quote:

---

A sleep deprived Falaanla Marr stammered:
The core behind the Christian belief system is that Jesus died for everyone's sins -- being a good person or not, as a believer of the Christian faith, you would have to accept Jesus into your life to find your way to heaven. If you believe in the Christian faith, that is. So, yes, you wouldn't go to heaven after death if you don't do the things that outline the path to heaven. Again, its a matter of beliefs. Your choice to believe whatever you want -- we'll all find out who is right in the end

---

I still find it a tad silly that someone that could be a far better person than Joe Christian would go to hell but Joe Christian who had a far worse life in terms of the balance of good/evil would go to Heaven. Just my two copper piecces though.

I contribute nothing.

quote:

---

Bloodsage painfully thought these words up:
In the absence of proof something exists, it's quite reasonable to assert that it doesn't.

---

Yes, but that assertion is entirely unfounded and bears no more weight than someone who asserts that there is something after death.

No, people cannot conclusively state that there is life after death, or anything after death for that matter, but neither can you conclusively state that there isn't. Just as we have no way of knowing that if there are any smaller divisions of matter than a Quark, and thus assume that there aren't (until evidance pointing either way manifests) you also must not rule out the possibility that there are. (and if my analogy is flawed because there is evidance sugesting the existance of divisions of matter smaller than a quark, forgive me)

Since no evidance exists in either direction, and it's a plausible hypothesis in either case (depending on who you ask) and both account for all the observed facts (none) then you must admit that it's possible that either hypothesis, or even a third may be correct.

yes, you can assume that an afterlife does not exist, but others would be no more incorrect in assuming that one does.

And if you come back to tell me that since no evidence exists to prove an existance, that you're more correct in assuming that an afterlife does not exist, I'll ask you to tell me if there are any left-handed redheads living in Moosejaw. I don't know of any evidance either way, but is it so preposterous to assume that there might be?

quote:

---

Everyone wondered WTF when BurgerMeister wrote:
Yes, but that assertion is entirely unfounded and bears no more weight than someone who asserts that there is something after death.

No, people cannot conclusively state that there is life after death, or anything after death for that matter, but neither can you conclusively state that there isn't. Just as we have no way of knowing that if there are any smaller divisions of matter than a Quark, and thus assume that there aren't (until evidance pointing either way manifests) you also must not rule out the possibility that there are. (and if my analogy is flawed because there is evidance sugesting the existance of divisions of matter smaller than a quark, forgive me)

Since no evidance exists in either direction, and it's a plausible hypothesis in either case (depending on who you ask) and both account for all the observed facts (none) then you must admit that it's possible that either hypothesis, or even a third may be correct.

yes, you can assume that an afterlife does not exist, but others would be no more incorrect in assuming that one does.

And if you come back to tell me that since no evidence exists to prove an existance, that you're more correct in assuming that an afterlife does not exist, I'll ask you to tell me if there are any left-handed redheads living in Moosejaw. I don't know of any evidance either way, but is it so preposterous to assume that there might be?

---

How does evidence that something does not exist look? Something that does not exist has no effects on anything. The only evidence of something not existing is absence of evidence that it does not exist.

There may be no evidence that there is anything smaller than a quark and as long as there is no evidence of an even smaller particle for all intents and pruposes it must be assumed that there isn't. You can claim all manner of stupid things to exist, none of them can be disproved beyond 'there is no evidence to support something's existance'.

Try this for an example (Substitute Afterlife for God):

quote:

---

Suppose I told you I had an invisible, fire-breathing dragon living in my garage. "Bullshit!" you would probably say. But now, suppose I responded with "Oh yeah! Well, if he doesn't exist then prove it!"

I've encountered many Christians who have given me that very same argument: "If God doesn't exist, then prove it!" Of course, I cannot. I cannot prove that God does not exist. Nor can I prove that all crop circles have been hoaxes. Nor can I prove that Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster never existed. And I cannot prove that, of all the UFO's that have been reported, none of them have ever been actual spacecraft from other worlds. I cannot even prove that, in all of the Universe, there exists nowhere a planet that is in the shape of a perfect cube and is comprised chiefly of cow dung. There are a whole lot of things I cannot prove.

Fortunately for me, the burden of proof does not rest with me. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the burden of presenting that evidence is with the person making the claim.

Returning to the subject of the dragon in my garage: Can you prove that he doesn't exist? No. Of course you cannot. He is, after all, an invisible and magical creature. To prove that he does not exist is an impossibility. But, does not being able to prove that my dragon does not exist mean that you must acknowledge that he must exist? This is a great Christian fallacy - that God must exist because we cannot prove otherwise. And because it is physically impossible to prove that God does not exist, we must all believe in him.

