God can exist

[Kadark]

Who decides what is a 'match' or not?

The individuals.

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.

Ascribing universal characteristics to a Creator is misleading and inappropriate, especially for the sake of argument. A Creator filtered from religious outlooks would have no perceivable physical or emotional qualities. Saying that the Creator "flies" or is "invisible" is an attempt to ridicule - not reason.

 

[SnakeLord]

Ascribing universal characteristics to a Creator is misleading and inappropriate, especially for the sake of argument.

It's not misleading if it flies and is omnipotent. In that instance it would be entirely accurate. As this tangerine flies and is omnipotent it is referred to as a flying omnipotent tangerine. Deal with it.

A Creator filtered from religious outlooks would have no perceivable physical or emotional qualities.

Says who?

[edit] Such an entity would surely have to have some kind of emotional moment in order to change from living in nothingness quite content for an eternity knowing nothing, doing nothing etc to then creating all manner of curious things from flying chunks of ice to pubic lice.

Saying that the Creator "flies" or is "invisible" is an attempt to ridicule - not reason.

Incorrect, unless of course when a theist refers to their god as a he, omnipotent, omniscient blah blah they're trying to ridicule themselves? :bugeye:

 

[(Q)]

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.

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.

Come now, Norsefire, I would never expect a hypocrite like you to read a book that would ultimately crush your delusions. I doubt one theist here has read the book or would even consider reading the book. No balls.

 

[(Q)]

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

Careful, if you say it enough times over and over, you might start believing it. hehe

 

[Norsefire]

Come now, Norsefire, I would never expect a hypocrite like you to read a book that would ultimately crush your delusions. I doubt one theist here has read the book or would even consider reading the book. No balls.

I am not a hypocrite. I have already stated, I do not know if there is a God and I will not say that there is or that there isn't. I do believe, but I cannot say there is.
And I see no reason why THERE CANNOT BE.

 

[Norsefire]

Careful, if you say it enough times over and over, you might start believing it. hehe

Since it is truth? Again, give me one scientific law or theory or fact that makes the concept of God impossible.

 

[(Q)]

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

It's written for theists, how could it be an atheists bible? :bugeye:

 

[Norsefire]

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.

I am only making a point; unless you can prove it or disprove it, don't pass it as fact. The real fact is, we do not know.

 

[(Q)]

And I see no reason why THERE CANNOT BE.

Exactly my point, my good man.

I'm a hearin' y'all on FM. :thumbsup:

 

[Kadark]

It's not misleading if it flies and is omnipotent. In that instance it would be entirely accurate. As this tangerine flies and is omnipotent it is referred to as a flying omnipotent tangerine. Deal with it.

Flying and invisibility are all tandems of our universe. We are describing an entity outside of it. The two do not mesh.

Says who?

Says the people (everyone) who have never witnessed the Creator's "appearance" or "attitude".

Incorrect, unless of course when a theist refers to their god as a he, omnipotent, omniscient blah blah they're trying to ridicule themselves? :bugeye:

Those theists are ridiculing themselves with some of their descriptions, although they don't know it. Going into detail about the Creator's individuality is a fool's errand, and beyond the point.

 

[(Q)]

Since it is truth? Again, give me one scientific law or theory or fact that makes the concept of God impossible.

Read the book.

 

[glaucon]

I am only making a point; unless you can prove it or disprove it, don't pass it as fact. The real fact is, we do not know.

I understand that.
The problem is that you've jury-rigged the whole situation. You cannot require that something be proven if you're going to define it in such a way that it is impossible to prove or disprove.

 

[SnakeLord]

Flying and invisibility are all tandems of our universe. We are describing an entity outside of it. The two do not mesh.

Says who? Visited the outside of the universe recently?

Says the people (everyone) who have never witnessed the Creator's "appearance" or "attitude".

1) [edit from last post]
Such an entity would surely have to have some kind of emotional moment in order to change from living in nothingness quite content for an eternity knowing nothing, doing nothing etc to then creating all manner of curious things from flying chunks of ice to pubic lice.

2) Many people have purportedly met many of these so called creators. Apparently there's even written work on the subject that describes them with many emotions and appearances. I'm an atheist so you can't offend me, but do go ahead and say all these people are wrong. Everyone indeed.. lol.

Those theists are ridiculing themselves with some of their descriptions, although they don't know it.

But you do apparently. Why can't a creator be a 'he'?

