Ignosticism (Prove to me there is a God)

[GoreBag]

Uh, congratulations.

[Csargo]

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

:P

[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.

[Harald Den BlåToth]

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

[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.

[Csargo]

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

[lancelot]

Because if there is a God...you'll burn in Hell mate

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...

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.

[Ronin]

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:

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

talk about an oxymoron

[sharrukin]

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.

[Scurvy]

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?

[Csargo]

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

[lancelot]

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...

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.

[Ronin]

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?

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...

[ZombieFriedNuts]

Well done, well done another one come to their senses

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?

[Harald Den BlåToth]

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.

[Claudius the God]

Re: on the definition of atheism:

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."

[Samurai Waki]

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

[Spetulhu]

I'm my own god.

[Csargo]

I'm my own god.

Can I see a miracle?