps:
First prove that a god exists. Then prove that it's the one you believe in. Then prove that it can break all the laws of physics.

Do all of these things and you will be one step closer to achieving "theory status".
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: OtiumDies on March 24, 2012, 05:55:38 AM
You're missing a couple of steps:
First prove that a god exists. Then prove that it's the one you believe in. Then prove that it can break all the laws of physics.

Do all of these things and you will be one step closer to achieving "theory status".

Could you boost such remark in correlation to black holes 30 years ago? I guess not, but now you can. See how your perception of the cosmos changes as you learn more, and what was not, now is.

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.

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...

Just out of curiosity, do you believe in the what Lucifer is? Or was just a way to repress poor lobotomized christians? Srly believe it? I don't think you do, but it does not hurt to ask.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: naemhni on March 24, 2012, 06:02:35 AM
And that's where we go back to the word theory. As in God theory, or the big bang theory, or that girl is virgem theory, and so on.

You know, I'm a big fan of the various "Law & Order" television series (which, although dramatized for television, actually do follow real life procedure in quite a few ways).  Typically, an episode of the show works like this: the show opens with either a crime being committed or the discovery of a crime having been committed -- for example, two guys operating a garbage truck early in the morning are getting ready to empty a dumpster, and behind the dumpster, they discover a dead body.  The detectives arrive on the scene and begin their investigation.

First, the detectives will establish some preliminary facts: the victim's identity, the time of death, the method used to commit the murder, and so on.  Once they've gathered enough facts, they will formulate a theory as to who committed the murder.  For example, if the victim is a wealthy investment banker whose will leaves everything to his wife, the detectives' first theory might be that the wife killed him for the money.  The detectives then investigate further to see whether this theory is correct.  When following up on this theory, they may discover that the wife was attending a social function at the time of the murder, which is confirmed by a number of others who were also at that social function.

But.

It would be completely ridiculous for the detectives to then say, "Since our theory was wrong, maybe the victim is still alive."

I started writing this with the intention of making a comparison to fundamental Christians' views on scientific theories (especially the theory of evolution, but other theories as well).  I can't remember what my point was, though.  *cough cough*
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: One Above All on March 24, 2012, 06:10:40 AM
Could you boost such remark in correlation to black holes 30 years ago? I guess not, but now you can. See how your perception of the cosmos changes as you learn more, and what was not, now is.

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".

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.

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

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

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.

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.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Alzael on March 24, 2012, 06:29:21 AM

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.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: ParkingPlaces on March 24, 2012, 09:13:08 AM
Quote from: 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.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: OtiumDies on March 24, 2012, 11:00:31 AM
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).


Quote from: Lucifer
Quote from: OtiumDies
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.


Quote from: Lucifer
Quote from: OtiumDies
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. ;-]

Quote from: Lucifer
Quote from: OtiumDies
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.


Quote from: Lucifer
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.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: One Above All on March 24, 2012, 11:14:42 AM
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.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: OtiumDies on March 24, 2012, 11:50:07 AM
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. :P

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.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Alzael on March 24, 2012, 12:25:32 PM
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 .
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: OtiumDies on March 24, 2012, 01:53:16 PM
"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. :P 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! :P




Edited for engrish corrections. That happens a lot to me, the guy with no first language. :(
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: ParkingPlaces on March 24, 2012, 02:42:02 PM
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:
Quote
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.

Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: sun_king on March 24, 2012, 02:48:48 PM
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

Quote
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
Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Alzael on March 24, 2012, 03:16:19 PM

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. :P 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.

Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Boots on March 24, 2012, 04:06:06 PM
Funny how we take fiction for facts in a daily basis.

Please provide examples?

Quote
And BELIEVE ME WHEN I SAY THAT.

Ummm . . . I"m going with "no, not unless you back it up."
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: OtiumDies on March 24, 2012, 09:19:55 PM
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
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: ParkingPlaces on March 24, 2012, 09:29:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Dante on March 24, 2012, 10:01:27 PM
Quote
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.




Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: OtiumDies on March 24, 2012, 10:03:31 PM
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:

Quote
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:

Quote
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.


Quote
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.


Quote
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.

Quote
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.


Quote
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. :P 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. @#$@#$
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: monkeymind on March 24, 2012, 10:04:28 PM
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!
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: OtiumDies on March 24, 2012, 10:06:04 PM
Quote
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!
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: OtiumDies on March 24, 2012, 10:16:51 PM
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. :P

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.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: monkeymind on March 24, 2012, 10:28:45 PM
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. :P

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!
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: sun_king on March 24, 2012, 10:34:14 PM
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.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: OtiumDies on March 24, 2012, 11:00:51 PM
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.

Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: JeffPT on March 24, 2012, 11:16:25 PM
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? 

Quote from: JeffPT
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.   

Quote from: JeffPT
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. 
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: sun_king on March 24, 2012, 11:37:17 PM
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.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Boots on March 25, 2012, 08:23:19 PM
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?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Quartinium on April 03, 2012, 07:42:54 AM
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.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: MonicaLynn on April 05, 2012, 09:25:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: DumpsterFire on April 05, 2012, 11:12:42 PM
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!
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: velkyn on April 06, 2012, 09:02:34 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: MonicaLynn on April 06, 2012, 09:16:17 AM
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 :(
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: velkyn on April 06, 2012, 09:28:51 AM
Went to bed. Sorry for no reply. Ad a long day :(

We all do that.  And I am sorry to hear about your grandmother.  So, would you want a one-on-one discussion?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Strawman on April 10, 2012, 08:37:15 PM
I do mean YHWH, and just because you know of some immoralities and errors in the bible, doesn't mean he doesn't exist. For we know the nature of people, and people were those who wrote the bible, all of them Jews, which were compared to a whore by God himself, therefore, any errors and evil claims related to God are most likely related to Jewish people contaminating the word of God.
Then what use is the Bible if it's been "contaminated"? Would it not make sense to burn the tarnished Bible and wait for God to reveal himself again in this age of global communication where such forgery would be almost impossible to repeat?

Why would God reveal himself to people he knew would alter his words? Wouldn't he have expected that? Would he not speak to them in a way that would account for their dishonesty and produce his intended message in spite of their alterations? Or did the Jews outsmart God?

I find the idea of God calling someone a whore highly amusing!
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: velkyn on April 11, 2012, 07:55:53 AM
good points, strawman, though I think the only way to even get close to preventing forgeries, from humans or aliens  ;D would be to have this god inscribe its message on the cliffs of Dover and that doesn't eliminate the possbility.  :) 
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: B_w_m on April 11, 2012, 06:34:36 PM
I’d like to start by pointing at revelations in the bible; most of them have been proven to become true. So, if anyone would like to shed some light on this, like “maybe all those prophecies have been manipulated after they actually happened” either way, I think WWII allowed Jews to return to their holly land, which is something pretty much unique in history, for we know (as an example) American natives will never recover their land.

Not one bible "prophecy" has come true in any way shape or form. People just "think" that they have because of the media. Just like the media and TV try to bring Kim Kardashian into our existence, it does so with the bible as well. Things seem to be increasing these days only because the world is more "connected" now because of technology and we now know about things on a larger scale. The media influences the world and the world view. . . They show things the way that they want to show them. But the world is the same as it's always been, there has always been violence, earthquakes, gays, prostitutes, lying, cheating, adultery, etc. The same is for the Jews as well. They are influenced by the same "prophecies," because of the world view. I don't think I'm explaining this right...

Let me say this. If I told a little kid, say, my nephew that in the future, if the house is clean, and he moves into the garage of his house, that I will give him a million dollars, then I can bet you anything that at some point in the future, despite fights with his mother and father, he will at some point try to clean the house and live in his garage.

The Jews are only trying to do "their" part on the world scale because they think it's what they "have" to do because it is written so. They are just as delusional as the rest of the bible
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: nogodsforme on April 12, 2012, 03:05:14 PM
^^^^That's right. Jewish people who thought that there was a prophecy about them having a country were inspired to fight to get a country. As we know, history is written by the winners. If the Jews had failed to convince the Brits and the US and the UN to support them, they would have failed to establish Israel. But they succeeded, so, of course people point to the "fulfilled prophecy".

Thousands of people go to sleep and dream that they are going to win the big lottery, so they buy a lottery ticket. The person who does win thinks it was a psychic prophecy come true. The 99% who had the same psychic dream but did not win forgets they even had such a dream....
Title: Probabilities of God's existence
Post by: ann on April 15, 2012, 10:32:01 AM
I have a question that I have to put into writing before I start thinking of others.

I was listening to a song called "Lights" by Ellie Goulding that just came out. This song has a beautiful ethereal feel to it, You would never know this song is about a girl feeling completely alone and lost. When the "lights" are shone on her, it makes her feel like when she felt the safeness of her childhood at home.

People took it up to write their own meanings, some claiming she's talking about her brother and sister that passed away, others say the "lights" are God being there with her and with his omnipresence always being there with her. Of course, I realize all the meanings are everyone's own subjective views on life, religion.

But it really made me think:

Is God an imaginary humanized, yet omniscient entity that is omnipresent in our human lives to make us feel like we are not along and we should follow "His" ways because he's always there watching? Is God a curtain to hide the fact that we are completely alone?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence
Post by: Brakeman on April 15, 2012, 01:23:33 PM
Is God an imaginary humanized, yet omniscient entity that is omnipresent in our human lives to make us feel like we are not along and we should follow "His" ways because he's always there watching? Is God a curtain to hide the fact that we are completely alone?
He's not watching as he doesn't exist, of course. What is loneliness? It is an innate safety mechanism for herd animals, of which man is a member. We feel sad when we aren't around our "herd" because of our drop in trickle dopamine, the chemical in our brains that makes us happy. Like it or not, we are organic robots, we feel how our nervous system program tells us to. If you doubt this, try a few mind altering drugs.(once)

Woesome songs ply our repressed memories to evoke emotion and nudge our brain to cease it's maintenance levels of dopamine, thus we get teary and sad and sometimes suicidal. Simple biochemistry.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence
Post by: Petey on April 17, 2012, 08:53:29 AM
Is God an imaginary humanized, yet omniscient entity that is omnipresent in our human lives to make us feel like we are not along and we should follow "His" ways because he's always there watching? Is God a curtain to hide the fact that we are completely alone?

Yes to both.  God is many different things to many different people, but when you strip away all of the dogma, apologetics, rituals, and mental gymnastics, it always boils down to god functioning as a comfort/safety device.  See also Star Stuff's signature, where "security blanket" or "passifier" can be substituted for "imaginary friend".
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: jeremy0 on April 17, 2012, 08:19:15 PM
I’d like to start by pointing at revelations in the bible; most of them have been proven to become true. So, if anyone would like to shed some light on this, like “maybe all those prophecies have been manipulated after they actually happened” either way, I think WWII allowed Jews to return to their holly land, which is something pretty much unique in history, for we know (as an example) American natives will never recover their land.

Not one bible "prophecy" has come true in any way shape or form. <snip>
The only prophecies that have become true are the ones in your head.  It is the same as praying, fortune-telling, or being a prophetic sleuth...

I had a spat where people were always saying - 'but the prophecies in the bible are all becoming true..' and then I thought - but the prophecies in the bible[1] are nothing more than a fallacy.  It speaks generally enough so it applies to something at some point in time.

For example - music.  Music is meant to apply to the individual listening - so they can 'relate' to the music.  This is our understanding of rocknroll... It does so by being generic and unspecific.  The bible, Dave Matthews, and that dude that used to speak to spirits are affectively no different from eachother..


[1] See Revelation..  and it's false applications from everyone in recent history..
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: sheri817 on April 19, 2012, 12:19:20 PM
hello lucifer, what do u think about god? brakeman? strawman? anyone?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: One Above All on April 19, 2012, 12:30:46 PM
hello lucifer, what do u think about god? brakeman? strawman? anyone?

Which god?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: sheri817 on April 19, 2012, 12:33:58 PM
idk, any? i dont really know much about religion, i never studied it
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: One Above All on April 19, 2012, 12:36:07 PM
idk, any?

I'm an atheist. Guess.
If you want more, you're gonna have to be specific.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: sheri817 on April 19, 2012, 12:36:47 PM
im just curious, and i can't really believe in anything unless i have proof
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Historicity on April 19, 2012, 12:37:50 PM
Kymer, is that you?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: sheri817 on April 19, 2012, 12:39:41 PM
im guessing that an athiest doesn't believe in any gods or religion?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: rev45 on April 19, 2012, 12:40:04 PM
idk, any?
That's quite a big question considering just how many have been invented throughout history.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/a_big_list_of_gods_but_nowhere_near_all_of_them (http://www.rationalresponders.com/a_big_list_of_gods_but_nowhere_near_all_of_them)
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: sheri817 on April 19, 2012, 12:40:54 PM
who is kymer? any yes rev 45 that is why i put any
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: sheri817 on April 19, 2012, 12:42:15 PM
some people believe in just god, some god and jesus, some god jesus and satan etc??
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: monkeymind on April 19, 2012, 12:54:56 PM
im guessing that an athiest doesn't believe in any gods or religion?

What's an atheist?


And what does belief have to do with it?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Omen on April 19, 2012, 01:06:34 PM
im guessing that an athiest doesn't believe in any gods or religion?

Atheism is not a belief system in and unto itself.   More generically it is the lack of a belief in a god or gods.  Religion by definition is a belief in the supernatural, a belief in a god is a religion.  A 'god' has no self evident meaning, it is meaningless without the subjective attributes assigned to it within the context of whatever religious belief one is claiming.  God labels and religious beliefs are one and the same.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: rayoflight on May 15, 2012, 11:10:29 PM
Faith in God is blind faith.  Yet wouldn't the world be infinitely better if he made himself clearly known?  For instance, during the Superbowl, a cloudy hand comes down from the Heavens and points to the center of the field.  Jesus appears.  100% absolute TV coverage, 100,000 in-person witnesses - no disputes.  Then a booming voice says "I an real, I am here.  Always have been, always will be.  Christianity - as you call it - is in fact the only true religion.  No other Gods ever existed.  Goodbye".  Then the cloud hand scoops up Jesus and he's whisked away into the clouds.

I'm not begging for someone to poke a hole in how this happened.  The point of this example is to assume 100% proof happens.

100% of Christains would say "told you so" and live their lives in 100% identical fashion to the way they already lived.  It's simply a "told you so" moment for them.  It may be a celebratory moment for them - but it changes nothing.  Proof or no proof - they are basically unchanged.

Yet all Christains hope to sign up more Christains.  That job just got a lot easier.  True good - which most Christains do (helping others, building houses for the needy) - suddenly - there's much more help.

Very very few - worldwide - could go against this event.  Other religions might still claim it to be a battle of the Gods - and claim their's still existed but just hasn't shown himself yet - but it would be a very quick battle.  All other religions would fold. 

The world - now knowing sin would truly be punished and faith would truly be rewarded - would join together.  World peace.

How does blind faith strengthen anything?  Does God say "well, you believed in me when there was no proof.  But this other guy, he only believes in me now that he's seen me.  That's minus one for you, buddy."  Nope - not the way The Bible reads.

People "see the light" all the time.  Some even have experiences they deem as actual proof - which is when they turn Christain?  Are they minus one?

Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: GodlessHeathen on May 16, 2012, 01:04:32 AM
People "see the light" all the time.  Some even have experiences they deem as actual proof - which is when they turn Christain?  Are they minus one?

What about those of us, like myself, who fervently believed when we were Christians and "saw the light" of atheism? Never "really" believed in the first place?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: nogodsforme on May 16, 2012, 03:00:33 PM
^^^That is what the Christians who come here tell us. If you do not believe now, well, you never really believed.

I was taught the JW beliefs from birth and knew no other way to be, until I started asking questions that poked unfillable logical holes in the religion at about age ten. I tried to hang onto religious belief for the next couple decades. But once rational thinking takes hold, it is very hard to shake loose.

Since I am now an atheist, I was "never really a Christian". Like I was just faking it all the years I was religious? Fake praying, fake bible study, fake church attendance, fake evangelizing other people, fake being hassled for adhering to a really strict faith?[1]
 
Well, I don't know what else to call it, because if JW's are not religious, nobody is. During my childhood, I did not know anything but the Christian religion. And no religion is able to hold up against plain old logic and common sense.
 1. If we former Christians were all faking it, religious people should be in a panic because there are tons of people around them, future atheists, pretending to be Christians right now! ;D
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: meconopsilo on May 22, 2012, 04:15:17 PM
hmmm...gods definately not real. i can put my life on that.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: meconopsilo on May 22, 2012, 04:18:00 PM
what light is it that these people see..scientifiacally speaking i understand that we all see light unless blind. religously you aint seen a thing bc there is no "light" to see. and as your attourney i advise you to go get the little brown bottle from my shaving kit.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: meconopsilo on May 22, 2012, 04:21:40 PM
a god can only be as real as the self makes it out to be. yet when the individual feels the self as agod now thats a different story. nietsche. lol. i dont like the concept of jesus bc its stupid. oh dude cmon lets write a book about a faggot hippy and finally place his corpse on a stick. yeah ! grat idea. WTF ??? who let them into the ergot infected bread again ???
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: cybr on May 23, 2012, 11:32:45 AM
Didn't it also say He would return within a generation of the Jews going home?  I think a generation has come and gone.  Like Nostradamus...much of the bible is worked and reworked to meet your needs.  Like a few years back when some group thought the bible was coded and could be read with a computer.  My opinion is that there were many god/man sects at that time among the Romans.  None were meant to be taken as historical.  Gnostic (finding the meaning of life stuff) was what they were all about.  But Rome came apart, the church filled the void, books were destroyed and the Dark Ages came about.  All of a sudden we have Jesus as a real person.  The rest is history.

There is no proof for a sky daddy.  Just watching religious people should be proof of that alone.

70 is written concerning Tyre... 

http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=seventy+tyre&qs_version=NIV

20 Joshua and Jeremiah...

http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/index.php?search=twenty%20years&version1=NIV&searchtype=all&limit=none&wholewordsonly=no&startnumber=51

40 Egypt...

http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=forty+egypt&qs_version=NIV

1948 + 70

1948 + 60

2018 - 2008.

1948 + 50 = 1998 = 666 The Talents given to Solomon for The Temple Building {for The Body is The Temple} x 3.

+ 23 Jeremiah.

1948 + 3 - 70 = 1881 { for the time of the introduction of certain inventions including electricity was coming with Ampere, Faraday, Ohm, Tesla...} - 70 = 1811...

+ ~10


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Civil_War

Don quixote...

1908 Russia 'Comet'

WWI

1914 - 1918 ~4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War

WWII

1939 - 1945 ~6

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWII

Public introduction of Atomic energy ...

1945 - 1908 = 37;  + 3 concerning Egypt... + 5...

1953 - 40 = 1913

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt

2011 - 1953 = 58... - 40 - 18 {6+6+6}
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Zankuu on May 23, 2012, 11:37:07 AM
cybr, I can't decipher your post. What is it you're trying to explain?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: ParkingPlaces on May 23, 2012, 12:11:53 PM
cybr, I can't decipher your post. What is it you're trying to explain?

I think you had to be there.  :)
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: freakygin on May 24, 2012, 08:47:00 PM
A friend of mine just gave me this article.

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/lifestyle/05/24/12/dig-proves-bethlehem-existed-centuries-pre-jesus

JERUSALEM, Israel - Israeli archaeologists said on Wednesday they had discovered the first physical evidence supporting Old Testament accounts of Bethlehem's existence centuries before the town became revered as the birthplace of Jesus.
The proof came, they said, in a clay seal unearthed near the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem and imprinted with three lines of ancient Hebrew script that include the word "Bethlehem".

Eli Shukron, who directed the excavation on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority, said the seal apparently had been placed on a tax shipment of silver or agricultural produce sent from Bethlehem to the King of Judah in nearby Jerusalem in the 8th or 7th century BC.

"This is the first time the name Bethlehem appears outside the Bible in an inscription from the First Temple period," Shukron said in a statement, referring to the years 1006 BC to 586 BC.

The coin-sized remnant of the seal proves that Bethlehem - first mentioned in the Book of Genesis - "was indeed a city in the Kingdom of Judah, and possibly also in earlier periods", he said.
Bethlehem is located on the West Bank, just south of Jerusalem.



And then, she said "See? The bible is a true story! There's evidence!"
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Brakeman on May 25, 2012, 06:11:42 AM
How pathetic! A shard is found with about 3 or 4 markings on it, interpreted to be consonants, as the language had no vowels, and these scratchings now prove the existence of a thriving city miles away? I'm glad the discoverer's aren't jewish, as that would raise a question of bias.

So if a dog's butt looks like jesus, is that proof of an arisen savior?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: freakygin on May 25, 2012, 07:53:56 AM
So if a dog's butt looks like jesus, is that proof of an arisen savior?

You mean this one?

(http://guanabee.com/media/uploads/dog_butt_jesus_medium.jpg)
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Omen on May 25, 2012, 07:59:04 AM
How pathetic! A shard is found with about 3 or 4 markings on it, interpreted to be consonants, as the language had no vowels, and these scratchings now prove the existence of a thriving city miles away? I'm glad the discoverer's aren't jewish, as that would raise a question of bias.

So if a dog's butt looks like jesus, is that proof of an arisen savior?

It's not really that far out of the question, this falls neatly within the only time period in which we do have evidence to support at least some of the claims of the OT as history.  Which begins around the 8th century BCE, the only circumspect conclusion is that this was part of the 'greater' kingdom of Judah as if a Kingdom of Judah actually existed as described.  Archaeology paints a different history from this, where there were two separate kingdoms in southern and northern Israel which is later united under the religious reforms of King Josiah. ( 7-6th century BCE ).
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Shashank on May 30, 2012, 07:51:24 AM
for all those delusional donkeys that make me SICK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Critics such as Richard Dawkins argue that religious belief often involves delusional behavior.[28] American author Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation compares religion to mental illness, saying it "allows otherwise normal human beings to reap the fruits of madness and consider them holy."[44]

There are also psychological studies into the phenomenon of mysticism, and the links between disturbing aspects of certain mystic's experiences and their links to childhood abuse.[45][46][47] In another line of research, Clifford A. Pickover explores evidence suggesting that temporal lobe epilepsy may be linked to a variety of spiritual or ‘other worldly’ experiences, such as spiritual possession, originating from altered electrical activity in the brain.[48] Carl Sagan, in his last book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, presented his case for the miraculous sightings of religious figures in the past and the modern sightings of UFOs coming from the same mental disorder. According to Professor Vilayanur S. Ramachandran, "It's possible that many great religious leaders had temporal lobe seizures and this predisposes them to having visions, having mystical experiences."[49] Dr. Michael Persinger stimulated the temporal lobes of the brain artificially with a magnetic field using a device nicknamed the "God helmet," and was able to artificially induce religious experiences along with near-death experiences and ghost sightings.[50] Neuropsychology Professor John Bradshaw also says:

    Some forms of temporal lobe tumours or epilepsy are associated with extreme religiosity. Recent brain imaging of devotees engaging in prayer or transcendental meditation has more precisely identified activation in such sites — God-spots, as Vilayanur Ramachandran calls them. Psilocybin from mushrooms contacts the serotonergic system, with terminals in these and other brain regions, generating a sense of cosmic unity, transcendental meaning and religious ecstasy. Certain physical rituals can generate both these feelings and corresponding serotonergic activity.[51]

PS-it is from wikipedia so don't say the content is false >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: sebastianhoward64 on May 31, 2012, 05:52:05 PM
I'm new here and aren't religious or anything like that though I am kind of scared of burning in Hellfire for ever. There's a couple questions I want to ask you people, first off do you think that some parts of the Bible could be true but others aren't? For example, God may have lost a bet with the Devil or something stupid like, or just wanted his say in the Bible so maybe he put like one things down or told someone to put some things down from him and those specific parts of the Bible are true and the other's aren't? Also would God punish people for not following that specific part of the Bible or something? I know I'm probably going to get made fun of but these are just random thoughts that have been running past my head for the last couple days.

Next I was asking myself if God did love his children why, oh why would he send them to Hell and have them burn forever? I came across this passage and was hoping someone intelligent on here would be nice enough to retort it.

"Yes, God must punish those who break His law because it is the right thing to do. Just as a parent should punish a child for doing something wrong (intentionally), so God must punish those who do wrong. You see, if God did not punish the person who does wrong, then He would be unjust and unrighteous. He would be breaking His own law -- which He cannot do. But, someone might say that the punishment of a parent on a child is temporary whereas God's punishment is eternal. Why the difference? The answer is two fold. First, God is infinite and a parent is not. Second, God is the standard of all righteousness and the parent is not.

Because God is infinite, when we sin, we are offending an infinite God. This is incredibly significant. The reason sin is so bad is not so much because of the one committing the sin, but because of the One who is offended. In other words, sin is so incredibly bad because it takes on a horrible quality by the very fact of who it is against: an infinitely pure, holy, and righteous God.

A parent is not the standard of righteousness. God is. A parent is (or should be) using the righteous standard of God in raising children. Therefore, though a parent's punishment is temporary because it is instruction and correction, the punishment of God is eternal because our sin is against an eternal God. There is a big difference."

Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Ambassador Pony on May 31, 2012, 06:37:00 PM
The only use for a consequence is that it changes future behaviour. For it to acheive its only goal, it must also be a logical consequence. The consequence has to logically follow the antecedent behaviour.

If a deity has any understanding of the human brain, it would not have a consequence that is so useless. If the quoted individual believes in a deity who is infintely incompetent, then there is no counter argument.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: jeremy0 on June 04, 2012, 06:27:31 PM
@Sebastian:

To explain the ^^, what he is saying is that the very intention of punishment is to prevent things from re-ocurring.  However, where is the learning potential in an endless punishment?  Why would god have a need for a hell?  Why would god give satan the best gift he could give to a devil?  These are questions that obviously make no sense for a deity that is all-knowing, all-powerful, and good and righteous in every way.

Such a god would have methods that work better than simple death, or eternal judgement.  For example, an all-powerful god would have no need to judge any of us - he could just perfect us instead.  An all-knowing god would also know how to accomplish that.  A good god would also not want to torture people, even for a day.  Consider these things carefully, then when you go back and think about hell, remember it was in fact made up by man to enforce control via fear.  It's still existing today, to many people like you.

Don't be afraid - if there is a god - there's absolutely no need for hell or judgement.  None.  I have better methods, myself.  We would want you to learn, not suffer unreasonably.  And that's IF there is a god - if there isn't, then neither is there a satan, or a hell, etc.

I mean to help you a lot here, bud..
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Astreja on June 08, 2012, 11:13:27 PM
Because God is infinite, when we sin, we are offending an infinite God. This is incredibly significant.

Oddly enough, Sebastian, I see it the exact opposite way.

If this god you speak of is infinite, wouldn't everything else in the universe be infinitesimal by comparison?  How could "sin" even register on the radar of such a being?  I see the most vile actions of the very worst of humans as a mere spark of activity, barely
noticeable against a background of 14 billion years and invisible, for all practical purposes, when measured against eternity.

(Springy G pauses to sip Her single-malt Scotch and reminisces about the Life, the Universe and Everything vision She had circa 1968)  My $0.02; guess you had to be there.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: nogodsforme on June 11, 2012, 03:07:35 PM
Because God is infinite, when we sin, we are offending an infinite God. This is incredibly significant.

Oddly enough, Sebastian, I see it the exact opposite way.

If this god you speak of is infinite, wouldn't everything else in the universe be infinitesimal by comparison?  How could "sin" even register on the radar of such a being?  I see the most vile actions of the very worst of humans as a mere spark of activity, barely
noticeable against a background of 14 billion years and invisible, for all practical purposes, when measured against eternity.

(Springy G pauses to sip Her single-malt Scotch and reminisces about the Life, the Universe and Everything vision She had circa 1968)  My $0.02; guess you had to be there.

I agree-- how can a finite being offend an infinite being? Why would such a being even care about the behavior of entities that last a blink of its eye? The more we learn about the vastness of the universe, the less sense it makes to have a god paying attention to anything we do.

Do I really care about whether a speck of bacteria behaves itself? What it eats or what position it takes as it reproduces? Whether it worships me, prays to me, or ignores me? Even if I created it myself in a lab, and therefore "owned" it? If I destroyed it, it would have nothing to do with it not behaving morally--and I would never torment it forever under any circumstances. Only a sadist would do that.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Boots on June 13, 2012, 07:25:05 AM
I'm with y'all. Sebastian's quote up there approaches the top 10 dumbest things I've ever heard.  If gawd is the standard for righteousness, should we not then stive to follow his example?  Should we not then condemn those who sin to as everlasting torture as we can manage?  Should we not injure and kill an innocent as a lesson for the guilty, as gawd does?  Are we not *obligated* to do so???
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: JohnKurwa on June 14, 2012, 08:53:08 AM
Hi, I'am also new here...

first off do you think that some parts of the Bible could be true but others aren't?

Yes, sure some parts in the Bible are true whilst others are not. I just think the Bible is mistaken by Christians for what it was actually intended to be.

A parent is not the standard of righteousness. God is. A parent is (or should be) using the righteous standard of God in raising children. Therefore, though a parent's punishment is temporary because it is instruction and correction, the punishment of God is eternal because our sin is against an eternal God. There is a big difference."

I think the standard of righteousness has neither to do with god nor (directly) with your parents.

You are saying that you think that a parent should be using the 'righteous standard of God' in raising children. Why do you think that the 'rightoues standard of God' should be used? Often religious people think that their Religion defines moral and ethic standards. In my opinion, moral and ethic standards are defined by the people which live in a community with these standards and by common sense. I know that beating a child is wrong, I do not need Religion to know for myself that this is wrong nor do I need a God to understand this.

I am not a bible expert but I can't understand this part:

http://bible.cc/1_john/1-8.htm

"If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us."

Isn't this practically saying that everyone has sinned and therefore will burn forever in hell? Correct me if I'am wrong but this would say that actually none of the Christians would ascend into heaven (assumed haven would exist)and therefore none of their lives would have a 'further sense'?