However, suppose that, instead of trying to prove that my invisible dragon does not exist, you and I together try to prove that he does exist? Now that, we may be able to do. If we can find some means of detecting the creature, and if we can demonstrate that the detection of the creature is a reproducible process, then we will have a means of gathering evidence in support of the creature's existence.

So how do we go about proving that my invisible fire-breathing dragon exists? We ask questions, and we build scientific models (simulations) of the situation in order to probe for possible sources of information. We ask:

Is the dragon invisible throughout the electromagnetic spectrum, or just in the visible region? In other words, can we detect the dragon in the infrared, x-ray, or radio regions of the spectrum? If nothing else, the lack of a signature in the infrared should suffice to conclude that the dragon, if he exists, does not breathe fire as previously stated!

Is there any sound associated with the creature? Do his movements produce any ground tremors?

Does the creature displace air ... does he have a measurable volume? If so, we may be able to measure his size by evacuating the garage and measuring the amount of air we are able to remove from it.

Does the creature have a physical surface of any kind? If so, perhaps misting the garage with paint or flour dust will render the dragon visible as particles of the paint or dust cling to the dragon's skin.

Does the dragon leave footprints, visible or otherwise? A little flour dust on the floor of my garage may reveal them.

Those are just a few of the experiments we might perform in an attempt to validate the existence of my invisible fire-breathing dragon. Any one of these experiments could offer some reasonable evidence that the dragon may exist. Perhaps the evidence may not be strong enough for us to state that the existence of the dragon is fact. However, any evidence we uncovered would certainly give us reason to look further into the matter.

But suppose we perform all of the experiments outlined above and still come up with no evidence that supports the existence of the invisible fire-breathing dragon in my garage? Does that mean he doesn't exist? No. It means only that we weren't able to detect him.

---

[ 02-03-2004: Message edited by: Shazorx / Modrakien ]

quote:

---

Alaan had this to say about dark elf butts:
I still find it a tad silly that someone that could be a far better person than Joe Christian would go to hell but Joe Christian who had a far worse life in terms of the balance of good/evil would go to Heaven. Just my two copper piecces though.

---

Than Joe Christian isn't Joe Christian, but more likely "Joe Sunday Christian".

Christian does not mean "I go to Church on Sunday. Being Christian is a way of life. Because Joe Christian goes to church on Sunday and prays before every meal does not mean he is going to Heaven.

quote:

---

BurgerMeister got served! BurgerMeister got served!
Yes, but that assertion is entirely unfounded and bears no more weight than someone who asserts that there is something after death.

---

You're kidding, right? You'd honestly give equal consideration to this supposition? That means that Darth Vader and the East Bunny are just as likely to exist as they are to not, and you must give that equal consideration.

quote:

---

No, people cannot conclusively state that there is life after death, or anything after death for that matter, but neither can you conclusively state that there isn't. Just as we have no way of knowing that if there are any smaller divisions of matter than a Quark, and thus assume that there aren't (until evidance pointing either way manifests) you also must not rule out the possibility that there are. (and if my analogy is flawed because there is evidance sugesting the existance of divisions of matter smaller than a quark, forgive me)

---

It doesn't matter. A skeptic doesn't have to state a goddamned thing. The burden of proof is on he who makes the positive assertion, as it is impossible to show evidence a negative assertion. There is, however, an important distinction to remember:

Had the asserter never made his claim, the entity or concept in question would have never been considered by the skeptic. Given this, the skeptic may say that, until such time that evidence is advanced, the assertion made is a mere flight of fancy.

quote:

---

Since no evidance exists in either direction, and it's a plausible hypothesis in either case (depending on who you ask) and both account for all the observed facts (none) then you must admit that it's possible that either hypothesis, or even a third may be correct.

---

We must admit no such thing. Prescisely because there is no evidence in the positive, and because there can be no evidence in the negative, the positive is discarded until such time that evidence can be presented. Despite your best attempts, you're advancing the same weak argument in a bunch of different outfits.

quote:

---

yes, you can assume that an afterlife does not exist, but others would be no more incorrect in assuming that one does.

---

And around we go again on the Merry-Go-Round of Sophistry and Tripe! It's not a matter of assumption. The skeptic makes no assumptions in the first place. He who makes the claim is the one who is beggin the question and is therefore incorrect. In the role of the skeptic, nothing is taken on faith. If it is not shown to exist, then it does not. This does not mean it cannot, only that, from a logical, rational standpoint, the claim made is invalid due to lack of evidence.

quote:

---

And if you come back to tell me that since no evidence exists to prove an existance, that you're more correct in assuming that an afterlife does not exist, I'll ask you to tell me if there are any left-handed redheads living in Moosejaw. I don't know of any evidance either way, but is it so preposterous to assume that there might be?

