God can exist

[SnakeLord]

I haven't witnessed a better argument.

And what you personally think in that little corner of your mind constitutes a good or bad argument is of value how?

(Not being rude, it's a valid question).

Realize that if there is a Creator, such a Creator would not be bound by our laws, having created them

Realise that if there is an invisible flying omnipotent tangerine it too would not be bound by our laws, being able to do whatever it feels like.

Once again: At what stage should it be given serious consideration?

 

[glaucon]

The role of the Creator, intuitively, is creating.

Then we have no problem.

There is no need for an explanation to 'creation'. We have a multitude of models that can serve this function quite well.

 

[Norsefire]

Then, essentially, what you're saying is that those who attempt to seek answers are idiots.

Threatened theists. A world without their gods. Unimaginable. But, that's really what's at stake.

No, not those who attempt to seek answers, only those that give their answers while having no evidence to support them, giving them not as theories but as facts.

 

[(Q)]

Answer me this: does the man provide solid proof that God is an impossiblity, or does he just babble for hundreds of pages on and on about why "there cannot be God" only because he cannot perceive such a concept?

... attempt number 3.

Norsefire, read the book. Your questions will be answered. I guarantee it.

 

[Norsefire]

And what you personally think in that little corner of your mind constitutes a good or bad argument is of value how?

(Not being rude, it's a valid question).



Realise that if there is an invisible flying omnipotent tangerine it too would not be bound by our laws, being able to do whatever it feels like.

Once again: At what stage should it be given serious consideration?

C'mon man, you honestly cannot compare that with the concept of a Creator.

Further, tangerines are the product of the progression of Earth's development (eventually forming plants, and thus, eventually tangerines).


The concept of an entity having created our universe is not at all ridiculous; there simply is no evidence to support it.

Again, remember, such an entity could be a man in a labcoat, and we could be under a microscope being closely examined (our universe).

 

[Norsefire]

... attempt number 3.

Norsefire, read the book. Your questions will be answered. I guarantee it.

Answer me that though. Does he or does he not provide solid, undeniable proof that the concept of God is simply impossible?

 

[(Q)]

No, not those who attempt to seek answers, only those that give their answers while having no evidence to support them, giving them not as theories but as facts.

That's religion, exactly. :shrug:

 

[Norsefire]

That's religion, exactly. :shrug:

No, religion is belief. They are facts to the individual, but in a braoder scheme of things, they have no evidence.


Likewise, the claim "there is no God" is belief, because there is no evidence to support that claim.

 

[Kadark]

And what you personally think in that little corner of your mind constitutes a good or bad argument is of value how?

(Not being rude, it's a valid question).

I don't expect it to be of value to you. Similarly, your opinions regarding a Creator mean as much to me as the gum outside on the sidewalk.

Realise that if there is an invisible flying omnipotent tangerine it too would not be bound by our laws, being able to do whatever it feels like.

Once again: At what stage should it be given serious consideration?

At the stage where no counter theory can match it. At the stage where it cannot be disproved or discredited - merely ridiculed. Oh, and please refrain from assigning abilities to the Creator such as "flying" or "invisible". Both are indeterminable and immaterial.

 

[(Q)]

Answer me that though. Does he or does he not provide solid, undeniable proof that the concept of God is simply impossible?

Of course. That is entirely the books purpose.

Read the book. It wasn't written for atheists. It was written for theists.

 

[Norsefire]

Of course. That is entirely the books purpose.

Read the book. It wasn't written for atheists. It was written for theists.

And that pure evidence is? From my understanding, there is absolutely no theory, no law, no fact of science, that disproves the possiblity of the existence of a God.

 

[(Q)]

No, religion is belief. They are facts to the individual, but in a braoder scheme of things, they have no evidence.

Irrelevant, the theist presents their beliefs as facts.

Likewise, the claim "there is no God" is belief, because there is no evidence to support that claim.

You could say that now, but you wouldn't say that after reading the book.

 

[(Q)]

And that pure evidence is? From my understanding, there is absolutely no theory, no law, no fact of science, that disproves the possiblity of the existence of a God.

You have just outlined the boundaries of your ignorance. Now, read the book and expand your boundaries.

 

[Kadark]

You could say that now, but you wouldn't say that after reading the book.

Oh, I've heard that argument before. Right, it's the same one people of various religions use. "Read our holy book before judging. The answers are in there. You can't judge until you read it."

So, is The God Delusion the atheist's bible?

 

[Norsefire]

Irrelevant, the theist presents their beliefs as facts.

Very relevant. To the theists, it is fact, to me (neither atheist nor theist), it is a belief being passed as a fact.

However, in essence, neither the atheists nor theists can present their claims as fact, even if they do, they cannot without being idiots. They have no evidence.

You could say that now, but you wouldn't say that after reading the book.

If the book consists of a man rambling on and on, sounding like an idiot, and merely providing with petty and useless "scientific laws" that disprove God, then that book does not appeal to me.

 

[Norsefire]

You have just outlined the boundaries of your ignorance. Now, read the book and expand your boundaries.

What ignorance? There is no theory, fact, law, whatever it may be in Science, that makes the concept of God simply impossible.

 

[spidergoat]

But that isn't saying much. All kinds of things are not absolutely impossible, unicorns, diamonds the size of a planet, alternate universes where Captain Kirk really explores outer space...

 

[SnakeLord]

C'mon man, you honestly cannot compare that with the concept of a Creator.

Because...? You're racist against flying omnipotent tangerines?

Further, tangerines are the product of the progression of Earth's development (eventually forming plants, and thus, eventually tangerines).

Little tangerines are, yes. Can't an omnipotent flying tangerine create things in it's own image?

The concept of an entity having created our universe is not at all ridiculous; there simply is no evidence to support it.

Come back to me when there is evidence to support it.

I don't expect it to be of value to you.

I didn't ask what value it would be to me, I asked you what value it has. I mean really, do you sit there thinking you've got a clue, (after basically expressing that man doesn't have a clue)? When you sit there saying to yourself: "there must be.." what makes you think your thoughts are worth anything?

At the stage where no counter theory can match it.

Who decides what is a 'match' or not?

Oh, and please refrain from assigning abilities to the Creator such as "flying" or "invisible". Both are indeterminable and immaterial.

Excuse me, do I care that you have issue with those two abilities? It's a flying omnipotent tangerine. That's that. Deal with it.

 

[Norsefire]

But that isn't saying much. All kinds of things are not absolutely impossible, unicorns, diamonds the size of a planet, alternate universes where Captain Kirk really explores outer space...

These are all Human creations. Captain Kirk, firstly, is a product of imagination.
We've searched Earth, no unicorns. Not that they CANNOT exist, but they do not.
A diamond the size of a planet could exist......it'd be a planet made of the material of a diamond, though no planet I know of is purely one substance.


Though again, realize the difference between CANNOT exist and DOES NOT exist. If we genetically engineer horses correctly, I'm sure we can get some sort of unicorn.


Now, the concept of a Creator means that this entity Created our universe. It is not a ridiculous concept and as long as it cannot be disproved, those who believe otherwise should not pass those beliefs as fact.

 

[glaucon]

...

Now, the concept of a Creator means that this entity Created our universe. It is not a ridiculous concept and as long as it cannot be disproved, those who believe otherwise should not pass those beliefs as fact.

Well.. it's ridiculous in the sense that the way in which you've defined this creator makes it immune to such analysis.

Essentially, you're saying that this creator is beyond being disproved (or proven...), and then asking for disproof.