Ignosticism (Prove to me there is a God)

I hereby declare myself an ignostic. Why? Because there is no way to prove whether there is, or is not a God, merely faith, trust, and belief. Thus, the concept of God is incoherent and absurd.

Also, I declare that the existence of a God is emotionally meaningless to me as well. I do not need worship or faith in a higher power to feel complete.

Now, you in the backroom can either try to prove to me that there is a God, or just give me an amen in agreement, or give me your own take on faith and religion.

Not possible

True!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemonArchangel

I hereby declare myself an ignostic. Why? Because there is no way to prove whether there is, or is not a God, merely faith, trust, and belief. Thus, the concept of God is incoherent and absurd.

Also, I delcare that the existence of a God is emotionally meaningless to me as well. I do not need worship or faith in a higher power to feel complete.

Now, you in the backroom can either try to prove to me that there is a God, or just give me an amen in agreement, or give me your own take on faith and religion.

---

Join the club. :yes:

Btw, it's agnostic.

I think the whole debate is stupid and irrelevant. People coming up with all kinds of crazy pieces of 'evidence' when really that evidence doesn't even slightly prove it, and some devoting their lives to proving something which isn't provable. Agnosticism is the only way.

Uh, congratulations.

The fact you said God means you think there is a God. You love God don't lie.

:P

No, agnostic means being UNSURE of the existence of a God.

IGnostic on the other hand means that you think the concept of God is downright absurd.

I'm my own god. :whip:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spetulhu

I'm my own god. :whip:

---

Can I see a miracle?:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemonArchangel

I hereby declare myself an ignostic. Why? Because there is no way to prove whether there is, or is not a God, merely faith, trust, and belief. Thus, the concept of God is incoherent and absurd.

Also, I declare that the existence of a God is emotionally meaningless to me as well. I do not need worship or faith in a higher power to feel complete.

Now, you in the backroom can either try to prove to me that there is a God, or just give me an amen in agreement, or give me your own take on faith and religion.

---

Took you your whole life to make that conclusion? :beam:

Prove to me there isn't a God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Csar

Prove to me there isn't a God.

---

Usually, it's often the positive proof that should come first, common sense-speaking.

If Quietus was here, he'd say something like, "Leprechauns; prove they don't exist."

I myself doesn't care, though. And DA, aren't you nullifying your own Ignostic position by engaging yourself in the question about the existence of the Divine?

Well, We won't know till we die, and the Debate can go on and on. One "believer" can give the "edveince" out to the "Prove there is a god" people, but they can counter back,saying, "Well, it's cause by...."

The word "prove" should never be used on an internet gaming forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

The word "prove" should never be used on an internet gaming forum.

---

:stare:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

Usually, it's often the positive proof that should come first, common sense-speaking.

If Quietus was here, he'd say something like, "Leprechauns; prove they don't exist."

I myself doesn't care, though. And DA, aren't you nullifying your own Ignostic position by engaging yourself in the question about the existence of the Divine?

---

OOPS forgot to say I was joking. People are way too serious back here. Slave drivers even.

:egypt:

:ballchain::whip: :ballchain::whip: :ballchain::whip: :ballchain::whip:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

:stare:

---

You know it's true. :snobby:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

Usually, it's often the positive proof that should come first, common sense-speaking.

If Quietus was here, he'd say something like, "Leprechauns; prove they don't exist."

I myself doesn't care, though. And DA, aren't you nullifying your own Ignostic position by engaging yourself in the question about the existence of the Divine?

---

No, it's not nullifying it, because then anyone giving it a shot would have to define what God is first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemonArchangel

I hereby declare myself an ignostic. Why? Because there is no way to prove whether there is, or is not a God, merely faith, trust, and belief. Thus, the concept of God is incoherent and absurd.

Also, I declare that the existence of a God is emotionally meaningless to me as well. I do not need worship or faith in a higher power to feel complete.

Now, you in the backroom can either try to prove to me that there is a God, or just give me an amen in agreement, or give me your own take on faith and religion.

---

even posing the question is the first mistake.

think about it.....if nobody had told you about "God"...would the concept even have come into your head?
if it isn´t a question that naturally comes to you what is the point of it....?

it´s just a silly social construct...let it go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemonArchangel

No, agnostic means being UNSURE of the existence of a God.

IGnostic on the other hand means that you think the concept of God is downright absurd.

---

As one cannot prove there is a God nor that there isn't one, I think it would be morally sound to proclaim yourself "agnostic", "unsure", "skeptic"...
Because if there is a God...you'll burn in Hell mate:whip::yes::smash:

The best argument for the existence of God that I can think of is myself, my environment, and the rest of the world.

I find it hard to believe all of this - from the mountains and the oceans, to the microscopic cells that form them - just came about as a result of a big bang or coincidence.

So I could believe in a God, but not a religion run by people only interested in control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prince of the Poodles

The best argument for the existence of God that I can think of is myself, my environment, and the rest of the world.

I find it hard to believe all of this - from the mountains and the oceans, to the microscopic cells that form them - just came about as a result of a big bang or coincidence.

So I could believe in a God, but not a religion run by people only interested in control.

