No God???

"Fact? Can YOU prove that 2+2=4. "

Define 2 and 4, then yes I can.

"It takes a lot more imagination, than one may think, for what proof is there that 0, 1, or 2 even exist?
It seems as if these "numbers" have been completely dreamed up... I have yet to see any proof that one exists...."

This is an example of why I blocked you. Your ideas are completely idiotic.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is some evidence supporting no God, like evolution, and basically science its self. The rason why this is evidence is that it can be proven with facts that are unable to be ignored. Now there may have been a God that created the first building blocks for everything, but everything in just about every holy book has been proven false, so any modern Gods are illogical and down right stupid. Seriously to believe in a modern God you must be blind or just really alone. Is it such a bad thing if there isn't a God. I mean people need to start believing in themselves and there wold be a lot less violence in the world.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't believe in God. Simple is that. The idea that there's this big fat guy in the sky who created earth then cursed us all with the fall of Adam but make no mistake he still loves us.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Secondly, why can't people accept that people do or don't believe in God? The whole argument of beliefs can be summarised in one line "My God has a bigger dick than your God.". Get over it. People have different beliefs, accept it.

On the other hand, having discussions on beliefs is great and interesting but when the discussion starts with "What are your best refutations?" Like people who don't believe in God have to prove themselves or people who do believe in God have to prove themselves. Why is it not possible for someone who does or doesn't believe in God( or any other belief) to simply sit and listen to what the other person has to say? Try to see where that person is coming from, before attacking them and saying "You're wrong.". In these kinds of discussions for every argument there's a counter argument it can go on for ever and it's totally pointless to come into these kinds of arguments with the state of mind that "i'm right, he/she's wrong.". You can easily come in with the state of mind "These are my beliefs and I will stand by them." without having to convince the other person that you're right and he's wrong.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Frencheneesz

Wow, as I have said before you make all of these claims, and spiels about my "idiocy", yet you have not even refuted a SINGLE thing I have said....

There is a difference between proof, and an assumed/conjured defintion. Merely stating defintions or absolutes is a complete cop out, and in fact proves that I am correct. I say that numbers are conjured for convenience, but truly have no real existence... Refute it!

And if you really think you can PROVE that 2+2=4 then please Frencheneesz, be my guest. But until you disprove something I say, please, don't waste my time telling me I am wrong and idiotic.

I mean really...if my ideas are so idiotic, why is it that you have completely avoided (reply and refutation alike) my original proposals??????

Describe the concept of one.

Define happiness.

Prove to me that the statements...

This statement is true.

This statement is false.

...are nonsensical for any other reason than the fact that they are self-defining statments, thus an absolute.


If you can't answer them don't make the inane conclusion that I am wrong, and idiotic, conclude that I may have more logic to my thoughts than you may have observed the first time around.

 

Raithere

And is there an imaginary line between This and That?

Please, that's EXACTLY what it means. If A then B then C.

A is false therefore C is false.

Now if you DEFINE A as true than that is just fine and dandy. However you have not proven that your logic is correct based on anything other than your assumed statement that has no corroboration except that which it corroborates.

If you think its okay to look the other way then that is your foolish choice, but I am not here to look the other way and falsly state that I understand the universe, I am here to understand my universe. And making mindless/illogical/nonsensical/contradictory assumptions while saying it is illogical to do it at any other time except when it makes something logical is not even close to my satisfaction.(yes I am aware how the previous statement contradictory, that is my point...) And it is a shame that it can suffice for ANYONE. It shows the hypocrisy of atheism and science alike...

Say everything is wrong that has proven you to be incorrect.

Logic's incompleteness makes logic illogical, period.

Truly, why is it acceptable that an Aboslute may be illogical, and self-contradictory, yet anything else is illogical given the same attributes. That is simply saying "though this absolute may be illogical, we must pretend it is logical so as to make way for other things that may also be illogical logical."

Sorry, I have higher expectations than that.

 

God damnit biotch,
You're entire fucking premise revolves around the idea that language = logic. That is not fucking true. I cannot verbify everything that is logical, there are simply not enough words and too many undefined concepts. Language has limits. And obviously there could not be illogical staments like "you jog me with a stick" if language was everything logical. Its fucking ridiculous.

"Describe the concept of one."

You realize that I must have pre-defined items to explain this concept to you right? Therefore I choose these:

One is when you do not have multiple of something.

However the problem with any definition is that so many frikking words are defined THEMSELVES by one. One is such a basic concept that no fucking idiot has bothered to define it, because EVERYONE KNOWS THE CONCEPT. You might be the exception.