I don't get it...
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Atheistisaweirdword on June 18, 2012, 08:09:55 AM
How about instead of discussing the probabilities of god's existence. How about the probabillities if Jesus did exist, the probability that he had a disorder or god syndrome. By someone saying they speak directly to a higher power, or simply hearing god's voice(schizophrenia), Jesus did say he was god's only son, or god in human flesh(god syndrome). The fact about interpretations of a 2000 year old book is that I'm sure but of course not positive, only knowing today's statistics of Christians thinking the end is near. But by that I'm sure in every generation before this the christian or catholic believed the end is near. The world will always have natural catastrophes and wars, until religion and other human stupidity is gone.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Astreja on June 18, 2012, 11:29:20 PM
How about instead of discussing the probabilities of god's existence. How about the probabillities if Jesus did exist, the probability that he had a disorder or god syndrome.

Sounds like an interesting topic, AIAWW.  If you start a separate thread with that premise, I'll play.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Atheistisaweirdword on June 20, 2012, 10:11:38 AM
I’d like to start by pointing at revelations in the bible; most of them have been proven to become true. So, if anyone would like to shed some light on this, like “maybe all those prophecies have been manipulated after they actually happened” either way, I think WWII allowed Jews to return to their holly land, which is something pretty much unique in history, for we know (as an example) American natives will never recover their land.

Now there is this Jewish Christian group earning popularity, which is making Jesus part of their beliefs in Israel, something most of us would have imagine impossible. And I’m concerned about the possibility of missing reality because of arrogance.

Since nobody can prove God’s existence, neither his non-existence, I would like to discuss on this forum about what is more likely to be the truth.

Even though this is a bit off topic. If god cared, why'd he show up 98,000 years after humans were already existent? That's a bit late. Why in such an uncivilized area and not a more civilized area like china? It's only one part of the world he showed up in, wouldn't he of made himself obvious to the world and not one of the most uncivilized undeveloped parts of the world? Obviously you won't be able to answer these questions because you don't know and makes Christianity seem faulty, with more holes in it than evolution and natural selection. The earliest hominids are 4.4 million years old, evolution obviously happened, which contradicts the bible and makes the bibles testimonials of unintelligent people look even more faulty. You have to understand that testimonials will never be considered evidential to any atheist or skeptic in general. Look at James Randi, how many psychics that had claimed that had psychic powers and he just shit on them all over his show. Look at the testimonials on ghost hunters, we see the evidence of ghosts pounding on doors, little electrical voices, and see the guy saying 'if you hear us light up the red light', and it does, but we still all know it's faked. Human testimonials can never be considered evidential without actual evidence. Humans lie, you have to realize that.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: JeffPT on June 20, 2012, 10:12:17 PM
Even though this is a bit off topic. If god cared, why'd he show up 98,000 years after humans were already existent? That's a bit late. Why in such an uncivilized area and not a more civilized area like china? It's only one part of the world he showed up in, wouldn't he of made himself obvious to the world and not one of the most uncivilized undeveloped parts of the world?

Somebody's been watching Hitchens videos.  Good for you.  He's a beast.  I cried the day he died. 


Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Atheistisaweirdword on June 21, 2012, 01:10:59 AM
Even though this is a bit off topic. If god cared, why'd he show up 98,000 years after humans were already existent? That's a bit late. Why in such an uncivilized area and not a more civilized area like china? It's only one part of the world he showed up in, wouldn't he of made himself obvious to the world and not one of the most uncivilized undeveloped parts of the world?

Somebody's been watching Hitchens videos.  Good for you.  He's a beast.  I cried the day he died.

I can't believe he died either! Definitely a sad day, he was one of the smartest journalists ever, the four horseman videos, I thought it was amazing he could conversate for hours with scientists and biologists, when he's just a journalist. Great debater, he was a courageous guy.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: jeremy0 on June 29, 2012, 12:02:22 AM
Hi, I'am also new here...

first off do you think that some parts of the Bible could be true but others aren't?

Yes, sure some parts in the Bible are true whilst others are not. I just think the Bible is mistaken by Christians for what it was actually intended to be.

Woah, woah, woah.  Stop right there, John.  Listen to what you just said - some parts of the bible are true.  Don't confuse truth with 'right'.  You should be saying 'I agree with some parts of the bible, and that's why I continue to believe in it.'  I think that is most people's stance on religion, anyway - it closely aligns with whatever they wanted to believe in the first place, and they agree at least in part with it.

Take the recent recall from a 'top atheist blogger', as it was said in the news, becoming Catholic.  First, her husband is Catholic.  She said basically her reasoning was she wanted to believe, and Catholicism, even though she disagrees with some things, most closely aligned with her sense of morality.

Had I said to myself - I want to be in a religion again, I would actually go with Bhuddism.  Even though I can't spell it correctly...  My morality most closely aligns with that kind of deity and that kind of religious teachings.  The bhuddist god isn't an evil dude.  Plus 1,000,000 points in my book.  They teach you to put yourself above 'sufferings' - to allow you to find internal peace and internal joy - how to overcome negative things and replace it with positive things.  That's my sense of morality.  And it's a good one.  Even though there is still some additional wisdom here in Christianity, or Catholicism, or even Islamists that the people of that time wanted to leave behind, there are also some really nasty stuff that if you take it at face value, you've destroyed your morality instead of enhancing it.  Yes, some things in all of these religions are meant to teach you lessons in life that somebody wanted to leave behind.  That's the basis of every religion.

But, don't go saying 'truth', when in fact the only things we can determine to be true are things we can study and analyze.  In fact, most things point to the truth being that there are no deities, at the current time, with what I've seen logically here and everywhere else on the internet with science.  That doesn't mean in some other dimension it's not a possibility, but through logical reasoning we can actually invalidate every religion out there.  And that leaves the rest of it looking like craziness that you're better off ignoring.

For example - before I was a rationalist.  I had to ignore everything about my religion and concentrate only on jesus.  Even then, I had to ignore some of the things he did/said.  He's not actually an all-righteous dude if you really, really pay attention.  He said some pretty awful stuff, he intended things even worse.  He basically called himself righteous and showed everyone else they are damned demons.  He even said multiple times he would damn everybody, and also multiple times that by God's grace it was more or less a gift given to us for eternal peace and life.  That's some major back-and-forth.  His words aren't jibberish - it's just organized like a maze is all.  Once you see the whole maze, you'll know he was just a guy - like you and me. 

So while yes, even as a rationalist I can agree with some parts of every religion, I disagree with major parts of every religion, and to me that justifies my stance.  It should justify yours as well.  Just don't go calling something true in place of 'I agree with this'...

That's my 20c to add to the party here..
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: nogodsforme on June 29, 2012, 02:48:09 PM
Religious texts have truth the same way Star Trek has truth. In addition, when compared to most major religions, Star Trek is:
--more entertaining
--better written
--less violent
--less racist
--less sexist
--more educational
--more kid-friendly
--more internally consistent and
--has better outfits.
Plus a lot of the stuff predicted in Star Trek has actually come true.[1]
 1. Peace with Russia, computers that give us instant information, space stations, portable communicators that stick in your ear, gay navigators. Who knew?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: SwayzesGhost on July 01, 2012, 05:06:43 AM
Quote

Even though this is a bit off topic. If god cared, why'd he show up 98,000 years after humans were already existent? That's a bit late. Why in such an uncivilized area and not a more civilized area like china? It's only one part of the world he showed up in, wouldn't he of made himself obvious to the world and not one of the most uncivilized undeveloped parts of the world?



Certainly not a valid point.   The middle east  was the crossroads to all major civilizations. Certainly would be a good area for a new religion to start and then spread. Not China or Africa.




Quote
Obviously you won't be able to answer these questions because you don't know and makes Christianity seem faulty, with more holes in it than evolution and natural selection.


What? :o


Quote
The earliest hominids are 4.4 million years old, evolution obviously happened, which contradicts the bible and makes the bibles testimonials of unintelligent people look even more faulty.


It doesn't contradict the bible.




Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: nogodsforme on July 03, 2012, 05:26:52 PM
Quote

Even though this is a bit off topic. If god cared, why'd he show up 98,000 years after humans were already existent? That's a bit late. Why in such an uncivilized area and not a more civilized area like china? It's only one part of the world he showed up in, wouldn't he of made himself obvious to the world and not one of the most uncivilized undeveloped parts of the world?


Certainly not a valid point.   The middle east  was the crossroads to all major civilizations. Certainly would be a good area for a new religion to start and then spread. Not China or Africa.


What time period are you talking about? The M-E was a crossroads for ideas and goods for hundreds of years, but was not what we would consider 'civilized' in today's terms until 1000-1500 CE, after the advent of Islam. By then, China and India had created flourishing civilizations for thousands of years already.

All this begs the question of why an all-knowing, or even reasonably-aware being would have to leave his most important teachings in only one place in the world to begin with, crossroads or no. What kind of a joker god would hand out this very disjointed collection of hard to interpret poetry, stories, lessons, histories, parables?   

At a time when most cultures were orally transmitted and most people were illiterate, what was the point of a book anyway? It would have to be re-copied by hand and translated into different languages for hundreds of years-- with no mistakes. This book would then have to be physically transported all over the world by missionaries for the next couple of millenia. 

How could this make any sort of sense for a supernatural person or force? Couldn't he beam the info into everyone's head at once, or leave the book already recorded in the important local languages on every populated continent? Any group of humans of average intelligence could come up with a better way to get the word of god out. We mere mortals have figured out how to transmit info quickly and securely to anyone in the world. Did god have something against fax machines, cell phones, internet or satellites? 

 
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Azdgari on July 05, 2012, 09:30:25 PM
It doesn't contradict the bible.

It only contradicts the bible if the bible is taken to be true.  If the bible is taken to mean whatever you wish at any given time, then nothing conceivable can contradict it if you don't want it to.

The same is true of any other book.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Humanoid on July 15, 2012, 04:56:06 PM
I have always wondered why majority of christians think that it is agnostics and atheists who are responsible to proove that God does not exist. Why it is not other way around?

Bible isn´t a proof for anything.

It is historical in a way that it has been written in a certain timeframe and is tied to a historical / cultural context of that time. But like in all "historical" writing of that time, myths and legends were always mixed into a real data. So there is some real in it.. but we can always think that are the miraculous events real? I think they are not.

And is it word of God, logical guidebook that reveals the salvational plan of God to all mankind? Well anyone who has read Bible knows that the word "logical" isn´t the first that comes to mind.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on July 17, 2012, 12:22:04 AM

So why didn’t God write scriptures that were easy for all of us to understand, and not so open to sinful interpretations?

                                                                                                                                                       
That is the $1,000,000 question...  Even the oldest accessable scriptures were copied by hired scribes who may or may not have ever heard the stories which were handed down by oral tradition from countless generations and translated from language to language.  (Have you ever played the telephone game?) And then a bunch of Catholic men decided which books should stay or go according to their agenda which was most likely what would be most profitable to the church. I think some bits of truth survived as they are cooberated in writings of different faiths.  I do study scripture and writings of eastern and other religions just because I like to but I don't think the existence of god is meant to be proven. Perhaps Archie Bunker said it best -- “It ain’t supposed to make sense; it’s faith. Faith is something that you believe that nobody in his right mind would believe.”
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on July 17, 2012, 12:52:07 AM
@Sebastian:

...think about hell, remember it was in fact made up by man to enforce control via fear. 
 
I have a theory (as yet unproven) that hell was invented by men to keep women down.  At some point in ancient history men became jealous, threatenened, intimidated, and/or whatever by women (and maybe effeminate men) and that's why they thought up hell, criminalized sex, homosexuality, and made up all the other crap to supress, oppress and possess women.  Of course I haven't documented this but I am searching for clues.

...there's absolutely no need for hell or judgement.  None.  I have better methods, myself. 

The ultimate punishment is to be locked in a small room of circus mirrors with a flickering flourescent light, piped in Barry Manilow music, wearing unmatched polyester plaids.

Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: screwtape on July 17, 2012, 07:21:53 AM
I think some bits of truth survived...

Some bits did survive.  But those bits are not about gods.  They tend to be more anthropological bits. 


...as they are cooberated in writings of different faiths.

?  such as...? 

xianity corroborates the hebrew bible because it uses the hebrew bible.  Islam corroborates the xian bible because mohammed was passingly familiar with xianity.  Other religion corroborate the abrahamic religions only in that they share a few broad moral tennets.   That fact is more easily explained by evolution than god.  the human animal is a social animal and in order to work in groups it had to develop rules.  We call these rules "morals".  Our short hand description is "Right and Wrong" or "Good and Evil".  But really, they are just social lubricant that keeps hairless talking apes from killing each other over food, mates, pretty rocks and the sale at WalMart.

Some similarities also reflect basic strategy and game theory.  xianity was all "love your enemy", but that was because at the time, they were a powerless minority.  Believe it or not, Mohammed said the same thing early in his career.  It was at the time that muslims were a powerless minority.  Once he got a bigger gang in Medina his message changed to "kill the infidels".  xianity never got to that point because by time it became powerful (politically), the formative religious leaders were gone and the religion was defined.

In other words, the messages reflect the politics of the situation.  Similar situations beget similar messages. Nothing spooky or supernatural about it. 

I recommend reading a book called The Evolution of God (http://www.evolutionofgod.net/), by Robert Wright.


... but I don't think the existence of god is meant to be proven.

I used to think that too.  However, I gave up that notion because I cannot for the life of me understand why that would be.  Why the cosmic game of hide and seek?  Why would faith be important to an omnimax god? Why is faith supposedly the criterion of judgment, the way to avoid infinite torture?

Perhaps Archie Bunker said it best -- “It ain’t supposed to make sense; it’s faith. Faith is something that you believe that nobody in his right mind would believe.”

Archie was succinct.  But why should we believe things that nobody in their right mind would believe?  By saying nobody in their right mind would believe them, does that not mean faith is insanity?  How in the world is that a good thing?


Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: rev45 on July 17, 2012, 03:43:11 PM
Perhaps Archie Bunker said it best -- “It ain’t supposed to make sense; it’s faith. Faith is something that you believe that nobody in his right mind would believe.”

Archie was succinct.  But why should we believe things that nobody in their right mind would believe?  By saying nobody in their right mind would believe them, does that not mean faith is insanity?  How in the world is that a good thing?
Hitchens basically summed up my thoughts on faith. 
(http://loltheists.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/its-called-faith-because-its-not-knowledge.jpg)
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on July 17, 2012, 06:38:10 PM
[Hitchens basically summed up my thoughts on faith. 
(http://loltheists.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/its-called-faith-because-its-not-knowledge.jpg)

I haven't read his work.  I just did a quick scan.  Definately will add him to my reading list.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: VOR_voice_of_reason on August 06, 2012, 04:44:54 PM
Augusto:

First I reject your assertion that "most" of revelations has proven to be true. I would ask how you come to such a conclusion but any answer you would provide would resemble all the hypothetical conversations between Norm and Chris on both websites WWGHA and GII. If you feel the need to try by all means do so. We can entertain ourselves with another rendition of the logical gyrations required to justify such claims. The nonsense in Revelations has revealed nothing. For a brief explanation of what Revelations actually refers to you can watch the first forty minutes of the Zeitgeist movie. Hint: the answer is in the stars. Second, no has to prove the non-existence of god. Until the existence of a god is proven, he doesn't exist. Thus, as you have admitted, no one has or can prove the existence of any god, therefore, there is no probability that god exists. If I claim Leprechauns exist the onus in on me to prove the existence of Leprechauns. I can't assert the existence of Leprechauns and then insist you prove they don't exist and that until you prove they don't exist, my assertions stands as the truth. Third - well, there is no third. Thank you.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: periboob on September 24, 2012, 01:23:18 AM
Some folks believe in God, others do not. Who knows which group is right. But we all know that one group is wrong, just plain deluded. Now, what type of idiot would decide, just make up their mind without evidence that there is NO loving heavenly father ready to take you into his arms, to give you eternal life that would love and care for you. Only a fool would, given a free choice, decide, without evidence, that there is no god. Everyone has a clear motive to want there to be a god looking after the Universe like a maintenance supervisor, fixing every flaw in existence. So, if you were on a jury, deciding which one was making stuff up, who would you think guilty? The one with a motive, or the one without?

After a bit, I realized that there might be people who do not want an observant god, because they might get punished for their crimes. But I hear that virtually all convicted criminals are devout believers, so obviously, they are not pushed by their desires into atheism.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: nogodsforme on September 24, 2012, 06:36:15 PM
Just because you want there to be a Santa Claus does not make him real.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: shnozzola on September 24, 2012, 07:27:00 PM
Periboob, I have no motive.  I am not sure if there is a god or not.  After living a few years now, I just don’t see any evidence for god – it just seems like a belief our ancestors had that is past it’s time. It would not make any difference one way or another in the way I live if I knew there was or wasn’t a god.  What scares me the most is what religious people are willing to do to “others” (any kind of others – witches, buddhists, christians, muslims, hari-krishnas, jews, rock worshippers, you name it) because they are convinced that their own, sometimes opposing, views are correct.  Understand?

From what I have learned - looking over our history - every single detail of mankind’s existence is attributed to the sweat, the learning, the perseverance, and just the random luck that has led to where we find ourselves today.  It is actually very much more cool that we and our earth “arrived here” on our own.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Boots on September 25, 2012, 09:33:33 AM
Some folks believe in God, others do not. Who knows which group is right. But we all know that one group is wrong, just plain deluded. Now, what type of idiot would decide, just make up their mind without evidence that there is NO loving heavenly father ready to take you into his arms, to give you eternal life that would love and care for you. Only a fool would, given a free choice, decide, without evidence, that there is no god. Everyone has a clear motive to want there to be a god looking after the Universe like a maintenance supervisor, fixing every flaw in existence. So, if you were on a jury, deciding which one was making stuff up, who would you think guilty? The one with a motive, or the one without?

After a bit, I realized that there might be people who do not want an observant god, because they might get punished for their crimes. But I hear that virtually all convicted criminals are devout believers, so obviously, they are not pushed by their desires into atheism.

You could substitue the word "god" above for "invisible pink unicorn," "leprechaun," "Flying Sphaghetti Monster," "Blooblax the Alien Overlord," or any number of made-up stuff and it would make exactly the same amount of sense as what you wrote.

I would LOVE there to be an all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful diety who takes an interest in my everyday life.  But there is no evidence for it, and actually plenty of evidence to the contrary that such a diety does not exists (nevermind the paradox of omnipotence/omnicience, the problem of free will, etc).  It is also unreasonable to think that a being who is so unimaginably huge and powerful to have created the vast expanses of our universe would give two shits about an infinitisimal speck of rock out on the fringes of a medium-sized galaxy (one of millions--or billions--or trillions of galaxies) which is home to a (relatively) small handful of beings who live for under 100 years then die.  It defies reason and comprehension to even think of--not to mention how arrogant it is!

And I find it deliciously ironic that, since eschewing religion and the concept of god, I have FAR less guilt/fear of being "watched" because I also eschew the concept of "sin."  I simply follow the single "Atheist Commandment:" Be Thou Not An Asshole.

Periboob, when's the last time YOU sinned??  Felt guilt over some slight you committed against your lord?  Must be tiring.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Graybeard on September 25, 2012, 06:01:29 PM
Some folks believe in God, others do not. Who knows which group is right.
I do – the atheists are correct.
Quote
But we all know that one group is wrong, just plain deluded.
Could they be the ones who think that there’s something up there that poofed a world into existence and made men from mud?
Quote
Now, what type of idiot would decide, just make up their mind without evidence that there is NO loving heavenly father ready to take you into his arms, to give you eternal life that would love and care for you.
Let me see…
The Mesopotamians believed that the gods were cruel and unforgiving.
The Akkadians were similar but had a god who was wise, witty and liked beer
The Egyptians thought that the gods were like Pharaohs who were also gods – some were good, some were bad.
The Greeks saw the gods as much like humans but who played with us as a child plays with its toys.
The Romans had many gods – each house would have its own, not all promised things
The Norse had their gods – not too dissimilar from the Greek gods in their outlook but who had lives of their own to live.   
The Nepalis have a living goddess in Kathmandu: I've seen her. As she was chewing gum and looking bored, I assume she's not a real god.
Quote
Only a fool would, given a free choice, decide, without evidence, that there is no god.
And can we say that it would be a bigger fool who decided that there was one – Let me quote Pianodwarf,
Quote
It's a burden of proof issue.  Most atheists do not in fact insist that the universe had no creator, but even if we did, the one claiming that it did have a creator would still be a greater burden of proof than the naysayer because the one claiming a creator is making a claim that extends ontology, and such claims always carry a greater burden of proof than claims that an ontological extension does not exist. –
So you see, those who claim gods have all the work to do, just as if I were to say, “There’s a unicorn in that forest!” Would you think that that is true? Who has to prove it?
Quote
Everyone has a clear motive to want there to be a god looking after the Universe like a maintenance supervisor, fixing every flaw in existence.
This is absolute garbage – how can you believe that? The universe works without any gods – there is no need for them – this much has been proven.
Quote
So, if you were on a jury, deciding which one was making stuff up, who would you think guilty? The one with a motive, or the one without?
If I were on a jury with you, I would excuse myself and tell the accused that he had better prepare his appeal because the jury has no critical thinking skills at all and knows nothing about basic science.

Quote
After a bit, I realized that there might be people who do not want an observant god,
A bit disturbing when you’re having a quiet shit, isn’t it?

Periboob,
You are in severe need of education, physics, maths, chemistry, philosophy. You also need to read far more widely. Your arguments above are really poor; taken together, all they say is “I’m right because I say so and if you disagree you are abnormal.”

If you have any proof whatsoever that there is any kind of god, do please let us know.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: periboob on September 27, 2012, 02:51:53 AM
The lack of religiosity here must have you guys spoiling for an argument. Aw, hell, now you are going to misunderstand that too--I dont mean atheists are more argumentative, I mean that it is interesting to argue with people with a different opinion, and there being few faithful about, you easily jump to the conclusion that any stranger is disagreeing with you. See? A pleasing opinion is more acceptable than an unpleasant fact.

Referencing the topic of this thread about probabilities, I wrote,  "...if you were on a jury, deciding which one was making stuff up, who would you think guilty? The one with a motive, or the one without? ..." Since I had explained, what I thought was obvious, and still think it is obvious, that it would be nice to have a super hero around to rescue the unlucky and smite bad people. (Assuming of course that its idea of "bad people" matches my idea of "bad people"  :) ) So, if everyone would like to have a god, therefore having a motive, they are clearly the most likely to be the deluded class.

But since all you guys misunderstood what I wrote, I now have to add to the deluded class. Those people who would PREFER to blunder through life blown by the winds of chance, rather than have a super daddy to divert the tornadoes, are clearly as deluded as the morans who BELIEVE there is a god who is interested in, participates in, and gets pissy about trivial human activities.

Let me clarify. I am an abeliefist. I do not believe in any god, I do not believe there is no god. I dont BELIEVE in the big bang, evolution, a spherical earth, or gravity. To all things, I look for evidence, listen to other humans, and develop a statistical level of confidence. My current assessment of supreme beings, is I dont know, or much care, but there seems a fair chance that there is/was a god who created things all at once, with all that we see as natural laws. But then she/he/it stepped back and just laughs when I spill my coffee. Or maybe there is a god like Bender met in the "Godfellows" episode of Futurama. (I love that show, I think I posted about it here on the old forum, but it might have been ATT.)

And Graybeard. Do you have any evidence at all that there is no god?  I am a 75 year-old EE, retired USAF officer and retired satellite designer, with a comfortable home and portfolio. I web-surf ~12hrs/day, enjoy astronomy, Si-fi, and XKCD. I think I will skip your advice on education. BTW, Did you take classes on moderating? What kind of grades did you get?

Man, I gotta quit posting after that third drink.  8)
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Brakeman on September 27, 2012, 06:40:44 AM
Those people who would PREFER to blunder through life blown by the winds of chance, rather than have a super daddy to divert the tornadoes, are clearly as deluded as the morans who BELIEVE there is a god who is interested in, participates in, and gets pissy about trivial human activities.

There's a choice in there somewhere?  Do we choose to believe stuff to address an artificial dichotomy now? How about the choice that I PREFER to follow the amazing story of reality. Where is that choice?

I don't believe that I'm Napoleon, not because I don't want to for any particular reason, it's just that I have never seen any evidence to convince me that I am Napoleon. By your reasoning, should I read up on Napoleon and see if I would like to benefit from believing I am him? If the local Francophone bar would give me free drinks, should I attempt to brainwash myself into believing I'm Napoleon?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Anfauglir on September 27, 2012, 07:35:38 AM
.....if everyone would like to have a god, therefore having a motive, they are clearly the most likely to be the deluded class.

But since all you guys misunderstood what I wrote, I now have to add to the deluded class. Those people who would PREFER to blunder through life blown by the winds of chance, rather than have a super daddy to divert the tornadoes, are clearly as deluded as the morans who BELIEVE there is a god who is interested in, participates in, and gets pissy about trivial human activities.

Can you explain why that second paragraph follows, because I'm not sure I follow your argument? 

Your point seems to be that most people want a sky-daddy to make everything better.  That this is therefore the normal point of view, and that therefore anyone who says they do not is a deluded moron.  Have I got that right?

Assuming I have......here is my response.  Ignore everything below if I didn't grok your point!

You may be correct that "wanting a higher power to make things all better" is the more common response of humanity.  Through history, you may well be correct.  But does that necessary make someone deluded, or a moron, if they genuinely prefer there to be no cosmic safety-net?  I'm not sure I agree.  As a child, having daddy around to catch us when we climb the tree makes us feel safer and more secure, I agree.  But is it not the case that, as we gain age and experience, we would find the constant presence of daddy to become an annoyance, and even a hinderance to our efforts?

Where is the satisfaction of trying, if you know that someone is always there to pick up the pieces?  In knowing that - whatever you do - you cannot really fail, because the all-father will set things right if we don't get it right first time? 

Frankly, I can't see anything deluded, or moronic, about standing on one's own two feet and saying "I succeed or fail ONLY by my own efforts.  I take full responsibility for my actions, and the consequences of them, and know that the buck stops here: if I screw up, that's it."  Personally, I would call that courage, or maturity.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: periboob on September 27, 2012, 11:09:48 AM
.....if everyone would like to have a god, therefore having a motive, they are clearly the most likely to be the deluded class.

But since all you guys misunderstood what I wrote, I now have to add to the deluded class. Those people who would PREFER to blunder through life blown by the winds of chance, rather than have a super daddy to divert the tornadoes, are clearly as deluded as the morans who BELIEVE there is a god who is interested in, participates in, and gets pissy about trivial human activities.

Can you explain why that second paragraph follows, because I'm not sure I follow your argument? 

Your point seems to be that most people want a sky-daddy to make everything better.  That this is therefore the normal point of view, and that therefore anyone who says they do not is a deluded moron.  Have I got that right?
I would not want to imply that view is normal, but it does seem pretty common. While I would usually put it more gently, perhaps "...fooling oneself..." yes that is about right. On a normal day, I suspect many of us feel the satisfaction of self sufficiency. But when disaster comes, I cannot imagine anyone actually PREFERRING to die rather than accept heavenly assistance. I dont expect that assistance, and I waste no time asking for it until I have worked through all the options open to me. I never prayed while being shot at, but I have occasionally asked for God's attention when a loved one's health was at stake.  Hey, it couldnt hurt, right?
Quote
Assuming I have......here is my response.  Ignore everything below if I didn't grok your point!

You may be correct that "wanting a higher power to make things all better" is the more common response of humanity.  Through history, you may well be correct.  But does that necessary make someone deluded, or a moron, if they genuinely prefer there to be no cosmic safety-net?  I'm not sure I agree.  As a child, having daddy around to catch us when we climb the tree makes us feel safer and more secure, I agree.  But is it not the case that, as we gain age and experience, we would find the constant presence of daddy to become an annoyance, and even a hinderance to our efforts?

Where is the satisfaction of trying, if you know that someone is always there to pick up the pieces?  In knowing that - whatever you do - you cannot really fail, because the all-father will set things right if we don't get it right first time? 

Frankly, I can't see anything deluded, or moronic, about standing on one's own two feet and saying "I succeed or fail ONLY by my own efforts.  I take full responsibility for my actions, and the consequences of them, and know that the buck stops here: if I screw up, that's it."  Personally, I would call that courage, or maturity.
You may be right. Perhaps it is that I do not have belief, and that I am a little envious of those who do. Those who, on the verge of calamity, might feel a touch of calmness, in the knowledge that "it will be all right". And, I agree with your point that it would deprive the successes of some satisfaction to know that I was helped.

I have a lot of respect for those who take responsibility for their own actions, as long as it does not turn to thinking "I built this". Personally I am relatively confident that I got to the present by luck--the future comes from hard work. I have long suspected that those who think they earned their position in life were in reality, just lucky, good genes, good experiences, and location, location, location. (I was born a white male in the USA in the 20th century, i.e. born on third base).

But you raise an interesting point. Wonder how the offspring of a king, president, or even a governor ever develop a sense of self-satisfaction, while knowing that they had such a head-start. Maybe that need to surpass daddy is what drives them?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: periboob on September 27, 2012, 11:27:05 AM

There's a choice in there somewhere?  Do we choose to believe stuff to address an artificial dichotomy now? How about the choice that I PREFER to follow the amazing story of reality. Where is that choice?

I don't believe that I'm Napoleon, not because I don't want to for any particular reason, it's just that I have never seen any evidence to convince me that I am Napoleon. By your reasoning, should I read up on Napoleon and see if I would like to benefit from believing I am him? If the local Francophone bar would give me free drinks, should I attempt to brainwash myself into believing I'm Napoleon?

Some people seem able to believe. They can decide to believe in something that looks silly to others. Others of us are like Kipling's "Sons of Martha" http://www.mindspring.com/~blackhart/The_Sons_of_Martha.html (http://www.mindspring.com/~blackhart/The_Sons_of_Martha.html)
"to these from birth is belief forbidden, from these till death is relief afar". I learned everything I need to know about philosophy from Kipling. And it rhymed!

As to believing you are Napoleon, he was pretty short, would you need surgery to reduce to the correct height?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: periboob on September 27, 2012, 11:43:41 AM
Wow, Graybeard has not banned me yet. He must be at work.