---

You know what I hear. That teacher from Charlie Brown.

wha whaa wha whha wha wha :wall:

Well done, well done another one come to their senses

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemonArchangel

No, agnostic means being UNSURE of the existence of a God.

IGnostic on the other hand means that you think the concept of God is downright absurd.

---

In that case what does atheist mean?

Quote:

---

In that case what does atheist mean?

---

One who denies the existence of god...

I have never heard of "ignostic" though. Nevertheless, the definitions are quite alike.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harald Den BlåToth

Because if there is a God...you'll burn in Hell mate:whip::yes::smash:

---

I find it hard to fathom that "God" could give you freedom/ability to choose to not believe in him, then punish you for it when in the afterlife...thats just mean...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prince of the Poodles

The best argument for the existence of God that I can think of is myself, my environment, and the rest of the world.

I find it hard to believe all of this - from the mountains and the oceans, to the microscopic cells that form them - just came about as a result of a big bang or coincidence.

---

Eh?

So a giant explosion is implausible as the cradle of life but an old robed geezer living on a cloud, smiting here and there when the mood takes him is a better explanation for existence...

You do realise how mental that sounds dont you?


My very simple take on God-

Do you believe in the existence of 'The Force' or Superman or Flying Pink Elephants? No? Then why is God somehow real? I cant see how anyone can claim belief in God but not in any other crazy stuff...

EDIT:- You know why else God and heaven and all that is cobblers? Because life isnt that perfect. No happy endings, everythings gonna be all right. Life just isnt that kind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lancelot

I find it hard to fathom that "God" could give you freedom/ability to choose to not believe in him, then punish you for it when in the afterlife...thats just mean...

---

that´s always been one of the things i´ve found funnier about the christian/judaic (spelling?) faith...

the motto seems to be:

Quote:

---

Eternal damnation and punishment awaits those who question God's unconditional love

---

talk about an oxymoron

If a video game construct became self-aware how would it prove its own existence? We are in a similar situation with regards to proving God's existence or lack thereof. God is said to have created all things. He existed before creation, and therefore exists outside of it. He is outside our reference system. The point is that if in fact God exists, then OBVIOUSLY you cannot prove it without him wanting you to. If you could prove his existence without him wanting you to, then he wouldn't be God. He would be a part of the system, rather than outside of it. As part of creation, or the 'system', there is logically no way for us to prove what he doesn't want proven. He is the great programmer in the sky.

http://www.simulation-argument.com/matrix.html

"If you are such a simulated mind, there might be no direct observational way for you to tell; the virtual reality that you would be living in would look and feel perfectly real. But all that this shows, so far, is that you could never be completely sure that you are not living in a simulation."

"The simulation hypothesis, however, may have some subtle effects on rational everyday behaviour. To the extent that you think that you understand the motives of the simulators, you can use that understanding to predict what will happen in the simulated world they created. If you think that there is a chance that the simulator of this world happens to be, say, a true-to-faith descendant of some contemporary Christian fundamentalist, you might conjecture that he or she has set up the simulation in such a way that the simulated beings will be rewarded or punished according to Christian moral criteria. An afterlife would, of course, be a real possibility for a simulated creature (who could either be continued in a different simulation after her death or even be “uploaded” into the simulator’s universe and perhaps be provided with an artificial body there)."

"If we are in a simulation, is it possible that we could know that for certain? If the simulators don’t want us to find out, we probably never will. But if they choose to reveal themselves, they could certainly do so."

Maybe Al Gore is God, after all he invented the Internet.

When you stop caring about anything it ceases to exist. Things only exist so long as we give them a special meaning.

Nothing can exist as as such, outside the mind.

Surely that depends on what you view existence to be.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemonArchangel

Now, you in the backroom can either try to prove to me that there is a God, or just give me an amen in agreement, or give me your own take on faith and religion.

---

I'm a Roman Catholic and pretty libertarian when it comes to other people. I really could care less what your religion is. Good for you, that you think you found something that makes you happy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

Roman Catholic .

---

Are you crazy? :shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lancelot

So a giant explosion is implausible as the cradle of life but an old robed geezer living on a cloud, smiting here and there when the mood takes him is a better explanation for existence...

You do realise how mental that sounds dont you?
.

---

Its no less mental than some of the scientific theories

I find it hard to believe that the "world" was created through science, because something must of created science, therefore whatever "caused" the world (ie. the first cause, Thomas Aquinas i think) must be God. In my opinion the real argument here is what is "God".
God doesnt necessarily have to be any religious interpretation, or even given any "human characteristsics", God is simply the first cause, the thing that created everything... It exists, but is of little importance now.

Csar --> Whats wrong with him being Catholic? :2thumbsup:

Your sig says it all Scury. It says it all.

No it doesn't (or am i missing something really obvious?) :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Csar

Are you crazy? :shame:

---

Only when when I have exams or when people piss me off. So yes, I'm usually crazy because atleast one is happening always.

Let me try to explain God in a rational way.

God does not exist. However, I believe in It- more specifically, in Him, the male aspect of God. You see, the most plausible theory of God for me is that God is Life, and Life is God; but the two do not exist in the same way. They have interactions, but they are effectively impossible to comprehend. One example , though, may be how humans apparently may have eradicated all of the sentient apes, so that the human genus would have no competition: this may have been a drive stemming from the newly-sentient God, who saw a threat to Its existence and drove Humanity to destroy this threat, as It destroyed the threat on Its level. It was competing with other Gods, and It won.