"Define happiness. "

Happiness is the release of certain chemical compounds that create a complex pattern of neural signals which correspond to make a creature more prone to doing this thing that causes the happiness chemical releasure. Dumbass.

"Prove to me that the statements...
This statement is true.
This statement is false.
...are nonsensical"

They produce circular logic, which is BAD. But if you won't accept that argument cause you're a mother fucker, then The statements are non-sensical because their meaning holds no value to the reader. One who reads the statement cannot, and will not glean anything from it, which is the definition of non-sense. Bitch.

"self-defining statments, thus an absolute. "

Absolutes are true statments, shit-flinger. And to be true they must hold meaning, THEY MUST MAKE FUCKING SENSE.

"I may have more logic to my thoughts than you may have observed the first time around."

Asking stupid-ass questions doesn't mean you have more logic than first observed. Your moronic questions only exploit little defined concepts that are little defined because they have no need of a definition. In other words, they are so simple that it would be a waste of time to define them, almost as much of a waste of my time it is to prove your tard-smack ass wrong.

Jesus crist, get a life.

PS: moderators please tollerate the swearing, its for a good cause.

 

Flood

I agree I think believing everything in the Bible to be truth is incorrect. However I see it as a guidance handbook, that put people in the right direction as would any story or fable.

But denying God's existence based on the Bible, Torah, Koran, etc, is fallacious.

Because all one has to think about is, "how did the universe come into being?"

That is the point of asking, "What are your best refutations?" for that is ALL the person has made his belief based on. When they tell me why they don't believe in God, that is their refutation against the existence of a God.

And equally many of the reasons Atheist don't believe in a God I have, and can easily prove as a weak reasoning.

For instance, "Because the Bible is wrong God does not exist."

This is weak, because it is based on the assumption that if the bible is incorrect in some places then its claims of a God are incorrect, and this deductive reasoning is by no means the only refutation of a God.

"How come I don't hear Him speak to me"

Because this is based on the Bible, and it has already been agreed that The Bible is not filled with abosolute truths. Hence it is not necessary that He "speaks" to you.

Equally, have you ever "heard" your conscience?

Who is to say that isn't God, what proof do you have?

There are many other arguments but I am not going to go through them all.

But my point is that many of them are extremely weak to begin with, as are some of Typical Religion Affilated Theist's arguments.

I seperate my self from both because I don't accept the Bible as fact, while still stating that there must be a God of some sort, for the origin of things(i.e the universe, order, etc.).

 

Criscunningham:

I agree with you here. Most people think of god as being related to the bible or other religious books, and it is. But that isn't the only way people belive. There are an almost infinite amount of different belifs and some fall under the category, as cris does, of belief in god yet disbelief in the historical truth of the bible.

"there must be a God of some sort, for the origin of things"

I truely cannot understand why one would see it this way. Maybe I can sway you. God is a thing and if he was the origin of all other things, then the universe was not really the beggining was it. You might say god has always existed, but isn't it POSSIBLE that the universe has alawys existed and therefore has no need to have been created by a god or otherwise?

Even though I don't believe in god, I can't say for certain that for no god to exist the universe must have always existed because I distrust my understanding of an infinite universe or creating something from nothing.

 

Frencheneesz.

AND your entire .....premise revolves around the idea that language doesn't equal logic, hence some things are unexplainable.....yeah....right......that is SO incredibly convincing.....

Hahah, prove it....or wait...there aren't enough words, so you can't, correct???

Language being equal to logic simply means that in a Logic System, things are either illogical or logical. "jog me with a stick" can be considered the illogical side of the entire logic system, for if there is no distinction between truths and fallacies there is no system. It is the system we are talking about not something's validity....work on your comprehension skills a bit. I am sure I have said this at some point or another.

Oh, really??

How do you define these terms??

Do you need other defined terms to define terms,used to define terms????

Circular reasoning?!?!

I thought we were trying to avert that.....

Semi-acceptable, seperate pathways. However this then leads to the question(which would have been more effective to ask originally)

What is the defintion of the concept "This" ?

What is the definition of the concept "That" ?

Mmmm hmmm....

State an absolute, prove that its true, prove that it makes sense......

In other words...they are so simple..that it would be a waste of time.... to define them........


Yeah.....great explanation......

That explains why you can't, haven't, and won't do it......

It is a bit out of hand when a 17 year old can laugh out loud condescendingly but inadvertently...I am apologetic.....

If I were ever to be a famous philosopher/physicst, write a book, or ever win a Noble Prize it will be a treat to look back on these converstaions...

I am not here to swear, ridicule, or insult. Its just a bit irksome to be called ass-trinket, bitch, shit- flinger, dumbass, crapface, and whatever else one could find on the last three pages of this thread.....hahaha but it is amusing nevertheless.

