Re: God
By: Corey to Atari X on Sun Jan 10 2010 12:50 pm

Re: God
By: Atari X to Corey on Sun Jan 10 2010 01:51 pm

But I can prove that there is a dog. I have pictures.
I have no pictures of God, however.

ok, I have pictures of dogs playing poker. so they really do?

If you are talking about the famous painting of dogs playing poker - that is a painting. You can create whatever version of reality you like in a painting.

If you have a picture (photograph) of dogs sitting around with poker cards stuck to their paws, then you have a picture of dogs sitting around with poker cards stuck to their paws. Not a picture of dogs playing poker.

Please, try an argument next time, instead of silliness.


---
þ Synchronet þ Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net

Re: God
By: echicken to Atari X on Sun Jan 10 2010 04:01 pm

Re: God
By: Atari X to echicken on Sun Jan 10 2010 13:56:22

This doesn't clear anything up at all, and in fact completely ignores my assertion that simply not proving that something exists does not prove that does not exist. You've just repeated yourself. We are now going around in circles. This discussion is quickly becoming anything but.

echicken

echicken,

You can manipulate the facts that are presented to you in whatever way that you choose to. It's still pseudo-intellectual masturbation that serves no purpose.
You have failed to get the one vital point I keep trying to make, but no-one seems to hear.

The only argument that God exists is one of FAITH. If God stepped down from the clouds right now, and got on national television, and said, "Hey Guys, let's be good to each other," then we would have proof - but at the same time, we would have no need for FAITH. Faith becomes meaningless in the light of proof.

So, wrap your head around that. Faith denies proof. When you have proof, you have no more faith.

Proof is verifiable by empirical evidence (observable). In this case, I have no empirical evidence that God exists. I have no proof.

Conversely, I can make the hypothesis, "God doesn't exist". The next step is to gather data, and then perform experiments.

I observe (and gather the data) that I cannot see, smell, touch, taste, or hear God. I also observe than in my surroundings, nothing is being effected in any way by God (everything in my surroundings is acting in accordance to physical laws).

So, I have gathered my data, and now I perform an experiment, based on the thesis that "if God exists, and he's supposed to be all-knowing, and he
answers prayers, then if I make a prayer, he should answer than prayer, and I can quantify that answer as being performed or enacted by God."

So, my experiment: "Dear God, please strike me dead in the next 10 seconds, or, failing that, do ANYTHING that will give me a sign of your existence."

(now, sitting here in front of my computer, I perform the experiment, and nothing happens)

Now, I can say that by the scientific method, I have completed my hypothesis and can state that by my reckoning God does not exist.

Let's flip that around.

Follow it through in your head, devise whatever method, and tell me at what point does it fall apart because you have to, at some point, say, "FAITH tells me this is true."

Which invalidates it as an argument.


---
þ Synchronet þ Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net

Re: God
By: nightcrawler to Atari X on Sun Jan 10 2010 05:55 pm

This is a very poor reason for being an atheist. You are assuming if there i a god, he is some form of a theistic god, ignoring the fact that if there is a creator, he merely could be some form of deistic one. Meaning he/it, set life in motion, but doesn't act in human affairs. (I am an agnostic, but thi would make more sense to me than any thiestic god, because it is based on human self-importance.

Nightcrawler +o Dark Sanctuary

The model you are talking about is called the "Grand Clockmaker" model - where God is this universally powerful clockmaker who set our universe into motion and then moved on to something else.

Which to me is the same as believing that there is no God at all. If God is not going to involve himself in human affairs, then his existence to me is meaningless - there's certainly no reason to pray to him, or get spiritual guidane from him, or believe that he will give us an afterlife.

And certainly no reason to build a religion around him.

He'd be no different than some shmoe down the street whom I don't know and never see.


---
þ Synchronet þ Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net

Re: Re: God
By: Ryedawg to esc on Sun Jan 10 2010 09:38 pm

I'm a troll, really? I thought I was a orc or mabye a elf. Boy was I wrong. Damn.

yeah, if you were a elf you could work with santa.
maybe you are a kobold?

Caput meum major podice meo.
This message has ended, go in peace...

---
þ Synchronet þ Three Stooges Gentlemens Club - Las Vegas, Nv - tsgc.dyndns.org

Re: God
By: Atari X to echicken on Mon Jan 11 2010 02:31:12

You can manipulate the facts that are presented to you in whatever way that choose to. It's still pseudo-intellectual masturbation that serves no purpo

I do not understand this statement at all. I'm not sitting here presenting you with fudged numbers or misquotations. This makes no sense and stands only as a bizarre attempt to cut me down and fill out your message with anti-chicken rhetoric.