Okay, what is the point of this? Well, how the hell can I prove any of this stuff I just said? I can't. God is not a scientific notion and to compare him/it to such is ridiculous in itself, because there is no correlation between the two. but to reject God outright because It is not scientific is folly, for this very reason.

So please reconsider your reasons. If you choose not to believe in God, fine. But do it for the right reasons.

And remember- you do not have to believe in what others tell you is God. You can decide for yourself what is God. It's your choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Csar

OOPS forgot to say I was joking. People are way too serious back here. Slave drivers even.

:egypt:

:ballchain::whip: :ballchain::whip: :ballchain::whip: :ballchain::whip:

---

Oh, but I enslave leprechauns for a living. You ain't gettin' no better job than torturing them 24/7 for their pots of gold. I ought to be serious all the time, lest the little smelly Irish greenfolk dare challenge my authority.

My post itself was not particularly serious. ~;)

I commend your open mind and lack of arrogance. It takes a truly humble individual to conclude that absolute certainty is unattainable. But if you are so willing to listen, I will share my perspective with you.

There are, in my view, two major consderations in a discussion on God. (1) Purpose, and (2) Ethical relevance.

The concept of religion itself is an antiquated and obsolete form of existential observation. We all hold a perspective on existence, be we agnostic, atheist, or devout. Therefore, set aside the notion of "religion" for just a moment. I would argue that the atheist shares more in common with the Christian or the Jew than he would prefer to admit. The only difference is the absence of organization in the observance of the atheist's perspective. Despite this, atheists share with spiritualists the concept of purpose and ethical relevance. These are the two overriding concepts in any existential perspective, regardless of name or origin.

First consider purpose. To the atheist, Man is both the highest order of known intellect and the equal of animals. From this viewpoint, the Atheist finds that his only prupose is hat which he himself chooses. This purpose may be a selfish one or it may be selfless. The concepts of "Good" and "Evil" are merely crafted from human imagination and relevant only in the selfish ambition of a symbiotic mutually gratifying civilization. In other words, civilization itself and its series of behavioral tradeoffs only function so long as there is an individual benefit to those within the society. When society ceases to be mutually rewarding, the individual agent of society may select an anti-social self-gratifying behavior with no feelings of guilt. Again, the purpose of the individual is that which the individual selects. Thus, an individual may choose to allow himself the "losing end" of a social role in order to benefit others. This provides an intrinsic reward rather than an extrinsic material benefit.

However, I would argue that self-determined purpose is ultimately empty purpose. The breat that you take today will matter no more than the last breath of your life. Your actions, choices, and the consequences are thus rendered irrelevant in this environment. There can be no satisfaction because ultimately you will die and you may well have never lived- you are worthless in the scope of time eternal. Your thoughts, dreams, loves, ambitions, relationships are all without any true purpose other than a brief goal to entertain your shallow and callous mind.

Now consider ethical relevance. I already mention the futile irrelevance of morality since "Good" and "Evil" exist only so long as one is willing to play a symbitotic role in society. Proponents of atheistic ethical philosophy rely on the concepts of utilitarianism, ehtical relativism, and Kantian theory. Utilitarianism argues that decision should be made which affect the most good for the largest amount of people, ex: If murdering one human will save the lives of two people, then it is an ethically acceptable proposition. Under moral relativism, the only justification for behavioral modification is that which the culture deeems appropriate, ex: Mayan human sacrifice is perfectly acceptable because the Mayan culture deems it so. Finally, Kant proposed the humans should be treated as ends themselves rather than simply means to an end, ex: In other words, propositions to utilize a human being as a sacrifice are unacceptable because the human life cannot be treated as an object of barter. While each of these theories alone provides us with a guide for ethical decision making, they all ultimately fail because there exists no ultimate moral authority. It relates back to the lack of purpose in human life and the inherent fact that ethics is ultimately futile and irrelevent.

God fills these voids by providing both purpose to humanity and ethical guidance, linked in one relationship. The failing of "religion" is in the claimed monoploy over superiority of perspective. As an eclectic, I find that all religions have equal universal principles which are found in their doctrine and interpretation. The difficulty is in removing the myth and legend and rooting to the intent. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and even Hindusism all offer a single God be he Yaweh, Allah, or Brahman. Buddhism teaches us that suffering can be avoided by abandoning desire, as does the Torah in the book of Job, as does Jesus's teaching on the perils of materialistic desire, and as does the Qu'ran in the celebration of Ramadan and the importance of the fast. In each and every existential perspective embracing a higher power, purpose is found in our relationships; first with God and secondly with each other. Why is this?

This is the relationship between Purpose and ethical relevance. I have gone on at length on this topic in previous threads. If you wish, I'll dig them up for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemonArchangel

I hereby declare myself an ignostic. Why? Because there is no way to prove whether there is, or is not a God, merely faith, trust, and belief. Thus, the concept of God is incoherent and absurd.