Once again don't take anything personally, its all simply meant to be facetious and semi-reciprocal on my part....

But like I said, you're missing my points, and you aren't refuting any of them....

This convo may not have to go on ad infitum otherwise....

 

I have thought about this, but there are too many questions that still exist, such as why "Cause and Effect" can be circumvented at the time of the Big Bang.

If there is something or someone that exists, prior to this, it is easier understood.

I am still very confused with whether or not there has ot be a God, but even though I have truned away from religion, I still have a faith left in me....not because of a Book, but because I feel as if there is much more to everything than one can see from an experiment, and some equations....

..but only time will tell....

 

Completeness and consitency

Whatever are you talking about?

That is what I was telling you. Yes, every argument relies upon its premise(s), which is why it is so important to examine one's premises; particularly for hidden assumptions.

No, aside from that your statement is nonsensical, the fact that a system is externally incomplete does not mean that it is internally inconsistent. Logic, as with mathematics, is internally consistent, which makes it a powerful tool for figuring things out. Of course, if you can demonstrate a superior method of reasoning I'd be delighted to hear it.

I'm guessing that you're referring to my pointing out that that the assignation of self-causation to God is arbitrary. But I am not saying that it is any less arbitrary to assign that property to anything else, I am simply pointing out that the argument "the Universe was caused, God is self-caused, therefore God exists" is based upon an arbitrary assignments and therefore does not affirm the conclusion of God. The premises are faulty.

~Raithere

 

damnit cris, didn't you read my rant at you? I want to hear a response, ass-weasle.

 

Take a look around? Look at the suffering children on this planet and tell me that your "god" cares for them! I am going to bed now otherwise I would fill this forum with reasons why "god" does not exist. And there a several billion scientific reasons too. Religion is the handle for the mentally unstable - gives them something to hold on to...............

 

Frencheneesz, Red Devil, and Raithere

uhhhh.....didn't YOU read MY response???

Check the last five posts.

And my name has an "H" in it....

I don't have the time, nor the will to repeat something that I have said recently(meaning within the last 7 posts).

Many refutataions against God are incredibly arbitrary, and in fact irrelavent. Read a post seven posts before this one. Then respond.

I am talking about the defintion of "This", and the defintion of "That". What are they?

That is what I am saying, and exactly what my main point is, finding one's hidden assumptions.

I wish I knew, however, my point is not to ignore that Logic can be deemed illogical. Why? Because absolutes are the basis of logic, and equally, one can ONLY deduce things based on that logic, but this logic is in no way fact nor is it a TRULY legitamate proof. Only an assumption that is self-contradictory.

No I am referring to you pointing out that it doesn't matter if logic is incomplete, for it is still logical. The fact that its premise is illogical, completely overrides the entire system. As I have said, one can falsly assume that an aboslute is Logical to make other things that may be illogical logical, however one cannot TRUTHFULLY presume that one's reasoning is logical based on the overall scheme of things, for his aboslute which corroborates his conclusion is not logical based on the overall scheme of things.

I am not arbitraily assigning anything. If it is to be presumed that the unviverse is finite, and at one time had no existence, it is essential that there must be a Cause for the Effect.

And even if it is not presumed that the universe is finitely aged, the quesion still remains...

An object at rest stays at rest until acted upon by an external force.

So, why is anything moving??

 

Re: Flood

I agree with you but most atheist are simply saying they do not believe in your God because they don't believe in the Bible. It doesn't make them right nor does it make them wrong, they simply do not have the same beliefs as you.

BTW, if there was a God. Then in my opinion 'God' is merely energy. 'God' is part of everything and everyone, 'God' is that instant before E=MC².

 

"uhhhh.....didn't YOU read MY response???
Check the last five posts. "

Thank you, I completely skipped over them.

"AND your entire .....premise revolves around the idea that language doesn't equal logic, hence some things are unexplainable"

No. My premise revolves around the fact that one needs absolutes - origin points which one can work from - to be able to define, explain, or understand something. The original chemical composition of our bodies was set up so we understood certain things without ever even thinking. Thus we work off of this tiny point and look what we can become. We define things from other things, but the original ideas were hard wired in our little fetus brains.

"Language being equal to logic simply means that in a Logic System, things are either illogical or logical. "

hmm IC. Well your words were very misleading. When you said Language=logic I took it to mean that anything that can be linguistified is logical, which was what I thought was completely retarded. But obviously something is illogical or logical, there is no between.

As to that, what is your point when telling us that language is either logical or not?

"How do you define these terms?? "

If I must use words to describe, those words are predefined. If they are not predefined, then how the hell are you supposed to understand them?

