God does exist.

[inspector]

"Now can you show a method that is superior to the scientific method and acceptable to everyone?"
-------------------------



Acceptable to everyone? Pleeeeeeeeeeeeease. Certainly, you know the folly of that romanticism.

Okay, now I am really going. See ya.

><>

 

[Frencheneesz]

Kimo:

God is sitting in heaven laughing because he knows that we shouldn't believe in him because he hasn't givin any proof of his existance.

"¡Kat some point something must have come from nothing..."

Not if things have always been (in theism, god is always, in Phisics, matter is always).

"God was never created God has always been God, all matter has had a beginning, there was a time when matter did not exist,"

Exactly as I was saying, except that you only state one possibilty. Remember, spouting your rhetoric about god does not prove it. And if you aren't trying to prove anything... what are you doing here?

"What happens if I am a Nepalnese living on the Himalayas and have never heard of God? And which God is the right one to believe in?"

Ya, what would happen? Thats a pretty good question.

dkb218:

"Because I see something you don't seem to see makes me a universal authority? First, I assume nothing. I stated fact. God Is. Fact. No doubt. No need to debate. I would not call that arrogant. I call it confident."

This statement is atrocious. When you say you assume nothing, you are wrong. Any fact you "state" is an assumption. Any fact must be backed up with evidence allowed by assumed "axioms". You assume god exists and so your statment of proof is as follows: "god exists, therefore, god exits" Find a brain. And no, you are not the universal authority on anything, no human is. What you mistake for confidence is stupidity and ignorance.

"What good is done by denying God? What is the goal of such thought?"

What good is done by believing in god blindly? What is the goal of such a thought?

"I will give no scientific argument as to the existence of God. I have no need of science to tell me that God is."

You are not here to debate are you? You may well have no "need" of science to tell you that god exists, yet WE DO (as in I do). SO if you want to convince ME then you will have to use evidence, in which scenario you might discover that you yourself are wrong.

"But that's were your wrong, my friend. I do have the answer. I tell you God is. I have no need to debate that. "

The problem is that we NEED common ground to debate. Our common ground is usually REASON. What if I just said "I do have the answer. I tell you god is not. I have no need to debate that."? What If I had blind faith that god did not exist? What would you say, that I am sad? that wouldn't disprove my statement, now would it? To convince you need proof. What part of that do you not understand?

"Who needs to have everything in a neat little box called "reason" in order to comprehend their existence?"

ok, ok, im just going to block you like I did to muscleman. what a dumbass he was.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by dkb218
Do I need authority to state a fact?
well, yes. not a LOT, but some, yes. why should I believe you? you should be able to - given the apparent level of your conviction - be able to offer me evidence so compelling that I cannot refute it. I have a feeling that if I were NOT compelled by your evidence you would blame ME. Maybe I'm wrong.

Originally posted by dkb218
Let not my statement of fact sicken you.

too late! hehe. It wouldn't sicken me if you could offer me irrefutable evidence. Since you can't, sorry but what you said still sickens me. (and please don't bother trying, it's really pretty pointless unless you can make god prove himself to me for I would likely think him an imposter if he couldn't do some majorly outrageous shit) The arrogance is quite disturbing tome. ick.

Originally posted by dkb218
I can't comprehend? Who needs to have everything in a neat little box called "reason" in order to comprehend their existence? I have no problem with comprehension.

I beg to differ. hehe. Comprehension is dangerous if what you comprehend is bullshit. You may be able to generally "comprehend" in the verb form, but you apparently may never comprehend what I was saying. It only requires that you understand what "circular logic" is.... do you? show a little evidence...

Originally posted by dkb218
What is this thing with you and authority?

I have a problem with authority yes. that is a whole other thread.

Originally posted by dkb218
Is that the "reason" you can't believe in God - because you have a problem with authority?

No, the reason I can't believe in god is that I'm pretty close to convinced that beliefs like that are irrational, unreasonable, dangerous, limiting well, and a bunch of other stuff, not much of it good.

Originally posted by dkb218

Here's the problem with reason. One persons reason is not another’s.