Also, I declare that the existence of a God is emotionally meaningless to me as well. I do not need worship or faith in a higher power to feel complete.

Now, you in the backroom can either try to prove to me that there is a God, or just give me an amen in agreement, or give me your own take on faith and religion.

---

Please read the following 71 pages of God's creation. Amen
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=43728
:beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Please read the following 71 pages of God's creation. Amen
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=43728
:beam:

---

DD, honestly:

I'm a convert. God loves us all.

And God's a she :P

Divinus Arma: I see what you're trying to say, that your definition of God is a concept of moral, emotional and ethical authority. But do you really feel that humans cannot possibly make a working society based off of purely secular values? I think it's not entirely implausible. There doesn't exactly have to be ultimate authority in moral/ethical decision making.

Sure, there might be no afterlife, but it definitely doesn't mean that our lives are meaningless. Meaning is derived from both the impact of your actions on other people and how others remember you. It's not to entertain just your mind, but how you affect other people around you. And since man is a naturally social animal, I think that an altruistic meaning of life isn't an entirely irrational position. It is IMPOSSIBLE for society to totally lack at least some gratification, because man, even introverted ones, seek constant contact with other human beings.

Furthermore, because man lives and derives meanning from other humans, no matter what the status of existence of a higher power is, the question of God is thus irrelevant.

However, I do not deny the existence of faith. We all require faith. I personally put my faith in science and in the inherent altruistic intentions of humanity.

(Note: And your position was very well written by the way).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Please read the following 71 pages of God's creation. Amen
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=43728
:beam:

---

I am God! ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scurvy

Its no less mental than some of the scientific theories

I find it hard to believe that the "world" was created through science, because something must of created science, therefore whatever "caused" the world (ie. the first cause, Thomas Aquinas i think) must be God. In my opinion the real argument here is what is "God".
God doesnt necessarily have to be any religious interpretation, or even given any "human characteristsics", God is simply the first cause, the thing that created everything... It exists, but is of little importance now.

---

I really dont understand this desperate need to find some higher power behind everything, pulling the strings' as it were. Perhaps we did evolve out of an explosion or a puddle...perhaps it is that mundane...

And you say 'It exists' which implies that a someone or autonomous something had a direct hand in our universe's creation...perhaps the universe is a mistake or the least probable outcome in a random chain of events...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zorba

Let me try to explain God in a rational way.

God does not exist. However, I believe in It- more specifically, in Him, the male aspect of God. You see, the most plausible theory of God for me is that God is Life, and Life is God; but the two do not exist in the same way. They have interactions, but they are effectively impossible to comprehend. One example , though, may be how humans apparently may have eradicated all of the sentient apes, so that the human genus would have no competition: this may have been a drive stemming from the newly-sentient God, who saw a threat to Its existence and drove Humanity to destroy this threat, as It destroyed the threat on Its level. It was competing with other Gods, and It won.

---

Er...what? That makes no sense.

God is life and sent his killer humans to eradicate monkeys in a effort to give the finger to other gods????


I believe Thor was mad at Cerberus for stealing his lunch money so he gave him a wack over the head with his hammer, which in turn got Cerberus so mad he exploded and formed the universe. There- job done. Existence explained. :dizzy2:

You might wish to read what someone more critical has to say about hogwash like Intelligent Design before declaring for a higher power.

"When you think about it, a theory which can predict anything is actually a theory which predicts nothing. An open-ended "prediction" which is incapable of ever saying "no, we won't see that" is absolutely, utterly, completely useless. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is "intelligent design" theory in a nutshell: completely useless."

http://www.creationtheory.org/Essays...sUseless.shtml

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scurvy

Its no less mental than some of the scientific theories

I find it hard to believe that the "world" was created through science, because something must of created science, therefore whatever "caused" the world (ie. the first cause, Thomas Aquinas i think) must be God. In my opinion the real argument here is what is "God".
God doesnt necessarily have to be any religious interpretation, or even given any "human characteristsics", God is simply the first cause, the thing that created everything... It exists, but is of little importance now.

Csar --> Whats wrong with him being Catholic? :2thumbsup:

---

to say that "the world was created through science" is a wrong position....the creation of the world was a natural process (I say this because I have never seen any proof of an unnactural process occuring), science is merely a model we use to try and understand the natural processes...

Claiming the universe is too complex to have been created without a god isn't going anywhere. You just shift everything up a level. Who made god? If the universe is so complex that it needs a creator, so does god, who was presumeably just as complex. And that needs a creator... And so forth forever.

You really needn't look any further than 'Red Dwarf' for an answer. Kryten summed it up nicely: 'Human Heaven? Goodness me, humans don't go to Heaven! No, someone made that up to prevent you all from going nuts!'

The only annoying thing is that when you all finally do die and nothing happens, none of you will actually realise it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I am God! ~D

---

No, I am! Your moderating powers are derived from your True Lord, AndresTheCunning. But I'm too lazy to moderate myself. That's why I have slaves like you :whip: Making you believe you are a God just makes it easier for me WAHAHAHAA!

On topic now:

Imho, the existence of a God is more a question of believing then empiric studies.

You believe or you don't believe. Simple.