---

Why are you trying to link something unsupported, unsupportable and intangible by its very definition to an answerable question? Assumption is wholly unwarranted, because in your ludicrous example, it's possible to back up your claim with evidence. Just because something is unknown does not make it unknowable. All one would have to do is A) go to Moosejaw or B) call or radio someone in Moosejaw and have him ask around. Simple as that.

I can't believe anyone actually thinks one has to prove something doesn't exist.

Arguing must be so much more rewarding when you're not constrained by logic, eh?

Thus, it would be more logical to assert that death is the end than that there is an afterlife.

I don't like the thought, but I don't close my eyes to reality.

quote:

---

A sleep deprived Cowboy Darius stammered:
The Christian god is a being that can create whatever he wants out of dirt, and creates the laws of the universe as we know them. Logically, this is impossible. You can't just change a physical law whenever you want. God can. Thusly, god is an illogical being, and cannot be discussed, proven, or disproven properly with logic.

---

Yes.

[ 02-04-2004: Message edited by: OtakuPenguin ]

quote:

---

Trent stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
I read nothing past this... cause I was laughing to much....

---

:-p

Humanity is not infallible. We are neither all-seeing nor all-knowing. Do not assume that in our current stage of elevated technology we are capable of percieving all things.

It is just as illogical to assume that something you cannot detect does not in fact exist, as assuming it does, no matter how much you argue it. Nothingness and Substance are two sides of the same coin. No side has more weight than the other.

Assuming something does not exist is a fallacy that has continually plagued mankind since the very beginning. It is a relic of the past, and a dangerous one at that. Instead of resting securely in our confident presumption that we know everything worth knowing we should endeavor to explore that which we do not know.

To do otherwise is to engage in the stifling constrictions of the past. We cannot close our eyes to the rest of the world or it will bite us in the ass.

quote:

---

Star Collective painfully thought these words up:
Back in the middle ages, everyone though the world was flat. If you were to go back to the middle ages and inform them that it was in fact round the same kind of resistance would be encountered then as is now.

Humanity is not infallible. We are neither all-seeing nor all-knowing. Do not assume that in our current stage of elevated technology we are capable of percieving all things.

It is just as illogical to assume that something you cannot detect does not in fact exist, as assuming it does, no matter how much you argue it. Nothingness and Substance are two sides of the same coin. No side has more weight than the other.

Assuming something does not exist is a fallacy that has continually plagued mankind since the very beginning. It is a relic of the past, and a dangerous one at that. Instead of resting securely in our confident presumption that we know everything worth knowing we should endeavor to explore that which we do not know.

To do otherwise is to engage in the stifling constrictions of the past. We cannot close our eyes to the rest of the world or it will bite us in the ass.

---

Did you even bother to read the damn thread?

"Onos! People have been wrong in the past, therefore you cannot argue against absurdity and must accept baseless assertions as true without proof," is just silly.

quote:

---

Cowboy Darius painfully thought these words up:
The Christian god is a being that can create whatever he wants out of dirt, and creates the laws of the universe as we know them. Logically, this is impossible. You can't just change a physical law whenever you want. God can. Thusly, god is an illogical being, and cannot be discussed, proven, or disproven properly with logic.

---

"Circular reasoning."

"Occam's Razor."

Interesting concepts you should explore.

quote:

---

Bloodsage attempted to be funny by writing:
"Occam's Razor."

---

To kind of digress, I've never seen a good creation explanation that actually follows the simplicity put forth by Occam's Razor. In that respect, simply put, the simplest explanation is a god-like being created the universe. Then again, Occam's Razor can be used to say that a god-like being shouldn't exist. Its contradictory in that sense, simply because it both proves and disproves the existence of God.

That's kind of why you can't just throw out Occam's Razor without any explanation, like you did there. The simplest definition of Occam's Razor, namely that simplest explanation is the right one, is contradictory depending on the situation. *shrugs*

quote:

---

Talonus wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
To kind of digress, I've never seen a good creation explanation that actually follows the simplicity put forth by Occam's Razor. In that respect, simply put, the simplest explanation is a god-like being created the universe. Then again, Occam's Razor can be used to say that a god-like being shouldn't exist. Its contradictory in that sense, simply because it both proves and disproves the existence of God.