How about it GB? If there is a pearly gate, it might look good on my record to get banned from WWGHA.  ;D

Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: jdawg70 on September 27, 2012, 12:02:04 PM
And Graybeard. Do you have any evidence at all that there is no god?  I am a 75 year-old EE, retired USAF officer and retired satellite designer, with a comfortable home and portfolio. I web-surf ~12hrs/day, enjoy astronomy, Si-fi, and XKCD. I think I will skip your advice on education. BTW, Did you take classes on moderating? What kind of grades did you get?

periboob -

Do you have any evidence at all that there is no such thing phronatic radiation?  If not, did you incorporate shielding in these satellites to prevent phronatic radiation from interfering with system operation?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: periboob on September 27, 2012, 02:31:48 PM

periboob -

Do you have any evidence at all that there is no such thing phronatic radiation?  If not, did you incorporate shielding in these satellites to prevent phronatic radiation from interfering with system operation?

Well, that is just ridiculous. Everyone in the NRO knows that phronatic radiation is a harmless side effect of chrono-synclastic infundiblia. To shield against it would add needless weight. Well, that is unless you use semi-conductors in your designs. I always used vacuum tubes with protino-cloud extrusion storage.
http://nro.gov/foia/declass/collections.html

Graybeard asked me for evidence first. And as I already explained, you will never find evidence, because god does not want us to find it. God is a graduate student, this universe is necessary for its graduation, and if the experimental subjects became aware that they were an experiment, well, obviously, the experiment would be spoiled. It would have to be shutdown and started all over. Just imagine, having to harvest the souls from a trillion civilizations and re-initialize them. How many yocto-bytes of storage do you think a grad student can afford.  It is hard enough to get a job as a Supreme Being without having THAT on your resume... Oh maybe I am saying too much... never mind.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: JeffPT on September 27, 2012, 03:12:20 PM
Graybeard asked me for evidence first. And as I already explained, you will never find evidence, because god does not want us to find it.

Would the notion that God does not exist in the first place also explain why we will never find the evidence of God's existence?  In what way does that not thoroughly explain why we find no evidence of God?   

God is a graduate student, this universe is necessary for its graduation, and if the experimental subjects became aware that they were an experiment, well, obviously, the experiment would be spoiled.

I'm not sure if you're just being sarcastic here, but... ummm... by your own terms, the experiment is spoiled because you are aware that you're in an experiment...  Aside from that, this is pretty ridiculous.  But let me try one.

God has the mentality of a small child and likes to play hide and seek with everyone on the planet.  But he doesn't let anyone else know he's playing because then they would look for him much harder. 

Its pretty easy to make something up that is theologically sound but completely without proof and totally ridiculous.  People have been doing that for thousands of years.  We should require more proof than an assertion that we're all just in some sort of God experiment.  The more logical, realistic position is that God's not real and we have no evidence because... he's not real.  That's the same reason we don't find gold at the end of the rainbow.  The same reason we don't find a giant city at the North Pole. 

In respect to you, however, you're 75 years old and still asking questions about the world.  Good for you.  Knowledge can be improved at any age.  I hope I'm still asking questions when I reach that age. 
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Graybeard on September 27, 2012, 03:15:15 PM
And Graybeard. Do you have any evidence at all that there is no god?
Yes. But that depends upon what standard of proof you require. I take it on the balance of probabilities (just as on the balance of probabilities there is not a unicorn in the forest.) This is the correct level for any initial statement. I would push that to the standard of proof required to convict and hang a man. Beyond that, delusions are not capable of being established to the standard of mathematical proof - we just have to put up with their holders.
Quote
I am a 75 year-old EE, retired USAF officer and retired satellite designer, with a comfortable home and portfolio.
Well, good for you. Your a little older than me, but not much. Tell me, why did you mention the comfortable home and portfolio? Do you think that those things mean you have a higher intelligence than a poor person or a homeless one? Do you think that money is the be-all and end-all of life? Do you dismiss those below you?

"In the style of our arguments, we convey our character" Someone said that. Do you think it's true? It probably is of me.
Quote
I web-surf ~12hrs/day, enjoy astronomy, Si-fi, and XKCD. I think I will skip your advice on education.
No seriously, take it. Your post belies your implied critical thinking skills. It's never too late to dip into the critical thinking skills of philosophy, nor to apply your knowledge to the probability of a deity.
Quote
BTW, Did you take classes on moderating? What kind of grades did you get?
Somewhere it is written that when a moderator moderates they write in green and bold, otherwise they are just an ordinary joe. You will see that my post was in black, normal. You're getting me - not moderator me.

Quote
Man, I gotta quit posting after that third drink.  8)
Or smaller drinks

PS
When you were designing satellites, did you ever factor in for God?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: jdawg70 on September 27, 2012, 03:37:10 PM
Well, that is just ridiculous. Everyone in the NRO knows that phronatic radiation is a harmless side effect of chrono-synclastic infundiblia. To shield against it would add needless weight. Well, that is unless you use semi-conductors in your designs. I always used vacuum tubes with protino-cloud extrusion storage.
http://nro.gov/foia/declass/collections.html

Graybeard asked me for evidence first. And as I already explained, you will never find evidence, because god does not want us to find it. God is a graduate student, this universe is necessary for its graduation, and if the experimental subjects became aware that they were an experiment, well, obviously, the experiment would be spoiled. It would have to be shutdown and started all over. Just imagine, having to harvest the souls from a trillion civilizations and re-initialize them. How many yocto-bytes of storage do you think a grad student can afford.  It is hard enough to get a job as a Supreme Being without having THAT on your resume... Oh maybe I am saying too much... never mind.

Because when I think of reducing weight, I think of vacuum tubes.  Besides, unobtainium-based semiconductors are cheaper and do not suffer from interference issues from phronatic radiation.

But cutting through all the sarcasm, you appear to recognize what I'm getting at - you have no evidence for the non-existence of phronatic radiation, ergo you do not behave as if they exist (i.e. you behave as if they do not exist).  To behave as if phronatic radiation is a real phenomenon would appear to be delusional.  Why doesn't that apply to god?

Insofar as your 'grad student' analogy is concerned...I'm unclear as to what you're getting at with it.  Is it intended as more sarcasm or are you putting forward an argument-of-analogy for why god is hidden?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: periboob on September 27, 2012, 05:42:29 PM
Would the notion that God does not exist in the first place also explain why we will never find the evidence of God's existence?  In what way does that not thoroughly explain why we find no evidence of God?   
Yes, that would explain it too. But that is a pretty boring answer.

Quote
I'm not sure if you're just being sarcastic here, but... ummm... by your own terms, the experiment is spoiled because you are aware that you're in an experiment...  Aside from that, this is pretty ridiculous.  But let me try one.

God has the mentality of a small child and likes to play hide and seek with everyone on the planet.  But he doesn't let anyone else know he's playing because then they would look for him much harder. 

Its pretty easy to make something up that is theologically sound but completely without proof and totally ridiculous.  People have been doing that for thousands of years.  We should require more proof than an assertion that we're all just in some sort of God experiment.  The more logical, realistic position is that God's not real and we have no evidence because... he's not real.  That's the same reason we don't find gold at the end of the rainbow.  The same reason we don't find a giant city at the North Pole. 

In respect to you, however, you're 75 years old and still asking questions about the world.  Good for you.  Knowledge can be improved at any age.  I hope I'm still asking questions when I reach that age.
I have time now to ask the questions that never had time for before. And I have to ask more and learn more because I am forgetting more... Now what was I about to say ...
Oh yeah. The small child model. One of my most confident analytical results is that the creator of our universe (if any) is nothing like the senile village elder of the Old Testament, or the psychotic author of Revelations.

I was actually shooting for humorous, only slightly sarcastic. I am not into discussing this stuff seriously, because, well, I doubt that I will be able to talk anyone important or dangerous out of their faith. And you guys here, I really dont want you to change. But the political news was depressing me, and this is more fun.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: periboob on September 27, 2012, 07:59:09 PM
And Graybeard. Do you have any evidence at all that there is no god?
Yes. But that depends upon what standard of proof you require. I take it on the balance of probabilities (just as on the balance of probabilities there is not a unicorn in the forest.) This is the correct level for any initial statement. I would push that to the standard of proof required to convict and hang a man. Beyond that, delusions are not capable of being established to the standard of mathematical proof - we just have to put up with their holders.
I think the whole concept of "proof" is a little rigid for these topics. How about we replace unicorn with Big Foot? Big Foot, I place a little higher confidence, because not everyone just laughs it off. One of the reasons I put Unicorns VERY low, is that no one I know knows anyone who knows anyone... who has ever seen one. Although I once had an ex-co-worker who had regular discussions with angels. He did not seem dangerous, so we had numerous talks over coffee about it. He was otherwise, in my judgement completely normal.

Regardless of any standards of proof, why do you feel the way you do? you seem to pretty confident. On what basis?
Quote
Quote
I am a 75 year-old EE, retired USAF officer and retired satellite designer, with a comfortable home and portfolio.
Well, good for you. Your a little older than me, but not much. Tell me, why did you mention the comfortable home and portfolio? Do you think that those things mean you have a higher intelligence than a poor person or a homeless one? Do you think that money is the be-all and end-all of life? Do you dismiss those below you?

"In the style of our arguments, we convey our character" Someone said that. Do you think it's true? It probably is of me.
"Money is not the only thing, but the other thing will not go out with you unless you have it". I mentioned my comfortable life, because you said I "needed education". My point is, I "need" almost nothing, I may be the happiest guy on the planet. And as far as education, I thought you might be recommending classes, and I have found the casual knowledge available on the internet allows me to focus on those tidbits of information that I find useful. Where classes are just full of knowedge that others find useful--prefer my way.

I think I am a little smarter than most folks, but you work in satellite design, you brush up against some unbelievably bright guys, and I got a little more humble. And I never dismiss those "below" me. I am not sure I even know what that means. I am just really lucky, and a little of it stuck.
Quote
Quote
I web-surf ~12hrs/day, enjoy astronomy, Si-fi, and XKCD. I think I will skip your advice on education.
No seriously, take it. Your post belies your implied critical thinking skills. It's never too late to dip into the critical thinking skills of philosophy, nor to apply your knowledge to the probability of a deity.
I am not employing any critical thinking skills about any deity, because I dont think it is very important to me--I place extremely low probability on a creator who could create this universe, and still be such a twit as to take it personally when its creations do not worship. But I do remember another quote "You never know if you know all you need to know, until you know all there is to know." Maybe I will re-read some Kipling, and Heinlein, they are my favorite philosophers.
Quote
Quote
BTW, Did you take classes on moderating? What kind of grades did you get?
Somewhere it is written that when a moderator moderates they write in green and bold, otherwise they are just an ordinary joe. You will see that my post was in black, normal. You're getting me - not moderator me.
Good to know. Most moderators have so much moderating to do that they have little time for self expression.
Quote

Quote
Man, I gotta quit posting after that third drink.  8)
Or smaller drinks

PS
When you were designing satellites, did you ever factor in for God?
Smaller drinks!?!?! Now you are threatening my happiness quotient.

On satellites
I tried to factor it in. e^pi - pi, but I kept getting round off errors. Bad math processor?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: periboob on September 27, 2012, 09:02:30 PM
But cutting through all the sarcasm, you appear to recognize what I'm getting at - you have no evidence for the non-existence of phronatic radiation, ergo you do not behave as if they exist (i.e. you behave as if they do not exist).  To behave as if phronatic radiation is a real phenomenon would appear to be delusional.  Why doesn't that apply to god?

Insofar as your 'grad student' analogy is concerned...I'm unclear as to what you're getting at with it.  Is it intended as more sarcasm or are you putting forward an argument-of-analogy for why god is hidden?

I do behave as if there is no phronatic radiation, and I also behave as if there is no god. Because, as near as I can calculate there is no practical difference to my everyday behavior between a universe in which the god wishes to remain hidden, and that with no god at all.
1) No god--act like there is no god.
2) God who wants to hide--act like there is no god.

The Grad Student was just an understandable example (for purposes of this human populated forum) as to why a god might wish, or need, to remain hidden. Another example was the god in Futurama, that had his creations' best interests at heart, where he explains "Being a supreme being is not easy, if you do too much they become dependent. It is best to be like a safe cracker, or a pickpocket where no one knows for sure you are there."

My estimates:
Interactive god: 0.0000000000000000001%
Caring god: 0.00000000001%
Any old god: 50% because I have no reason to lean either way--it just does not matter.

==========================

Graybeard
Earlier I wrote:   "Some folks believe in God, others do not. Who knows which group is right."
You answered: "I do – the atheists are correct."
You do realize that to others, this has an uncomfortable similarity to "It says so right here in the scripture."
I do not know you are wrong, but your answer could stand a little beefing up to be meaningful to other viewpoints.

===========================

It has been fun guys, but I think it is time for the periboob to submerge and go quiet for a few days. My other interests are beginning to feel ignored-- Gotta do a newsletter article, Behind on reading my cartoons, Google Earth explorations, Playing with Audacity, Working on my eulogy, maybe visit with inlaws...
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Anfauglir on September 28, 2012, 03:05:11 AM
.....I have occasionally asked for God's attention when a loved one's health was at stake.....
.....Perhaps it is that I do not have belief.....

When you asked for "God's" attention, did you also ask help from Freya, or the Great Manitou?  I'm guessing that you didn't....so perhaps you are not as "without belief" as you may think.

And possibly THAT is the reason that you can't completely understand that there are indeed a lot of people who quite genuinely do NOT want any supernatural superhero to be ultimately there to make things right.  Frankly, as far as I'm concerned it would cheapen everything that I have ever done - indeed , what is the point in striving all your life for something, that the supergod could accomplish with a snap of his celestial fingers? 

When you were designing sattellites, when did you feel better?  In the early days, when all your work was checked by the project leaders and your mistakes corrected long before construction?  Or later in your career, when the buck stopped with you and you had final responsibility of saying "yes, we go with this"?  If I'm honest, I can't imagine anyone who preferred the former situation ever amounting to anything in life.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: screwtape on September 28, 2012, 07:30:54 AM
Any old god: 50% because I have no reason to lean either way--it just does not matter.

Do you approach any proposed deity/ being/ creature/ monster that way?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Graybeard on September 28, 2012, 03:06:07 PM
Graybeard
Earlier I wrote:   "Some folks believe in God, others do not. Who knows which group is right."
You answered: "I do – the atheists are correct."
You do realize that to others, this has an uncomfortable similarity to "It says so right here in the scripture."
I do not know you are wrong, but your answer could stand a little beefing up to be meaningful to other viewpoints.
If you make it back, remind me.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Azdgari on September 28, 2012, 05:07:44 PM
Periboob, if you find your car keys in the sofa, do you keep looking for them?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Astreja on January 30, 2013, 04:09:15 AM
I came across this passage and was hoping someone intelligent on here would be nice enough to retort it.

"Yes, God must punish those who break His law because it is the right thing to do... Because God is infinite, when we sin, we are offending an infinite God. This is incredibly significant..."

Personally, Sebastian, I'd interpret it a bit differently.  How could an infinite god be injured, insulted or otherwise damaged in any way by the actions of mortals? Rather than a crime against this alleged god being infinitely bad, wouldn't it be infinitesimally bad (and therefore quite easy for the god to overlook or forgive)?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Disciple of Sagan on January 30, 2013, 04:24:33 AM
"Yes, God must punish those who break His law because it is the right thing to do... Because God is infinite, when we sin, we are offending an infinite God. This is incredibly significant..."

It's kinda sad how your god has a "one size fits all" method of punishment (eternal damnation) no matter how large or small the infraction against his holy sensibilities are.

It's kinda funny how us sinners can show more compassion than our supposed creator when it comes to letting the punishment fit the crime

Personally, Sebastian, I'd interpret it a bit differently.  How could an infinite god be injured, insulted or otherwise damaged in any way by the actions of mortals? Rather than a crime against this alleged god being infinitely bad, wouldn't it be infinitesimally bad (and therefore quite easy for the god to overlook or forgive)?

Word. (Sorry, I'm in a hip-hop sorta mood tonight). 8)
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Greenandwhite on May 18, 2013, 01:02:22 AM
     It's kinda sad how your god has a "one size fits all" method of punishment (eternal damnation) no matter how large or small the infraction against his holy sensibilities are.

1. What would you think of varying durations of 'damnation' to 'fit' the crime after which God would...?
2. I am also just wondering how you came to associate hell with punishment - are there specific Biblical texts you are thinking about in relation to this association?
3. Is there a difference between meting out justice and meting out punishment? (e.g. when a murderer is thrown in jail the family of the victim can certainly acknowledge that punishment has been handed out, but do they necessarily feel that justice has been done?)
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Anfauglir on May 18, 2013, 02:49:53 AM
Greenandwhite,

Disciple of Sagan has not been active since February, and this thread has been inactive since January.  Please avoid "necromancing" such old threads.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Greenandwhite on May 18, 2013, 11:51:40 AM
Greenandwhite,

Disciple of Sagan has not been active since February, and this thread has been inactive since January.  Please avoid "necromancing" such old threads.


Anfauglir,
      Sorry, I neglected to observe the date of the last post; I will be more careful in the future.
              G&W
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: kin hell on May 19, 2013, 12:45:41 AM
so the Probabilities of God's existence debate continuing are not good then? ;)
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: PaulGL on May 20, 2013, 03:01:15 PM

There are two, and only two, explanations for the means whereby life now exists on this planet.
First, there is the explanation that life on earth was divinely created.
Since, obviously, there is no way that the above explanation of the origin of life can be subjected to any scientific analysis, it would be profitless to discuss its merits (at this point).
The other means I am referring to is, of course, the theory of evolution. By evolution, I mean the process or processes whereby life as we now know it has come about from an originally inorganic universe through purely mechanistic actions in conformity with the laws of the physical universe. Keeping these parameters in mind, let us now see what relevant conclusions may be derived:...

Given the vastness of the universe and the consequent profusion of life, what must the ultimate consummation of the process of evolution be?
It is my contention that the inevitable and ultimate result of evolution is this: that somewhere, sooner or later, an entity would be evolved through either natural or artificial means which would no longer be subject to time.

What are the implications of such a conclusion?

Such an entity would in all practicality be:

1.   Omnipotent and
2.   Omniscient and
3.   Omnipresent.

Such an entity would, by definition, be God.
By no means am I intending to speculate about the origin of God.
Such speculation is vain at best and blasphemous at worst. My intention is to show that no matter what method that you employ to explain the existence of life; the inevitable implication is the existence and reality of God.

Chapter Seven.  Past History: The World System                              p.145
...
            {   II.     The Religious System
A.   The Source of Religion <Hint: NOT God>
B.   The World’s Religions
C.   The Jewish Religion
D.   Christianity, the Religion   }


FROM: amessageforthehumanrace
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Ambassador Pony on May 20, 2013, 03:35:38 PM
PaulGL, you agreed to not spam the boards with cut and pastes when you signed up. If you continue, your posts will be moderated.  

Furthermore, abusing this community in the selfish pursuit of self-promotion is poor manners.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: JeffPT on May 20, 2013, 03:52:45 PM
Given the vastness of the universe and the consequent profusion of life, what must the ultimate consummation of the process of evolution be?
It is my contention that the inevitable and ultimate result of evolution is this: that somewhere, sooner or later, an entity would be evolved through either natural or artificial means which would no longer be subject to time.
This makes it sound like evolution is moving toward some sort of end, when in reality, that's not what it is at all.  In order for an entity to evolve and no longer be subject to time, it would require selection pressures in that direction.  What sort of selection pressures would give a survival advantage if they were no longer subject to time? 

What are the implications of such a conclusion?

Such an entity would in all practicality be:

1.   Omnipotent and
2.   Omniscient and
3.   Omnipresent.

Such an entity would, by definition, be God.
Actually, if we take your train of thought where you're taking it, the end result would not be A god, but many gods.  A whole species of Gods that are all omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.  Perhaps the Greeks were on to something.  I don't agree at all with where you're going, and you seem not to have a full grasp on evolution, but it's an interesting thought. 

Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Graybeard on May 20, 2013, 03:59:51 PM

There are two, and only two, explanations for the means whereby life now exists on this planet.

Given the vastness of the universe and the consequent profusion of life, what must the ultimate consummation of the process of evolution be?
It is my contention that the inevitable and ultimate result of evolution is this: that somewhere, sooner or later, an entity would be evolved through either natural or artificial means which would no longer be subject to time.


The failure of reasoning in that statement is appalling.

If the universe is vast, what do you mean by "profusion of life"? As a percentage of the universe, "life forms" would not register.

"an entity would be evolved through either natural or artificial means which would no longer be subject to time." This borders on the insane. Please give some reason why this might be and how it could possibly be.

We want details.

Just because you do not have an understanding of time or the process evolution or the effects of "being outside time" (whatever that means) does not mean that you can pull theories out of your ass and announce them as if someone ought to accept them.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Astreja on May 20, 2013, 04:12:54 PM
By evolution, I mean the process or processes whereby life as we now know it has come about from an originally inorganic universe...

Paul, if you actually want to have a conversation with us on such matters, please learn the difference between evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution) and abiogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis).
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: epidemic on May 23, 2013, 01:54:50 PM
periboob,

You feel as if the universe was created by a hands off god?  You are convinced of it. 

How does a hands off god manifest itself in a compelling way to you?

I have a major problem with science as I understand it.  The creation of the basic building block of the universe (Energy) is difficult for me to fanthom its source. 

I can give it a natural source or magical god source.  But it would be impossible to tell the difference between a hands off god and a natural source.

As an agnostice  (someone who doesn't know) I lean both directions:) when I consider the universe spawning from nothing or something so advanced so powerful as a god having existed prior to the universe and creating it by sheer will.  I feel the more reasonable answer leans in favor of natural energy to exist than for a super being to have spawned from nothing.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: JesuisSean on June 01, 2013, 02:05:46 PM
God is a tad bigger than people tend to think. His daily actions over mankind are also far greater than mankind tends to even attempt to imagine, and thus in turn people also fail see that his mind literally extends across time. Via his mind extending across time, his guidance also takes into account many many many events that in total stretch vast distances across time. Thus, if he guides the minds of those who write the Bible, and does so as his mind extends across time, all of what we call future translations of the Bible are all simultaneously taken into account from his massive massive enormously huge point of view.

Thus his mind sits above all of these translations and thus above the all variations that exist between different versions of the Bible, and it is to be noted that there is crystal clear proof of this. God managed to place both proof of his existence, and proof of Jesus Christ's existence within the Bible, and did so in such a clever yet simple and unique encoded manner, a manner that places this proof at a level that is obviously seen by God, but can seen by man with the help of today's computers.

To see this encoded proof, go to
http://www.outersecrets.com/real/biblecode2a.htm (http://www.outersecrets.com/real/biblecode2a.htm)

Be sure to click on the flashing words "Watch / Listen", and let the web page take you on a web page tour of such proof, and do so via automatic web page scrolling and complete audio coverage.

YOU WILL BE AMAZED !
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Astreja on June 01, 2013, 06:46:29 PM
God is a tad bigger than people tend to think. His daily actions over mankind are also far greater than mankind tends to even attempt to imagine, and thus in turn people also fail see that his mind literally extends across time.

And how would humans whose minds do not "extend across time" go about verifying this rather dubious assertion?

Quote
To see this encoded proof, go to {link snipped}.  Be sure to click on the flashing words...

Uh, no.  I try to stay away from badly designed, multimedia-heavy web pages as they tend to give Me excruciating headaches. 
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Graybeard on June 01, 2013, 07:28:20 PM
God is a tad bigger than people tend to think. His daily actions over mankind are also far greater than mankind tends to even attempt to imagine, and thus in turn people also fail see that his mind literally extends across time.

OK, admit it. You made all that up didn't you?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: JesuisSean on June 01, 2013, 09:56:44 PM
IT'S ALL ABOUT THE BIG PICTURE, THE BIG TRUTH.

Unfortunately it's pretty well impossible to get people interested in the big truth these days.  Today there are two fields of interest. One is Science, and the other is Religion. These are two fields of incompleteness. If Science was complete, then there would be no room left for Religion. If Religion was complete, then there would be no room left for Science.

In the world of Religion for instance, there is another side to reality that in the religious context is called the spirit world.
In the world of Science, specifically physics, physicists say "Some of us may have our own personal religious beliefs, but we do not bring religion into our workplace. We simply deal with the physical, hence 'Physics'".

As a consequence of this,  physicists did not include the other side of reality as part of the understanding of complete reality. One side is different than the other. The laws of physics on one side are different from the laws of physics  on the other side. An event can be governed from either of the two sides. The outcome of the event is different if it is governed from one side rather than be governed from the other.

Thus the small minded physicists see strange phenomena such as Particle/Wave Duality, and yet they can not explain it. They observe entangled pairs, yet have no explanation.  They observe the Action at a Distance phenomena, yet here too they have no explanation. They observe Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiments, yet they can not explain how these experiments manage to produce a clear cut case of retrocausality.

But this is what happens when you stick to remaining in one field of incompleteness or the other. You just don't see the big picture, the big truth. Instead people remain closed minded and thus they always "Reject Before Inspect", "Judge a book by its cover", "Judge a web site by its appearance, etc.",. Thus in turn they either hold on to mere beliefs and disbeliefs, or they choose to stand still and hold on to nothing at all.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Aaron123 on June 01, 2013, 10:27:36 PM
IT'S ALL ABOUT THE BIG PICTURE, THE BIG TRUTH.

*rest of post sniped*

I see a lot of words and magical thinking, but no evidence or reasons to back them up.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: The Gawd on June 01, 2013, 10:34:50 PM
I see, so physical world = physics...

I dont know where to begin...


on another note mods, why is it so bad to respond to an old thread? And if we shouldnt respond to them you should unsticky them, nah mean?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: JesuisSean on June 01, 2013, 10:38:34 PM
IT'S ALL ABOUT THE BIG PICTURE, THE BIG TRUTH.

*rest of post sniped*

I see a lot of words and magical thinking, but no evidence or reasons to back them up.

If ones mind points toward the truth, then one sees both sides of reality, since both sides of reality truly exist.

If one sees both sides of reality, then one is truly in touch with reality. If one sees only one side, then obviously one is not in touch with the reality and instead still remains at a distance from it.

I can not hand evidence over to anyone who can not see it.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: naemhni on June 01, 2013, 10:46:29 PM
I see, so physical world = physics...

I dont know where to begin...

Actually, I think you're already finished.  I want to respond to this myself, but it's getting late, so it will probably have to wait until tomorrow.

Quote
on another note mods, why is it so bad to respond to an old thread?

Because the OP, and possibly other participants in the thread, might not be around anymore to respond.

Quote
And if we shouldnt respond to them you should unsticky them, nah mean?

Threads that are stickied, are stickied because they are threads that have not only been frequently responded to in the past, but also because many people still constantly refer to them in the present.  I don't doubt, for example, that many of the regulars here frequently reread kcrady's posts in the "kcrady old school" thread -- I certainly do, the man is brilliant -- and having the thread stickied simply makes it easier to find.  Necromancy has nothing to do with it.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: kin hell on June 01, 2013, 10:57:09 PM
IT'S ALL ABOUT THE BIG PICTURE, THE BIG TRUTH.Unfortunately it's pretty well impossible to get people interested in the big truth these days.

No, JesuS, it's all about the BIG DICK, and you are enormously over-qualified for that part. Can't help flaunting that priapismic arrogance eh?

Quote
Today there are two fields of interest.

that'd be either the open landmind that can be cultivated, or the vacant lot.  ......for example
 
Quote
One is Science, and the other is Religion.


Quote
These are two fields of incompleteness. If Science was complete, then there would be no room left for Religion. If Religion was complete, then there would be no room left for Science.

This is so accurate, I am almost mind-boggled. If religion ruled, of course they'd be no room for science. Science is the ultimate threat to irrational belief systems.
Thankfully, science is winning, and the wriggle room for religion is shrinking. Big Dick meet cold shower.

Quote
In the world of Religion for instance, there is another side to reality that in the religious context is called the spirit world.


And what a pity the vacant lot are incapable of offering the slightest evidence of this "spirit world".
Of course, arguing that there are two sides to reality could be re-phrased into

There are two sorts of reality in this world.   
The real,
........................and the unreal.

The vacant lot is littered with this unreal trash.


Quote
>snip<
As a consequence of this,  physicists did not include the other side of reality as part of the understanding of complete reality. One side is different than the other. The laws of physics on one side are different from the laws of physics  on the other side. An event can be governed from either of the two sides. The outcome of the event is different if it is governed from one side rather than be governed from the other.

Ah, the glory of the vacant lot, too busy mouthbreathing to offer the slightest evidence.

Quote
Thus the small minded physicists

And here we see the only evidence you really offer. Evidence of your arrogance.
What an awkward package to carry through life.
Engorged with your baseless certitude, it, erect and proud drags you stumbling along behind it, .....no wonder your view is so limited.
And you wonder why I call you Big Dick?

You've flopped it out here on display stoking the flames stroking the inflamed, and claim a personal knowledge of THE BIG DICK TRUTH.


Quote
>snip<
Thus in turn they either hold on to mere beliefs and disbeliefs, or they choose to stand still and hold on to nothing at all.

Well you've completely exposed to us what little truth you are actually holding.





Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: The Gawd on June 01, 2013, 11:03:03 PM
Actually, I think you're already finished.  I want to respond to this myself, but it's getting late, so it will probably have to wait until tomorrow.
Yeah, looks like MAJOR work will be needed on that one.

Quote
Because the OP, and possibly other participants in the thread, might not be around anymore to respond.

Threads that are stickied, are stickied because they are threads that have not only been frequently responded to in the past, but also because many people still constantly refer to them in the present.  I don't doubt, for example, that many of the regulars here frequently reread kcrady's posts in the "kcrady old school" thread -- I certainly do, the man is brilliant -- and having the thread stickied simply makes it easier to find.  Necromancy has nothing to do with it.

Makes sense.... And I printed out the kcrady thread and proselytize the good news outside of churches handing out the paper copies as pamphlets.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Aaron123 on June 01, 2013, 11:12:47 PM
If ones mind points toward the truth, then one sees both sides of reality, since both sides of reality truly exist.

You claim this, but do you have anything to back it up?  (that is, other than more words)


Quote
I can not hand evidence over to anyone who can not see it.

Ah, so your words are just that.  Words.  Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.