Hmm.. that's a tough one to address properly. I'll just leave it at "I strongly disagree" for now because I'll need a bit of time to formulate an approach to a retort.

Originally posted by dkb218

You base you view of the world on your reasoning.

So do you. Isn't that ultimately unavoidable? If you didn't wouldn't that be a crime against yourself Is it a crime against yourself toaccept someone else's reasoning as your own without applying your own? Would that not make you a lemming? This might imply that you are weak or inept regarding reasoning and thusly have no choice. Is that true? Otherwise well, I can't concieve of a way by which you could persuade me (other than brute force) to think that someone else is more qualified to provide me with a view of the world than myself.

Originally posted by dkb218

This world is not based on your reasoning but on the reasoning and design of He Who created it.

See above.

Originally posted by dkb218

Ok - let's debate, shall we. Give me one reason why you can't believe in a creator.

I never said you can't. I have said however that if you do then you are unreasonable. I thinks it's bad to be unreasonable. would you debate that? of course you would eh? well, that's a whole other argument.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by inspector
The scientific method is based on circular reasoning. Can the scientific method determine the truth and knowledge of the scientific method? Of course not. Once again, there are things that exist that cannot be ascertained by logic and experiment.

The scientific method is based upon empirical evidence not circular reasoning. It's veracity is proven by observed fact.

Another possibility would be that some truths lie beyond the scope of the scientific method.

Certainly there are. However, failing empirical evidence or logical argument what method for determining truth would you suggest? And how would you prove its reliability?

~Raithere

 

[inspector]

"The scientific method is based upon empirical evidence not circular reasoning. It's veracity is proven by observed fact."
---------------------


How does the scientific method prove/observe the fact of the scientific method? How does it validate itself? It cannot. It is limited logically. The empirical scientific method relies on observation and experimentation to verify or falsify any theory or hypothesis in the PHYSICAL, REAL WORLD. Yet, as you previously acknowledged, there are things/truths that exist that cannot be scrutinized using the scientific method.



"Certainly there are. However, failing empirical evidence or logical argument what method for determining truth would you suggest? And how would you prove its reliability?"
-----------------------


Of course, if I knew the answer to that I wouldn't be spending my time typing back and forth to you now would I? ;-) Obviously, as a Christian, I place confidence in the Spirit of God and also, faith, as a determination of some truths. Once again, these things are outside the boundaries of the scientific method, but does not invalidate their existence. Do you agree?

><>

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by inspector
Obviously, as a Christian, I place confidence in the Spirit of God and also, faith, as a determination of some truths. Once again, these things are outside the boundaries of the scientific method, but does not invalidate their existence. Do you agree?
><>

Sorry for butting in here, but I must. I do agree, but existence has no bearing on validity. I cannot prove nor disprove the existence of god, therefore it would be illogical for me to BELIEVE in god. That simple statement with its simple logic, invalidates the presumption and arrogance of christianty as the arbitor of truth.

That is not my opinion, it is a smidge of objective truth. You can try to argue against it but the reasoning is sound. I challenge the greatest mind on earth to refute it.

(mind you, I'm not taking credit for anything more than recognizing truth)

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by MarcAC
The implicit assumption in the question how can it be that the universe developed with a disposition towards the emergence of life. O.k. I assume that the 'pan is conforming to shape of the cake' right?

This version of the question is phrased somewhat differently and the assumption is hidden even more deeply than before but let's take a look. What is assumed in both of these question is that there is an underlying reason or meaning as to why things are the way they are. Essentially, you are beginning with a assumption that there is a meaning to existence beyond itself, beyond the simple fact of existence.

~Raithere

P.S. Beg pardon if I'm not as coherent as usual, I'm trying to recover from a nasty head-cold.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by inspector
How does the scientific method prove/observe the fact of the scientific method? How does it validate itself? It cannot. It is limited logically. The empirical scientific method relies on observation and experimentation to verify or falsify any theory or hypothesis in the PHYSICAL, REAL WORLD.