That's kind of why you can't just throw out Occam's Razor without any explanation, like you did there. The simplest definition of Occam's Razor, namely that simplest explanation is the right one, is contradictory depending on the situation. *shrugs*

---

Actually the simplest explanation is not the one most acceptable to us, but the one that makes the least assumptions. For example if you apply it to alien abductions, you can explain them either via aliens coming to earth to study people, in which case you assume that there are:

1, Intelligent lifeforms outside earth
2, Some of them are capable of travelling interstellar distances
3, Some of those are interested in studying humans
4, They come in about 15 different forms (or there are 15 different species of them doing the same thing)
5, They are so perfect in erasing their tracks that no conclusive piece of evidence as to their existance has been found, ever
6, They for some reason have never revealed their existance to anyone who is not a heremit in the desert living off scorpion droppings.

Or you can explain it using the well known fact that people love to make shit up for attention, which requires no new assumptions to be introduced at all.

Of course if we suddenly found a wrecked flying saucer, people making things up would no longer comepletely explain the phenomenon and the simplest explanation would become something else.

(For the record, I do think it's probable that there is life somewhere else in the universe, just not that it really likes to molest farmers).

quote:

---

Talonus had this to say about Punky Brewster:
To kind of digress, I've never seen a good creation explanation that actually follows the simplicity put forth by Occam's Razor. In that respect, simply put, the simplest explanation is a god-like being created the universe. Then again, Occam's Razor can be used to say that a god-like being shouldn't exist. Its contradictory in that sense, simply because it both proves and disproves the existence of God.

That's kind of why you can't just throw out Occam's Razor without any explanation, like you did there. The simplest definition of Occam's Razor, namely that simplest explanation is the right one, is contradictory depending on the situation. *shrugs*

---

What Shazorx said.

In context of Occam's Razor, it's the number of assumptions one makes that defines simplicity. In short: you misunderstand the concept.

Go here for a primer.

Can you name any scientific creation theories that make zero assumptions? No, as we've yet to actually prove a creation theory. Thus, as there have to be assumptions made simply to think of a theory, it being impossible to think of something entirely new without there being any bias at all. Science makes many assumptions, working backwards to prove that the assumptions were right/wrong.

So, let's look at them in comparison. Occam's Razor does not totally favor religion or science in this case. If anything, it leans in favor of religion, simply because religion makes the one assumption, while science has to rely on multiple assumptions.

The odds that there's a god-like being out there are small according to Occam's Razor. But, the odds that a god-like being out there created the universe are relatively large according to Occam's Razor. And again, we come to that paradox.

quote:

---

Talonus had this to say about Robocop:
So what creation theory makes the least assumptions? Creationism, simplified, makes one assumption; there is a god-like being out there who creatd the universe. People don't care how right/wrong they are, they just make the assumption that a god-like being set the universe in motion.

Can you name any scientific creation theories that make zero assumptions? No, as we've yet to actually prove a creation theory. Thus, as there have to be assumptions made simply to think of a theory, it being impossible to think of something entirely new without there being any bias at all. Science makes many assumptions, working backwards to prove that the assumptions were right/wrong.

So, let's look at them in comparison. Occam's Razor does not totally favor religion or science in this case. If anything, it leans in favor of religion, simply because religion makes the one assumption, while science has to rely on multiple assumptions.

The odds that there's a god-like being out there are small according to Occam's Razor. But, the odds that a god-like being out there created the universe are relatively large according to Occam's Razor. And again, we come to that paradox.

---

I'm not familiar with the details of the big bang theory and others so I don't know what assumptions it makes exactly, however I think I can safely say that for anyone to accept it on a scientific basis they have to be a lot smaller than "There is some entity floating around that can create things out of nowhere, ignore the laws of physics at will, exist without a corporeal body and magically disappears as soon as historical records become reliable."

Also scientific theories are generally based on things that can be actually observed (the drifting of galaxies for example), they don't come from a bunch of people in lab coats sitting in a dim room pulling them out of thin air.

[ 02-04-2004: Message edited by: Shazorx / Modrakien ]

quote:

---

I'm not familiar with the details of the big bang theory and others so I don't know what assumptions it makes exactly, however I think I can safely say that for anyone to accept it on a scientific basis they have to be a lot smaller than "There is some entity floating around that can create things out of nowhere, ignore the laws of physics at will, exist without a corporeal body and magically disappears as soon as historical records become reliable."

---

Big bang theory was disproved a long time ago. Best theory out there today is matter/antimatter. But looking at the big bang theory you're still making a basic assumption that X popped into existence and caused a chain reaction that has resulted in the creation of the universe. How's that any different than God created existence and started a chain reaction that has resulted in the creation of the universe?

quote:

---

Also scientific theories are generally based on things that can be actually observed (the drifting of galaxies for example), they don't come from a bunch of people in lab coats sitting in a dim room pulling them out of thin air.