You have failed to get the one vital point I keep trying to make, but no-on seems to hear.

No, I understand your point. Faith does not require proof, and proof eliminates the need for faith. You can conduct experiments which fail to prove that God exists, while the other side doesn't even have that much of a leg to stand on. You and I will never believe in God unless his existence can be proven, and therefore we can never believe in God because if we did we would not have faith. See? I get it.

All I am saying is that you haven't actually proven that God doesn't exist. Whether or not the other side would accept your proof is irrelevant. You simply haven't proven it. It is not a fact, and yet you toss it around as if it is one. This is just as silly as the other side saying that God *does* exist, when their reason is, essentially, "because I have a feeling."

It's like Nightcrawler's reference to Russell's Teapot. If somebody told me that there was a teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars (or however the story went) but that the teapot could never be detected, I couldn't actually say for sure that it wasn't out there. I may not believe that it's out there, but I can't actually prove this story to be false, so I would simply abstain from making a judgement one way or the other. Yeah, lack of proof to the contrary does not make something true, but so what? What difference does it make if I simply allow for the possibility that this thing is out there? None whatsoever.

So I don't believe in God, but I like to be fair and open minded, so I allow for the possibility that I am wrong - if only because I have no absolute proof that I am right. This makes a lot of sense to me.

echicken
electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230

---
þ Synchronet þ electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com

Re: God
By: Atari X to echicken on Mon Jan 11 2010 02:31:12

The only argument that God exists is one of FAITH. If God stepped down from the clouds right now, and got on national television, and said, "Hey Guys, let's be good to each other," then we would have proof - but at the same tim we would have no need for FAITH. Faith becomes meaningless in the light of proof.

And yes, this makes total sense. In fact, if I ever met God, in person, I think that I would actually expect some proof that he was who he said that he was - so no matter what, I'd never actually be able to believe in him. :)

echicken
electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230

---
þ Synchronet þ electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com

Re: God
By: Atari X to nightcrawler on Mon Jan 11 2010 02:37:45

The model you are talking about is called the "Grand Clockmaker" model - whe God is this universally powerful clockmaker who set our universe into motion and then moved on to something else.

Which to me is the same as believing that there is no God at all. If God is not going to involve himself in human affairs, then his existence to me is meaningless - there's certainly no reason to pray to him, or get spiritual guidane from him, or believe that he will give us an afterlife.

Part of the trouble that I'm having in discussing this with you is that you seem to have a specific definition of "God" in your head (one that requires "faith" to be believed in, etc.) Many people believe many different things. What harm would it do to believe in the clockmaker, even if his existence was meaningless?

echicken
electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230


---
þ Synchronet þ electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com

Re: God
By: Atari X to nightcrawler on Mon Jan 11 2010 02:14 am

I am an Atheist, and I am not demanding evidence. I am making an assertion that God doesn't exist. And he doesn't. The only thing I demand is that an who deny my assertion provide proof that I am wrong. And they can't.

Your logic is flawed.

Nightcrawler +o Dark Sanctuary
darksanctuary.servebbs.com


---
þ Synchronet þ Dark Sanctuary darksanctuary.servebbs.com

Re: God
By: Atari X to Corey on Mon Jan 11 2010 02:17 am

If you have a picture (photograph) of dogs sitting around with poker cards stuck to their paws, then you have a picture of dogs sitting around with pok cards stuck to their paws. Not a picture of dogs playing poker.

Please, try an argument next time, instead of silliness.

LOL, my thoughts exactly.

Nightcrawler +o Dark Sanctuary
darksanctuary.servebbs.com


---
þ Synchronet þ Dark Sanctuary darksanctuary.servebbs.com

Re: God
By: Atari X to nightcrawler on Mon Jan 11 2010 02:37 am

The model you are talking about is called the "Grand Clockmaker" model - whe God is this universally powerful clockmaker who set our universe into motion and then moved on to something else.

Which to me is the same as believing that there is no God at all. If God is not going to involve himself in human affairs, then his existence to me is meaningless - there's certainly no reason to pray to him, or get spiritual guidane from him, or believe that he will give us an afterlife.

And certainly no reason to build a religion around him.

He'd be no different than some shmoe down the street whom I don't know and never see.

I agree in this assesment.