Yes and science deals exclusively with such matters. That is does so reliably is evidence of its veracity.

Of course, if I knew the answer to that I wouldn't be spending my time typing back and forth to you now would I?

Beyond the empirical, the only way I know to reliably determine the truth of a statement is through logic.

Obviously, as a Christian, I place confidence in the Spirit of God and also, faith, as a determination of some truths.

Well, I would say that you take such things as truths and then measure other ideas and concepts against them. The problem I have with this is how do I measure your assertions against another's assertions? How can I tell who is telling the truth? Is it the Catholics, Episcopalians, Hindus, or Buddhists? Maybe it was the Egyptians? How do I measure such things?

Once again, these things are outside the boundaries of the scientific method, but does not invalidate their existence. Do you agree?

No, I would not make that jump. That I believe that there are things beyond the scope or measure of science does not mean that I think that all Christian assertions are things that are beyond the scope of science. "Faith Healing" for instance, lies entirely within the scope of science. Creationism as well. Both of which I find to be false. I believe this is the case with many religious assertions.

~Raithere

 

[inspector]

Raithere, I hope you shake that cold soon. Also, I was reading this article recently relating to our discussion on the scientific method and I thought you might want to read it sometime. Here is a sample:



..........It is this particular methodological limitation that is routinely used to justify the exclusion of non-material causes and explanations from the scientific realm. This argument can be stated as follows:


1. Science is, by definition, the study of those natural objects and processes that can be empirically measured, either directly (through direct observation and subsequent measurement) or indirectly (by observing and measuring, in an indirect fashion, the effect that some invisible object or process has on that part of the world that we can directly observe).

2. Supernatural agency is, by definition, a non-material cause and explanation.

3. Therefore, supernatural agency cannot be a part of any legitimate science.

This conclusion is non-sequitur, for two reasons. First, as we just saw, it doesn’t follow that the underlying composition of an object that is to be studied scientifically must itself be material in nature, just because the process of empirical measurement happens to be materially based. Secondly, it doesn’t follow that the interpretation of empirical data must itself be empirical in nature, just because the data must be empirical in order to be "real science." We are distinguishing here between: a) the nature of the data itself, and b) the subsequent interpretation of that data. Surely there is no necessary connection between the need for objective data in science, and the subsequent need for a similarly objective interpretation of that data.

http://www.leaderu.com/aip/docs/corey.html

><>

 

[Frencheneesz]

dkb218:

"Who needs to have everything in a neat little box called "reason" in order to comprehend their existence? I have no problem with comprehension. "

Theists talk about "purpose" all the time. This is a type of reason. E.g. "Humans exist because they serve the purpose of groveling to god". What you are labeling as "comprehension" here is what I call "acceptance". You can very well "accept" that we exist and that is all you need to know. Theists are minimalists, they have a ton more axioms, but much less to remember (or are willing to remember). Thiests seem to say "I know god exists, and that is all I need to know". So, figure out he exists, then die already. I have no problem "accepting" that life exists and blah blah blah, but I hardly think you have an understanding of "everything", as you say.

The universe would not exist if there was no "reason" or "structure" or "order" to it. It simply would be impossible to see everything we do. For one, a universe with no reason would not have interactable particles. Humans could not exist, mirror would NOT bounce light, every particle in your body would not attach to eachother, particles wouldn't even exist as they are. In a universe without reason everything may or may not happen, time may or may not exist, particles may or may not appear at times that may or may not be different. Everything and/or anything would be irratic and entirely random (something the late whatsupall simply did not like). Even a universe with a god needs order. Every existance NEEDS a list of axioms for acting.

That is why we need everything in a "little box" called reason. If you think the universe doesn't need reason, you're "simply" going on my "block those dumbasses" list.

Inspector:

"Yet, as you previously acknowledged, there are things/truths that exist that cannot be scrutinized using the scientific method. "

Like........ opinions? Other than opinions, is there anything where the scientific method cannot be used?