---

How does one observe the creation of the universe though? Oh sure, you can tell that the universe is expanding and had to start at one point, but how do you know what happened at that one point? You make up theories. What are the theories? They're assumptions on how the universe was created. Its impossible to create a theory without some assumption or bias, unless your brain was like a vacuum in which no idea had any affect on any other idea. Of course, this vacuum is impossible.

quote:

---

So quoth Talonus:
How does one observe the creation of the universe though? Oh sure, you can tell that the universe is expanding and had to start at one point, but how do you know what happened at that one point? You make up theories. What are the theories? They're assumptions on how the universe was created. Its impossible to create a theory without some assumption or bias, unless your brain was like a vacuum in which no idea had any affect on any other idea. Of course, this vacuum is impossible.

---

Just as you said, one observes the consequences and builds theories based on them, not the other way around, inventing a holy creator then trying to somehow bend evidence together to support that idea.

quote:

---

Big bang theory was disproved a long time ago. Best theory out there today is matter/antimatter. But looking at the big bang theory you're still making a basic assumption that X popped into existence and caused a chain reaction that has resulted in the creation of the universe. How's that any different than God created existence and started a chain reaction that has resulted in the creation of the universe?

---

It's different in the fact that you make the unnecessary assumption that there was a god involved, fact is there is no evidence whatsoever anywhere that makes invoking some kind of omnipotent being necessary. .

[ 02-04-2004: Message edited by: Shazorx / Modrakien ]

quote:

---

Vernaltemptress thought about the meaning of life:
Just a couple of questions that have been on my mind lately...

If life begins at conception (as some people posit), why are our astrological signs determined by our day and time of birth? I know astrology is a pseudo-science, but ignoring this fact, how do we justify not using a child's day/time of conception for his astrological chart?

---

You can get the same results by basing it off of the conception date, then adjusting the charts by about 9 months.

quote:

---

If certain behaviors (such as, prayer and worship) are required for entering heaven, or whatever a particular religion claims, why don't we find the same type of behavior in animals and other species?

---

Because animals, like little children and babies, are innocent. They don't really understand good and evil, and why some thing are bad. They don't need to pray, they go to heaven by default. Besides, heaven wouldn't be heaven without puppies and kittens.

quote:

---

Bloodsage had this to say about Duck Tales:
Did you even bother to read the damn thread?

"Onos! People have been wrong in the past, therefore you cannot argue against absurdity and must accept baseless assertions as true without proof," is just silly.

---

You seem to be missing the point darling and indeed, people have been wrong in the past. Its a lesson you could learn from rather than insisting that the earth is flat, metaphorically speaking.

Now, pay attention, because what I'm saying is that you shouldn't simply assume the nonexistence of something because it lies beyond your perceptions. Sort of like the infra-red spectrum. That doesn't mean you automatically have to believe in it. It just means you should keep an open mind.

[Edit: spelling]

[ 02-04-2004: Message edited by: Star Collective ]

quote:

---

Shazorx / Modrakien stopped staring at Deedlit long enough to write:
There could be literally anything you can imagine in some area beyond our perception, Zeus, Spiderman or a ten foot tall lime green weasel are all equally possible there, the gist of the problem however is that in assigning him the role of the creator of the world and mover of other things God clearly at least interacts with things that we can see and measure.

---

Of course. Why didn't I realize it before?! Humanity is all-knowing and all-seeing. Our knowledge is just so incredibly vast and comprehensive after all. There cannot possibly an intellect more subtle, more refined, and more expansive than our own. And of course, it must obviously be constrained in the same fashion we are. Are we, as humans, not the very pinnacle of evolution? Why not simply be done with it and proclaim ourselves deities since we are so obviously the masters of all things great and small?

For the ignorant and stupid: please note that the above response is intended as sarcasm.

There's a little skill out there, called "intellectual integrity." It's a good skill to have.

quote:

---

ACES! Another post by Star Collective:
Of course. Why didn't I realize it before?! Humanity is all-knowing and all-seeing. Our knowledge is just so incredibly vast and comprehensive after all. There cannot possibly an intellect more subtle, more refined, and more expansive than our own. And of course, it must obviously be constrained in the same fashion we are. Are we, as humans, not the very pinnacle of evolution? Why not simply be done with it and proclaim ourselves deities since we are so obviously the masters of all things great and small?

For the ignorant and stupid: please note that the above response is intended as sarcasm.