Nightcrawler +o Dark Sanctuary
darksanctuary.servebbs.com


---
þ Synchronet þ Dark Sanctuary darksanctuary.servebbs.com

Re: God
By: nightcrawler to esc on Mon Jan 11 2010 01:19 am

I think you are corrent, I misread your post. We all make mistakes. :)

Heh, yeah, I was confused...I thought we were on the same side on this one :P

esc(montereybbs/demonic/mimic)

---
þ Synchronet þ :: montereybbs.com ::

Re: God
By: echicken to Atari X on Mon Jan 11 2010 12:08 pm

And yes, this makes total sense. In fact, if I ever met God, in person, I think that I would actually expect some proof that he was who he said that h was - so no matter what, I'd never actually be able to believe in him. :) echicken

thats funny. "you are GOD? hmm, got any id on you? can you prove it?"
scary thing is thou, If Jesus came back, most would not believe him,
and if he is dressed like depicted in drawings, most church would never let him in becuase he looked like a bum.

Caput meum major podice meo.
This message has ended, go in peace...

---
þ Synchronet þ Three Stooges Gentlemens Club - Las Vegas, Nv - tsgc.dyndns.org

Re: God
By: echicken to Atari X on Mon Jan 11 2010 12:32 pm

Part of the trouble that I'm having in discussing this with you is that you seem to have a specific definition of "God" in your head (one that requires "faith" to be believed in, etc.) Many people believe many different things. What harm would it do to believe in the clockmaker, even if his existence wa meaningless?

echicken

I think we covered this. God provides us with no proof of this existence - we have to have faith that he exists at all. If there was any proof of his existence, regardless of how small - we'd all believe in him - it would be foolish not to.

Faith is the magic sauce that makes God go. I don't know any other simpler way to say it. If no-one had faith that God existed, then religion would have disappeared a long time ago.

So, to address the rest of your reply - with no faith that God (or anything) exists, then why would you put in any stock in it's existence?

For example, I have no faith that the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy exist - and wow, they don't. If I believe in the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy even when I don't have any faith that they exist, then I'm an idiot.

Same goes for God.


---
þ Synchronet þ Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net

Re: God
By: nightcrawler to Atari X on Mon Jan 11 2010 02:54 pm

Re: God
By: Atari X to nightcrawler on Mon Jan 11 2010 02:14 am

I am an Atheist, and I am not demanding evidence. I am making an asserti that God doesn't exist. And he doesn't. The only thing I demand is that who deny my assertion provide proof that I am wrong. And they can't.

Your logic is flawed.

Nightcrawler +o Dark Sanctuary

More flawed than believing in a magic Santa Claus who is going to send me to an eternal heaven if I'm good, but will burn me in fire for eternity if I'm bad?

My logic is not flawed. Your argument is without merit. Next please.


---
þ Synchronet þ Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net

Re: God
By: Atari X to echicken on Wed Jan 13 2010 03:11:10

Part of the trouble that I'm having in discussing this with you is that y seem to have a specific definition of "God" in your head (one that requir "faith" to be believed in, etc.) Many people believe many different thin

I think we covered this. God provides us with no proof of this existence - have to have faith that he exists at all. If there was any proof of his existence, regardless of how small - we'd all believe in him - it would be foolish not to.

Faith is the magic sauce that makes God go. I don't know any other simpler to say it. If no-one had faith that God existed, then religion would have disappeared a long time ago.

You're just not paying attention to what I'm saying. You think that the only possible definition of God is one that requires faith and excludes any form of proof. I do not believe in God, I do not think that God exists, but I leave room for the possibility that I could be proven wrong and that *something* might be out there somewhere, even if it's some guy in a parallel universe who picked his nose and flicked the booger that caused the big bang.

Faith is the magic sauce that makes God go. I don't know any other simpler to say it. If no-one had faith that God existed, then religion would have disappeared a long time ago.

Some religions and systems of belief require this, yes. But not all. Even so, the fact that so many people out there seem to strongly feel this thing, this "faith" which I have no understanding of, is one reason why I allow for the possibility of a God. What if this "faith" is a real thing? What if the thing that others *need* no proof of *can* actually be proven? If that were to happen, faith would no longer be necessary, but the thing that once required faith but was now proven would still exist.

For example, I have no faith that the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy exist - an wow, they don't. If I believe in the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy even when don't have any faith that they exist, then I'm an idiot.

I have no faith that God exists and I don't believe that God exists, but I allow for the possibility that I could be proven wrong. Hell, I'll stand up and say that God does not exist, that the Easter Bunny does not exist, that the Tooth Fairy does not exist, but I will follow that up with a statement that I'm willing to keep an open mind, and if I ever encountered proof to the contrary - even if nobody, including me, is looking for it - I would accept that I was wrong.

I'm just arguing for the middle ground, where belief is not required but humility is.

echicken
electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230

---
þ Synchronet þ electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com