"Science is, by definition, the study of those natural objects and processes that can be empirically measured, either directly or indirectly"

Well, science is the study of how everything works. Everything. Natural objects are usually thought of as "everything" in science though. Science leaves nothing out but opinion (which you could say is addressed in psychology).

"How does the scientific method prove/observe the fact of the scientific method? How does it validate itself?"

The scientific method is not a fact. It is most clearly labeled as a "method", and that is what it is. As for validating it, it is not a fact. What IS a fact is whether or not the scientific method is useful in all cases concerning facts. And to this the validation is that the scientific method has gathered such a wealth of information that have proven useful and workable in practice as well as the more direct proof that proves previously less direct theories (such as the existance of the neutron).

 

[Frencheneesz]

MarcAC:

"Govern - 2. control or influence;Powerful - having power; Power - 1. The ability to do something, 2. The ability to influence people or events... etc.; Infinite - 1. Limitless in space or size.; Infinity Math. - A number greater than any quantity or countable number." Now If I were to say that the laws of nature govern God that would be a contradiction of his omnipotent nature. "

So you are saying here that god is "limitless in influence" and "limitless in the ability to do something"? This simply doesn't make sense (although I supose you might say "you just can't understand infinity"..). Limitless influence implys that he does everything... and limitless ability to do things, which would imply that he could change anything and also that he could create a rock that he couldn't lift. But it also implies that he could lift any rock. See, if you want to accept that definition, you must also accept the exeptions. He cannot change the fact that he can change (ALMOST) anything, and he also cannot change his nature.

If you want to dispute that god would have to be governed by natural laws, then describe to me an intermedium between ORDER and RANDOMNESS. In that description I might either find your way of thinking or (much less probable) that I might finnaly understand why you believe.

"If you woke up one morning and was seeing evrything in doubles would you conclude that everyone and thing found it's/their long lost twin overnight? I merely trust my senses, I just don't see how I can 'believe in' them."

Pardon me for saying so, but I go by the definition that belief and trust are mostly synonymous, or is your definition that trust is more blind and belief requires proof of some kind...? The thing with your senses is that you don't "just" sense them. They are interpreted in your brain. Everything you sense has already been processed by your brain, which is not to say that it chages much. But if you see things, you don't just say "hey, what is that brownish thing under that squarish peice?", because you know how your eyes work, you know it is a door. In other words, you know almost exactly how your eyes are useful to you and you interpret them to give you that usefulness. If you had lived your whole life with double vision, you still probably wouldn't think that everything had its twin, however, you might have a strange idea about what "a door" is and looks like. Again, it is your reasoning that is the final determiner, not your senses.

"A possibility is enough for me."

Good for you, it is not enough for me to believe in him. Personally, I think it is impossible for the human mind to believe in something that has a lower probability of happening than something else. This is to say that in YOUR mind, god has a higher probabilty, and I want to know why.

"You misunderstood. What's up y'all didn't use it as proof of God,"

I strongly believe he would disagree if he were here.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARGUMENT FROM "CHANCE"..
(1) My aunt had incurable cancer.
(2) The doctors gave her all these modern medical treatments, but my aunt is still sick and was given few days to live.
(3) My aunt prayed to God and now she doesn't have cancer.
(4) Therefore, God dont exists, and her cancer dissappeared by "chance".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Speak for yourself. Some of your colleagues are still trying."

Hey, don't give me shit like this. I know for a fact that whatsupall posted that, not an Atheist. This was whatsupalls retarded interpretation of what someone said.


"A probability of God's existence cannot be formulated "

Only mathmatical probabilities can be formulated. What i am talking about is a probability given certain knowlege and certain reasoning. There is a probability that could be formulated given that we all have the same reasoning and knowlege (which is impossible) if someone spent their life doing it. I am not about to do that, however.

"If our minds were closed to God we wouldn't believe in Him."

I was bitching about someone who said pretty much "I believe in god and I have no reason, but that belief wont change". If your mind is open, it means it is open to OTHER POSSIBILITIES. His mind was closed ON THE ISSUE of god. MEANING that he won't change his mind. If his mind was truely open, he could accept the possibility that he is incorrect.