---

Way to miss the point. You asserted that God is beyond our perception and that this is the reason there is no evidence as to his existance, I answered by telling you that all dieties are described as interacting with the real, measurable world in in some way.

If Zeus launches a lightning bolt down at earth, Zeus may be beyond our perception but we could still see and measure the lightning bolt, if now lightning bolts were not an electric phenomenon and only ever hit people after saying 'Zeus is fat' one could perhaps argue that given that there is no other explanation for the phenomenon there might be some entity named Zeus somewhere hurling lightning bolts at people.

If you put God purely into a sphere beyond any measurable influence on the real world discussing his existance is a moot point since you cannot possibly produce any evidence as to his existance, just for that reason.

You persist in the assumption that through our ub3r-l337 humanness we should be able to tell just when and where he is acting and how because we will just somehow automatically KNOW its God if He does indeed exist.

We cannot monitor every grain of sand on the earth. Just the same, things that we may see, we may not realize are the work of His hands.

After all, assuming He HAS been around since the beginning, wouldn't things that might otherwise seem unnatural to us appear natural since we have never been without them?

Try chewing on that.

And Pvednes: STFU. You contribute nothing to this discussion with your close-minded dismissal. dieplzkthxbye~

quote:

---

This insanity brought to you by Star Collective:
And Pvednes: STFU. You contribute nothing to this discussion with your close-minded dismissal. dieplzkthxbye~

---

No. No way in hell.

There is absolutely NO chance that YOU, the man that plugs his ears and sings "Joy To The World" whenever someone mentions atheism, the man that had to abandon his own thread because people didn't obey his command to praise the lord, can EVER call someone close-minded.

You sir, are the epitome of close-mindedness. You symbolize everything that people hate about the religious and give everyone who has faith a bad reputation. Why? Because you force your opinions on everyone else and start spouting off random gospel bullshit whenever you're even remotely proven wrong.

You, my friend, are a shame to everyone who is religious.

quote:

---

Star Collective wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
Have you maybe considered that perhaps God is just a little smarter and a little more subtle than we are?

You persist in the assumption that through our ub3r-l337 humanness we should be able to tell just when and where he is acting and how because we will just somehow automatically KNOW its God if He does indeed exist.

We cannot monitor every grain of sand on the earth. Just the same, things that we may see, we may not realize are the work of His hands.

After all, assuming He HAS been around since the beginning, wouldn't things that might otherwise seem unnatural to us appear natural since we have never been without them?

Try chewing on that.

And Pvednes: STFU. You contribute nothing to this discussion with your close-minded dismissal. dieplzkthxbye~

---

Often it turned out that things we thought natural, like Newtonian physics, only worked in our own little corner of the world on a specific scale and weren't the end-all of knowledge at all. What appears natural to us has absolutely nothing to do with scientific reality, things being in two places at the same time may sound utterly absurd to us, but on a very small scale this does happen.

How would we know God is acting,? We wouldn't, but we'd know it if there were no simpler explanation for a given phenomenon and thus could at least assume God to be the cause of whatever is happening.

quote:

---

Shazorx / Modrakien had this to say about the Spice Girls:
Just as you said, one observes the consequences and builds theories based on them, not the other way around, inventing a holy creator then trying to somehow bend evidence together to support that idea.

---

You need a way to explain existence. You notice all this talk of a god/s around, so you think that maybe a god/s created the universe. There was talk about god-like beings in order to explain the mysteries of everything long before creation was even dealt with.

Besides, you can't always take observances at their face value. To use one of Aristotle's, or maybe it was Socrates', examples. Take one hand and shove it into a pot of very hot water. Take the other hand and shove it into a pot of very cold water. Then remove both hands and simultaneously shove them into a pot of lukewarm water. The lukewarm water will feel cold to the hot hand while simultaneously feeling hot to the cold hand. Neither observation is correct, and thus observation was unrealiable.

The key here is that there is no unbiased observation. Pretty much every new idea you can make has some idea/belief/bias that affects it. You couldn't have an epiphany and think of the big bang, as you were already looking for something already. Basically, you're always going to have some idea that you try and find evidence for, just like you said.

quote:

---

It's different in the fact that you make the unnecessary assumption that there was a god involved, fact is there is no evidence whatsoever anywhere that makes invoking some kind of omnipotent being necessary.

---

Sure there is. One of the basic laws of physics is that you can't create something from nothing right? As such, you need a being that can defy the laws of physics in order to create something from nothing. Boom, you eiter need a being that can defy these basic laws that man has decreed, or its impossible for existence to start in any way that we have been able to fathom.

quote:

---

So quoth Talonus:
Sure there is. One of the basic laws of physics is that you can't create something from nothing right? As such, you need a being that can defy the laws of physics in order to create something from nothing. Boom, you eiter need a being that can defy these basic laws that man has decreed, or its impossible for existence to start in any way that we have been able to fathom.