On a side note: Why not reverse the question? Prove to me there is no God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I am God! ~D

---

Can I have a puppy then, O' Lord?:bow:

This reminds me of a conversation that the Caravel had with one of those religious street pester'ers a few months ago.

Quote:

---

*Caravel walking down city centre street*

Young man: "excuse me?"

*Caravel stops in his tracks*

Caravel: "alright?"

Young man: "I'm representing the church of <some cult or other> and...

Caravel: "whooaaaaa.... I may as well stop you there. Not-into-religion-sorry-bye"

Young man: "could you tell me why?"

Caravel: Well for one thing there's no proof that god exists is there?"

Young man: "well there's the bible..."

Caravel: "ha..."

Young man: "and there's faith..."

*continues to explain about his particular brand of religion*

Caravel: "Well I'm afraid you haven't convinced me. I subscribe to the idea that we're biological beings powered by little electrical impulses that shoot about our body sending signals... ...when it comes to shutdown time there's no coming back, so you have to live this life and make the best of it because it's the only life you have. I'm not about to waste it messing around in a cult..."

Young man: "that's a really sad and negative approach, my life was really sad and empty and then I found god and love and now I'm..."

Caravel: "Well... my life is not empty, nor incomplete, I have love, but not god, nor do I feel the need to subscribe to/invent a fictional diety in order to achieve "inner piece", discipline nor happiness. I can be a good person within my own right without resorting to religion. Those people that need religion as a discipline to achieve happiness... ell they have their own issues. In view of this I feel that your religion has nothing to offer me... bye now...

Young man: Ok bye *waves his 'handbook thingy*.

---

The point is that he needed it for some reason or other. And that's often the case. Either people need it because of some past trauma/event in their lives, or their culture/system/family forces it down their throats from birth. In times of plenty religion often goes down the toilet because people don't need it. Which is when the fanatics surface. The sad bastards, that because they don't have a life, don't want anyone else to have one either. In times of plenty people begin to think for themselves and see it for the fiction it is. Look for poverty in the world and some religious movement or other will be close by. This is why I don't believe that religion is a choice, moreso a deception, an illusion even. If I was born and raised by hindus it is likely I'd be a hindu for life. If born and raised by atheists I'd probably be an atheist for life. If I converted it would be because someone influenced me to do so, at a time when I was in an impressionable state. And because I felt like deceiving myself in order to be part of a group or club.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lancelot

Er...what? That makes no sense.

God is life and sent his killer humans to eradicate monkeys in a effort to give the finger to other gods????


I believe Thor was mad at Cerberus for stealing his lunch money so he gave him a wack over the head with his hammer, which in turn got Cerberus so mad he exploded and formed the universe. There- job done. Existence explained. :dizzy2:

---

That's a tiny part of my own religious beliefs. And when I say "religion", I use a much looser form of the word than Divinus does; my version of Religion is simply a complex system of metaphysical and ethical beliefs; each person can have his own religion. I have my own, and it certainly has made life a lot more interesting.

But it is not really necessary. My main point was that I worry that DemonArchangel was dismissing God and religion for the worng reasons; but it appears he is not. He has his own religion. He si thinking for himself. :2thumbsup:


(I hope.)

"How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter?"
~Woody Allen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lancelot
So a giant explosion is implausible as the cradle of life but an old robed geezer living on a cloud, smiting here and there when the mood takes him is a better explanation for existence...

You do realise how mental that sounds dont you?

---

Just as mental as any of the theories out there today. 8)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zorba

But it is not really necessary. My main point was that I worry that DemonArchangel was dismissing God and religion for the worng reasons; but it appears he is not. He has his own religion. He is thinking for himself. :2thumbsup:

(I hope.)

---

I really do hope that I'm thinking for myself. I really don't like thinking for other people, it's really a drain on the brain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

"How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter?"
~Woody Allen

---

Thats Great! :laugh4:

"How can I believe in God when just last week I nailed my sack to the roof with a nail gun to stop myself from falling 20 feet?"
~bad karma guy from another thread

The best, possibility the only proof that a there is a god is in the babe thread, no way could that have been made without a divine plan (see hunk thread to view the devils contribution) ~D. So take back your faithless words least Thor smite you with his mighty hammer!

Re: on the definition of atheism:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harald Den BlåToth

One who denies the existence of god...

---

this simple definition supposes that there is in fact one or more gods or deities which the atheist is denying - this definition by nature makes Atheists look bad and makes the term 'Atheist' almost derogatory.

I offer a better definition of Atheism:

The simple absence of belief in deities.

this definition neither supposes that deities do or do not exist, and defines the Atheist viewpoint on a neutral framework of reality.

I myself am a Humanist...



This description seems to me to be a reasonable one for Ignosticism:

"Ignosticism is the view that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because it has no verifiable (or testable) consequences and should therefore be ignored
...
For most purposes, this view may be considered a form of agnosticism (sometimes referred to as "apathetic agnosticism"), and falls under the general category of nontheism. But it is a particular form. From this approach, the "I don't know" of agnosticism ceases to mean "I don't know if God exists or not" and becomes "I don't know what you're talking about when you talk about God." This underlies the form of the word: ignosticism, indicating an ignorance of what is meant by a claim of God's existence. Until this ignorance is cleared up, the ignostic is justified in ignoring putative arguments for or against.
...
The consistent ignostic, therefore, awaits a coherent definition of God (or of any other metaphysical concept to be discussed) before engaging in arguments for or against."