"Do you need other defined terms to define terms,used to define terms????"

As I explained above, one has had hardwired understanding of certain things at birth, and these include the ability to learn. Language can not explain every single concept, how could it be so perfect? I think THIS concept is easily understood when someone says there are no words to describe etc. etc.

"Circular reasoning?!?! "

Nope, perfectly linear. You do NOT define a word by what word it is used to define; THAT is circular. I am describing an infinite number of words used in a sequence to define the next word. Obviously there cannot be an infinite amound of words, and so this sequence is broken when a word cannot be defined by words, but is understood by the mind that uses and hears the word. This is why there are hard-to-define words such as one.

"What is the defintion of the concept "This" ?

What is the definition of the concept "That" ?"

Those are too simple. "this" refers to something that is in near proximity, "that" refers to something that is farther away.

"State an absolute, prove that its true, prove that it makes sense...... "

The definition of an absolute is that is needs no proof to be true, it is ASSUMED to be true. I can, however, attempt to prove that it makes sense. We assume that the world we see exists. Thus the absolute is "the world we see exists" (this is only an example) and obviously that is a sensical sentence. I can understand it but I can only assume that you can as well. It is sensical if you can understand it.

"That explains why you can't, haven't, and won't do it...... "

Oh? I thought I did.
I said:
"One is when you do not have multiple of something."

"It is a bit out of hand when a 17 year old can laugh out loud condescendingly but inadvertently...I am apologetic..... "

So, you're 17?

"Its just a bit irksome to be called .. whatever else one could find on the last three pages of this thread.....hahaha but it is amusing nevertheless."

lol thanks!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"Once again don't take anything personally"

I hope you try the same

"But like I said, you're missing my points, and you aren't refuting any of them.... "

I'm sorry, I tried. If you ask questions, theres a much better chance that I can answer them more straightforwardly.

o-

 

Some good quotes to sum up how I feel-

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."-George Bernard Shaw, Irish-born English playwright

"Our ignorance is God; what we know is science."-Robert Green Ingersoll, American politician and lecturer

"I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious ideas of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal God." and "Religion is all bunk."- Thomas Edison

"The whole thing is so patently infantile, so foreign to reality, that to anyone with a friendly attitude to humanity it is painful to think that the great majority of mortals will never be able to rise above this view of life."- Sigmund Freud

Sigmund Freud also had some good insights into the psychology of religious thought-

Freud certainly regarded belief in God as an illusion that mature men and women should lay aside. The idea of God was not a lie but a device of the unconscious which needed to be decoded by psychology. A personal god was nothing more than an exalted father-figure: desire for such a deity sprang from infantile yearnings for a powerful, protective father, for justice and fairness and for life to go on forever. God is simply a projection of these desires, feared and worshipped by human beings out of an abiding sense of helplessness. Religion belonged to the infancy of the human race; it had been a necessary stage in the transition from childhood to maturity. It had promoted ethical values which were essential to society. Now that humanity had come of age, however, it should be left behind.

 

I am currently halfway through The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. This book is an excellent read. Highly recommended for anyone that wants to know about evolution from an expert on the subject.

People should know exactly to what they have faith in. They call it God, I call it ignorance. There are so many questions left unanswered, and to think that some have the answer to our greatest question.The capacity for human stupidity is quite remarkable. Not even our greatest minds have the authority to say they have solved this riddle. The universe is so vast and complex that to proclaim an understanding of its workings(at this point in time) is utterly ridiculous.

 

Defskeptic: a very well put point of view. I am particularly interested in your view that science cannot know about the Universe in any great depth, that is if I am reading your post correctly. I would disagree to the general assumption that Science knows little. Only yesterday I was looking an an image taken by the Hubble Space Telescope of a region of the sky WITHIN the galaxy of Andromeda; it clearly shows solar systems in the process of birth, revolving about their still young sun, just as our own solar system evolved all those millennia ago.

Science had made more strides forward in the understanding of the Universe in the past decade than in the past 1000 years. I thoroughly recommend a trip to the Hubble site; see for yourself.

http://hubble.stsci.edu/

 

not necessarily

Just because other solar systems are in the process of being birthed, and of yet no one has shown these "pre-birth" things actually becoming solar systems does not automaticlly mean that that is evidence or proof that that is how all solar systems started out.

You are not taking into account other evidences against this or have and wrongly rejected them. Archeological evidence validates the historical accuracy of the bible which goes contrary to many claims they make abuot how the universe came about and the things within it.

There are many good books providing evidences for how the universe came to be the way it is at http://webking.tv/evidence.html

everprince