---

Or you can assume that those laws, at some point functioned in a different way, it's less of an assumption than adding a whole sentient being on top of that.

quote:

---

You need a way to explain existence. You notice all this talk of a god/s around, so you think that maybe a god/s created the universe. There was talk about god-like beings in order to explain the mysteries of everything long before creation was even dealt with.

Besides, you can't always take observances at their face value. To use one of Aristotle's, or maybe it was Socrates', examples. Take one hand and shove it into a pot of very hot water. Take the other hand and shove it into a pot of very cold water. Then remove both hands and simultaneously shove them into a pot of lukewarm water. The lukewarm water will feel cold to the hot hand while simultaneously feeling hot to the cold hand. Neither observation is correct, and thus observation was unrealiable.

The key here is that there is no unbiased observation. Pretty much every new idea you can make has some idea/belief/bias that affects it. You couldn't have an epiphany and think of the big bang, as you were already looking for something already. Basically, you're always going to have some idea that you try and find evidence for, just like you said.

---

Yes that's exactly the point, wherever we hit the bounds of our understanding we invoked a god, be it fire, the turn of seasons, the movements of the stars, diseases, floods, earthquakes, etc. All those things later turned out to be explainable by more simple means.

When you seriously want to verify the worth of a theory you'll look for one instance of it failing, not 900 instances of it being correct, poking holes in your own construct is the best way to assure you are correct, most attempts to rationalize religion go about it exactly the other way, assume that there is a God that created the universe, then look for as many examples as can be brought up that do not contradict with the assumption while strafing away from those that do.

quote:

---

Talonus wrote this stupid crap:
Boom, you eiter need a being that can defy these basic laws that man has decreed, or its impossible for existence to start in any way that we have been able to fathom.

---

That's really the same thing though, if you think about it. But one of them has a being in it, and the other does not neccesarily have a being in it.

Anyway, Star Collective, I don't think anyone here is neccesarily rejecting the existence of God or 'the unknowable'. I think they're all just saying that one can BELIEVE in a God, but unless one has some sort of personal observation behind it and has, using a number of incidents which best appease Occam's Razor if explained by the existence of God, then one should, for all practical intents and purposes, act as though God does not exist (and thus make contingencies for the possibility that bad things might happen to good people and it might not mean anything at all, ever, not even in the grand scheme of things; or allow for the idea that evolution is OK, or that homosexuals are OK and won't arouse fire and brimstone, or that...etc etc)

I'm not hostile to Christianity in principle. And I am a person of mystical leanings. But I don't try to force people to accept my beliefs even on a contingent basis, and were I to do so I would not say that just because you can't prove there IS no reincarnation doesn't mean there isn't (instead I would say that it is good to believe in reincarnation because, whether or not it is true, it may provide comfort and alleviate stress of the existential variety, which in turn may lower the risk of coronary heart disease etc; thus, though it may be an illogical belief, it is not altogether illogical to believe in it).

quote:

---

This insanity brought to you by Shazorx / Modrakien:
Or you can assume that those laws, at some point functioned in a different way, it's less of an assumption than adding a whole sentient being on top of that.

---

Why did they need to work differently? A god-like being just doesn't need to follow the laws of physics. Boom. Besides, isn't the point of it being a law, and not a theory, that it is applicable 99.9% of the time? If the law doesn't have to be followed for creation, why should any law be applicable then? Why should any law be applicable at all? Can't just pick and choose when you want to use the law.

quote:

---

Yes that's exactly the point, wherever we hit the bounds of our understanding we invoked a god, be it fire, the turn of seasons, the movements of the stars, diseases, floods, earthquakes, etc. All those things later turned out to be explainable by more simple means.

When you seriously want to verify the worth of a theory you'll look for one instance of it failing, not 900 instances of it being correct, poking holes in your own construct is the best way to assure you are correct, most attempts to rationalize religion go about it exactly the other way, assume that there is a God that created the universe, then look for as many examples as can be brought up that do not contradict with the assumption while strafing away from those that do.[/QB]

---

Like you basically say, God is the answer to that which cannot be answered. When science comes along to answer something, then God no longer is needed for that aspect of life. That doesn't necessarily mean God doesn't exist.

And exactly, when you want to fully prove something is wrong you look to prove it wrong. How can you prove something wrong when, supposedly, that wrong thing doesn't exist? You can't. Then again, you're supposed to prove something is right for it to be acknowledged anyway, correct? So you have to prove it wrong and prove it right... which is impossible.