 

[spidergoat]

Then you must acknowledge that creation is only one of many possibilities. Other possibilities have supporting evidence, and there is evidence that humans invent supernatural explanations just like religion when they don't know what's going on. One may consider a premise ridiculous without being able to disprove it.

It is not impossible that I will meet a hobbit today, but if I told you I was going out to find a hobbit, you could dismiss me as ridiculous, or insane.

It's good to know that science is aware of it's limitations, but the reasoning abilities used to dismiss theism are not too different than those everyone probably depends on every day.

 

[Kadark]

Says who? Visited the outside of the universe recently?

"Flying and invisibility are all tandems of our universe."

This is not disputed. Does it exist outside of the universe? I don't see why. If the Creator displayed universal characteristics, and was surrounded by a universal setting, then there would be nothing to differentiate between Creator and creation. It is clear that the Creator is not stationed within his creation - that would be both illogical and a fallacy.

1) [edit from last post]
Such an entity would surely have to have some kind of emotional moment in order to change from living in nothingness quite content for an eternity knowing nothing, doing nothing etc to then creating all manner of curious things from flying chunks of ice to pubic lice.

Emotion is a human state of consciousness. Who says a Creator is subject to this?

2) Many people have purportedly met many of these so called creators. Apparently there's even written work on the subject that describes them with many emotions and appearances. I'm an atheist so you can't offend me, but do go ahead and say all these people are wrong. Everyone indeed.. lol.

If that satisfies them, then it's nobody else's problem.

But you do apparently. Why can't a creator be a 'he'?

A Creator can be a he, but there is no more legitimacy to saying that than there is if you say the Creator is a she. Either way, it's both indeterminable and immaterial. Logically, a Creator would not follow the traits of his creation, therefore a gender would not be imminent. You need to stop viewing the Creator as a reflection of his creation.

 

[scorpius]

My point is, even if you believe in Science, what is the scientific reason God cannot exist? Perhaps there is a Creator that did create this universe, with its own set of laws (like the physical laws), and then "nature" guided the rest; but in the first place, God created it

I am interested in hearing why God is an impossibility to the atheists.

simple,
science tells us that matter/energy=(everything that exists)
cannot be destroyed or created, only changed,so the Universe must have always existed
in some form/shape....its Eternal
no gods needed.
happy?

 

[lightgigantic]

simple,
science tells us that matter/energy=(everything that exists)
cannot be destroyed or created, only changed,so the Universe must have always existed
in some form/shape....its Eternal
no gods needed.
happy?

not really, since that model of reality doesn't account for everything

for instance consciousness cannot be explained merely in terms of matter and energy

 

[lightgigantic]

Those theists are ridiculing themselves with some of their descriptions, although they don't know it. Going into detail about the Creator's individuality is a fool's errand, and beyond the point.

perhaps a complete description of the creator's identity is a fool's errand, but indicating some aspects of that identity is essential - otherwise how would one distinguish knowledge of god from ignorance of god?

On the flip side there is also the trap of using one's own conditioned self as a yard stick for the vailidity of god's existence. Eg - if god has gender, that must mean he has gender like me, therefore god doesn't have gender etc etc - it kind of spoils the framework for taking on board new explanations of existing terminology

 

[lightgigantic]

Then you must acknowledge that creation is only one of many possibilities. Other possibilities have supporting evidence, and there is evidence that humans invent supernatural explanations just like religion when they don't know what's going on. One may consider a premise ridiculous without being able to disprove it.

so why are possibilities in the realm of so-called science (for which there is no evidence - eg - life arises from chemicals) not also subject to the same speculative propensity?

It is not impossible that I will meet a hobbit today, but if I told you I was going out to find a hobbit, you could dismiss me as ridiculous, or insane.

yet when you advocate that life can arise from chemicals it somehow works on a different level?

It's good to know that science is aware of it's limitations,

really?

but the reasoning abilities used to dismiss theism are not too different than those everyone probably depends on every day.

the problem is that you haven't clearly distanced yourself from wild theistic claims, so you are also in the same boat

 

[spidergoat]

so why are possibilities in the realm of so-called science (for which there is no evidence - eg - life arises from chemicals) not also subject to the same speculative propensity?

Speculation is central to science. And there is evidence of life arising from chemicals.

yet when you advocate that life can arise from chemicals it somehow works on a different level?

But there is evidence for it, just not definitive proof.

really?

Yes.

the problem is that you haven't clearly distanced yourself from wild theistic claims, so you are also in the same boat

Science isn't a religion. If anyone were able to show evidence for a creator, I would be fascinated to hear about it.