I have never met a man in battle who didn't believe in god ~;)

"There are no Atheists in Foxholes" is not an argument against Atheists, It's an argument against Foxholes!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

even posing the question is the first mistake.

think about it.....if nobody had told you about "God"...would the concept even have come into your head?
if it isn´t a question that naturally comes to you what is the point of it....?

---

But surely, therefore, at some point in human history someone must have been told about God for the idea to come into his head?

Quote:

---

Its no less mental than some of the scientific theories

I find it hard to believe that the "world" was created through science, because something must of created science, therefore whatever "caused" the world (ie. the first cause, Thomas Aquinas i think) must be God. In my opinion the real argument here is what is "God".

---

"God created the universe. God just exists."

*Ockhams Razor*

"The universe just exists"

There. I got rid of the unneeded term.:smash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke Malcolm

But surely, therefore, at some point in human history someone must have been told about God for the idea to come into his head?

---

No really, most stone age style tribes believe in animal, tree and other nature spirits which are often stylised as half animal / half human (aboroginal australian, eygptian mythology) to explain how the world was created around them and how things interact. As the settle down and their soceities grow the spirits tend to become more powerful and more humanlike. Eventually they become a pantheon of gods who have specific powers of nature and can swap between human and natural phenomena. The trend continues as the societies stay more settled and it normally drops down briefly to having a pair of gods (male and female) who respectively look after different aspects. And then this situation becomes a single god in charge of everything that we don't understand...

As long as you don't cause harm, I couldn't care less. However, faith is believing despite a lack of evidence. If it was easy, it would not be much of a challenge now would it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IrishArmenian

If it was easy, it would not be much of a challenge now would it?

---

I'm not sure I follow.

My belief is that this life is a challnge to prove oneself. My apologies for not clarifying.

"Mummy, mummy mummy... where does everything come from?"

"Errr...."

"Mummy, mummy mummy... where does everything come from?"

"Hmmm .... I... errr....."

"Mummy, mummy mummy... where does everything come from?"

"I don't really know, for sure...."

"Mummy, mummy mummy... where does everything come from?"

"OH! GOD MADE EVERYTHING AND HE EATS LITTLE BOYS WHO ASK UNANSWERABLE QUESTIONS!!! Now go away and shut up and leave me alone..."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by macsen rufus

"Mummy, mummy mummy... where does everything come from?"

"Errr...."

"Mummy, mummy mummy... where does everything come from?"

"Hmmm .... I... errr....."

"Mummy, mummy mummy... where does everything come from?"

"I don't really know, for sure...."

"Mummy, mummy mummy... where does everything come from?"

"OH! GOD MADE EVERYTHING AND HE EATS LITTLE BOYS WHO ASK UNANSWERABLE QUESTIONS!!! Now go away and shut up and leave me alone..."

---

"Let me ask you learned scholar... where does everything come from?"

"Errr.... from the Big Bang"

"Well learned scholar... where did the Big Bang come from?"

"Hmmm .... I... errr..... from a Singularity"

"Learned scholar, one more question if I may... where did the Singularity come from?"

"I don't really know, for sure.... it was Imaginary Time. A time before time, when there was no such thing as the passage of time"

"Well, learned scholar... without space, and without time, how can an event be said to have actually taken place? Are you saying the entire universe simply popped into existence, magically, for no actual reason at all?"

"THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE WAS A SINGULARITY ALL INFORMATION FROM BEFORE THE BIG BANG WAS LOST AND QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO BEFORE THE BIG BANG ARE SCIENTIFICALLY MEANINGLESS. Now go away and shut up and leave me alone..."

So what do we learn? Humans can't cope with questions that don't follow the rules they live in. So when there's no time or space, no one is going to be able to help you much.

Hence why quantum theory is kind of messed up still.

Vacuum Genesis

"The universe may have begun in a state of perfect symmetry. The theory says that matter rose out of energy while the early universe was expanding, and cooling that form arose from formlessness like ice crystals congealing in a freezing pond. The mathematical symmetries that the unified theories have exposed at the foundations of natural law are more subtle and complex than those of snowflakes. But their principle is the same, they imply that we live in a crystallized universe of broken symmetries.

Perfect symmetry may be beautiful, but it is sterile; perfectly symmetrical space means nothingness. As soon as you introduce an object into that space, you break the symmetry thus creating a sense of location. There is a place where the object is and other places where it isn't, and out of that comes tumbling all of the geometry of space as we know it.

Perfectly symmetrical time means that nothing can happen. As soon as you have an event, then you break the symmetry and time begins to flow in a given direction. We live in a universe that is full of objects and events, and that means that the universe is imperfect. The symmetries of the universe we live in are broken. It may even be that we owe the very origin of our universe to the imperfection of the
breaking of the absolute symmetry of absolute emptiness. There is even a theory to this effect. It's called vacuum genesis, and it suggests that the universe began as a single particle arising from an absolute vacuum. Curious as it may seem, this idea violates none of the known laws of physics. We have seen how virtual particles come into existence all the time from a vacuum, and then fall back into non-existence. There appears to be no upper limit on the size and longevity of particles that can be created in this way. Its just possible that there might have been absolutely nothing out of which came a particle so potent that it could blossom into the entire universe. It is not very likely, but then it only had to happen once.