I know I'm not giving you much of a respond, but really, we've seen this sort of statement before.  Someone comes along to "awaken" us to the power of spirtual thinking, and then they never bother to explain how it's not a form of self delusionment.  Right now, all you offer is magical thinking.  Care to tell us how this is different?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Astreja on June 02, 2013, 12:25:57 AM
Instead people remain closed minded and thus they always "Reject Before Inspect", "Judge a book by its cover", "Judge a web site by its appearance, etc."...

IMO, a sloppily-designed website is a sign of a sloppily-conveyed message and in some cases sloppy thinking as well.

At its heart the universe appears to be made up of very basic and consistent stuff - Matter and energy.  I believe that the underlying "message" of the universe is similarly very simple and dependent neither upon regional mythologies such as the Jesus story, nor on bewildering cutting-edge scientific theories such as quantum physics.  My sense is that we've over-thought this way too much, and missed something.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: naemhni on June 02, 2013, 06:37:51 AM
I printed out the kcrady thread and proselytize the good news outside of churches handing out the paper copies as pamphlets.

Heh.  You know, that's actually not a bad idea.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: JesuisSean on June 02, 2013, 07:14:28 AM
Instead people remain closed minded and thus they always "Reject Before Inspect", "Judge a book by its cover", "Judge a web site by its appearance, etc."...

IMO, a sloppily-designed website is a sign of a sloppily-conveyed message and in some cases sloppy thinking as well.

At its heart the universe appears to be made up of very basic and consistent stuff - Matter and energy.  I believe that the underlying "message" of the universe is similarly very simple and dependent neither upon regional mythologies such as the Jesus story, nor on bewildering cutting-edge scientific theories such as quantum physics.  My sense is that we've over-thought this way too much, and missed something.

If a group of people are in a life threatening situation, and time for any hope of survival is quickly ticking away, yet one fellow has come up with a sloppy sounding answer to resolve the life threatening problem, suddenly minds become open to his suggestion. And sure enough his idea saves the day. However, in other previous non life threatening situations, any other of his sloppy sounding suggestions were most likely always ridiculed and laughed at, if not violently opposed instead.

In other words, it is only when the "SELF"  is at risk, do many a people of this world suddenly put the act of demeaning of others, aside.  Thus if the fellow, with his sloppy sounding suggestions, is in fact quite brilliant, well tough luck for him say the masses, unless he is immediately in need as a servant and saviour.

Moving on.

To find a truth, you must look in the direction of truths.

Example:
Most people see "MOTION" occurring around them and they think that they understand what it is, and do so via seeing it. Yet, seeing is merely believing, and one is only dependent upon beliefs and disbeliefs if one is located at a distance from the truth in the first place, meaning located within the zone of less than truth. Thus those who simply believe what they see, are those whom in turn are quite happy with having a mere pinhole sized view of reality.

If however, you look at the big picture concerning motion, you soon notice that what you see going on around you is absolutely impossible. You soon understand that what appears to be happening only seems real if you are limited to having only a partial view what is truly happening on the absolute scale.

Step two, you convert this new understanding into a simple geometric representation, and then you use this geometric representation to convert your understandings into equations.

Next you search the web to see if your equations are found elsewhere, and bingo you find that your equations are identical to the famous equations known as the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction equation, the Time Dilation equation, the Velocity Addition equation, and the Lorentz Transformation equations. These are the very equations that are found within Einstein's Special Principle of Relativity.

In short you understand Einstein's Special Principle of Relativity, and you also can see the absolute foundation which supports, and creates, relativity.

On top of that, you find that your method of deriving these equations is the shortest method possible, and that it is found nowhere else on the internet, nor in physics books.

Point being, even if you have no education in physics, if you analyze motion properly by looking at the big picture, thus by looking at the truth, you soon see Einstein's Special Principle of Relativity as mere child's play.

Thus if you have achieved this, then you are definitely walking on the path of truth.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Anfauglir on June 03, 2013, 03:45:08 AM
If ones mind points toward the truth, then one sees both sides of reality, since both sides of reality truly exist.

Sorry dude - you are wrong.  There are THREE sides of reality, and in failing to recognise this you are missing out on a huge chunk of existence.

I wish you well in your quest to discover the third side of reality.  When you can see the third side, I will look forward to discussing it with you.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: kin hell on June 03, 2013, 06:02:57 AM
If ones mind points toward the truth, then one sees both sides of reality, since both sides of reality truly exist.

Sorry dude - you are wrong.  There are THREE sides of reality, and in failing to recognise this you are missing out on a huge chunk of existence.

I wish you well in your quest to discover the third side of reality.  When you can see the third side, I will look forward to discussing it with you.

It is not actually a third side, it is rather, the interstitial paradox of the whole two-faced reality.

Much like both sides of a realistic mask can give a completely convincing 3D image of a face, both sides of reality are the separated surfaces that only together create the 3rd Realm.

Without the knowledge of how to perceive this there is nothing more I can share. When you know, you'll really know.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Anfauglir on June 03, 2013, 08:50:02 AM
If ones mind points toward the truth, then one sees both sides of reality, since both sides of reality truly exist.

Sorry dude - you are wrong.  There are THREE sides of reality, and in failing to recognise this you are missing out on a huge chunk of existence.

I wish you well in your quest to discover the third side of reality.  When you can see the third side, I will look forward to discussing it with you.

It is not actually a third side, it is rather, the interstitial paradox of the whole two-faced reality.

Much like both sides of a realistic mask can give a completely convincing 3D image of a face, both sides of reality are the separated surfaces that only together create the 3rd Realm.

Without the knowledge of how to perceive this there is nothing more I can share. When you know, you'll really know.

Oh, quite.  I was trying to "dumb it down" to Sean's level - didn't want to put him off by making it too complicated too fast.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Astreja on June 03, 2013, 10:17:48 AM
I think there are potentially infinite "sides" to reality, but that our perceptions are limited by our physical senses and our physical brain structure.

The act of striving to see more "dimensions," through whatever means, sounds at the very least like an interesting thought experiment.  It remains to be seen whether any of this will reveal an actual god, or "just"[1] take our knowledge to a new level.
 1. IMO, knowledge > gods.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: nogodsforme on June 03, 2013, 03:34:21 PM
I think it is time for my favorite source of philosphical knowledge: the 1970's tv series Kung Fu.

Here, the wise master gives Grasshopper his advice on how to deal with force.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DhnAnGd8PY

(My daughter, a junior black belt, is enjoying watching it on dvd with me. She is the exact same age I was when the show was originally on. I tell Mystery Science Theater type jokes during the slow non-fighting parts.)
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: The Gawd on June 03, 2013, 08:16:07 PM
Until you all realize that there is no reality, only true falsehoods you wont understand anything. You must look deep into everything that is false to find the inconsequential Truths with a capital T of life. Its why geometry is called GEOmetry, it has to do with earth.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: magicmiles on June 03, 2013, 08:45:07 PM
Its why geometry is called GEOmetry, it has to do with earth.

No. It's called geoMETRY. Anyone can have a go.

That's my angle, anyway.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Astreja on June 03, 2013, 11:26:43 PM
It's why geometry is called GEOmetry, it has to do with earth.

No. It's called geoMETRY. Anyone can have a go.

That's my angle, anyway.

Now you're just being obtuse.   ;)
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: kin hell on June 03, 2013, 11:50:42 PM
It's why geometry is called GEOmetry, it has to do with earth.

No. It's called geoMETRY. Anyone can have a go.

That's my angle, anyway.

Now you're just being obtuse.   ;)

yes, quite an exaggerated claim

considering his lack of degrees   ;)

maybe he's on tilt.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: magicmiles on June 04, 2013, 12:00:21 AM
I don't want this to turn into a protracted geometry pun fest, let me make that plane.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: kin hell on June 04, 2013, 02:25:40 AM
yeah mate, your relative position would have to be closer to geomancy than geometry anyway  ;)
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: nogodsforme on June 04, 2013, 03:40:18 PM
Hey, MM was making an acute observation. And he's a-pretty a-cute, too.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: magicmiles on June 04, 2013, 05:24:56 PM
Australian men aren't cute. We're rugged.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Anfauglir on June 05, 2013, 02:19:41 AM
Australian men aren't cute. We're rugged.

Are you kidding me?  The dinky hats with all the little corks hanging off them!  Those little white sleeveless t-shirts, and the cut off denim shorts?    Cuuuuuuute!!

Dang.  And up until now I thought I was straight.  That'll be a shock for the wife and kids.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: screwtape on June 05, 2013, 08:20:12 AM
Those little white sleeveless t-shirts, and the cut off denim shorts?    Cuuuuuuute!!

It is not a coincidence the Priscilla, Queen of the Desert (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109045/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1) was located in Australia.  Crocodile Dundee was very [wiki]Tom of Finland[/wiki].

Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: GodKnowsGodProtects on June 18, 2013, 04:54:44 PM
I think there is an invisible force which is controlling events, events seen and unseen.  I look for the signs in everyday life, signs with meaning. 
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: wright on June 18, 2013, 05:17:38 PM
I think there is an invisible force which is controlling events, events seen and unseen.  I look for the signs in everyday life, signs with meaning. 

Welcome to the forum, GKGP. Can you clarify: what are those signs, and how do you discern them from events that don't have meaning?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: One Above All on June 18, 2013, 05:22:09 PM
I think there is an invisible force which is controlling events, events seen and unseen.  I look for the signs in everyday life, signs with meaning. 

We are hard-wired to look for meaning in random events; particularly events that conform to our beliefs. This is known as [wiki]confirmation bias[/wiki]. We look for things that appear to validate our beliefs, because we want our beliefs to be true. Other types of biases we're prone to include, but are not limited to, [wiki]experimenter's bias[/wiki], [wiki]wishful thinking[/wiki] and [wiki]selection bias[/wiki].
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on June 18, 2013, 05:32:43 PM
I think there is an invisible force which is controlling events, events seen and unseen.  I look for the signs in everyday life, signs with meaning.

Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous.  - Albert Einstein
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: One Above All on June 18, 2013, 05:35:03 PM
Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous.  - Albert Einstein

Source? AFAIK Albert Einstein was a deist at best, agnostic atheist at worst, and he's had a lot of BS quotes attributed to him (argumentum ad verecundiam).
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on June 18, 2013, 09:14:33 PM
Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous.  - Albert Einstein

Source? AFAIK Albert Einstein was a deist at best, agnostic atheist at worst, and he's had a lot of BS quotes attributed to him (argumentum ad verecundiam).

It is from The World As I See It
also from that book...
“The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another.”
 Albert Einstein, The World as I See It
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: nogodsforme on June 19, 2013, 02:35:52 AM
I think there is an invisible force which is controlling events, events seen and unseen.  I look for the signs in everyday life, signs with meaning.

Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous.  - Albert Einstein

Why would god want to remain anonymous? Seems like the world's religious conflicts would be resolved PDQ if a god, any god, would show up and be identified.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: epidemic on June 19, 2013, 02:15:41 PM
I think there is an invisible force which is controlling events, events seen and unseen.  I look for the signs in everyday life, signs with meaning.

Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous.  - Albert Einstein

Why would god want to remain anonymous? Seems like the world's religious conflicts would be resolved PDQ if a god, any god, would show up and be identified.

That is simple.  If god is a hands off God, he is just watching his experiment evolve.  Wars, dissease, murder, pain, suffering are all just interesting things to watch.  just like a scientist watching ants go to war all the deaths are just datapoints.  And as a side note the scientist being a god like creature to ants probably could care less if the ants worshiped him.

Could you imagine being so shallow as to want ants, love, approval and or worship? 

Humans would be less than ants to God, being jealous, angry, happy... with regards to their actions would seem petty and silly.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: naemhni on June 19, 2013, 02:22:55 PM
That is simple.  If god is a hands off God, he is just watching his experiment evolve.  Wars, dissease, murder, pain, suffering are all just interesting things to watch.  just like a scientist watching ants go to war all the deaths are just datapoints.  And as a side note the scientist being a god like creature to ants probably could care less if the ants worshiped him.

I once speculated in a post a while back that, if you assume a deist god, the universe could well be to him/her like a sand pendulum is to a human being.  And when human beings play with a sand pendulum, they certainly don't worry about whether the pendulum moving the sand around is causing any pain to the grains of sand or anything.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on June 19, 2013, 08:50:02 PM
That is simple.  If god is a hands off God, he is just watching his experiment evolve.  Wars, dissease, murder, pain, suffering are all just interesting things to watch.  just like a scientist watching ants go to war all the deaths are just datapoints.  And as a side note the scientist being a god like creature to ants probably could care less if the ants worshiped him.

I once speculated in a post a while back that, if you assume a deist god, the universe could well be to him/her like a sand pendulum is to a human being.  And when human beings play with a sand pendulum, they certainly don't worry about whether the pendulum moving the sand around is causing any pain to the grains of sand or anything.

I'm starting to lean more toward the hands off god idea...
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Jag on June 20, 2013, 01:12:32 PM
^^^This is pretty much the only kind that makes any sense at all to me. I allow for a deist type of God, one that is non-participatory, as a possibility. As I come to know little bits more about Buddhism, I could see me getting on board with that as a life philosophy.

The more I learn, really about almost anything at this point, the less sense I can make of an interventionist/Abrahamic version of God. It simply makes no coherent sense when we look at the world as it actually is.
 
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: colleenjarvis on July 16, 2013, 04:46:19 PM
Some people will not truly consider God . . . until they're aware that THIS might be their last breath.
Imagine being on the 100th floor of one of the Trade Towers on September 11th and realizing your flight down the stairs might not get you out safely.
Or imagine a rainy night on the highway as you are driving home late one Friday and a semi tractor trailer faces you head on with no time to react.
Then there's always the doctors diagnosis that "Yes, I'm sorry, it's cancer and it's beyond treatment."
All of us must face the reality now, while we still have eyes to read and time to ask "God, if you're real, will you please show me?" As we open up the only Book that we know, deep in our hearts, is like no other on earth.
So, if YOU truly want to know if God is real, He has given YOU His personal challenge and invitation: Open His Book (Bible) with an honest desire to know Him as He is, start reading and don't stop until you "SEE" Him. He reserves Himself for those who WANT to know Him.
Who knows,
today
COULD be your last.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: ParkingPlaces on July 16, 2013, 05:43:17 PM
Who knows,
today
COULD be your last.

First of all, we're not real big on being preached to around here. It's fine to state your opinion, but when it sounds like you're up on the pulpit, we get a little peeved.

Second, I am well aware that today could be my last day. I may or may not even finish this sentence. Someday will be, for sure, and since I'm in my 60's, that will be sooner than later. But I've had a long, long time to think about such things and I am about as sure as I can be without actually being on my last breath that I'll remain certain that there is no god up until the very end, and accept my demise as gracefully as whatever kills me will allow.

I've had the occasional close call (more the semi headed for me type than disease) and never gave god a thought even though i could have perished halfway through the process. I once thought I was having a heart attack (turned out to be severe indigestion, which I had never experienced before) and my only concern as I sat down on the wilderness trail was that my body might be found by little kids running down the trail ahead of their parents instead of an adult and I didn't want a kid to have to deal with that. I gave no thought to a god or a useless fear of death. I accepted then that I might just about be gone, and I trust when it happens again, real or not, I will react in a similar way.

That you need such stuff if your problem, not mine. That you need a god and need some sense of eternity or whatever it is that attracts you to religion is your POV, not the one we should all have. I've made it very clear that nobody says word one about any of their gods at my memorial service, and I can promise you that as I lay dying, I won't either.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: naemhni on July 16, 2013, 06:28:29 PM
Hi, Colleen, welcome to WWGHA.  I hope you find your stay here informative and entertaining.

Some people will not truly consider God . . . until they're aware that THIS might be their last breath.

Other people, on the other hand, will spend years truly "considering god" and come to the conclusion that, in all likelihood, there isn't one.  As strange as it probably sounds to you, the fact that we're atheists doesn't mean we haven't given the matter any thought.  In fact, quite the contrary, most of the regulars here are atheists because they have.

Quote
Imagine being on the 100th floor of one of the Trade Towers on September 11th and realizing your flight down the stairs might not get you out safely.
Or imagine a rainy night on the highway as you are driving home late one Friday and a semi tractor trailer faces you head on with no time to react.
Then there's always the doctors diagnosis that "Yes, I'm sorry, it's cancer and it's beyond treatment."

Yes, everyone dies eventually.  How is that relevant?

Quote
All of us must face the reality now, while we still have eyes to read and time to ask "God, if you're real, will you please show me?"

Most of the regulars here have done that.  In fact, most of the regulars here were Christians, and they weren't casual about it, either.  When they felt their faith starting to fade, most of them were very distraught and tried very hard to continue being believers.  They prayed and prayed and prayed, imploring Yahweh to give them strength or some kind of a sign or what have you to help them continue being believers.  Yahweh did not answer them.  What do you think about that?

Quote
As we open up the only Book that we know, deep in our hearts, is like no other on earth.

Most of the regulars here have done that, too.  (You'll want to notice, by the way, that you're making a hell of a lot of assumptions about us, and thus far, they've all been wrong.  Not just a little bit wrong, either, but VERY wrong.)

Anyway.  Most of us here, including me, have read that Bronze Age Cure For Insomnia cover to cover at least once, and it did not cause believers to retain their faith or cause atheists to become believers.  For my own part, in fact, I had always been rather skeptical of Christianity, and when I finally got around to reading the bible a year or two ago, I did not "magically see the light" or anything.  In fact, quite the contrary, it basically cemented my rejection of the religion.

Quote
So, if YOU truly want to know if God is real, He has given YOU His personal challenge and invitation: Open His Book (Bible) with an honest desire to know Him as He is, start reading and don't stop until you "SEE" Him. He reserves Himself for those who WANT to know Him.

Then why am I, for one, an atheist?  If Yahweh exists and is omniscient, he knows perfectly well that if I'm wrong about him not existing, I damn well want to know about it.  So why am I still not a believer?

Quote
Who knows,
today
COULD be your last.

And again, even if it is -- so what?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Quesi on July 16, 2013, 06:47:22 PM
Some people will not truly consider God . . . until they're aware that THIS might be their last breath.
Imagine being on the 100th floor of one of the Trade Towers on September 11th and realizing your flight down the stairs might not get you out safely.
Or imagine a rainy night on the highway as you are driving home late one Friday and a semi tractor trailer faces you head on with no time to react.
Then there's always the doctors diagnosis that "Yes, I'm sorry, it's cancer and it's beyond treatment."
All of us must face the reality now, while we still have eyes to read and time to ask "God, if you're real, will you please show me?" As we open up the only Book that we know, deep in our hearts, is like no other on earth.
So, if YOU truly want to know if God is real, He has given YOU His personal challenge and invitation: Open His Book (Bible) with an honest desire to know Him as He is, start reading and don't stop until you "SEE" Him. He reserves Himself for those who WANT to know Him.
Who knows,
today
COULD be your last.

Golly Colleen.  You know, the guys who flew airplanes into the 100th floor of the WTC were truly considering God. 

And I know nothing about YOUR god, but I suspect he is the same god of Abraham that those folks worshiped.  The god who loves the smell of lambs' blood, and who ordered his faithful to sacrifice their children or slaughter their enemies.   Just a few minor differences.   

So maybe you want to re-think this "consider god" stuff.  A lot of nasty things have been done by folks who were truly considering god.  In biblical times, and today. 

Pianodwarf pointed out that you made a whole lot of assumptions about us.  And I agree. 

But welcome to the forum.  We look forward to learning more about you and your god and what makes you tick. 
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on July 16, 2013, 06:48:05 PM

Most of the regulars here have done that.  In fact, most of the regulars here were Christians, and they weren't casual about it, either.  When they felt their faith starting to fade, most of them were very distraught and tried very hard to continue being believers.  They prayed and prayed and prayed, imploring Yahweh to give them strength or some kind of a sign or what have you to help them continue being believers.
Yep.
Quote
Yahweh did not answer them.
Nope.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Astreja on July 16, 2013, 09:54:09 PM
Some people will not truly consider God . . . until they're aware that THIS might be their last breath.

So your "faith" preys upon human desperation, then?

Quote
Imagine being on the 100th floor of one of the Trade Towers on September 11th and realizing your flight down the stairs might not get you out safely.

So your god could not or would not intervene and prevent the tragedy?

Quote
Or imagine a rainy night on the highway as you are driving home late one Friday and a semi tractor trailer faces you head on with no time to react.

No time to react?  No time to pray, either.

Quote
Then there's always the doctors diagnosis that "Yes, I'm sorry, it's cancer and it's beyond treatment."

Increasingly rare now because of advances in cancer research.  Fighting back is vastly preferable to sighing, giving up and packing a suitcase for heaven.

Quote
All of us must face the reality now, while we still have eyes to read and time to ask "God, if you're real, will you please show me?"

All of us must face the reality now, while we still have eyes to read and time to ask, "Athena, if you're real, will you please show me?"

Quote
As we open up the only Book that we know, deep in our hearts, is like no other on earth.

Except for the parts that were plagiarized from the Enûma Eliš, Canaanite mythology, Greek mythology and Egyptian mythology, of course.   :angel:  (And of course the synoptic Gospels, which were plagiarized from each other.)

Quote
So, if YOU truly want to know if God is real, He has given YOU His personal challenge and invitation: Open His Book (Bible) with an honest desire to know Him as He is, start reading and don't stop until you "SEE" Him.

Been there, done that... 48 years ago.  It didn't take seven-year-old Me very long at all to realize that the nonsense about Hell was just a convenient way for rulers to scare the people into obedience, and I've yet to get the Talking Snake™ that I asked for.

Quote
He reserves Himself for those who WANT to know Him.

And tortures for eternity all those who DO NOT WANT to know him.  What a psychopathic drama queen.

Quote
Who knows, today COULD be your last.

And what if it is?  Here, Colleen:  Some quotes from someone I admire a lot more than your god...

Quote
Hope is the denial of reality. It is the carrot dangled before the draft horse to keep him plodding along in a vain attempt to reach it.
Quote
The future changes as we stand here, else we are the game pieces of the gods, not their heirs, as we have been promised.
Quote
If we stop living because we fear death then we have already died.

And My personal favourite:

Quote
I will do this. Nothing in my life matters except this. No moment of my life exists except this moment. I am born in this moment, and if I fail, I will die in this moment.

Your god doesn't even rate an honourable mention.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: nogodsforme on July 16, 2013, 11:14:09 PM
Y'all don't need my help. The Force is weak in this one.  :angel:
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Aaron123 on July 17, 2013, 12:40:18 AM
All of us must face the reality now, while we still have eyes to read and time to ask "God, if you're real, will you please show me?" As we open up the only Book that we know, deep in our hearts, is like no other on earth.
So, if YOU truly want to know if God is real, He has given YOU His personal challenge and invitation: Open His Book (Bible) with an honest desire to know Him as He is, start reading and don't stop until you "SEE" Him. He reserves Himself for those who WANT to know Him.

If it's so important to "know" god, you'd think the big guy himself could be a little more pro-active about it.  Heck, he used to be pro-active about things.  Talking directly to people, talking through bushes, sending his son down.  Now... nothing.  Sounds like the message needs to be directed at god himself to get off his lazy bum.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Anfauglir on July 17, 2013, 02:59:18 AM
Imagine being on the 100th floor of one of the Trade Towers on September 11th and realizing your flight down the stairs might not get you out safely.

I'd be saying "if there really is a god, I spit on him for keeping himself hidden - because if he had not, then this attack would never have happened".
 
Or imagine a rainy night on the highway as you are driving home late one Friday and a semi tractor trailer faces you head on with no time to react.

If there's no time to react, there'll be no time to think.  If you're going to throw scares out, at least make sure they make sense.

All of us must face the reality now, while we still have eyes to read and time to ask "God, if you're real, will you please show me?"

Funny thing - I've done that time after time, every time a new believer comes here.  Nothing ever happens.

.....start reading and don't stop until you "SEE" Him.

....which could take months or years, I guess you're going to tell me.  Why IS that?  I thought your god was one who really truly desired a relationship with his children?  Why does he keep himself hidden for years - sometimes for a lifetime - if he wants a relationship?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: colleenjarvis on July 17, 2013, 09:18:00 AM
All of us must face the reality now, while we still have eyes to read and time to ask "God, if you're real, will you please show me?" As we open up the only Book that we know, deep in our hearts, is like no other on earth.
So, if YOU truly want to know if God is real, He has given YOU His personal challenge and invitation: Open His Book (Bible) with an honest desire to know Him as He is, start reading and don't stop until you "SEE" Him. He reserves Himself for those who WANT to know Him.

If it's so important to "know" god, you'd think the big guy himself could be a little more pro-active about it.  Heck, he used to be pro-active about things.  Talking directly to people, talking through bushes, sending his son down.  Now... nothing.  Sounds like the message needs to be directed at god himself to get off his lazy bum.
So, my dear friend, what sin comes to mind while you read? This is the wall He wants to tear down so you can see Him.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: colleenjarvis on July 17, 2013, 09:20:04 AM
He wrote you many many letters. Are you reading them or are they sitting on a dresser or shelf somewhere?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: naemhni on July 17, 2013, 09:28:17 AM
He wrote you many many letters.  Are you reading them or are they sitting on a dresser or shelf somewhere?

Please name these letters are cite their provenance.  I do not recall ever having received any such correspondence.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: ParkingPlaces on July 17, 2013, 09:49:08 AM
He wrote you many many letters. Are you reading them or are they sitting on a dresser or shelf somewhere?

You've learned well, my little one. You are obtuse, remote, dependent upon simile and probably non-existent as well. That you are offended by people who have original thoughts, or thoughts at all for that matter, is no surprise.

Talking to us like we are children is bad enough. Choosing to speak in lofty terms when you haven't yet been issued a literary license just makes it worse.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Astreja on July 17, 2013, 10:17:25 AM
Things the Bible should have said if it were actually addressed to Me:

Your imaginary friend really dropped the ball, Colleen.  Fortunately, I was able to pick it up Myself and score My own touchdowns.  8)
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: jaimehlers on July 17, 2013, 10:36:07 AM
So, my dear friend, what sin comes to mind while you read? This is the wall He wants to tear down so you can see Him.
Frankly, seems to me that this is an excuse to justify why people who aren't "in the right frame of mind" don't get anything from reading the Bible.  In actual fact, people can be inspired by just about anything, but not everyone is inspired by the same thing.

Also, seems like if your god wanted people to see him, he wouldn't have to waste time with this roundabout process of tearing down walls of sin, or whatever they are, simply so people would know he exists.  Real entities can make themselves known simply by showing up in front of us.  Your god should easily be able to do that, if even a fraction of the magical powers attributed to him have some basis in fact.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on July 17, 2013, 11:30:52 AM
Things the Bible should have said if it were actually addressed to Me:

  • "They won't have any flutes on the first day of that summer workshop at the high school, so you'll have to wait to get one.  Try the clarinet instead; you'll really like it."
  • "Why the media arts course?  You've got the marks; apply to McGill instead."
  • "Don't go into business with Whatsisname, and in the name of all that is holy do not marry him!  Wait till you're pregnant and then just skip town."
Your imaginary friend really dropped the ball, Colleen.  Fortunately, I was able to pick it up Myself and score My own touchdowns.  8)

Wouldn't that be awesome?  Or how about if when you open a fortune cookie the little paper said "Your date is a douchebag, be afraid, be very afraid."  Or when you made those little fortune tellers and opened it up it said "When you get older this bitch will steal your boyfriend."
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Aaron123 on July 17, 2013, 12:12:55 PM
So, my dear friend, what sin comes to mind while you read? This is the wall He wants to tear down so you can see Him.

"He wants to tear down..."

As in "would like to, but is unable to"?  Why is your god incapable of tearing down "the wall"[1] himself?


Quote
He wrote you many many letters. Are you reading them or are they sitting on a dresser or shelf somewhere?

I've gotten letters from my parents, the phone company, the bank, insurance company, the electric company, etc etc.  So I know the postal service still works.  I never received a letter from god.  Either god needs to get my address right, or he needs to start putting stamps on those postcards.
 1. whatever that means
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: nogodsforme on July 17, 2013, 03:28:10 PM
This god works only through metaphors.... &)
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Bereft_of_Faith on July 21, 2013, 04:33:15 AM
Some people will not truly consider God . . . until they're aware that THIS might be their last breath.
Imagine being on the 100th floor of one of the Trade Towers on September 11th and realizing your flight down the stairs might not get you out safely.
Or imagine a rainy night on the highway as you are driving home late one Friday and a semi tractor trailer faces you head on with no time to react.
Then there's always the doctors diagnosis that "Yes, I'm sorry, it's cancer and it's beyond treatment."
All of us must face the reality now, while we still have eyes to read and time to ask "God, if you're real, will you please show me?" As we open up the only Book that we know, deep in our hearts, is like no other on earth.
So, if YOU truly want to know if God is real, He has given YOU His personal challenge and invitation: Open His Book (Bible) with an honest desire to know Him as He is, start reading and don't stop until you "SEE" Him. He reserves Himself for those who WANT to know Him.
Who knows,
today
COULD be your last.

An appeal to basic human fear. 

When some little children get beat up by some other little children, they call for their mommy.  So when we face a desperate situation, you claim we will call for our daddy?  It's the same thing really.  Mom is in miles away and cannot her the child's plea, and god is nowhere.  He can't hear our last minute plea, no matter how desperate we are.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: eaterjolly on July 22, 2013, 02:04:21 PM
No gods whatsoever is the truth.
that very much, good sure, is an opinion. :P
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: One Above All on July 22, 2013, 04:01:16 PM
that very much, good sure, is an opinion. :P

Believe what you will.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: ParkingPlaces on July 22, 2013, 04:44:36 PM
This god works only through metaphors.... &)

Well, that's better than being as-simile-ated by the borg...

That was the worst pun I could come up with. Someone who doesn't exist please forgive me.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Graybeard on August 09, 2013, 03:01:15 PM
To summarise:
I’d like to start by pointing at revelations in the bible; most of them have been proven to become true.
The consensus is that there are no prophecies in the Bible.

Quote
I think WWII allowed Jews to return to their holly land, which is something pretty much unique in history,
The consensus is that (i) "unique cannot be qualified - it is like being dead, you either are or aren't (ii) You have forgotten the Exile and return from exile of the Jews in the OT

Quote
for we know (as an example) American natives will never recover their land.
The consensus is "How do we "know this, as opposed to "believing it most likely."?"