"We know [faith] that God exists."

And you think that a mere mortal such as us can know for certain if what he knows is true? I think not. I will accept that my whole world may be turned upsidedown - that I will be completely wrong, but you will not have such an open mind. Why?

"With God all things are possible, thus, in essence, the belief in God has opened my mind to a multitude of possibilities"

Except of course, the possibility that god doesn't exist... would you believe that you don't exist? Your mind can't be open to that. How bout that your computer doesn't exist, is that a possibility? Me? Do I exist? Possibilities with god may seem endless until you scrutinize.

"So do those who believe in God truly close their minds or open them?"

Your mind is not just "open" or "close", you relate those to certain issues. The theist mind is obviously quite closed, locked, and bolted on the issue of god's existance.


"To me God not existing is less likely than me existing now in a matrix [Keanu Reeves computer world]"

WHAT?! You don't believe that "the matrix" is a distinct possibility? Crazyness! I don't believe in the matrix simply because there is no proof (and it adds unnecissary complexity), but It is a possibility! Even you must accept that since you say that with god anything is possible and the matrix didn't exclude god...

"no it's just impossible"

My problem with that is the whole faith thing. You want to believe, so you believe, no proof, no evidence, no nothing. Its pure greed. Yet it is a greed that can be shared. I CAN'T believe that you have no evidence in that mind of yours. I might have to be a psychologist to understand it, but I know that you have your own proof inside your head that makes you believe. It is simply not proof that I consider valid.

"The ultimate truth has no error."

What makes you think that your petty little mind can know for a fact that it posseses the ultimate truth?

"He doesn't assume God's existence rests on what he believes. Hope you get it now."

Of course god's existance doesn't rest on what he belives. Yet, all we have to go on is what we believe, we have no other source for information. Our senses are interpreted by our reasoning in our mind. And our mind turns that into memory, or knowlege. What we "know" is not neccesarily true. You seem not to fully realize that we atheists do not believe in god, where you take gods existance for granted and seem to have a hard time getting rid of him, we take gods non existance (and everything elses for that matter) for granted and have a tough time getting him to work on the scene (yet we get other things to work quite well)..


"Such a state opens your mind to insanity. I prefer not to ask myself questions like "Am I really here?"; "Do I exist?" - no way - how can you know if you exist or not?"

I disagree. You might call me insane if I BELIEVED that we don't exist or had DOUBT that we exist. But if our reason is to withhold, then we MUST exist. And without reason, what use are we? The only thing I must say that I think is impossible is that we do NOT exist. "I think, therefore I am". Sound reasoning right? But then you have to prove that you are thinking, and you can only prove it to yourself. Therefore, we can know that we exist, because if we didn't exist, we couldn't think, now could we?


"True faith."

That is very sad. At least whatsupall tried to find reasons for god. In many ways, he was the most reasonable of all the theists. But then again he was also the biggest pain in the ass.


"Every human fact and proof and evidence that is accepted is based on faith - no two meanings - one word - pure and simple faith. "

I suppose you can't comprehend faith based on highest probability (which is based on reason)?

"You ask again I state again - faith. "

NO, you don't just have faith. WHY DO YOU BELIEVE. Faith is not a reason. There IS something in you that makes you believe. I am willing to take what you say for granted (as long as it is not "faith"). I am not asking for hard evidence, I am asking for your reason in your head for why you have faith (lets say) in god.

"To say it again - that is like asking me why do I think I exist - faith"

I know why YOU think you exist (at least before my "I think therefore I am" shpeal). You think you exist because you CAN'T think of any way your world could be displayed without you. As in, you don't have to be able to formulate your reasoning in words, but it is there nonetheless.

"Nope. I know God exists through faith"

Yes, it is not just faith. Faith is not an object. Faith is a state of mind. You have "knowlege" attributed TO this state of mind. All in all, it is your knowlege that determines your state of mind.

"How can you state that and apparently know nothing of his nature. Bumptious, arrogant (and replete with ignorance) dogmatism? Yet elsewhere you imply you trust them completely."