The theory of vacuum genesis is a new idea. Nobody knows whether or not it is true, but it does satisfy two of the criteria of a sound scientific theory: its seems at first so strange that it must be preposterous and, like the universe itself, the longer you get to know it the more beautiful it becomes.

Out of nothingness could have come the spark of genesis. As the universe expanded and cooled, darkness descended. Then light dawned anew with formation of the first stars. Each star is a nuclear furnace where matter is coaxed into releasing a little of the energy it inherited from the primordial fireball. Thanks to imperfection, to the fractured symmetries that produce differences among the particles and forces, atoms in their varieties could build themselves into molecules and molecules rise up in alliances as life, and life gives birth to thought and thoughts produce theories about the creation of the universe."

Timothy Ferris
“The Creation Of the Universe”
Documentary 1985.

Quote:

---

The theory of vacuum genesis is a new idea. Nobody knows whether or not it is true, but it does satisfy two of the criteria of a sound scientific theory: its seems at first so strange that it must be preposterous and, like the universe itself, the longer you get to know it the more beautiful it becomes.

---

This is GREAT poetry, but it sure ain't science and it ain't new!

I think you'll find testability and reproducibility a lot more pertinent to the soundness of a theory...

In fact Mr Ferris's exposition sounds like little more than a pseudo-scientificized retelling of the qabbalistic doctrine of the descent of the sephiroth from the ain soph aur - ie pure magical thinking....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemonArchangel

I hereby declare myself an ignostic. Why? Because there is no way to prove whether there is, or is not a God, merely faith, trust, and belief. Thus, the concept of God is incoherent and absurd.

Also, I declare that the existence of a God is emotionally meaningless to me as well. I do not need worship or faith in a higher power to feel complete.

Now, you in the backroom can either try to prove to me that there is a God, or just give me an amen in agreement, or give me your own take on faith and religion.

---

A belief in God is called faith. By definition, faith is a belief in an uncertain concept that can neither be logically proven or disproven. Quietus' argument that the lack of proof is disproof aside, the whole idea of faith is that it requires a choice to believe, as using logic alone, either side of the proposition is equally likely.

God is hardly the only place that humans employ faith, by the way. If you're going to require hard empiricism on any sort of religious beliefs, I suggest you at least be intellectually consistent in your approach and employ the same rigor in all other matters of faith.

For example, you cannot possibly know whether those people in your life believe that you believe love you actually do. It's impossible to prove either way. Employing your logic, that means you must conclude that until they can actually prove their love, they must not love you.

Likewise, there's no such thing as goodwill among men. Everybody is really out to stick it to each other, and things like selflessness are really just an elaborate ploy to get a bigger payout down the road a spell.

I do applaud you for taking the agnosticism, versus the atheistic route. I've never understood atheism... so quick to demand proof in the existence of God, yet so willing to accept other much less believable propositions at face value. Currency, for example, is a promisary note and only has value because you believe in the government that guarantees it. Why don't atheists demand 'hard' currency, like gold or silver for everything?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

God is hardly the only place that humans employ faith, by the way. If you're going to require hard empiricism on any sort of religious beliefs, I suggest you at least be intellectually consistent in your approach and employ the same rigor in all other matters of faith.

For example, you cannot possibly know whether those people in your life believe that you believe love you actually do. It's impossible to prove either way. Employing your logic, that means you must conclude that until they can actually prove their love, they must not love you.

---

All of which goes to show that materialism is a raw, cold, hard place to live. I've never understood how anyone could get through their day on pure materialism, much less atheism.

On a side-note, I'd like to leave you with the pragmatistic proof of the existence of God. It's not really a proof, it's a reason, based on motivated self-interest, and it was originally postulated by Soren Kirkegaard.

It's actually pretty simple. There's only 4 possible outcomes. Either God exists, or He doesn't. And either you believe in Him or you don't.

A) God exists, you believe in Him. Later on down the road, you meet Him and are rewarded for your faith.

B) God exists, you don't believe in Him. You die and for lifelong rejection of Him, you are cutoff from Him in the afterlife. Note, this isn't jugement or punishment... this is more along the lines of 'conditioning your soul to be ready to enter communion with Him upon death' or not.

C) God doesn't exist, you didn't believe in Him. Congratulations! You were right!!! Oh wait, there's no way you could possibly know that.

D) God doesn't exist, you believed in Him. You poor pathetic creature, you wasted your life when you could have been out yucking it up and having fun... oh wait, there's no way you could ever possibly know that either.

So, at the end of the day, any positive outcome for you requires a belief in God, and even then, it's still only a 50/50 proposition. But, if you choose not to believe, there's no positive outcome, you're 100% guaranteed to not enjoy life after death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

All of which goes to show that materialism is a raw, cold, hard place to live. I've never understood how anyone could get through their day on pure materialism, much less atheism.

---

It sucks. That's how you get through the day as a materialist.