Quote
Now there is this Jewish Christian group earning popularity, which is making Jesus part of their beliefs in Israel, something most of us would have imagine impossible. And I’m concerned about the possibility of missing reality because of arrogance.
The consensus is that the number of Jews converting is statistically insignificant.

Quote
Since nobody can prove God’s existence, neither his non-existence,

You have not stated what standard of proof you want.

Quote
I would like to discuss on this forum about what is more likely to be the truth.
The consensus is that there is no God, or gods, or fairies, or gnomes, or dragons, or unicorns, or witches, or wizards, or miracles or resurrections and that anyone who says there is is deluded - big time.

I hope this helps.
[/quote]
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: godisacoder on August 28, 2013, 10:34:10 PM
I ask one question. without claiming any absolutes such as god doesnt exist. What sciencetific proof does anyone that God didnt "program" the reality we know to work how it does. if you allow to say that god as the level of power we believe him to have what does it hurt to say a intelligent being was ale to program a world to operate on a simple set of laes.u
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Azdgari on August 28, 2013, 10:40:18 PM
I don't know what a set of "laes.u" is, but I think I get the gist of what you're trying to type.

We could, as you say, all be brains in a vat.  Or programs in a cosmic computer.  If you specifically design a scenario in such a way as to make it indistinguishable from the reality we normally observe, then there is no scientific evidence against it.  Not because it's plausible, but because the scenario has been deliberately designed in such a way as to leave no trace of itself.

This sort of scenario is what you're designing, here.  I have no idea why we'd want to pose such scenarios in the first place.  Do you?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: godisacoder on August 28, 2013, 11:00:06 PM
The idea in my line of thinking is this. throw out the bible as historical fact. look at actual fact, we have found evidence to sciencetific support a great flood that would have flooded the known world to noah's desendents.we know that if you look in the world of medcine even today dr. say that something causing people with faith to heal faster and more unexplainablely. a famous sciencetis theroized that the belief in the extisence of god was sounf due to the fact that if you were right paradise awaits if wrong... you still taste the same to the worms. I pride myself on not being the typical bible beater. i believe that as you state science nor religion will ever be proven right ir wrong i sugest only that a person look at the math of our existence. one degree different and many physis say life may not have formed in our galaxy so that suggest to me a intelligentence behind the order from chaos to order theory of no God
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: ParkingPlaces on August 28, 2013, 11:04:20 PM
^^^I think your information source is suspect. For instance, what scientific evidence do we have for a worldwide flood? I've never heard of any.

If you could direct me in the right direction, that would be great.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: godisacoder on August 28, 2013, 11:12:31 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=17884533
i believe Dr.Ballard discover of the Titanic may have found  something
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: ParkingPlaces on August 29, 2013, 12:14:10 AM
Well, geologists have known about that flood for some time. It was localized, albeit over a fairly large area. And it stayed flooded. Both of which differ from the biblical story that supposedly flooded the entire world. And that didn't happen.

I've always healed fast and I've had very few medical problems outside of cuts and bruises, and I've been an atheist for over 50 years. I haven't had a cold in almost four years. I've never had the flu in my life. So if there are differences between people in how fast the heal, etc. it may be something besides faith. Because I don't have any.

Believers tend to play fast and sloppy with the facts and often do a pretty good job fooling themselves into thinking they have something kinda scientific to back up their biblical claims. Life isn't that easy. If one is going to try to match the facts with what they hope is true, one has to start out with some pretty high quality hopes. Otherwise it isn't going to work out.

If it is really important for you to believe the stuff you are saying, you are probably discussing these things in the wrong place. We are going to ask for details every time you make a claim, and unless you come up with something very different from what many believers have said on this site before, it ain't gonna work. Well just sit around and tell you why you're wrong.

You are welcome to be here, of course. Just don't expect everyone to be as nice as I am.  ;)
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Anfauglir on August 29, 2013, 02:32:21 AM
we know that if you look in the world of medcine even today dr. say that something causing people with faith to heal faster and more unexplainablely.

Perhaps so.  But it applies to ALL people of ALL religions, who foloow ALL kinds of woo.  And it also applies to people who take placebos.  Neither mean there is any external force acting on us.  And it certainly doesn't mean YOUR god exists, when all the Hindus and Ba'hai and Wiccans with belief heal so much faster.

a famous sciencetis theroized that the belief in the extisence of god was sounf due to the fact that if you were right paradise awaits if wrong... you still taste the same to the worms.

Sounds exactly like Pascal's wager, an entirely discredited piece of trickery that would ONLY work if the two possible options were "Christian god" and "no god".  Chuck any one other god into the mix, and the Wager become worthless.

Consider:
Yahweh brings you to heaven, or sends you to hell, based on your belief in him.  But he is a forgiving god.
Khorne brings you to heaven, or sends you to hell, based on your belief in him.  But he is an UNforgiving god.
Pascal's Wager HERE would say: Worship Khorne, because Yahweh might still let you into heaven if it turns out he is the correct god.  If you worship Yahweh. and Khorne is the One True God, you will definitely go to hell.

And, of course, either god might be more forgiving of an honestly searching but critical atheist, than to someone who devoutly followed the wrong faith.

I pride myself on not being the typical bible beater.

Sadly though, so far you are using the same tired old arguments that most of them use, I'm sorry to say.  Not your fault, of course - those arguments are pretty well drummed into believers by their preachers.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: godisacoder on August 29, 2013, 08:52:59 AM
I first never said the flood was worldwide but to a small primitive family that wstch everything they know get washed aeay might say hey the world flooded. the fact almost every religion mention a destructive flood mean alot to any anthpological research. second I am different in i believe that all religion misses the mark in one way or another but there are too many simularities
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Mrjason on August 29, 2013, 09:09:34 AM
I first never said the flood was worldwide but to a small primitive family that wstch everything they know get washed aeay might say hey the world flooded. the fact almost every religion mention a destructive flood mean alot to any anthpological research.

most religions were formed in comparatively low tech times. The fact that the people in low tech times thought that floods were one of the most destructive forces around doesn't really mean anything.

second I am different in i believe that all religion misses the mark in one way or another but there are too many simularities

Have you considered that there may be many similarities with religions because human hopes and desires are similar where ever they are located in the world?


Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: screwtape on August 29, 2013, 09:14:14 AM
I first never said the flood was worldwide

No, but you did say The Great Flood, which implies a worldwide flood.  It is misleading, even if unintentionally so.  It would be helpful if you were more precise in your communication to avoid this sort of confusion.

but to a small primitive family that wstch everything they know get washed aeay might say hey the world flooded.

I would bet everyone here would agree.  So, this is not exactly an exciting or novel idea.

the fact almost every religion mention a destructive flood mean alot to any anthpological research.

In what way?  I would need to know more about what you mean before objecting or agreeing.

second I am different in i believe that all religion misses the mark in one way or another but there are too many simularities

Too many similarities for what?  What are you saying?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Anfauglir on August 29, 2013, 09:18:08 AM
I first never said the flood was worldwide but to a small primitive family that wstch everything they know get washed aeay might say hey the world flooded.....

They may indeed.  BUT, that means that the whole Biblical premise of the flood is destroyed: the flood happened, we are told, because Yahweh got mad at ALL the world.  By saying it was really only small and localised gives the lie to Yahweh's words as reported in the Bible - or means that Yahweh simply doesn't exist in the first place.

A flood that swamps fifty square miles and kills three families may well feel like the end of the world and the wrath of god to people nearby.  But a small local flood gives the lie to the whole rationale the Bible gives the flood in the first place.

...the fact almost every religion mention a destructive flood mean alot to any anthpological research.

....ALMOST all.  Not all.  Which means that the world never flooded (which we know from the ACTUAL evidence anyways).  Which means - and ALL it means,a t best - is that some areas of the world had biggish floods, which people reported and gave divine meaning to.  We also know that some flood myths are borrowed from early works that promote different gods. 

second I am different in i believe that all religion misses the mark in one way or another but there are too many simularities

That's very true - but not necessarily for the reasons you think.  Take a read of the below, and tell me if you think Jesus was real.  Sad fact is, religions are similar because they borrow and steal from earlier mythologies - but that does NOT automatically mean the earlier myths were real.  And if they were....it means the Bible gives the wrong names and meanings to the myths.

- - - - -
So let's talk about Jesus.

Do you mean the Jesus who healed the sick and even raised the dead? Where the former paralysed walked again, the blind could miraculously see again, and the deaf could listen and the mute speak after the Master's gentle touch? But he did not only heal the body, he also healed the soul. They called him Saviour and Redeemer, and he healed both rich and poor, men and women, young and old, slaves and free men, friends and enemies. In one occasion a paralysed man was brough to him in his bed, and took his bed and left walking after the Saviour had touched him. What was this Saviour's name?

… Asklepios.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who was born by a mortal virgin mother and had a divine Father, and was known as the "Saviour of the world"? Before he was born his parents wandered to a bigger town, and prophets had foretold his birth and that he would be a king. This instigated a search for the infant Saviour by a leading figure who wanted to kill him. After growing up the Son of God was shown all the kingdoms of the world from a high mountain. He also walked on water and when he met his end his mother and his favorite disciple stood by him. He then tells his mother: "Do not cry, I'm going to heaven". When he dies he utter: "It is finished" and the earth trembles and darkness cover the land. Then he ascended to heaven, and his greatest achievement was to conquer death.

His name was of course...Hercules.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We all of course know the Redeemer who was no figure of pagan Greek polytheism. He was the true saviour who wanted to help and save the sinful humans, by sacrificing himself. But he was willing to do this, out of love, pity and compassion for the humans.

His name:...Prometheus.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, who was the real Son of God, born by a mortal virgin mother, and often presented as the venerated newborn infant, or depicted riding a donkey? He healed the sick and did numerous wonders, among those making fine wine from plain water. He was killed but resurrected from the dead and became immortal. The followers of this god often ate a holy meal in a kind of sacramental union with the deity to achieve immortality after their death. One of this god's finest achievements was his death, his sacrifice, which delivers the whole human kind.

The God was the very popular Dionysos.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who is the "Light of the World", the One, the God who defeated death? Born of a virgin mother, considered the first true king by the people, who rose from the grave and ascended to heaven. He defeated death, and must be considered the single true God.

Of course the Egyptian Osiris!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, the real God often called the "Light of the world", "The good shepherd", "The lamb" and is "…the way, the truth, and the life". Identified with a cross. Who could that be?

Horus, (the son of Osiris).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The original "Light of the world" was the mediator between God and man and was born on the 25th of December. Local shepherds witnessed his birth and gave him gifts. He had 12 disciples, and when his work was done on earth he gathered together to a last supper, and then ascended to heaven. At doomsday he will return to pass judgment on both the living and the dead. The righteous will go to heaven and the sinful will be killed in a giant fire. Sunday is his holy day, and this religion gave us the seven days of the week. His followers called each other "brothers" and their leaders "fathers". They practiced baptism and established a sacred meal ritual, where flesh and blood was symbolically consumed by initiates. Above earth was heaven, and below the dark, hell, with demons and the sinners.

The 'Light of the World' is of course the sungod Mithra.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wise men were led to his birth by a star, and his conception was miraculous. After his birth the ruler in the area wanted him dead and started a hunt for the child. But his parents were warned by a heavenly messenger who told them to escape over the river with the holy child. Here, he was met by shepherds. The boy grew up and did many great deeds, and was the mediator between God and man.


His name: Krishna.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who then, was the god whose mother was told by an angel that she would give birth to a holy child destined to be a saviour? Even as a child he instructed the priests in the temple in religous matters, while his parents were looking for him. He started his religious career when he was (circa) 30 years of age, and surrounded himself with 12 disciples. One of the disciples is his favorite another is a traitor. He and his disciples abstain from wealth and travel around talking in parables and metaphors. This God called himself "Son of Man" and was referred to as "Prophet", "Master" and "Lord". He did many great wonders and healed the sick, blind could see again and deaf hear.
He also walked on water. When one of his disciples tried to do the same, he started to sink - his faith was not strong enough.

We are here obviously talking about Buddha.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This saviour cannot be mistaken for any other. He performed countless miracles on earth, miracles well attested to by bystanders. He healed the sick and the crippled, restored sight to the blind, cast out demons, and even raised the dead! His birth was of a virgin, foretold by an angel. While still a child, he exhibited extraordinary knowledge of religious scripture. He reformed the corrupt and worldly religions of his day. He was crucified, rose from the tomb and appeared to his disciples to prove to them his power over death, after which he ascended to heaven to sit at the right hand of the father. He was known as "the Son of God!" His message is of love and compassion.

We give you: Apollonius of Tyana

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And there is of course the god-man, the prophet, the founder of a great monotheistic religion that still exist today. He preached that there was only one true god, and his teachings focused on the eternal fight between good and evil. The teachings include the idea of the saviour will wake the dead and pass judgment on all. The righteous ones goes to paradise and the sinful straight to a burning hell. The very word of Paradise stems from this religion. This semigod started his career in his early thirties, and had a following of disciples. As a band of monks they wandered around, preaching their religion. He was eventually killed and sent to heaven.

And he was the Persian Zarathustra.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The problem for Jesus is that all these deities are much older than him. You don't have to be very bright to see where the authors of the gospels got their "devine inspiration" when they created the Jewish version of the popular God-Man/ World-Saviour of antiquity.


*Thanks to:

http://www.bandoli.no/
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: ParkingPlaces on August 29, 2013, 09:33:28 AM
I first never said the flood was worldwide but to a small primitive family that wstch everything they know get washed aeay might say hey the world flooded. the fact almost every religion mention a destructive flood mean alot to any anthpological research. second I am different in i believe that all religion misses the mark in one way or another but there are too many simularities

People tell flood stories because there have been a lot of floods. People make up religions because it is easy to do, and in more primitive times, we can't really blame them. So people who have experienced great and scary floods often include such tales in their religions.

The common ground here is humans and human experience. Not an actual god. What you might think about doing is paying more attention to the inconsistencies. Even within a major religion, like christianity, there are hundreds of versions of the same story. Well, actually, there are thousands. This does't indicate one god or one set of gods being variously interpreted as much as it represents diverse groups of human beings and everyone's propensity to make stuff up when they have no other explanation. Or don't like other explanations. Toss in basic problems, like a fear of death and other problematic tendencies, like wanting to group up with some humans but not others, and the rise of religion, as it starts from mental exercises, and evolves into institutions, over and over again around the world, is of no surprise.

Religions get pimped because people like to have their own. And lacking real gods, the religious have free reign to invent whatever they want. But they are all humans, so they can't invent supernatural stuff that is outside their ability to imagine, and they can't write about experiences that never occur and that nobody ever thought of.

Oceans are scary. Fishermen even today know how risky it is to go out and catch fish. Imagine how scary it was three and four thousand years ago. How many people jumped in their boats and never returned, swallowed by storms. How many fishermen barely made it back? And a story makes it into the bible of a boat full of fishermen and a huge storm, and gods intervention, and miraculous survival, and of Jonah being swallowed by a whale and saved after being cast overboard. What are the odds? Not the odds of their survival, but the odds of a fishing story making it into the bible? Pretty high, apparently.

godisacoder, you mentioned that you have a different take on religion. I would suggest that you go to our "Introductions" section and tell us a little bit about yourself, because one of our biggest problems around here is that new believers, whom we tend to lump into one group, have very diverse beliefs. And if we don't get an overview from a new contributor such as yourself, we tend to assume that each one is a generic christian who has generic beliefs, and it always takes awhile to parse out the actual beliefs of newbies. It is impossible for us to intuit what a new members beliefs are, and when they speak in general terms like you did (flood stores, prayer, etc) we tend to jump to conclusions and put you into our "fundy" category. But if that does not define you, it will take us awhile to figure out where you stand on both basic and complex issues if you don't state your positions as clearly as possible. And the Introductions section will allow you to do that, thereby helping all of us avoid total confusion for awhile.

And again, godisacoder, welcome.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: jdawg70 on August 29, 2013, 09:43:29 AM
...second I am different in i believe that all religion misses the mark in one way or another but there are too many simularities
Seriously, you're not all that different.  The 'oh religions are all specifically wrong but I still believe in principally unprovable nonsense about objective reality based on vague, ill-defined, unverifiable feelings that either contradict or have no relationship to objective reality' perspective is pretty popular.

Or the short form - 'spiritual not religious'.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: godisacoder on August 29, 2013, 10:21:45 AM
Because nonbelieve cant scienctificly prove its fact
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Dante on August 29, 2013, 10:32:34 AM
Because nonbelieve cant scienctificly prove its fact

Huh? Can't prove what's a fact? The nonexistence of leprechauns?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: godisacoder on August 29, 2013, 10:40:16 AM
Because nonbelieve cant scienctificly prove its fact

Huh? Can't prove what's a fact? The nonexistence of leprechauns?
no god you disprove him, the only thing yall can say to us is a book written some 3000 years ago has so sciencetific fact that dont jive
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Mrjason on August 29, 2013, 11:00:47 AM
Because nonbelieve cant scienctificly prove its fact

Huh? Can't prove what's a fact? The nonexistence of leprechauns?
no god you disprove him, the only thing yall can say to us is a book written some 3000 years ago has so sciencetific fact that dont jive
not quite. theres a great website that gives a number of reasons aside from the old book problem. Here have a look :)  http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/important.htm (http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/important.htm)
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: jaimehlers on August 29, 2013, 11:02:42 AM
I ask one question. without claiming any absolutes such as god doesnt exist. What sciencetific proof does anyone that God didnt "program" the reality we know to work how it does. if you allow to say that god as the level of power we believe him to have what does it hurt to say a intelligent being was ale to program a world to operate on a simple set of laes.u
Your approach here is bad.  You have to show that there's something to your idea that God 'programmed' reality before it's worth considering.  For example, if you claim that you have a small volcano in your backyard that spews out lava on command, I might say, "cool, can I see it?"  At which point you'd show me your pet volcano.

But we're not at that point yet.  We're still at the point where you're talking about how neat it is to have a volcano that spews lava on command.  Until you show it to someone, that's all you can do - and you leave yourself open to people accusing you of making the whole thing up.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Astreja on August 29, 2013, 12:50:18 PM
Godisacoder, in the context of your god-as-programmer hypothesis, would that make humans variables in this alleged program?

As I see it, humans wouldn't have a lot of leeway in this situation:  Either they too have been programmed into the system to help achieve whatever purpose the programmer had in mind from the start, or they are outsiders at the mercy of the program's output.

Perhaps I should get together with My dear, sweet uncle Loki and hack the system.   ;D
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: jdawg70 on August 29, 2013, 01:01:02 PM
Godisacoder, in the context of your god-as-programmer hypothesis, would that make humans variables in this alleged program?

As I see it, humans wouldn't have a lot of leeway in this situation:  Either they too have been programmed into the system to help achieve whatever purpose the programmer had in mind from the start, or they are outsiders at the mercy of the program's output.

Perhaps I should get together with My dear, sweet uncle Loki and hack the system.   ;D
If you're going to try to hack the system, you will probably need to consult with whatever god programmer-god worships - you know, the dude who built the underlying architecture to run the code that programmer-god made.

What's that?  There isn't a god that programmer-god worships, venerates, or answers to?  Can't prove that he doesn't exist...guess there is a god that programmer-god worships...
...and that god was created by comic-god.  What's that?  There isn't a comic-god that god worships, venerates, or answers to?  Can't prove that he doesn't exist...guess there is a comic-god that god worships...
(and so on and so forth)
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Dante on August 29, 2013, 01:04:46 PM
I'm going to assume some things in your grammatical syntax. Like punctuation. Please do correct me if I'm wrong.

Because nonbelieve cant scienctificly prove its fact

Huh? Can't prove what's a fact? The nonexistence of leprechauns?
no. god. you disprove him. the only thing yall can say to us is a book written some 3000 years ago has so sciencetific fact that dont jive

Sure, we can't disprove your god. But, please tell me how anyone could disprove ANYTHING that doesn't exist. You can start with anything you like, be it leprechauns, Santa Claus, the easter bunny, or whatever. Prove something imaginary doesn't exist. Go ahead, we'll wait.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: nogodsforme on August 29, 2013, 01:40:07 PM
A lot of cultures have flood myths because a lot of cultures developed near rivers, lakes or oceans, ie near bodies of water. Seems that human beings need water to survive and sometimes there is too much water and there is a flood. Amazing, that.  &)
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Anfauglir on August 30, 2013, 03:54:25 AM
Because nonbelieve cant scienctificly prove its fact

Huh? Can't prove what's a fact? The nonexistence of leprechauns?
no god you disprove him, the only thing yall can say to us is a book written some 3000 years ago has so sciencetific fact that dont jive

Tell you what, godisacoder - why don't you help us out?  Show us how you disprove Ganesh, then we'll know what sort of thing you want from us to disprove the god YOU'VE picked.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: wheels5894 on August 30, 2013, 05:47:28 AM
Because nonbelieve cant scienctificly prove its fact

Huh? Can't prove what's a fact? The nonexistence of leprechauns?
no god you disprove him, the only thing yall can say to us is a book written some 3000 years ago has so sciencetific fact that dont jive

Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: nogodsforme on August 30, 2013, 03:21:45 PM
The problem (one of the many, many problems) with arguments about god's existence is that all the rules that people normally use in their lives just go out the window.

I have a car to sell (actually true). It is a 1996 Dodge Neon (true). I will take your best offer (true). Now then, what do you have to know before you would even consider giving me a single dollar? Minimally?

Normal Car Buying Conditions:

a) The car does exist-- you will want to come to my house and see the car, or at least see a photo of it online.
b) The car runs okay-- you will want to do a test drive to prove this.
c) The car has no major problems-- you will want a mechanic inspect the car and tell you about any problems that I have not told you about.
d) The car belongs to me and I have the right to sell it-- you will want to see the title.
e) The price I want is fair for the age and condition of the car-- you will want to consult the blue book and consumer reports.

And maybe even more--do you like the color, has it been in any accidents, does it get good gas mileage, is it comfortable to sit in, does your spouse like it, can your college kid drive it across the state, is it a stick or automatic, can it pass emission, is there a dead body in the trunk.

Now treat the car the way many religious people generally treat god.

God conditions: I tell you a car exists. I am very persuasive about that. You believe that the car is real and send me $1500.  That's it.

You never see the car or test drive it. No mechanic can look at it. I can't answer any specific questions about make, model, year or even color. You have to trust that I have the right to sell it. I show you some papers hand written by a friend that say I own a car. 

You have to take all this on faith. If you got pictures or any other specifics before you sent the money, it would cheapen our interaction. I feel that it runs well in my heart. So will you. Of course, if you decide not to buy the car under the God Conditions, someone might come to your house someday and set it on fire.

Nobody would buy a car under these God Conditions. And even with this nebulous car sale, you at least know that cars in general do exist, you have seen them and driven them before. And if I take your money under false pretenses, and don't give you a car, you have the right to take me to court.

Not so with any gods. You pays your money, time, energy, etc. and you takes your chances.

If anyone wants to send me 1500 bucks for my car under the god conditions, I will also throw in a prayer candle and magic crystal-- free of charge. 8)
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: wright on August 30, 2013, 04:19:42 PM
^^^A great analogy. DarkMatter2525 did a great video exploration of it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qahB7mYhLxs&list=SP9D1CD5CDC7C1C4B7&index=11 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qahB7mYhLxs&list=SP9D1CD5CDC7C1C4B7&index=11)
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: BillyM67 on September 04, 2013, 10:54:01 AM
I believe there is no "creator" and that if there were, and it still existed, it would make sure that we all understood what it wants at all times, if that was its intention. I also believe that if it decided to create a book, though I don't understand why something so powerfull would create a book to get its message across, that book would be clearly written so that anyone who read it, no matter their level of intelligence, could understand exactly what was written. No current religious book meets that standard, therefore I believe that they are all just works of primitive men and are incorrect.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: 1makesitwrong on September 24, 2013, 10:11:36 PM
This is my first post. I have been reading through a lot of the threads. One thing I have not seen from the theists is how god does it. Does he snap his fingers, blink his eyes and nod his head. When you say he wills it into existence how did he know what to will into existence. Why did he chose to make such a complicated system, why not make it simple. I guess I am having a hard time understanding the theists position because there not showing me processes used by their god. If I have missed that post, where they should the link or explained it. then by all means direct me to it
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: wright on September 24, 2013, 10:19:13 PM
Welcome to the forum, 1makesitwrong.

Good luck getting the specifics you ask for. The excuses / apologetics I've seen so far on that subject amount to "mysterious ways beyond human understanding" or "magic" or similar.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Fiji on September 25, 2013, 01:45:39 AM
There are thousands of gods, 1makesitwrong and for each and every one of them, there are loads of different views of what that particular god is and how he/she/it/penguin acts. Essentially making them different gods still. Christianity alone worships close to 40000 different more or less incompatible gods.[1]
And all of that is based on guesswork and/or deliberate fraud in turn based on more or less ancient text that are more or less complete and have been translated any number of times, with each translator either going "oh crap, there's no word in my language for that" or "Meh, I don't quite like it this way, I'll just twiddle this section a bit".
In short, they don't give us any specifics because they haven't got the foggiest themselves. And since every claim they pluck out of thin air is yet another thing that can (easily) be debunked by us pesky Atheists. It's better to make as few claims as possible. And that's when, as wright said, the mysterious ways come out.

A: So, how did this god of yours ...
T: Mysterious ways!
A: What?
T: God's ways are mysterious.
A: I didn't even finish the question!
T: Look there are ways and they are mysterious, ok?
A: But ...
T: These are not the ways you are looking for.
 1. Christianity, the ultimate polytheism
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: cynicalviking on December 18, 2013, 02:49:33 AM
The way you pose God is not as an independent thinking being and more along the lines as a character and shouting at the author "your character can't do that, it lacks logical consistency!"

Tell me, if you were to document an event [or even events (gasp)] spanning hundreds possibly even thousands of years, over the development of thought and civilizations, how would you go about achieving perfect logical consistency? Consider that reporting of events by news networks is highly inaccurate, varying of course by the persons reporting. Reality as reported by the written word would appear to be relative. So there goes that problem.

I am relatively fresh to this group so forgive me if I am blunt.

You need some form of logic to say that you can mathematically or scientifically disprove that there is a God (which is not to say I am defending that position). Here, let me lend you a good one.

This is not mine, it's Epicurus' Trilemma,
"
if God is unable to prevent evil, he is not omnipotent
if God is not willing to prevent evil, he is not good
if God is willing and able to prevent evil, then why is there evil?"

Which leads directly through the door I have read multiple times here. Which comes down to a saying basically "If God is good (insert as you like:
Loves me
wants good things for me
is kind)
then why does this particular terrible thing happen?"

Or alternatively, "Why doesn't he do things the way I think he should"

Well, bluntly, because while I can't conclusively prove or disprove God, I'm relatively certain that you aren't him/her/penguin

How can I be so sure? Because no one can create something with greater powers than that person or being has. A human being cannot give birth to a person with superior genes than they have to work with. Barring adventitious mutations, but those aren't planned. The same applies to machines. Now sometimes as gestalt humans can do some pretty cool things, but not to a point that it disproves the previous point. So since you lack the power to solve whatever it is you are struggling with, no God that you create and who would act precisely as you wanted him to would have any more luck.

To admit that there is a higher power that can solve a problem that you can't is to almost say that there might very well be a God. It's almost as if (and I am shooting in the dark) you are very nervous about the hypothetical possibility that there is a God, and you have expended an abnormally large amount of energy trying to disprove something that you claim not to believe in.

If you were interested in general ridiculous things, any religion would do. In fact anything lacking solid evidence would do. Atlantis, the Bermuda triangle, and Bigfoot all are poorly sourced and have plenty of people who believe in them that you could have plenty of fun disproving. In fact why don't you disprove that I have a genie living in my shoe. He's an invisible genie, he only answers questions I ask him, and if someone else tells me to ask him something he won't answer, because he doesn't like being taunted. You know how he is. Well, you don't. You don't have a shoe genie.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: wheels5894 on December 18, 2013, 03:35:49 AM
Hi there Cynical Viking!

We have rolled out Epicurius a few times for theists but somehow they can't see it as apply to them!

So far as disproving god - why do we need to? Proving a negative is pretty much logically impossible anyway. What is possible is to show that, given the powers claimed by a theist, a god is so unlikely that for ordinary purposes we can ignore it. For example, if their god says he will answer prayers and then fails to do so for 2,000 years (apart from co-incidences) then, for practical purposes we can say that there is no point pursuing that god with worship.

As I say, we don't engage in proving the negative - the burden of proof is on the side claiming the god to exist. For the most part, we are atheists because we don't see any evidence that points to there being a god. I would gladly become a believer but for that to happen I would need some pretty good evidence and the point of religion is, apparently, to believe where the evidence level is zero.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: cynicalviking on December 18, 2013, 02:34:29 PM
Hi there Cynical Viking!

We have rolled out Epicurius a few times for theists but somehow they can't see it as apply to them!

So far as disproving god - why do we need to? Proving a negative is pretty much logically impossible anyway. What is possible is to show that, given the powers claimed by a theist, a god is so unlikely that for ordinary purposes we can ignore it. For example, if their god says he will answer prayers and then fails to do so for 2,000 years (apart from co-incidences) then, for practical purposes we can say that there is no point pursuing that god with worship.

As I say, we don't engage in proving the negative - the burden of proof is on the side claiming the god to exist. For the most part, we are atheists because we don't see any evidence that points to there being a god. I would gladly become a believer but for that to happen I would need some pretty good evidence and the point of religion is, apparently, to believe where the evidence level is zero.
At what point is it decided that the burden of proof is on the believer to convert the non believer? I can see how some poor theologians could argue that point, but given the general results I cannot see how the future of one's own beliefs in anything are burdened upon anyone other than the one that believes those things. Society on the whole appears to have no vested interest unless those beliefs cause either a proven benefit (which most religion seems not to, statistically speaking) or a proven harm to that society. The reason polytheism is growing is more to do with apathy than acceptance. Perhaps they are the same thing, a thought to explore more another day.
Coming back to the main gist of what I was saying, I have read a number of arguments that seem to hinge on the idea that the belief in a God is damaging to the individual.