Besides, to say that "God created the universe" and then trying to prove it is no different than saying "The big bang started the universe" and then trying to prove it. You have an initial theory, one that you cannot possible prove, as its nearly impossible to observe it, that you try to prove.

The difference is that religion, in general, is antiquated and doesn't feel it needs to follow that dammed uppity scientific theory that came into belief thousands of years after the first religions. Scientists think that religion is antiquated, and because it doesn't follow the rules of scientific theory, is useless.

Anyways, its kind of obvious we'll disagree here. I think God exists because a god-like being answers questions which can't be answered, most importantly the question of creation. You think that God doesn't exist because one can't answer the question of how God can/should exist. Just different opinions. *shrugs*

quote:

---

Bloodsage had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
In the absence of proof something exists, it's quite reasonable to assert that it doesn't.

---

That leads to the classic argument "Fatih denies existance". If I have to have faith that something is there, it can't be there. Reason: If I know something is there, I don't need faith as it's been proven...

And my own personal question:

If nothing sticks to Teflon, how does Teflon stick to the pan?

quote:

---

Talonus probably says this to all the girls:
Like you basically say, God is the answer to that which cannot be answered. When science comes along to answer something, then God no longer is needed for that aspect of life. That doesn't necessarily mean God doesn't exist.

And exactly, when you want to fully prove something is wrong you look to prove it wrong. How can you prove something wrong when, supposedly, that wrong thing doesn't exist? You can't. Then again, you're supposed to prove something is right for it to be acknowledged anyway, correct? So you have to prove it wrong and prove it right... which is impossible.

Besides, to say that "God created the universe" and then trying to prove it is no different than saying "The big bang started the universe" and then trying to prove it. You have an initial theory, one that you cannot possible prove, as its nearly impossible to observe it, that you try to prove.

The difference is that religion, in general, is antiquated and doesn't feel it needs to follow that dammed uppity scientific theory that came into belief thousands of years after the first religions. Scientists think that religion is antiquated, and because it doesn't follow the rules of scientific theory, is useless.

Anyways, its kind of obvious we'll disagree here. I think God exists because a god-like being answers questions which can't be answered, most importantly the question of creation. You think that God doesn't exist because one can't answer the question of how God can/should exist. Just different opinions. *shrugs*

---

Don't confuse right / wrong and exists / does not exist. You can prove a statement wrong. For example if I say 2 = x ^3 for all X € R you can disprove that statement by showing that 2 =! 6 ^ 3. However if I say that there exist invisible, incorporeal magical goats on the moon, you cannot prove that statement, see the dragon example above, you can only show that there is no evidence that there are in facts goats on the moon.

Scientists don't think religion is useless, just that the existance of a God is not pointed to by evidence and belief in a god is reached by a leap of faith instead of scientific experimentation. The big bang theory didn't hit someone on the head, the initial theory was inspired by observations in the context of determining the origin of the universe.

I think God doesn't exist because there is no evidence that god exists.

quote:

---

Why did they need to work differently? A god-like being just doesn't need to follow the laws of physics. Boom. Besides, isn't the point of it being a law, and not a theory, that it is applicable 99.9% of the time? If the law doesn't have to be followed for creation, why should any law be applicable then? Why should any law be applicable at all? Can't just pick and choose when you want to use the law.

---

We have the problem of the current set of laws not fitting certain circumstances to our knowledge, the simplest way to explain that is to assume that those laws functioned differently for whatever reason at that time, the introduction of a sentient god is an unneccecary complication.

quote:

---

Talonus put down Tada! magazine long enough to type:
Sure there is. One of the basic laws of physics is that you can't create something from nothing right? As such, you need a being that can defy the laws of physics in order to create something from nothing. Boom, you eiter need a being that can defy these basic laws that man has decreed, or its impossible for existence to start in any way that we have been able to fathom.

---

Ah yes, the First Cause arguement, and a patent load of sophistry.

OK, so you assert that everything has a cause. Fair enough. Therefore, there must be an impetus to universe, which we'll call God, right? Fine. Seems fair, as long as you can answer me this: what created God? After all, you can't create something from nothing, and God is something.

And BTW, the current cosmology, like it or not, accounts for this, as well. Time began when the universe began. The universe has always existed; there was nothing before it, and is nothing outside it. The universe is absolutely everything. Time is inextricably linked with the universe and does not run independent of it. Something did NOT come from nothing, because something(read: the universe) has always been here.

[ 02-05-2004: Message edited by: Karnaj ]