That's why I decided to determine my own theory of God, especially after reading Kazantzakis. It's a wild theory, and any strict christain would freak out if I told them the whole shebang, but it is a lot more fun than being basically all alone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Currency, for example, is a promisary note and only has value because you believe in the government that guarantees it. Why don't atheists demand 'hard' currency, like gold or silver for everything?

---

Because governments are part of the fact based world?


CBR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

Because governments are part of the fact based world?


CBR

---

There's plenty of countries out there that have renegged on their financial obligations, which in turn either reduces or eliminates the value in their currency. That's a fact. In fact, the only government in existence that has never had to drop a finanical obligation is the USA, dating all the way back to the articles of confederation. This is why the US dollar is the standard for currencies.

Yes, it's HIGHLY unlikely that the British pound won't be worth a pound when you go to collect. But it's not guaranteed. There's no guarantee that it, or a dollar, will be worth anything tomorrow. Our currencies only have worth because we choose to believe they do, i.e. we have faith in them.

I may have misattributed the pragmatic proof of the existence of God. It may have been the honorable Blaise Pascal that is responsible for this articulate little gem. I'll have to do some research and will update when I can.

Indeed, it would turn out that my High School religion teacher was wrong. The argument made above is my paraphrasing of "Pascal's wager". What's more, it wasn't intended to be a 'reason' to just go ahead and believe. Blaise Pascal formulated the argument as a reason for 'considering' the existence of God, apparently many agnostics of his day thought the whole question to be pointless in the first place. My apologies to all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

All of which goes to show that materialism is a raw, cold, hard place to live. I've never understood how anyone could get through their day on pure materialism, much less atheism.

---

Should you have time, it might be worth you reading Albert Camus' essay "The Myth of Sisyphus" to get an understanding. I'm not trying to challenge your faith, just give you an insight into a philosophy in which happiness can be derived without recourse to a deity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I may have misattributed the pragmatic proof of the existence of God. It may have been the honorable Blaise Pascal that is responsible for this articulate little gem. I'll have to do some research and will update when I can.

---

It was Pascal, and it's a neat argument. My major problem with it is that it is dependent on a Christian/Biblical god or afterlife concept and most religion doesn't require just a passive belief, but an active life according to their rules to get the big reward.

That's my problem in general with 'proofs' of the supernatural. Throughout history and between cultures, whilst there are sometimes superficial similarities, the differences between what the afterlife is and how you qualify are often contradictory.

Very few devout, peaceful Christians would get into Valhalla, for example. Which is the right god for us to believe in as our Pascalian insurance policy? Rapacious, uncaring Woden or loving Jesus? Or any of the thousands of other tree spirits through L.Ron Hubbards that humans have conjured over the years? Some people think I get to go to heaven by blowing myself up with assorted small children and others by forgiving the guy who just did that to my wife and daughter. Whose god is right, and what does his heaven look like if it's full of the bombers?

:shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Our currencies only have worth because we choose to believe they do, i.e. we have faith in them.

---

And what does having faith in fact based elements of our society have to do with not believing in supernatural beings? Do you think an atheist cant trust other people? or that an atheist cant say to himself "I believe I wont get hit by a truck tomorrow" although he doesnt know for sure?


CBR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

On a side-note, I'd like to leave you with the pragmatistic proof of the existence of God. It's not really a proof, it's a reason, based on motivated self-interest, and it was originally postulated by Soren Kirkegaard.

It's actually pretty simple. There's only 4 possible outcomes. Either God exists, or He doesn't. And either you believe in Him or you don't.

A) God exists, you believe in Him. Later on down the road, you meet Him and are rewarded for your faith.

B) God exists, you don't believe in Him. You die and for lifelong rejection of Him, you are cutoff from Him in the afterlife. Note, this isn't jugement or punishment... this is more along the lines of 'conditioning your soul to be ready to enter communion with Him upon death' or not.

C) God doesn't exist, you didn't believe in Him. Congratulations! You were right!!! Oh wait, there's no way you could possibly know that.

D) God doesn't exist, you believed in Him. You poor pathetic creature, you wasted your life when you could have been out yucking it up and having fun... oh wait, there's no way you could ever possibly know that either.

So, at the end of the day, any positive outcome for you requires a belief in God, and even then, it's still only a 50/50 proposition. But, if you choose not to believe, there's no positive outcome, you're 100% guaranteed to not enjoy life after death.

---

Hmm that doesn't follow. He leaves out lots of possibilities.

E) God exists, you believed in him, he condemns you to burn in an eternal lake of fire because he's actually a sadist with a twisted sense of humor

D) God exists, you didn't believe in him, he randomly puts you up in a rundown hotel near the heavenly ocean resort and you spend the rest of eternity puttering around playing mini golf and watching old movies.

etc

Even without these his argument is incorrect since being atheist means you get to sleep late on sunday mornings. And that's really all it means you know, it's not like a philosophy or belief system or way of life like some people say.

Quote:

---

For example, you cannot possibly know whether those people in your life believe that you believe love you actually do. It's impossible to prove either way. Employing your logic, that means you must conclude that until they can actually prove their love, they must not love you.

---

So, employing your logic, you should believe that I am god, because it can't be proven either way?