 In your own response you argue that God does not answer prayer as an absolute. Which is to say that his inaction and providing you hope that he doesn't follow through on would have a damaging effect on you. If you need it to be an absolute to rest your unbelief on, then go on believing it. As far as my personal stance it would be best that you believe in a way that provides you the best chance to live a happy and healthy life. It would be morally presumptuous for me to tell you what beliefs would achieve that result for you. However I seek the truth and so I must press on with reason and attempting to grasp for understanding.
To say personally that someone does not do something is to say you have evidence. You could not say that someone never utters a curse word unless you had personal dealings with such being, or accurate data with people who had conversed with said being. This is not to argue for the existence, it is to say that the data is at best pretty well clouded. I have met people who claim answered prayers. I have known them before and after their claimed interaction and from time to time their lives do get better.
Which really has come down to an analysis of what prayer is, or more accurately what it is not. It is not going to the grocery store and getting exactly what you want and coming home, a simple transaction. If you are stating that prayers to the effect of "I want this precise thing this precise way", I'll agree with you that I am yet to hear of such a prayer answered to the satisfaction of the asker. I do know of people who pray for help and help arrives. I have worked with the sick and have known from time to time for them to suddenly see a turn around after praying.
Take these things for what they are. A blind to any alternative or intellectual discussion theist would say that every time God answered their prayer. I cannot say for sure, as for one I am not them, and two I know that you could provide me an example of someone you know who something horrible happened, and they prayed and prayed and no help arrived. I can't tell you why these things happen, I lack the data, but the fact that such instances occur does not close the door in my mind to the existence of God or other supernatural activity. It might exist. You might be right as well, given that just because I find the piece of evidence that you give insufficient does not mean sufficient evidence does not exist.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: wheels5894 on December 18, 2013, 03:08:01 PM
Thanks for the replay, Cynicalviking.

I don't think I rest any non-belief on just prayer but the general lack of anything pointing towards the existence of a god and, more importantly, how the stories which are intended to convince one in religious texts are very much legendary type texts so that Thor of Zeus might just as well substitute for any other god. Of course, who is to know that Zeus might be the true and only god and all the rest human ideas...

Now as to the lack of response to prayer, it has to be said that prayers over the ages for the relief of terrible things, like black death for example, have been very notable.Yet I think we need to look at the whole topic a little more deeply. Prayer is either a person talking to the deity (whichever one chooses I suppose) on the basis that this deity actually exists and thus can be talked to, or it is an exercise in meditation in which the subconscious brain can work its way to help solve problems. Now if people claim to have had prayers answered then we have to consider which was the likely thing that happened. For example, prayer as meditation could, over a period, lead to an improvement in a person's health or the reduction of disease as this has been shown to affect the immune system. On the other hand, praying for a person in hospital is not even vaguely likely to be the result of meditation. In those circumstances there is something to examine.

However, the fact remains that Jesus told his disciples to ask for what they wanted and that god would grant it to them. Even though I can see god would not want to grant someone million of pounds in the bank, I can't see how god could not grant a prayer that asked for everyone in the world who had cancer to be healed but you and I know that it wouldn't happen. Now there's no getting around the promise Jesus made by excusing god on the basis of anything. A selfless prayer, on the basis of the one I mention, ought to be granted. If this never, and as far as I know it never has, what does it say about the god who was supposed to be listening? This is no shopping list but as request to god to honour the promise Jesus made for the good of cancer sufferers, yet nothing happens. You tell me what conclusion you can draw from that.

Incidentally, I do not believe in any god. Anyone who says they do and who comes on a forum like this one has the burden of proof because they are proposing something and the atheists here are not.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 18, 2013, 07:22:04 PM
cynicalviking (added: Forgot. Welcome to the forum!)

What are your standards for plausibility? You and I draw the line in different places, and I'm interested in where yours is at.

Leprechans? Loch Ness monster? Bigfoot?

And how about the many gods claimed by hundreds of different cultures? Is it okay to dismiss any of them outright, or should I play a safe hand and accept that each and every one is possible.  Am I supposed to keep an open mind about these things too? And not just Zeus and Odin and Lord Vishnu, but Alusi and Anaisa Pye and Triglav too. Plus all the rest. What do you suggest?

I'm trying to figure out if we actually differ in our points of view. I am open minded in the sense that if anything I don't think exists is proven to be real, I'll just adjust my POV accordingly. But if I am supposed to accept everything as possible, on autopilot, and ignore my various standards, I've no idea how I'll make a decision about anything. Not if I have to take into consideration the possibility of everything, with or without evidence.

Knowing how we differ on this issue will help me adjust, as needed.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: jdawg70 on December 18, 2013, 07:28:59 PM
The reason polytheism is growing is more to do with apathy than acceptance. Perhaps they are the same thing, a thought to explore more another day.
I know it's not the point of your post (or this thread), but I just had a 'wha...?' moment.

I didn't realize polytheism was growing.  Are there figures to back this up, or is this a typo?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Anfauglir on December 19, 2013, 03:36:35 AM
I can't tell you why these things happen, I lack the data, but the fact that such instances occur does not close the door in my mind to the existence of God or other supernatural activity. It might exist. You might be right as well, given that just because I find the piece of evidence that you give insufficient does not mean sufficient evidence does not exist.

Hiya CV, and welcome to the forum!

I'll just pick up on this little bit.  My imaginary friend John, believes that he has a pair of Magic Socks, and when he asks them for help, good things happen to him.

Would you regard his Socks as exactly equivalent in evidential support as "God" (which I note you capitalise)?  Would you hold for them the same "maybe its true, who can say" position?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: screwtape on December 19, 2013, 03:18:16 PM
Or alternatively, "Why doesn't he do things the way I think he should"

Interesting.  You are well informed enough to know the Epicurean Trilemma and even the name of it.  Yet, you paraphrase it that way, which indicates a profound misunderstanding of it. 

 

Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Ilovemygod on December 20, 2013, 06:47:57 PM
Great website but the author needs to fine tune it for credibility sake.  For instance, #28 he mentions things like Buddha as a God that is ignored.  Buddha was not a god and never claimed to be one.  His followers never thought of him as a god either.  Allah is the same god as the Christian God.  Islam just view Jesus as a prophet and not the son of God.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: wheels5894 on December 21, 2013, 06:54:24 AM
Great website but the author needs to fine tune it for credibility sake.  For instance, #28 he mentions things like Buddha as a God that is ignored.  Buddha was not a god and never claimed to be one.  His followers never thought of him as a god either.  Allah is the same god as the Christian God.  Islam just view Jesus as a prophet and not the son of God.

Welcome to the site.

You make a loit of assertion here which are nothing to do with the topic in hand - the probability of the existence of god. How about you show us some evidence for this.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Boots on December 23, 2013, 12:21:52 PM
wheels, I would opine that ilovemygod has simply posted in the wrong area.  New memeber, seems to be answering the main site...

ilovemygod, you would be well-advised to familiarize yourself with the site's structure (and rules!) if you are to have an enjoyable and lengthy stay here--which we all hope you do, I'm sure.

Welcome to our happy home!
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: atheists are scum on December 23, 2013, 07:56:29 PM
I'm going to assume some things in your grammatical syntax. Like punctuation. Please do correct me if I'm wrong.

Because nonbelieve cant scienctificly prove its fact

Huh? Can't prove what's a fact? The nonexistence of leprechauns?
no. god. you disprove him. the only thing yall can say to us is a book written some 3000 years ago has so sciencetific fact that dont jive

Sure, we can't disprove your god. But, please tell me how anyone could disprove ANYTHING that doesn't exist. You can start with anything you like, be it leprechauns, Santa Claus, the easter bunny, or whatever. Prove something imaginary doesn't exist. Go ahead, we'll wait.

Looks like then you are wasting your time on this forum since you claim to know God does not exist.  Explain your life long, 24/7 concern about a God you erroneously think doesn't exist.   You atheist scum show your asses daily and it would help us to understand why you do that so often.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: atheists are scum on December 23, 2013, 08:01:06 PM
Great website but the author needs to fine tune it for credibility sake.  For instance, #28 he mentions things like Buddha as a God that is ignored.  Buddha was not a god and never claimed to be one.  His followers never thought of him as a god either.  Allah is the same god as the Christian God.  Islam just view Jesus as a prophet and not the son of God.

Welcome to the site.

You make a loit of assertion here which are nothing to do with the topic in hand - the probability of the existence of god. How about you show us some evidence for this.
Why do you want evidence?  I thought you had evidence that God doesn't exist.  Your faith is weak in your perverted atheism. 
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: One Above All on December 23, 2013, 08:07:58 PM
<snip>

I wanted to post this in a smite, but the character limit won't let me. Here's the message:
Such anger... Young Skywalker. Who are you really angry with? Us? Or that face in the mirror?
Supernatural fans will get it.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Foxy Freedom on December 23, 2013, 08:08:20 PM
Looks like then you are wasting your time on this forum since you claim to know God does not exist.  Explain your life long, 24/7 concern about a God you erroneously think doesn't exist.   You atheist scum show your asses daily and it would help us to understand why you do that so often.

Are you too stupid to understand Love thy neighbour? See you in Hell.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Emily on December 23, 2013, 08:21:35 PM
This guy is just some troll. I doubt he is serious. But, on the off set chance he is serious,
Great website but the author needs to fine tune it for credibility sake.  For instance, #28 he mentions things like Buddha as a God that is ignored.  Buddha was not a god and never claimed to be one.  His followers never thought of him as a god either.  Allah is the same god as the Christian God.  Islam just view Jesus as a prophet and not the son of God.

Welcome to the site.

You make a loit of assertion here which are nothing to do with the topic in hand - the probability of the existence of god. How about you show us some evidence for this.
Why do you want evidence?  I thought you had evidence that God doesn't exist.  Your faith is weak in your perverted atheism. 

So, what do you have to prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that your god is real. Like, you know, nothing from the bible, no testimonial about how god healed your grandmother from cancer, etc.

So, whatcha got, atheists are scum? Anything worthy of discussion? Prove everyone wrong that you have something serious to say here. If not how can anyone take you so seriously with such a user name you have chosen.

Are you here for serious discussion? Just to bash atheists? Anything userful like trying to prove that your god is the one True GodTM.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: shnozzola on December 23, 2013, 08:23:11 PM
Why do you want evidence?  I thought you had evidence that God doesn't exist.  Your faith is weak in your perverted atheism.

Many of us are agnostic, nice name - your name is a good representation of what scares me - you, and Al Qaida, 2 peas in a pod.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 23, 2013, 08:45:56 PM

Why do you want evidence?  I thought you had evidence that God doesn't exist.  Your faith is weak in your perverted atheism.

I've got lots of evidence that god doesn't exist. You, for instance. He wouldn't permit such thing.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Anfauglir on December 24, 2013, 02:58:35 AM
Explain your life long, 24/7 concern about a God you erroneously think doesn't exist.   

Wow - good point.  I don't know.  Could it be that belief in this ellegedly loving god makes his followers.....

You atheist scum show your asses daily and it would help us to understand why you do that so often.

.....turn into hate-filled, bigoted morons, who would most likely shoot us dead if they weren't more scared of the real-world police than their ficticious god?

Read back through all the venom you've posed on this site, matey.  Review your chosen forum name.  And maybe - just maybe - you might get some kind of inkling as to why we think religion is a Bad Thing, m'kay?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: wheels5894 on December 24, 2013, 07:15:15 AM
Why do you want evidence?  I thought you had evidence that God doesn't exist.  Your faith is weak in your perverted atheism.

Are you serious? We are atheists here because we see no evidence that there is a god.None at all. If you have come to have fun then fine, we will enjoy seeing you in hell - if there is one...

Meanwhile, enlighten us. You are, presumably, not an atheist but a theist. So, tell us why you are a believer and what evidence you see for the existence of you chosen deity.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Boots on December 24, 2013, 08:13:39 AM
Why do you want evidence?  I thought you had evidence that God doesn't exist.  Your faith is weak in your perverted atheism.

"faith" means "believing in something without evidence."  Your faith is weak in your perverted command of the English language.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Aaron123 on December 24, 2013, 11:21:37 AM
Why do you want evidence?  I thought you had evidence that God doesn't exist.  Your faith is weak in your perverted atheism.

Hold on, I'm confused.  Don't other christians claims things like "it takes more faith to be an atheist than to be a christian", "it takes too much faith to believe in evolution"?

In which case, wouldn't "weak atheist faith" still be stronger than "normal christian faith", or at least at a more comparable level?  Wouldn't that be a good thing?


*sigh* be consistence here...
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Jesuis on January 20, 2014, 11:30:43 AM
There is a Book called "The case for God by Karen Armstrong"
I am reading it at the moment.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: SevenPatch on January 20, 2014, 03:10:35 PM
There is a Book called "The case for God by Karen Armstrong"
I am reading it at the moment.

From the reviews of the book, the preliminary impression I get is that Armstrong is basically arguing that believing in God the correct way will make a person better and happier.  If my impression is correct, that would make Armstrongs book nothing more than hateful nonsensical propaganda.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: wheels5894 on January 20, 2014, 03:37:04 PM
no, I don't think there's necessarily anything hateful about it. She wants to get back to the religious roots and apply the idea of doing religious things, presumably with the idea of the monastic, so that one lives and breathes god. Then, she seems to think, we might know the unknowable. I have a few problems with this - its really mumbo-jumbo - but it doesn't sound hateful.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: SevenPatch on January 20, 2014, 04:03:58 PM
I'd have to read the book to be certain. 

I wouldn't imply that Armstrong knowingly wrote a hateful book.  It's what is between the lines that is hateful.

Someone could read the book, agree that "getting back to the religious roots and apply the idea of doing religious things, presumably with the idea of the monastic, so that one lives and breathes god, will lead to knowing the unknowable" and perhaps make it possible to live a better and happier life.  This person might then look at an atheist or one who doesn't believe any god exists and conclude that person is not a good person and is an unhappy person.

We know perfectly well that an atheist can be good and honest and lead a happy fullfilling life.  This frightens some theists.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Graybeard on January 20, 2014, 04:57:12 PM
There is a Book called "The case for God by Karen Armstrong"
I am reading it at the moment.
Apparently you cannot receive PMs. For you, perhaps this is a wise choice. However, I wish to communicate with you.

Apparently you reported my post whilst I was acting as Moderator. You said you could not find the OCG post to which I referred in that particular thread thread."
 
1. I did not say it was in that thread. -> you assumed.
2. You had replied to OCG's post in which he gave you the link -> It is strange that you should forget
3. http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25200.msg595615.html#msg595615 -> I am doing your work. You could have searched OCG's posts

GB Mod
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: screwtape on January 21, 2014, 08:59:55 AM
From the reviews of the book, the preliminary impression I get is that Armstrong is basically arguing that believing in God the correct way will make a person better and happier.  If my impression is correct, that would make Armstrongs book nothing more than hateful nonsensical propaganda.

I don't think hateful is the right word for Armstrong.  I would more characterize her as misguided.  I don't think she's stupid, though.  Just wrong headed.  She thinks we need to bend over backward to accomodate the religious.  I am not a fan of hers.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Jesuis on February 06, 2014, 09:46:01 PM
Has anyone read the book "The case for God" written by Karen Armstrong?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Jesuis on February 06, 2014, 09:56:44 PM
From the reviews of the book, the preliminary impression I get is that Armstrong is basically arguing that believing in God the correct way will make a person better and happier.  If my impression is correct, that would make Armstrongs book nothing more than hateful nonsensical propaganda.

I don't think hateful is the right word for Armstrong.  I would more characterize her as misguided.  I don't think she's stupid, though.  Just wrong headed.  She thinks we need to bend over backward to accomodate the religious.  I am not a fan of hers.
What in the book makes you say that?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: screwtape on February 07, 2014, 10:37:41 AM
What in the book makes you say that?

I've no idea.  I've not read the book.  I was speaking about her in general terms.  I've read some of her other public pronouncements.  Her approach to dealing with the religious is to accomodate them in every way possible, give them every courtesy and allow them every priviledge to which they are accustomed.  I disagree with that approach.  It is like blacks in the south in the 1950s saying they should be fine with Jim Crow laws.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: wheels5894 on February 07, 2014, 10:50:03 AM
I've not read any of her books either though reading about her I'm not necessarily that sad. Her Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Armstrong) seems to suggest you writes the sort of stuff religion want to hear whilst, like so many others, ignoring that fact that the history of the founding of religions is shrouded in dark - the dark of a lack of contemporary historical writing by people other than members of the sect.

Frankly, anyone who thinks the belief is god is a starting point and who is an academic is probably a bit screwy!
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Jesuis on February 13, 2014, 04:14:02 PM
What in the book makes you say that?

I've no idea.  I've not read the book.  I was speaking about her in general terms.  I've read some of her other public pronouncements.  Her approach to dealing with the religious is to accomodate them in every way possible, give them every courtesy and allow them every priviledge to which they are accustomed.  I disagree with that approach.  It is like blacks in the south in the 1950s saying they should be fine with Jim Crow laws.
I disagree - I read it and got the impression she was making the case that there is a God. It was more akin to slaves being freed because all men were created equal under God as promoted by theists who know God relative to us atheists who do not know God. We always see differences where theists see equality. We are all sinners.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: nogodsforme on February 13, 2014, 05:10:55 PM
^^^^Wait a minnit! Are you trying to say that slavery was caused by atheists? And that theists always promoted equality? Are you for real?

You do realize that the largest denomination of Christians in the USA is the Southern Baptists, who would probably still be holding slaves today if not for the Civil War, right?

And the racists who created and upheld the violent, oppressive apartheid were the same Dutch Reformed Church members[1]  proud to have introduced Christianity to southern Africa?

Even today in the US there are people who say that civil rights, racial equality and integration were communistic, anti-god and anti American, therefore evil. Please spare me from the tiresome "everything bad is because of atheist sinners, everything good is from religion". If only life was that simple.  &)
 1. What they were reformed from I can't imagine...
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: One Above All on February 13, 2014, 05:12:46 PM
^^^^Wait a minnit! Are you trying to say that slavery was caused by atheists? And that theists always promoted equality? Are you for real?
<snip>

Given that Jesuis thinks anyone who doesn't know "God" (sic) is an atheist (id est: everyone), I wouldn't take what he says seriously.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: screwtape on February 13, 2014, 06:24:01 PM
I disagree - I read it and got the impression she was making the case that there is a God.

Well, you read the book and I didn't.  If she's making a case for god, then I am mistaken about her.  I had been under the impression she was an atheist. If she's just a liberal theist, then her position of accommodation makes more sense and is less contemptible in my eyes, though her belief in god would make her somewhat less rational. 

Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Jesuis on February 13, 2014, 07:30:50 PM
I disagree - I read it and got the impression she was making the case that there is a God.

Well, you read the book and I didn't.  If she's making a case for god, then I am mistaken about her.  I had been under the impression she was an atheist. If she's just a liberal theist, then her position of accommodation makes more sense and is less contemptible in my eyes, though her belief in god would make her somewhat less rational.
She is not a theist so your right that she is an atheist.
However what she is doing is looking at the evidence and making a rational logical case.

I am always amazed on how easily belief dictates opinions long before one has had the opportunity to evaluate after one had read the information.
There is another book called "New proofs for the existence of God" by Robert J Spitzer - have you read this one?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: screwtape on February 13, 2014, 10:36:24 PM
I am always amazed on how easily belief dictates opinions long before one has had the opportunity to evaluate after one had read the information.

We are not rational creatures so much as we are rationalizing ones.  That is why we need a system of decision making that minimizes our biases. 


There is another book called "New proofs for the existence of God" by Robert J Spitzer - have you read this one?

Nope.  I don't really read apologetics/ arguments for god.  I find them aggravating and generally not novel or worth my time.  I think all the arguments for gods are at least 1500 years old.  Really, I've not read any atheist stuff in a while either.  I tend to stick to the more academic stuff, lately.


Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Jesuis on February 14, 2014, 01:08:52 PM
I am always amazed on how easily belief dictates opinions long before one has had the opportunity to evaluate after one had read the information.

We are not rational creatures so much as we are rationalizing ones.  That is why we need a system of decision making that minimizes our biases. 


There is another book called "New proofs for the existence of God" by Robert J Spitzer - have you read this one?

Nope.  I don't really read apologetics/ arguments for god.  I find them aggravating and generally not novel or worth my time.  I think all the arguments for gods are at least 1500 years old.  Really, I've not read any atheist stuff in a while either.  I tend to stick to the more academic stuff, lately.
I guess in your world view on "life" its "source" its "consciousness" and who you "really are" is not part an academic subject?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Azdgari on February 14, 2014, 01:09:27 PM
Not part what an academic subject?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: One Above All on February 14, 2014, 01:10:43 PM
I guess in your world view on "life" its "source" its "consciousness" and who you "really are" is not part an academic subject?

Is your god alive?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: screwtape on February 14, 2014, 03:15:31 PM
I guess in your world view on "life" its "source" its "consciousness" and who you "really are" is not part an academic subject?

Of course they are.  However, "life" is kind of a broad topic and "consciousness" and "who I really am" are in the fields of psychology, neurology and cognitive science.  You are not going to find relevant answers in apologetics or religion.  At least, I'm not, anyway.  It is like looking for answers in new age crystals.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Jesuis on February 14, 2014, 03:20:41 PM
^^^^Wait a minnit! Are you trying to say that slavery was caused by atheists? And that theists always promoted equality? Are you for real?
<snip>

Given that Jesuis thinks anyone who doesn't know "God" (sic) is an atheist (id est: everyone), I wouldn't take what he says seriously.
Thanks - but my statement "theists know god and atheists don't" is a statement of fact. Your belief in the dictionary that keeps changing its meaning is what we have problems with regarding Christians and the bible.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Jesuis on February 14, 2014, 03:43:17 PM
I guess in your world view on "life" its "source" its "consciousness" and who you "really are" is not part an academic subject?

Of course they are.  However, "life" is kind of a broad topic and "consciousness" and "who I really am" are in the fields of psychology, neurology and cognitive science.  You are not going to find relevant answers in apologetics or religion.  At least, I'm not, anyway.  It is like looking for answers in new age crystals.
The problem with this method of thinking is that we end up looking outside ourselves to find answers to things that lie within us. Our humanity, Our lusts, Our love, Our attention on these things is already in us. We are life already in a human body we are conscious already. Theists say not only of the body but of the mind and of the spirit - according to the theists we need look no further than within ourselves to find all the answers we need. Theists call it sitting in silence, meditation etc.. According to the realised beings the answers to the self can only be found by being still in thought.

It is not found in the field of psychology, neurology or cognitive science because you only learn what someone else discovers that is physical and not an accurate depiction relative to you per se. It has no answers to the self "life giving energy" that is you - only the self can find its eternal self. The human body is the instrument and the laboratory for you to know the truth about you - and its same the place where the tests for you are repeatable at the tenth door, the third eye, the ajna chakra.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Azdgari on February 14, 2014, 03:49:21 PM
Thanks - but my statement "theists know god and atheists don't" is a statement of fact. Your belief in the dictionary that keeps changing its meaning is what we have problems with regarding Christians and the bible.

What makes your definitions more "real" than those used by other people?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Jesuis on February 14, 2014, 03:55:42 PM
Thanks - but my statement "theists know god and atheists don't" is a statement of fact. Your belief in the dictionary that keeps changing its meaning is what we have problems with regarding Christians and the bible.

What makes your definitions more "real" than those used by other people?
Relative to the theists it is a statement of fact. Relative to the atheist is is also a statement of fact.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: One Above All on February 14, 2014, 03:56:33 PM
I guess in your world view on "life" its "source" its "consciousness" and who you "really are" is not part an academic subject?

Is your god alive?

Still waiting for an answer to this, Jesuis.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Azdgari on February 14, 2014, 04:06:17 PM
Relative to the theists it is a statement of fact.

That doesn't answer my question.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Jesuis on February 14, 2014, 04:34:34 PM
Not part what an academic subject?
Self realisation.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Jesuis on February 14, 2014, 04:37:55 PM
I guess in your world view on "life" its "source" its "consciousness" and who you "really are" is not part an academic subject?

Is your god alive?

Still waiting for an answer to this, Jesuis.
I have issues with this. "your god" I also do not know if we are on the same page with the word "alive".
Also not sure if this is a distraction of the threads topic.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: One Above All on February 14, 2014, 04:39:06 PM
I have issues with this. "your god" I also do not know if we are on the same page with the word "alive".
Also not sure if this is a distraction of the threads topic.

By "your god" I mean the one you believe in. As for "alive", we'll go with your definition, whatever it is. My definition is not relevant to the point I want to make.
This is going somewhere; trust me.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Jesuis on February 14, 2014, 04:40:03 PM
Relative to the theists it is a statement of fact.

That doesn't answer my question.
It is my answer - relatively speaking. Tell me the answer you want me to say and I will say it according to your script.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Jesuis on February 14, 2014, 04:41:49 PM
I have issues with this. "your god" I also do not know if we are on the same page with the word "alive".
Also not sure if this is a distraction of the threads topic.

By "your god" I mean the one you believe in. As for "alive", we'll go with your definition, whatever it is. My definition is not relevant to the point I want to make.
This is going somewhere; trust me.
I do not have a god that is alive nor do I believe in any that comes up in your mind.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: One Above All on February 14, 2014, 04:43:29 PM
I do not have a god that is alive nor do I believe in any that comes up in your mind.

If he/she/it is dead, how can it possess a consciousness? Or is he/she/it also non-sentient to the point of not possessing a mind?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Jesuis on February 14, 2014, 04:52:25 PM
I do not have a god that is alive nor do I believe in any that comes up in your mind.

If he/she/it is dead, how can it possess a consciousness? Or is he/she/it also non-sentient to the point of not possessing a mind?
How can he/she/it (whatever that means in your head) be dead?
Define he she it? Define death? Define consciousness as you understand it. Again this non sentient being - what do you understand it to be? Where is this going?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: One Above All on February 14, 2014, 05:04:12 PM
How can he/she/it (whatever that means in your head) be dead?

If something is not alive, by definition, it is dead. While we may have problems defining both terms, the truth is that something is either one or the other. Yes, even viruses.

Define he she it? Define death? Define consciousness as you understand it. Again this non sentient being - what do you understand it to be? Where is this going?

Non-sentient means it can't think like humans and other animals. Since I just explained above that "not alive"="dead", what you claim here is not a contradiction of what I said above. If anything, it strengthens my argument.

The point I was going to make, which is now moot since you just admitted your god is dead (go Nietzsche!), was that, if every living thing needs a creator, then so does your god. And the god that created he/she/it. And the god that created the god that created he/she/it. And so on ad infinitum. I expected you to "counter" (if it can even be called that) with a special pleading fallacy, after which I would explain that your argument was fallacious, and therefore wrong.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Jesuis on February 14, 2014, 06:26:49 PM
How can he/she/it (whatever that means in your head) be dead?
If something is not alive, by definition, it is dead. While we may have problems defining both terms, the truth is that something is either one or the other. Yes, even viruses.
Why do we have problems defining both terms? 
Why is "life and death" suddenly "true" because it is observed?
We know making conclusion fro sight observation is illusive ie flat earthers.

Define he she it? Define death? Define consciousness as you understand it. Again this non sentient being - what do you understand it to be? Where is this going?
Non-sentient means it can't think like humans and other animals. Since I just explained above that "not alive"="dead", what you claim here is not a contradiction of what I said above. If anything, it strengthens my argument.
Your explanation does not have any truths and so the deduction is going to be wrong.
We either to know what life is or we do not.
Theists say Life is the conscious spiritual life giving energy whose real nature is truth love and consciousness.
We know for a fact that we cannot automatically give conscious life to any dead form in a hospital although we know it has every atom in place.

The point I was going to make, which is now moot since you just admitted your god is dead (go Nietzsche!), was that, if every living thing needs a creator, then so does your god. And the god that created he/she/it. And the god that created the god that created he/she/it. And so on ad infinitum. I expected you to "counter" (if it can even be called that) with a special pleading fallacy, after which I would explain that your argument was fallacious, and therefore wrong.
Well I did not admit anything, but if that helps you end the debate then fine.
What I am saying is that this process we have used to deduce these things is done with our minds and its creations. We know that our minds tells us all these imaginary stuff - and that draws it's own logic which is flawed giving us beliefs. According to the theists the answer to what life is lies in us. We must first know who we are to know what life is. Otherwise it is all speculation. Theists say we are "conscious spiritual beings" our souls are caught in a physical realm where our minds are tools used to deceive us.

According to the theists "If we want the truth" we need to "stop our minds" from deceiving us and go within.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Boots on February 14, 2014, 06:40:55 PM
According to the theists the answer to what life is lies in us.

I disagree with this.  Theists believe the meaning of life comes from their god
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Jesuis on February 14, 2014, 09:33:17 PM
According to the theists the answer to what life is lies in us.

I disagree with this.  Theists believe the meaning of life comes from their god
He does not believe it. He claims he knows it. We could nail them to crosses but that only increases the believers and the faithful.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: screwtape on February 14, 2014, 10:37:03 PM
Thanks - but my statement "theists know god and atheists don't" is a statement of fact.

Nope. Not a statement of fact.  A statement of... Wishful thinking?  Self delusion?  Mistaken identity?   Whatever, it is, fact ain't it.  You cannot know god, as xians have defined him.  He's (allegedly) infinite.  However much you (think) you know, it is 0% of the whole.

And that even sets aside the utter lack of evidence, utter lack of interaction, and presumes a god existing in the first place.


Your belief in the dictionary that keeps changing its meaning is what we have problems with regarding Christians and the bible.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.



The problem with this method of thinking is that we end up looking outside ourselves to find answers to things that lie within us.

Then you misunderstand.  These fields all tell us things about ourselves and how we really work, not just how we think we work. 

Additionally, in what way is any religion not "looking outside ourselves"? 

It is not found in the field of psychology, neurology or cognitive science because you only learn what someone else discovers that is physical and not an accurate depiction relative to you per se.

You and I are talking about categorically different topics.


It has no answers to the self "life giving energy" that is you - only the self can find its eternal self.

I disagree.  The fields which I mentioned can illuminate the fact that there is no eternal self, at least not as imagined by the lunatics and frauds call saints and holy men.  And that is an answer of sorts, though not one you are likely to be happy with.

The human body is the instrument and the laboratory for you to know the truth about you - and its same the place where the tests for you are repeatable at the tenth door, the third eye, the ajna chakra.

That's just silly.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Jesuis on February 15, 2014, 12:50:55 AM
Thanks - but my statement "theists know god and atheists don't" is a statement of fact.

Nope. Not a statement of fact.  A statement of... Wishful thinking?  Self delusion?  Mistaken identity?   Whatever, it is, fact ain't it.  You cannot know god, as xians have defined him.  He's (allegedly) infinite.  However much you (think) you know, it is 0% of the whole.
xtians do not get to define God only the theist get to define it because they know and Jesus did not define it that way.

And that even sets aside the utter lack of evidence, utter lack of interaction, and presumes a god existing in the first place.
Where did he say that there was no evidence for what he said exists? Se Atheists do not know God. And the theists do. 

Your belief in the dictionary that keeps changing its meaning is what we have problems with regarding Christians and the bible.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

I am trying to say words keep changing in meaning and the dictionary keeps adapting with time. We cannot assume we know the meaning of the intent of word/s from so long ago nor can we rust in them now. It is what we have problems with when addressing things said in the old testament and it has changed to mean something else in the new testament. The human mind and its thinking process does not have truth in it. It is a changing process and the words we use that emanate from it changes with time. Truth become very illusive. Only the truth remains the truth for all time or it never was true.

The problem with this method of thinking is that we end up looking outside ourselves to find answers to things that lie within us.

Then you misunderstand.  These fields all tell us things about ourselves and how we really work, not just how we think we work.
Really? - like what? I did ask what was life? And I get nothing from these books.

Additionally, in what way is any religion not "looking outside ourselves"?
A theist is not talking about a religion. He is talking to his followers about God and the raising of their mindset so that they can know too. Religion is not him.

It is not found in the field of psychology, neurology or cognitive science because you only learn what someone else discovers that is physical and not an accurate depiction relative to you per se.

You and I are talking about categorically different topics.
.
Theists are talking about God and we are talking about the probabilities of its existence.
Since theists are the ones who know my references are of what they say. What methods they have used to know and how we too can use the same methods.

It has no answers to the self "life giving energy" that is you - only the self can find its eternal self.

I disagree.  The fields which I mentioned can illuminate the fact that there is no eternal self, at least not as imagined by the lunatics and frauds call saints and holy men.  And that is an answer of sorts, though not one you are likely to be happy with.
Well proof would be a way forward but we seem to be ignoring the facts.  Has anyone tested a real theist?

The human body is the instrument and the laboratory for you to know the truth about you - and its same the place where the tests for you are repeatable at the tenth door, the third eye, the ajna chakra.

That's just silly.
You are entitled to your opinion, so am I. But the tradition of inner travel is well investigated by humans on a daily basis.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: screwtape on February 15, 2014, 01:01:02 PM
Jesuits,

Sorry.  I cannot tell what you are trying to say.  Could you repost your reply with the quotes fixed?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Jesuis on February 15, 2014, 08:34:40 PM
Nope. Not a statement of fact.  A statement of... Wishful thinking?  Self delusion?  Mistaken identity?   Whatever, it is, fact ain't it.  You cannot know god, as xians have defined him.  He's (allegedly) infinite.  However much you (think) you know, it is 0% of the whole.

And that even sets aside the utter lack of evidence, utter lack of interaction, and presumes a god existing in the first place.

Thanks - but my statement "theists know god and atheists don't" is a statement of fact. It is not wishful thinking.
1. From a theist perspective it is a fact
2. From an atheist's perspective it is also a fact.
You are disagreeing with the" theists perspective" when in reality you can only know what it right from your perspective.


I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

I am saying that there are some people on here so fixated on the words and its meanings as presented in the dictionary that "their belief" that this meaning is true or fixed prevents us from building a foundation to have a more humane debate where truths are established.  Similarly all beliefs result in this deadlock.

When I presented a statement of fact using the word atheist and theist you and others instantly disagreed with it. I saw this disagreement from both sides the same way we see religious folk or they see us. They are words of believers used to create more believers - and believers of one thing or the other only fight with each other. They always fight to prove what they believe is right. (I called that fight a form of cognitive dissonance) since the two cannot come together because no one knows anything that is true. A theists Knows God and an atheist does not remains a fact. So we can build on this without a fight. Thus raising the consciousness of believers.

Therefore IMHO the two words need to be corrected in the minds of believers before there is any meaningful progressive discussions or debates to present a scientific foundation of established truths.


Then you misunderstand.  These fields all tell us things about ourselves and how we really work, not just how we think we work. 

Additionally, in what way is any religion not "looking outside ourselves"? 

The fields you speak about does not tell us anything about us. For instance - I do not know what my twin brother is thinking, nor why he likes certain things that I do not. It does not tell me why he fell down and broke his leg or is so much more intelligent than me. Nor does it tell me why he is now dead and I am still alive. It does not answer why a healthy person just suddenly dies.
So the theists are saying "by looking within ourselves we can know what is really going on". Once we know what life is where it comes from where it is going we will understand all these things about ourselves. To do that we need to elevate our thinking process.


You and I are talking about categorically different topics.

Of course we are and to suggest that neurology, cognitive science and psychology helps us understand these things about our true selves is wrong.
We are talking about the "real conscious life" "in" "every human being" and these suggestions of the workings of the brain, blood, neurons does not do it justice. If I was to ask you to show me your intelligence you would find yourself in a realm of mental stupor. The theists are talking about something beyond mind and matter when they talk about self consciousness soul spirit etc.  The self  as they say is the conscious energy that is eternal and "created" (word that is limited) in the image of God(another word also limited).  These things must be experienced like you know you have intelligence but you cannot whip it out and show me.


I disagree.  The fields which I mentioned can illuminate the fact that there is no eternal self, at least not as imagined by the lunatics and frauds call saints and holy men.  And that is an answer of sorts, though not one you are likely to be happy with.

No they cannot. Also lunatics frauds and holy men are not theists. A theist knows God. A lunatic is a lunatic, a fraud is a fraud and a holy man is a holy man.


That's just silly.

That is just silly your lack of intelligence. So much for whipping it out.
You need to prove that it does not exist to make such statement. The inner travels through what is known as the tenth door is well documented around the theists.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: screwtape on February 15, 2014, 10:39:08 PM
Thanks - but my statement "theists know god and atheists don't" is a statement of fact. It is not wishful thinking.
1. From a theist perspective it is a fact
2. From an atheist's perspective it is also a fact.

You are welcome.  However, your statements are ipse dixit.  Sure, theists may think of god as fact, but that does not make it so.  Facts have to be verifiable.  We can talk about the facts of, say, baking, because we where opinions differ, we can go and observe who is right and who is wrong.  Not so with gods.  Theists pretty much all define god so as to be impossible to verify in any way.  That is the trade off they have made.

You see, once upon a time gods were thought of in the same way you and I may think of geese or clouds - obvious, tangible entities.  But as people got smarter and better at sorting out the real from unreal, it became obvious that gods were in the latter category.  Since so many had invested so much in gods, they could not just accept the fact that gods are imaginary.  Instead they redefined them so as to be unassailable.  But the trade off is, the very definition that makes them undisprovable also makes them unprovable. 

So, you're fucked. You don't get to talk about facts when it comes to knowing gods.  At best you can talk about blind faith and beliefs and do violence on anyone who disagrees. 

As an atheist, I can tell you 100% that there are no theists who know god whether one exists or not.  So you are mistaken on that count as we'll.



The fields you speak about does not tell us anything about us. For instance - I do not know what my twin brother is thinking, nor why he likes certain things that I do not. It does not tell me why he fell down and broke his leg or is so much more intelligent than me. Nor does it tell me why he is now dead and I am still alive. It does not answer why a healthy person just suddenly dies.
So the theists are saying "by looking within ourselves we can know what is really going on". Once we know what life is where it comes from where it is going we will understand all these things about ourselves. To do that we need to elevate our thinking process.

I disagree.  You are speaking too broadly.  When you get done to more specifics, I think all that can be explained.  Additionally, looking "within yourself" answers absolutely nothing about you twin. 

I think introspection is a good thing.  But it has a very narrow limits to what it can achieve, and requires additional external information, particularly from the fields I mentioned.

We are talking about the "real conscious life" "in" "every human being" and these suggestions of the workings of the brain, blood, neurons does not do it justice.

No.  It is fundamental to it.  You cannot have a conversation about consciousness without discussing something tangible.  What exactly is the "real conscious life" and why do you put it in quotes?  You seem to be clouding the discussion with vagaries and ambiguity.  For your own sake, you should try to avoid that. 

Btw, I never mentioned blood or neurons.

If I was to ask you to show me your intelligence you would find yourself in a realm of mental stupor.

I think if I were in a realm of mental stupor, whatever that means, it would because you have obscured the point we are even talking about.

The theists are talking about something beyond mind and matter when they talk about self consciousness soul spirit etc. 

Yeah, I know.  I used to be a theist once myself.  And the whole idea begs the question.


The self  as they say is the conscious energy that is eternal and "created" (word that is limited) in the image of God(another word also limited).  These things must be experienced like you know you have intelligence but you cannot whip it out and show me.

There is no reason to posit a self, as they define it, no reason for me to believe it, and no way for them to establish it as a reality.

No they cannot. Also lunatics frauds and holy men are not theists. A theist knows God. A lunatic is a lunatic, a fraud is a fraud and a holy man is a holy man.

How ever is one to tell them apart?  The symptoms of each are identical...


That is just silly your lack of intelligence. So much for whipping it out.

Aw, did that strike a nerve?  Poor you.

You need to prove that it does not exist to make such statement.

No, I don't.  You have the burden of proof.  In addition to that, you would need explain how your idea would be falsified.  "Can't prove it isn't" is a failure as a method of proof.  There are an infinite number of ideas you cannot prove do not exist, but it would be preposterous to believe in them.


The inner travels through what is known as the tenth door is well documented around the theists.

Yeah.  Well documented.  Great.  Kindly provide the documentation and I will happily look at it.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Jesuis on February 16, 2014, 03:31:44 PM
Thanks - but my statement "theists know god and atheists don't" is a statement of fact. It is not wishful thinking.
1. From a theist perspective it is a fact
2. From an atheist's perspective it is also a fact.

You are welcome.  However, your statements are ipse dixit.  Sure, theists may think of god as fact, but that does not make it so.  Facts have to be verifiable.  We can talk about the facts of, say, baking, because we where opinions differ, we can go and observe who is right and who is wrong.  Not so with gods.  Theists pretty much all define god so as to be impossible to verify in any way.  That is the trade off they have made.

You see, once upon a time gods were thought of in the same way you and I may think of geese or clouds - obvious, tangible entities.  But as people got smarter and better at sorting out the real from unreal, it became obvious that gods were in the latter category.  Since so many had invested so much in gods, they could not just accept the fact that gods are imaginary.  Instead they redefined them so as to be unassailable.  But the trade off is, the very definition that makes them undisprovable also makes them unprovable. 

So, you're fucked. You don't get to talk about facts when it comes to knowing gods.  At best you can talk about blind faith and beliefs and do violence on anyone who disagrees. 

As an atheist, I can tell you 100% that there are no theists who know god whether one exists or not.  So you are mistaken on that count as we'll.

What statement here are a verifiable facts?
Lets see if we can redo this on a new thread. As This is distracting from the logic. Theists say "Thou shall not lie" you cannot say you know god if you don't if you are a theist.

As for the threads Purpose I have already suggested two books for "the probabilities of Gods existence." if anyone cared to read them and comment.

1. The case for for God by Karen Armstrong
2. New Proofs for the Existence of God by Robert J Spitzer. 

Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Nam on February 16, 2014, 06:34:43 PM
Probabilities aren't facts, they're opinions. Unless non-biased sources can confirm the probabiliry then they'll always be opinions.


These are the basic arguments both books probably make with historical facts thrown in:

http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Top_ten_arguments_for_the_existence_of_God

-Nam
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Jesuis on February 16, 2014, 08:08:17 PM
Probabilities aren't facts, they're opinions. Unless non-biased sources can confirm the probabiliry then they'll always be opinions.

These are the basic arguments both books probably make with historical facts thrown in:

http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Top_ten_arguments_for_the_existence_of_God

-Nam

You can do better than that. This is the first line from that web site.
"Do you believe in God? If so, at some point in time, someone convinced you that God does exist. "
The problem with that line is that if forgets we were all born Tabula Rasa. 
Everything anyone knows - someone has taught them at some point in time.
All your beliefs are based on it.

God is taught by theists. Man creates stories when they hear about God for their own negative or worldly mental interests.
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/5e7ed624986d
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Nam on February 17, 2014, 12:45:57 AM
No one is taught to be an atheist. You're born that way.

-Nam
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Jesuis on February 17, 2014, 01:23:09 AM
No one is taught to be an atheist. You're born that way.

-Nam

How do you know what you were when you were born?
Do you remember telling your mom I am an atheist?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 17, 2014, 01:27:58 AM
No one is taught to be an atheist. You're born that way.

-Nam

How do you know what you were when you were born?
Do you remember telling your mom I am an atheist?

I can't speak for Nam. I do, however, remember telling my mom that you were an atheist.  ;D

I was told I was a christian when I was young. I assumed I was. Only because others said those words to me. When I got old enough to figure out that I wasn't, I quite making that claim. Granted, it took me until I was 11 to figure it out, but I was slow. So yes, I did tell my mom I was an atheist (well, not really, I hadn't heard the word, I just told her that there is no god and let it go at that.) But only after I figured out I'd been duped.

Had no one ever tried to make a christian out of me, I could have skipped that part. And I wish I had.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: jaimehlers on February 17, 2014, 02:34:29 AM
Saying that people start out atheistic is pretty much worthless, because infants start out being pretty much ignorant of everything anyway.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Jesuis on February 17, 2014, 02:44:05 AM
No one is taught to be an atheist. You're born that way.

-Nam

How do you know what you were when you were born?
Do you remember telling your mom I am an atheist?

I can't speak for Nam. I do, however, remember telling my mom that you were an atheist.  ;D

I was told I was a christian when I was young. I assumed I was. Only because others said those words to me. When I got old enough to figure out that I wasn't, I quite making that claim. Granted, it took me until I was 11 to figure it out, but I was slow. So yes, I did tell my mom I was an atheist (well, not really, I hadn't heard the word, I just told her that there is no god and let it go at that.) But only after I figured out I'd been duped.

Had no one ever tried to make a christian out of me, I could have skipped that part. And I wish I had.

That is why the law says "Thou shall not lie" .
If you are not a Christian people should not say to you that you are. Or that they are.
Technically Jesus (a Theist) took his followers(Christians) with him if they knew him, believed in him and did what he told them. Free will is not interrupted so chances are few went with him.

Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Jesuis on February 17, 2014, 02:50:42 AM
Saying that people start out atheistic is pretty much worthless, because infants start out being pretty much ignorant of everything anyway.
Actually they start of innocent and pure. Ignorant of those who are older and already here with their corrupted egotistical ways and desires and they will use and abuse them through that journey of life to the end. Only a theist has a pure intention for them. To remain pure and innocent and to know God. 
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Nam on February 17, 2014, 03:52:30 AM
No one is taught to be an atheist. You're born that way.

-Nam

How do you know what you were when you were born?
Do you remember telling your mom I am an atheist?


Seeing how I didn't know anything when I was born nor does anyone else, the conclusion is I or everywhere else didn't know what a god or gods were therefore the conclusion is one is born an atheist. Just like one is born a baby, or is it now your implication we're not born babies but something else?

-Nam
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Boots on February 17, 2014, 09:18:36 AM

I was told I was a christian when I was young. I assumed I was. Only because others said those words to me.

That is why the law says "Thou shall not lie" .
If you are not a Christian people should not say to you that you are.

then why does EVERY EFFING theist parent who raises their children in their faith do this?  Are you saying all theist parents who raise their kids in their faith are liars and thus breaking said commandment?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: nogodsforme on February 17, 2014, 02:20:13 PM
Here is my guess.

Most adults have figured out how to make sense of the world by matching what is in their brains with what exists in the real world. And most people do a pretty good job of responding to the cues of the real world: staying out of the path of fast moving vehicles, wearing warm clothes when it is cold, not falling off cliffs, keeping away from open flames, walking around the pile of dog poop on the sidewalk, ducking the swinging fist, etc.

But then there is religion. Religion tells people that what they think they see in the real world and are aware of through their brains does not in fact exist--it is an illusion, or a practice run for the real thing. The true world, the important world, is full of powerful invisible beings and can only be detected through supernatural means.

This is, of course, crazy. No angels push you out of the path of speeding trucks. There is no god, no Satan, no invisible fist swinging at you that you must somehow detect and duck. But a majority of the adult population of the world is trying to believe in some version of this.[1]

Understandably, most people struggle with doubts about their religion, since it is clearly obvious that the claims of the religion are not factually true. They have to reconcile these contradictions all the time, and fight the cognitive dissonance that results. When they teach the same religion to their kids, they hope that the kids will grow up full of solid faith and not have to deal with the same painful cognitive struggles.

And, at first most parents think, with relief, they have succeeded. Many kids are very theologically compliant and agreeable-- religious notions make perfect sense to kids. Of course they love Jesus or Krishna and believe in him. Because little kids don't have critical thinking skills and live in a world of fantasy anyway. We know this-- comic books, Halloween, ghost stories, Harry Potter, Santa Claus and the entire Disney empire are all based on this fact!

The problem comes when, at age 6 or 8 or 10 or 12, the kid realizes there actually is a big difference between fantasy and reality. Then the invisible friends die, there is no more boogie man in the closet, the magical dragons fly away, Santa is an old guy at the mall, the comics become fun books to read for escape, Greek myths are just that, the cartoons are a diversion for Saturday morning. And Jesus disappears as well.

At about that same age, lots of kids also become interested in the real magic of science: dinosaurs, weather, planets and outer space, magnets, animals, rocks, bugs, plants, toy trains and airplanes ie how the world really works. Take an 8-year-old to the zoo, to a museum or just on a walk and try to keep up with the questions and observations--they are all scientists!

But religion is the special case, so the kids have to learn how important it is to lie and pretend that they have kept on believing that one set of fantasy ideas. Most will become struggling doubters, just like their parents. A few will break loose and shake off the "god delusion" usually after leaving their parent's home. Although as clearly made up, as fantastic and unreal as all the other myths and fairy tales, religion is supposed to remain true, because, why? Religion is just a scary bunch of stories and impossible rules.

At least the other fantasy stories are fun.  :P
 1. The rest of us think they are following stories made up by lunatics. We are correct.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Jesuis on February 17, 2014, 07:00:26 PM

I was told I was a christian when I was young. I assumed I was. Only because others said those words to me.

That is why the law says "Thou shall not lie" .
If you are not a Christian people should not say to you that you are.

then why does EVERY EFFING theist parent who raises their children in their faith do this?  Are you saying all theist parents who raise their kids in their faith are liars and thus breaking said commandment?
That is your belief. I am not saying that at all. I am saying Theists teach their followers not to lie for a reason. So that they can know God.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Jesuis on February 17, 2014, 07:19:01 PM
Here is my guess.

The problem comes when, at age 6 or 8 or 10 or 12, the kid realizes there actually is a big difference between fantasy and reality. Then the invisible friends die, there is no more boogie man in the closet, the magical dragons fly away, Santa is an old guy at the mall, the comics become fun books to read for escape, Greek myths are just that, the cartoons are a diversion for Saturday morning. And Jesus disappears as well.

At about that same age, lots of kids also become interested in the real magic of science: dinosaurs, weather, planets and outer space, magnets, animals, rocks, bugs, plants, toy trains and airplanes ie how the world really works. Take an 8-year-old to the zoo, to a museum or just on a walk and try to keep up with the questions and observations--they are all scientists!

But religion is the special case, so the kids have to learn how important it is to lie and pretend that they have kept on believing that one set of fantasy ideas. Most will become struggling doubters, just like their parents. A few will break loose and shake off the "god delusion" usually after leaving their parent's home. Although as clearly made up, as fantastic and unreal as all the other myths and fairy tales, religion is supposed to remain true, because, why? Religion is just a scary bunch of stories and impossible rules.

At least the other fantasy stories are fun.  :P
At the heart of any religion there is the most humane of agendas. The question is "what has happened with that agenda over time" that the child humanity get confused and feel they have been misled. Corrupt parenting, corrupt teachers, corrupt politicians, corrupt financial institutes, and corrupt media. None of these in the environment is helping the child to know or realize the true agenda of the source of its teaching.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Mrjason on February 18, 2014, 07:44:44 AM
At the heart of any religion there is the most humane of agendas. The question is "what has happened with that agenda over time" that the child humanity get confused and feel they have been misled. Corrupt parenting, corrupt teachers, corrupt politicians, corrupt financial institutes, and corrupt media. None of these in the environment is helping the child to know or realize the true agenda of the source of its teaching.

It is interesting that most religions do have very similar themes. However rather than pointing to the existence of the divine to me at least these similarities point to the origins of religion being human. After all people are people the world over and have similar desires and needs no matter of where and when they are from.

Quote
He should treat all beings as he himself should be treated. The essence
of right conduct is not to injure anyone. (JAINISM -
from The Suta-Kritanga, about 550 BCE)

Do not do to others what you would not like for yourself.
(CONFUCIANISM - from The Analects of Confucius, about 500 BCE)

I will act towards others exactly as I would act towards myself.
(BUDDHISM - from The Siglo-Vada Sutta, about 500 BCE)

This is the sum of duty: Do nothing to others Which, if done to you,
could cause you pain. (HINDUISM - from The Mahabharata, about 150
BCE)

What you would avoid suffering yourself, seek not to impose on
others. (ANCIENT GREECE - Epictetus, the Greek philosopher, about 90
CE)

Love your neighbour as yourself.(JUDAISM / CHRISTIANITY - Leviticus
19, in The Torah, about 400 BCE, quoted by Jesus in Matthew 22 and
Mark 12, 1st Century CE)

What is harmful to yourself do not do to your fellow men. That is the
whole of the law…(JUDAISM - from Hillel: The Talmud, about 100 CE)

None of you truly believes, until he wishes for his brothers what he
wishes for himself. (ISLAM - a saying of The Prophet Muhammad, 7th
Century CE)

As you think of yourself, so think of others. (SIKHISM - from Guru
Granth Sahib, 1604 CE)

He should not wish for others what he does not wish for himself.
(BAHA'I from the writings of Baha'u'llah, about 1870 CE)

Be excellent to each other (BILL & TEDS EXCELLENT ADVENTURE - From Bill S. Preston Esquire, 1989 CE)
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: screwtape on February 18, 2014, 10:43:13 AM
Theists say "Thou shall not lie" you cannot say you know god if you don't if you are a theist.

? So?  There are other alternatives besides them lying and them knowing god.  It could be be they are simply mistaken, but do not know it. 


Actually they start of innocent...

? huh?  Have you never observed little children?  Kids start of as lying, egotistical, selfish savages, little better than dogs.  All that has to be beaten out of them before they can be considered decent human beings, and most of the time they do not progress beyond about age 6.  They just get bigger, but still behave like assholes.

... and pure.

What is people's hang up with purity?  People always think pure is better.  It usually isn't.  Pure iron is crap.  Pure gold is too soft to be very useful.  Pure water - deionized water - is not really that good for you.  I know people who will only own "purebred" dogs, which is stupid in too many ways to get into here. 

But what does it even mean to say an infant is "pure"?  Pure what? 

Only a theist has a pure intention for them.

Here we go with purity again.  And I would say theists goals are completely corrupt, since I see teaching children magical thinking is a terrible thing.

To remain pure and innocent and to know God. 

please.  You are talking crap here.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Jesuis on February 18, 2014, 05:27:21 PM
Theists say "Thou shall not lie" you cannot say you know god if you don't if you are a theist.

? So?  There are other alternatives besides them lying and them knowing god.  It could be be they are simply mistaken, but do not know it. 


Actually they start of innocent...

? huh?  Have you never observed little children?  Kids start of as lying, egotistical, selfish savages, little better than dogs.  All that has to be beaten out of them before they can be considered decent human beings, and most of the time they do not progress beyond about age 6.  They just get bigger, but still behave like assholes.

... and pure.

What is people's hang up with purity?  People always think pure is better.  It usually isn't.  Pure iron is crap.  Pure gold is too soft to be very useful.  Pure water - deionized water - is not really that good for you.  I know people who will only own "purebred" dogs, which is stupid in too many ways to get into here. 

But what does it even mean to say an infant is "pure"?  Pure what? 

Only a theist has a pure intention for them.

Here we go with purity again.  And I would say theists goals are completely corrupt, since I see teaching children magical thinking is a terrible thing.

To remain pure and innocent and to know God. 

please.  You are talking crap here.

Theists say all these things are about training the mind.

A mind built on truth has no beliefs. Something atheist are promoting.

Scientists are trying to do same thing using the scientific method but we know that is only for matter and not mind and conscious awareness.

Theist habe been addressing these issues regarding the self evident truths through positive humane interaction, conscious awareness  and purity of thought away from beliefs..

Pure or innocent as described by theists means the process of self observation by keeping an eye on one's own mind intent.
By living truthfully moment by moment - the follower (a true scientist of the self) learns "To thine own self be true" the method to the truth.

I agree the three year old is not innocent because most of its initial years has been exposed to a corrupting environment. 

Theists are talking about the tabula rasa state. "Unless one is born again" or freed from a mind filled with belief.

Theists want their disciples or be true followers to be self aware when they teach them - they implore their disciples to be pure in thoughts, words and deeds since the human mind has a negative corrupting agenda against truth and for belief of God but not helping one really know God. The theist is the knower and he helps those who are truth seekers for that single purpose.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: nogodsforme on February 18, 2014, 11:22:41 PM
I can't even figure out what he is trying to say. So I cannot respond. He has me stumped.  :-\
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: wheels5894 on February 19, 2014, 04:25:50 AM


Theists say all these things are about training the mind.

A mind built on truth has no beliefs. Something atheist are promoting.

Scientists are trying to do same thing using the scientific method but we know that is only for matter and not mind and conscious awareness.

Well, maybe. I suppose it depends what you think the mind is. For science the activity and the wiring of the neurons is what produces the mind and consciousness. The only way we know for a mind to exist is as a result of process in the brain. These processes can, of course, be studied and there's a lt a work in this area even the idea that a monkey can move another arm completely by brain power alone - and a little help from electrodes in its brain and corresponding circuitry in the arm to be moved. See here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-26224813). So the mind and consciousness is certainly not necessarily beyond science.

Quote
Theist have been addressing these issues regarding the self evident truths through positive humane interaction, conscious awareness  and purity of thought away from beliefs..

Pure or innocent as described by theists means the process of self observation by keeping an eye on one's own mind intent.

Well, some have but most religions are more concerned with indoctrination and getting the members to follow the right set of rules for living (gosh, the bacon is EVIL!  :D)
By living truthfully moment by moment - the follower (a true scientist of the self) learns "To thine own self be true" the method to the truth.

Quote
I agree the three year old is not innocent because most of its initial years has been exposed to a corrupting environment.

Really? At 2 the child is only starting to work on [wiki]theory of mind [/wiki]- so hasn't, by 3, had much chance to be corrupted  - on the basis which we agree the world surrounding a 3 years old is corrupting, which I don't necessarily.

Quote
Theists are talking about the tabula rasa state. "Unless one is born again" or freed from a mind filled with belief.

Theists want their disciples or be true followers to be self aware when they teach them - they implore their disciples to be pure in thoughts, words and deeds since the human mind has a negative corrupting agenda against truth and for belief of God but not helping one really know God. The theist is the knower and he helps those who are truth seekers for that single purpose.

I rather think we have to work on getting down to particular religions rather than the broad term, 'theist'. Indeed some religion no doubt do what you say, but the majority of religions in the west don't. As I mentioned above, the priority for the main religions in the west is to get the members to believe what they are told and to act as they are told on the promise of eternal live and sometimes virgins. I'm not sure there are so many 'seeker of truth' as you call them.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: screwtape on February 19, 2014, 10:06:37 AM
jesuis, please learn to use the quoting function.  There is a link at the bottom of my post, in my signature, to the quoting tutorial.  It will help us understand you better. Please do it now.

Theists say all these things are about training the mind.

I do not understand how this has anything to do with my post.

A mind built on truth has no beliefs. Something atheist are promoting.

huh? 

Scientists are trying to do same thing using the scientific method but we know that is only for matter and not mind and conscious awareness.

huh? 
1, I do not understand how this relates to my post. 
2, science is trying to do what same thing?
3, science absolutely applies to mind and consciousness.  There are entire fields of study on it. 

Theist habe been addressing these issues regarding the self evident truths through positive humane interaction, conscious awareness  and purity of thought away from beliefs..

what are you talking about?  how does this relate to my post at all?

Pure or innocent as described by theists means the process of self observation by keeping an eye on one's own mind intent.

dude, are you on acid?  seriously.  nothing you have written so far has any kind of coherence.

By living truthfully moment by moment - the follower (a true scientist of the self) learns "To thine own self be true" the method to the truth.

Sorry, you are quoting Shakespeare and telling me it is science.  I seriously think you are trolling me.

Theists are talking about the tabula rasa state.

That is an outdated idea.  No wonder theists are talking about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa

And it happens to be incorrect.
Quote
Psychologists and neurobiologists have shown evidence that the entire cerebral cortex is preprogrammed and organized to process sensory input, control motor actions, regulate emotion, and respond reflexively (under predetermined conditions).

The rest of what you said was completely incoherent an meaningless to me. 

If your next post makes as little sense as this one, I'm just not going to respond.  I have better things to do with my time.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Anfauglir on February 19, 2014, 11:21:21 AM
A theist knows God.

As an atheist I have no belief.

Jesuis, I'm cross-posting this as I think it would help greatly if you summarised your position.

You claim to be an atheist - yet make definite statements like "a theist knows god".  All atheists I have ever encountered would say "a theist CLAIMS to know god", at strongest.

If you are an atheist, then your repeating statement such as "a theist knows god" are confusing at best, and may account for a lot of the resistance you are encountering.

Please can you clearly summarise your beliefs - or lack thereof - and explain the apparent dichotomy between the two posts of yours I have quoted?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Nam on February 19, 2014, 09:30:48 PM
He's a schizophrenic theist who believes he's the only true believer of god.

;)

-Nam
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Jesuis on February 20, 2014, 01:44:31 AM
A theist knows God.

As an atheist I have no belief.

Jesuis, I'm cross-posting this as I think it would help greatly if you summarised your position.

You claim to be an atheist - yet make definite statements like "a theist knows god".  All atheists I have ever encountered would say "a theist CLAIMS to know god", at strongest.

If you are an atheist, then your repeating statement such as "a theist knows god" are confusing at best, and may account for a lot of the resistance you are encountering.

Please can you clearly summarise your beliefs - or lack thereof - and explain the apparent dichotomy between the two posts of yours I have quoted?

I do not claim to be an atheist - I know I am an atheist - I do not know God. 
Only Theists know God. These statements are true. We cannot prove beliefs.

1. Christians believe in the "Teachings of Jesus" who knows God. We cannot prove it but his truthful disciples can.
2. Muslims believe in the "Teachings of Muhammad" who also knows God. We cannot prove it but his true followers can.
3. Buddhists believe in the teachings of Buddha who know the path to enlightenment. We cannot prove it but his truthful followers can.
Do you understand?

Theists know God and atheists don't. That is a statement of truth or fact. Read the above logic.
 
What has you so baffled about the statement? It is really simple unless you have some other belief in your brain. Atheists do not believe. So are you really an atheist? 

Besides this is a thread on the probabilities of God's existence and I have posted two books to be considered for this debate.
Likewise as  these authors have given due respect to the people who teach that God exists and that there is a method to know God and that their True followers do find God. I cannot reject the evidence. Read the books.

Why are you going green on me when I have been respectful to the Theists and the atheists. I have respected everyone.
I still cannot understand this authority that some have to piss others off.

What is happening inside your brain that leads to all these questions. I am sure nothing I have said here you and other are understanding because my English is so shitty.
 
It seems like you have some sort of belief. Atheist do not have belief. When will you get that in your head.
I said I am an atheist - why don't you "believe" me. Not that you should be able to? You just have to accept that.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 20, 2014, 02:13:41 AM
1. Christians believe in the "Teachings of Jesus" who knows God. We cannot prove it but his truthful disciples can.
2. Muslims believe in the "Teachings of Muhammad" who also knows God. We cannot prove it but his true followers can.
3. Buddhists believe in the teachings of Buddha who know the path to enlightenment. We cannot prove it but his truthful followers can.
Do you understand?

Theists know God and atheists don't. That is a statement of truth or fact. Read the above logic.
 
What has you so baffled about the statement? It is really simple unless you have some other belief in your brain. Atheists do not believe. So are you really an atheist? 

Let me try to explain our confusion.

We are atheists (or agnostics). The atheists among us assume that there is no god.

If there is no god, nobody can know him. People can claim they know him, but if he doesn't exist, they can't actually do that.

So your first statement ("I do not claim to be an atheist - I know I am an atheist - I do not know God. Only Theists know God.) seems to be saying that both contrary views are can be true. In reality, both sides might be wrong, but both sides cannot be right.

Now if you want to have a conversation based on an assumption that while we atheists don't think there is a god, there actually may be, that makes sense. But speaking in absolutes on both sides of the fence doesn't work. You need to word your assumptions/ideas/subjects in such a way that we can all start out on the same page, no matter which side we take.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Anfauglir on February 20, 2014, 08:29:37 AM
Exactly what ParkingPlaces said - and as I said myself.

If you are an atheist - and have no god belief - how can you even make the statement "I do not know God"?

Why do you capitalise god, for example?

I honestly do not understand how someone who has no belief in gods is able to say "I do not know God"?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Nam on February 20, 2014, 08:32:16 AM
He's a schizophrenic theist who believes he's the only true believer of god.

;)

-Nam
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: jdawg70 on February 20, 2014, 09:33:46 AM
What is happening inside your brain that leads to all these questions. I am sure nothing I have said here you and other are understanding because my English is so shitty.

What's your native language?  There used to be some polyglots around here...perhaps there still are?  Maybe they can help you out?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Jesuis on February 20, 2014, 01:31:33 PM
1. Christians believe in the "Teachings of Jesus" who knows God. We cannot prove it but his truthful disciples can.
2. Muslims believe in the "Teachings of Muhammad" who also knows God. We cannot prove it but his true followers can.
3. Buddhists believe in the teachings of Buddha who know the path to enlightenment. We cannot prove it but his truthful followers can.
Do you understand?

Theists know God and atheists don't. That is a statement of truth or fact. Read the above logic.
 
What has you so baffled about the statement? It is really simple unless you have some other belief in your brain. Atheists do not believe. So are you really an atheist? 

Let me try to explain our confusion.

We are atheists (or agnostics). The atheists among us assume that there is no god.


If there is no god, nobody can know him. People can claim they know him, but if he doesn't exist, they can't actually do that.

So your first statement ("I do not claim to be an atheist - I know I am an atheist - I do not know God. Only Theists know God.) seems to be saying that both contrary views are can be true. In reality, both sides might be wrong, but both sides cannot be right.

Now if you want to have a conversation based on an assumption that while we atheists don't think there is a god, there actually may be, that makes sense. But speaking in absolutes on both sides of the fence doesn't work. You need to word your assumptions/ideas/subjects in such a way that we can all start out on the same page, no matter which side we take.
That is confusing.
How do atheists "assume" there is a God and do nothing scientific about it - based on what?
Theists say to atheist to "assume" there is a God because he knows - he says to follow this method of self awareness - and if you did follow it truthfully you should know.

The statement "Theists know God and atheist don't." is more accurate and not confusing. Its objectives are clear.
Can we now put this thread back on track .. since the powers that be can derail a thread for the sake of going green? If I had such power I would have stopped this abuse of power.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Jesuis on February 20, 2014, 01:36:52 PM
Exactly what ParkingPlaces said - and as I said myself.

If you are an atheist - and have no god belief - how can you even make the statement "I do not know God"?

Why do you capitalise god, for example?

I honestly do not understand how someone who has no belief in gods is able to say "I do not know God"?
But you said you agree with his post where he said "Atheists assume there is a God" - which is confusing to me being an atheist. You are all over the place .. don't we have a word for that?
Can we take this back to the real thread now!!
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Jesuis on February 20, 2014, 01:38:37 PM
jesuis, please learn to use the quoting function.  There is a link at the bottom of my post, in my signature, to the quoting tutorial.  It will help us understand you better. Please do it now.

Thanks
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: jdawg70 on February 20, 2014, 01:50:57 PM
Exactly what ParkingPlaces said - and as I said myself.

If you are an atheist - and have no god belief - how can you even make the statement "I do not know God"?

Why do you capitalise god, for example?

I honestly do not understand how someone who has no belief in gods is able to say "I do not know God"?
But you said you agree with his post where he said "Atheists assume there is a God" - which is confusing to me being an atheist. You are all over the place .. don't we have a word for that?
Can we take this back to the real thread now!!

Take a deep breath and re-read ParkingPlaces post.  There is a rather important two-letter word there that I think you're missing...

Let me try to explain our confusion.

We are atheists (or agnostics). The atheists among us assume that there is no god.

If there is no god, nobody can know him. People can claim they know him, but if he doesn't exist, they can't actually do that.

So your first statement ("I do not claim to be an atheist - I know I am an atheist - I do not know God. Only Theists know God.) seems to be saying that both contrary views are can be true. In reality, both sides might be wrong, but both sides cannot be right.

Now if you want to have a conversation based on an assumption that while we atheists don't think there is a god, there actually may be, that makes sense. But speaking in absolutes on both sides of the fence doesn't work. You need to word your assumptions/ideas/subjects in such a way that we can all start out on the same page, no matter which side we take.

Also - what's your native language?

Edit: forgot to include the quote to ParkingPlaces' post-of-interest.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 20, 2014, 02:14:11 PM
That is confusing.
How do atheists "assume" there is a God and do nothing scientific about it - based on what?
Theists say to atheist to "assume" there is a God because he knows - he says to follow this method of self awareness - and if you did follow it truthfully you should know.

Here's the problem. The definition of god varies from religion to religion, so even though there is absolutely no concrete evidence that a god or gods do exist, we still have to play along with the many religions and their many excuses. If they would be so kind as to get together and come up with one definite and reliable definition of a god, those of us who don't think he exists could be more specific in our denial.

In other words, none of us have figured out a way to catch up with the many goal posts they keep moving. So we just generalize.

For the time being, the fact that science hasn't found anything for which the only explanation would be a supernatural power, I'll go with being, in my own head, 100% sure there are no gods, while publicly stating that my confidence factor is only 99.9999999999%. With numbers like that as the basis for my assumption, I'll use the word "assume".

And my self-awareness has nothing to do with it. Either there is a god/gods or there isn't, and my opinion doesn't mean squat within most aspects of reality. It is relevant to the person I experience as me and in my interactions with the social structure. Whether or not I believe in god does not affect the orbit of Mars, the timing of the next supernova or black hole physics. Self-wareness may allow me to draw conclusions, but I also get to decide the validity of my conclusions, and so whether I am right or wrong, I'll likely never know it. In the process, I've gone all circular on my a**, and I would be a fool to get too excited about my views of reality. Especially when there are others to think about. That I think I am right about the god thing is of little importance, other than to me, personally. If I were using it as an excuse to burn folks at the stake or something, then it would be important. But I'm not. So it really isn't that big a deal.

Quote
The statement "Theists know God and atheist don't." is more accurate and not confusing. Its objectives are clear.
Can we now put this thread back on track .. since the powers that be can derail a thread for the sake of going green? If I had such power I would have stopped this abuse of power.

The statement "Theists think that they know god and atheists don't think they know god" is fine. IF THERE IS NO GOD, NOBODY CAN KNOW HIM! No matter how hard they try. They can think they do, but they can't.  IF THERE IS A GOD, THEN WE ATHEISTS ARE THE ONES WHO ARE WRONG, AND WHATEVER WE KNOW IS IN ERROR. AND WE CAN'T SAY THERE IS NO GOD BECAUSE THEISTS CONTINUE TO INSIST THAT WE CONSIDER THAT POSSIBILITY. AND BECAUSE WE'RE HUMAN, WE CAN'T KNOW FOR SURE WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A GOD SIMPLY BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING.

But we can't both be right. That is what I am telling you is wrong about your statement. And if everyone else who has responded feels more or less the same way, you have to consider the slight possibility that you're doing it wrong.

You remind me of an old adage from the Vietnam War. 

Quote
If everyone around you is running around in a panic, and you are remaining cool and calm, perhaps you have insufficient information,

In other words, if you think you're right and everyone else thinks you're wrong, you should at least consider the possibility that the others are right. Especially if you cannot find a way to clarify your position that meets with approval.

I'm not religious, so I have no capacity to respond meaningfully to nonsense. And the way you are stating your premise is nonsense to me. Your unwillingness to communicate in a useful manner is the source of our current problem with this thread.

I assume I haven't budged you an inch, but hey, at least I got to type in all caps for a bit. Thanks.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: nogodsforme on February 20, 2014, 05:11:14 PM
There seem to be three groups, as (ill-)(re-)defined by Jesuis:
 
1) theists-- apparently this category is made up only of prophets or mystics who know god personally; they have god's cell number, are Facebook friends with god, they hang out with god at the bowling alley, they can tell you god's zodiac sign, they have a beer with god on Friday nights. So there are not very many theists, according to Jesuis. Only a handful of folks like Jesus, Buddha, L. Ron Hubbard, Muhammed, Moses, Joseph Smith, Zoroaster, and Mary Baker Eddy. [1]

2) followers of theists-- members of the various religious denominations who think that the theists of their particular cultural background are correct, although they themselves have no first-hand information about god or his shoe size. They are willing to listen for hours while their favorite  theist goes on and on about god's holy sleep apnea.

3) atheists--folks who, like the followers, don't have any first-hand info about gods. But unlike the followers, they don't believe the theist knows any gods, either.  Atheists are, in other words, ordinary rational thinkers.[2]

The possibility of there not being any gods to know (meaning that the situation of the atheists is the only reasonable one, because theists as he has defined them are simply nuckin' futs, and their followers are being misled by crazy people) has apparently not occurred to Jesuis.
 1. We are getting even fewer theists nowadays than ever before. It could be because we are nearing the endtimes. But it's probably because we have become better at diagnosing frontal lobe epilepsy, schizophrenia, fictional status..... and fraud.
 2. This is, presumably because no gods have chosen to show up and introduce themselves to anyone not suffering from frontal lobe epilepsy, schizophrenia, fictional status... or fraud.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Jesuis on February 20, 2014, 05:16:34 PM
Exactly what ParkingPlaces said - and as I said myself.

If you are an atheist - and have no god belief - how can you even make the statement "I do not know God"?

Why do you capitalise god, for example?

I honestly do not understand how someone who has no belief in gods is able to say "I do not know God"?
But you said you agree with his post where he said "Atheists assume there is a God" - which is confusing to me being an atheist. You are all over the place .. don't we have a word for that?
Can we take this back to the real thread now!!

Take a deep breath and re-read ParkingPlaces post.  There is a rather important two-letter word there that I think you're missing...

Let me try to explain our confusion.

We are atheists (or agnostics). The atheists among us assume that there is no god.

If there is no god, nobody can know him. People can claim they know him, but if he doesn't exist, they can't actually do that.

So your first statement ("I do not claim to be an atheist - I know I am an atheist - I do not know God. Only Theists know God.) seems to be saying that both contrary views are can be true. In reality, both sides might be wrong, but both sides cannot be right.

Now if you want to have a conversation based on an assumption that while we atheists don't think there is a god, there actually may be, that makes sense. But speaking in absolutes on both sides of the fence doesn't work. You need to word your assumptions/ideas/subjects in such a way that we can all start out on the same page, no matter which side we take.

Also - what's your native language?

Edit: forgot to include the quote to ParkingPlaces' post-of-interest.
Sooohahhhh! Deep breath taken.
The thread is called the "Probabilities for Gods existence". It is not really about me nor belief in a God. Someone has hijacked the thread inputing assumptions and beliefs.

The books concerning this topic

1. The Case for God by Karen Armstrong
2 New Proofs for the existence of God by Robert J Spitzer.

I proposed these for debate if anyone want to debate the probabilities. I was not looking for a fight as some are.
 

As for me
Native Language = Broken English.
Profession: Expert fruit picker(not joking coconuts are hard to pick unless you have a certain skill and I am getting too old for this job). Still a slave and proud to serve.

As for the other thread - "Theists know and atheist don't" I am addressing those points when I am not slaving watching TV or reading a child's fable.

Humanity has a lot of work to do to create harmony -and  truth is the only goal for scientists to address to get rid of belief

Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: nogodsforme on February 20, 2014, 05:37:51 PM
Oh, come on. Nobody's native language is Broken English. That would imply that you are the only person on the planet not fluent in your first language! Linguistics researchers are eagerly awaiting your call.  &)
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Jesuis on February 20, 2014, 05:45:31 PM
That is confusing.
How do atheists "assume" there is a God and do nothing scientific about it - based on what?
Theists say to atheist to "assume" there is a God because he knows - he says to follow this method of self awareness - and if you did follow it truthfully you should know.

Here's the problem. The definition of god varies from religion to religion, so even though there is absolutely no concrete evidence that a god or gods do exist, we still have to play along with the many religions and their many excuses. If they would be so kind as to get together and come up with one definite and reliable definition of a god, those of us who don't think he exists could be more specific in our denial.

In other words, none of us have figured out a way to catch up with the many goal posts they keep moving. So we just generalize.

For the time being, the fact that science hasn't found anything for which the only explanation would be a supernatural power, I'll go with being, in my own head, 100% sure there are no gods, while publicly stating that my confidence factor is only 99.9999999999%. With numbers like that as the basis for my assumption, I'll use the word "assume".

And my self-awareness has nothing to do with it. Either there is a god/gods or there isn't, and my opinion doesn't mean squat within most aspects of reality. It is relevant to the person I experience as me and in my interactions with the social structure. Whether or not I believe in god does not affect the orbit of Mars, the timing of the next supernova or black hole physics. Self-wareness may allow me to draw conclusions, but I also get to decide the validity of my conclusions, and so whether I am right or wrong, I'll likely never know it. In the process, I've gone all circular on my a**, and I would be a fool to get too excited about my views of reality. Especially when there are others to think about. That I think I am right about the god thing is of little importance, other than to me, personally. If I were using it as an excuse to burn folks at the stake or something, then it would be important. But I'm not. So it really isn't that big a deal.

Quote
The statement "Theists know God and atheist don't." is more accurate and not confusing. Its objectives are clear.
Can we now put this thread back on track .. since the powers that be can derail a thread for the sake of going green? If I had such power I would have stopped this abuse of power.

The statement "Theists think that they know god and atheists don't think they know god" is fine. IF THERE IS NO GOD, NOBODY CAN KNOW HIM! No matter how hard they try. They can think they do, but they can't.  IF THERE IS A GOD, THEN WE ATHEISTS ARE THE ONES WHO ARE WRONG, AND WHATEVER WE KNOW IS IN ERROR. AND WE CAN'T SAY THERE IS NO GOD BECAUSE THEISTS CONTINUE TO INSIST THAT WE CONSIDER THAT POSSIBILITY. AND BECAUSE WE'RE HUMAN, WE CAN'T KNOW FOR SURE WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A GOD SIMPLY BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING.

But we can't both be right. That is what I am telling you is wrong about your statement. And if everyone else who has responded feels more or less the same way, you have to consider the slight possibility that you're doing it wrong.

You remind me of an old adage from the Vietnam War. 

Quote
If everyone around you is running around in a panic, and you are remaining cool and calm, perhaps you have insufficient information,

In other words, if you think you're right and everyone else thinks you're wrong, you should at least consider the possibility that the others are right. Especially if you cannot find a way to clarify your position that meets with approval.

I'm not religious, so I have no capacity to respond meaningfully to nonsense. And the way you are stating your premise is nonsense to me. Your unwillingness to communicate in a useful manner is the source of our current problem with this thread.

I assume I haven't budged you an inch, but hey, at least I got to type in all caps for a bit. Thanks.
If only you were an atheist you would see what is wrong with this --- Thinking - belief - assumptions and conclusions based on what. Where are your facts?

Here is a tribal leader's when we were younger.
Maybe you can understand something of his thinking..

"A scientists of old wanted to find out where the hearing was in a frog.
He placed a frog on his dissecting table slapped his hand on the table top and said JUMP.
The frog jumped. -- he notes its height and distance into his book
He proceeds to cut of one leg at a time repeating the process and the frog keeps trying but each time it getting lower and not as far.
After al te legs were gone he concluded that the frogs hearing was in its legs.
He gets his other peers to have a look at what he discovered and for many years this was a truth for them.
 
Thinking observing documenting and concluding with a peer review process is not all that is required for an idea to be true.
A truth when established remains true for all of time. The probability of God's existence is like the probability that the hearing is in the frogs legs. 

Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Jesuis on February 20, 2014, 05:54:14 PM
Oh, come on. Nobody's native language is Broken English. That would imply that you are the only person on the planet not fluent in your first language! Linguistics researchers are eagerly awaiting your call.  &)
My original language was banned by the slave masters generations ago out of fear that my ancestors would take up arms against them. I am being honest - I only have broken English.  But hey I like TV. Especially the science programmes.
Beside I think you are veering into belief again. 
I know myself and you do not know me.
I just asked my mate and she said it is a broken French Dutch English that we have inherited and "thats dat". She is not discussing it. She is always right.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Azdgari on February 20, 2014, 05:55:20 PM
My original language was banned by the slave masters generations ago out of fear that my ancestors would take up arms against them.

What language was that?

And what prevented you from properly learning English?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: jdawg70 on February 20, 2014, 05:58:19 PM
Sooohahhhh! Deep breath taken.
The thread is called the "Probabilities for Gods existence". It is not really about me nor belief in a God. Someone has hijacked the thread inputing assumptions and beliefs.

The books concerning this topic

1. The Case for God by Karen Armstrong
2 New Proofs for the existence of God by Robert J Spitzer.

I proposed these for debate if anyone want to debate the probabilities. I was not looking for a fight as some are.
 

As for me
Native Language = Broken English.
Profession: Expert fruit picker(not joking coconuts are hard to pick unless you have a certain skill and I am getting too old for this job). Still a slave and proud to serve.

As for the other thread - "Theists know and atheist don't" I am addressing those points when I am not slaving watching TV or reading a child's fable.

Humanity has a lot of work to do to create harmony -and  truth is the only goal for scientists to address to get rid of belief

I was merely trying to point out the source of the confusion that you espoused here:
Exactly what ParkingPlaces said - and as I said myself.

If you are an atheist - and have no god belief - how can you even make the statement "I do not know God"?

Why do you capitalise god, for example?

I honestly do not understand how someone who has no belief in gods is able to say "I do not know God"?
But you said you agree with his post where he said "Atheists assume there is a God" - which is confusing to me being an atheist. You are all over the place .. don't we have a word for that?
Can we take this back to the real thread now!!

Notice how you imply that ParkingPlaces said "Atheists assume there is a God", when, in fact, ParkingPlaces said "The atheists among us assume that there is no god".  That was what I was hoping you would see.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Jesuis on February 20, 2014, 06:22:36 PM
There seem to be three groups, as (ill-)(re-)defined by Jesuis:
 
1) theists-- apparently this category is made up only of prophets or mystics who know god personally; they have god's cell number, are Facebook friends with god, they hang out with god at the bowling alley, they can tell you god's zodiac sign, they have a beer with god on Friday nights. So there are not very many theists, according to Jesuis. Only a handful of folks like Jesus, Buddha, L. Ron Hubbard, Muhammed, Moses, Joseph Smith, Zoroaster, and Mary Baker Eddy. [1]

2) followers of theists-- members of the various religious denominations who think that the theists of their particular cultural background are correct, although they themselves have no first-hand information about god or his shoe size. They are willing to listen for hours while their favorite  theist goes on and on about god's holy sleep apnea.

3) atheists--folks who, like the followers, don't have any first-hand info about gods. But unlike the followers, they don't believe the theist knows any gods, either.  Atheists are, in other words, ordinary rational thinkers.[2]

The possibility of there not being any gods to know (meaning that the situation of the atheists is the only reasonable one, because theists as he has defined them are simply nuckin' futs, and their followers are being misled by crazy people) has apparently not occurred to Jesuis.
 1. We are getting even fewer theists nowadays than ever before. It could be because we are nearing the endtimes. But it's probably because we have become better at diagnosing frontal lobe epilepsy, schizophrenia, fictional status..... and fraud.
 2. This is, presumably because no gods have chosen to show up and introduce themselves to anyone not suffering from frontal lobe epilepsy, schizophrenia, fictional status... or fraud.

A theist knows God and is therefore not concerned with the names "we give them". We may call them prophets, mystics or Messiahs but that is not the nature of knowing. We can use the method they teach to know what they know. An atheist knows he does not know and knows he does not follow the method taught and knows he has no teacher.

Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Jesuis on February 20, 2014, 06:29:00 PM
Notice how you imply that ParkingPlaces said "Atheists assume there is a God", when, in fact, ParkingPlaces said "The atheists among us assume that there is no god".  That was what I was hoping you would see.
Meaning what exactly.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: jdawg70 on February 20, 2014, 06:35:48 PM
REALLY???!?!?!??!?

Notice how you imply that ParkingPlaces said "Atheists assume there is a God", when, in fact, ParkingPlaces said "The atheists among us assume that there is no god".  That was what I was hoping you would see.
Meaning what exactly.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Nam on February 20, 2014, 06:47:10 PM
My original language was banned by the slave masters generations ago out of fear that my ancestors would take up arms against them.

What language was that?

And what prevented you from properly learning English?

I've heard better English in China town than from this guy.

-Nam
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Jesuis on February 20, 2014, 08:46:22 PM
REALLY???!?!?!??!?

Notice how you imply that ParkingPlaces said "Atheists assume there is a God", when, in fact, ParkingPlaces said "The atheists among us assume that there is no god".  That was what I was hoping you would see.
Meaning what exactly.
I was talking about the underlined bit
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 20, 2014, 09:30:35 PM
Okay, I think I get it.

Theists know god, whether he exists or not, and the superior process that they use to reach that conclusion makes them better than atheists, who lack a sophisticated mechanism for conjuring up excuses and irrational thoughts, since that's not how we roll.

Theists,who can't tell their a** from a hole in the ground, at least use structured thought processes, however erroneous, when making stuff up, thanks to their teachers, and that makes them better than us.

So the process is more important than the conclusion, and the lack of absolute certainty dooms atheists to always being wrong about why they are right.

Am I getting warm?

Added: I tried to use some poor english to make it easier for you to read, Jesuis. I hope you appreciate that.




Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Jesuis on February 20, 2014, 10:12:39 PM
Okay, I think I get it.

Theists know god, whether he exists or not, and the superior process that they use to reach that conclusion makes them better than atheists, who lack a sophisticated mechanism for conjuring up excuses and irrational thoughts, since that's not how we roll.

Theists,who can't tell their a** from a hole in the ground, at least use structured thought processes, however erroneous, when making stuff up, thanks to their teachers, and that makes them better than us.

So the process is more important than the conclusion, and the lack of absolute certainty dooms atheists to always being wrong about why they are right.

Am I getting warm?

Added: I tried to use some poor english to make it easier for you to read, Jesuis. I hope you appreciate that.
I do not think so.

I like the warmness. Thanks for trying to sound like me - but there is no need. Just be yourself.

Theists are not making anyone better than anyone else. To thine ownself be true is a human birth right. Intellect applied in the moment of every moment - the most consciously aware of their minds intent.

The mounting evidence that less and less know God means they are not doing the method that helps them in that goal.

"If" we want to "know God" then We need to find "the theist", use "the scientific method" he is teaching, and discover the truths for ourselves. It is a Master Disciple Relationship. 

No one is any better than any other.


PS As atheists we know there is no God. We are not looking for God. We have no such need. We have an intellect that when it has been shown evidence we can choose the path we want.

People who hear a Theist and are drawn to him, want to know what he knows.
The parable of the sower takes place. And it has got nothing to do with us.
 
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: wheels5894 on February 21, 2014, 03:38:30 AM
I sort of agree with Jesuis, this thread has somewhat lost its way. We were supposed to be considering the probabilities of the existence of a god. So far we have achieved -

1. the atheists here pointed out that there is no evidence to support the idea of there being an existing god

2. Jesuis continually saying there is a god and pointing us to books. (sorry, Jesuis, if this is an abbreviation of your views.)

To move on we need some evidence of any god and, Jesuis needs to produce it. Please just pop down the three best bits of evidence for god, Jesuis, in your own words so we can start to discuss them.
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Jesuis on February 21, 2014, 07:40:09 PM
I sort of agree with Jesuis, this thread has somewhat lost its way. We were supposed to be considering the probabilities of the existence of a god. So far we have achieved -

1. the atheists here pointed out that there is no evidence to support the idea of there being an existing god

2. Jesuis continually saying there is a god and pointing us to books. (sorry, Jesuis, if this is an abbreviation of your views.)

To move on we need some evidence of any god and, Jesuis needs to produce it. Please just pop down the three best bits of evidence for god, Jesuis, in your own words so we can start to discuss them.

On this thread I was actually pointing out that there is a probability base on the writing of Karen Armstrong and Robert J Spitzer.
But I keep getting dragged into defending myself and my character and not the arguments made by these people in their books. Why is that? Why my character or my English. Why not Karen says ----- or Robert J Spitzer says.... I conclude that it is not the debate they are after but the trashing or character assassination that they are intent on doing.

This is part of the blurb on the back cover of the book "The Case For God" by Karen Armstrong.

"There is wide spread confusion about the nature of religious truth.  For the first time in history, a significantly large number of people want nothing to do with God. Militant Atheists preach a gospel of godlessness and find an eager audience. What has happened?
Tracing the history of faith from the palaeolithic age to the present, Karen Armstrong shows that the meaning of the words such as "Belief" "Faith", and "Mystery" has been entirely altered, so that atheist and theists alike now think and speak about God and reason in a way that our ancestors would have found astonishing. " 

Join me on my thread "Theists know God and Atheists don't. to help work out the meaning of the words that have changed over time. Or lets engage in the probabilities of Gods existence as pointed out by the authors of these books.
1. The case for God
2. New proofs for the existence of God
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: wheels5894 on February 22, 2014, 06:11:52 AM
Jesuis,

The problems with the words are ones which we have had for a long time and must be something that happens in a lot of languages. Certainly 'belief' and 'faith' are often discussed in these forums but some posters deliberately or not, use the various meanings of these words to help their cause. For example 'belief'. Consider the following -

I believe me car with start this morning because, ever since I bought it, it has started first time.

I believe god will take me to heaven when I die and give me 70 virgins.

Now in the first case, belief is based on facts - facts that could be checked. My car might not start but this is not that likely. In the case of the second sentence, the subject is believing something that can never be checked, has nothing to substantiate it and so on. Belief can mean trusting something with no evidence or trusting something because of lots of evidence that something is true. So here we have a classic case of words getting in the way of understanding.

Anyway, I don't have a copy of either of the books you mention so I can't comment on them. However, if you could outline some of the evidence we could all discuss it. Could you do that?
Title: Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
Post by: Jesuis on February 22, 2014, 03:23:37 PM
 
When we buy a second hand old banger. We believe it would start when we turn the key.

The day it stops starting the belief changes.

We buy a new car - we believe that the car will start every time we turn the key.

If every time we turn the key it works then we have faith in it.

As humans we need belief first. If the things we believe does not pan out we change it, but not for something worse. We keep seeking something better that works for us. We do not want to be hassled.

The more evolved amongst us seek peace compassion human unity conscious awareness.

The probabilities of God's existence is how we analyse the cases made for God's existence by the men who teach that there is a God.

Their agenda is one of peace, love and human unity. It is about non violence, truth, conscious awareness.

If we adopt these values in our lives we would realise they only seek the human evolution -- angels if nothing else.
Title: Re: Pro