I trust them, but I was using your assumption that your senses are not good enough.

"Knowledge is not truth my friend. Science and logic are fallable."

Yes they are. But what other medium than your brain can you store memories? If you only have your memories for knowlege, then where do you get your "faith"? Is "faith" some constant input that you get? How do you know that your "faith" is not just some illusion of a state of mind? (please don't give me that faith bullshit for that please). You have said that you sense god through your soul. Are you implying, there, that I don't have a soul? I would have to agree, but I think it would sound strange coming from you.

"And you call yourself open-minded?."

You read my words, not my meaning. Sure there is a possibility that you have a "sixth sense", but I know for a fact that I don't have one im using.

"No true theist can accept their god's non-existence as a possibility."

Because then they would cease to be theists and start to become reasonable.

"You should understand the nature of those you are arguing with before you argue with them French my friend."

And you think you understand my "nature"? Do you base this assumption of your understanding on your "faith" again? Your "faith" can't do anything useful exept get you into heaven.

Besides, why would such a "good" god throw me in hell JUST BECAUSE I don't believe in him? That would be a bit barbaric don't you think?

If you don't you'll just be uttering gibberish most of the times. Or is it that you don't want them to understand your point of view? Do you just want to dogmatically flout your ideas and they'll accept them like you are some infinite authority? Hope not.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Posted by someone (who...?):

ARGUMENT FROM "CHANCE"..
(1) My aunt had incurable cancer.
(2) The doctors gave her all these modern medical treatments, but my aunt is still sick and was given few days to live.
(3) My aunt prayed to God and now she doesn't have cancer.
(4) Therefore, God dont exists, and her cancer dissappeared by "chance".

Chance doesn't exist. To believe in chance is foolish. It's easy to see that God acted in this situation. The same happened with my grandma. The doctor said she would die. She prayed and was instantly cured. That was many many years ago...

 

[Frencheneesz]

"Chance doesn't exist. To believe in chance is foolish. It's easy to see that God acted in this situation."

It depends on what your definition of chance is. And no, it is not easy to see that god has acted in that situation. The problem with assuming that god acts in cases where people pray, is that many many things can happen when people pray. They may gain hope when they pray, they might find some sort of mental stimulation that keeps them more wide awake or WHATEVER. The point is that SOMETHING caused them to be cured and saying "god did it" is not proof in itself. If we can ACTUALLY understand what happens when someone goes through the placeabo affect, then we might be able to cure many many more diseases.

If grandma tried to fix her heater and prayed to god, then the heater "magically" is fixed, we cannot say that god did it. Why not you say? Because the grandma in my example put her praying hands on the "on" button.

If this was 5000 years ago and you saw an airplane, would you think "god did it"?

On chance: My definition of chance is "an amount of uncertainty in the thought of the outcome of a situation". My personal view on this is that chance occurs for the simple reason that we do not have either the perfect laws needed to predict and we do not have enough information (many times this means all of it, down the specifics like position and speed of individual particles).

Could you attempt to give me your definition of "chance"? And what exactly do you mean by "believe in chance".

 

[TruthSeeker]

Frencheneesz,

It depends on what your definition of chance is. And no, it is not easy to see that god has acted in that situation. The problem with assuming that god acts in cases where people pray, is that many many things can happen when people pray. They may gain hope when they pray, they might find some sort of mental stimulation that keeps them more wide awake or WHATEVER. The point is that SOMETHING caused them to be cured and saying "god did it" is not proof in itself.

So you say that any reason is possible besides God? Why don't you accept the God "hypothesis"? Do you think that hope can grow your hand again if you would have lost it? Do you think that mere mental stimulation can make a tumor the size of a golf ball, or soccer ball (if it is possible this big... ) disapear with "no appearant explanation"? The Bible says that nothing is impossible for God. It also says that what is hard for us is very easy for Him. So, it is pretty easy for Him to evaporate cancer and other diseases...

If grandma tried to fix her heater and prayed to god, then the heater "magically" is fixed, we cannot say that god did it. Why not you say? Because the grandma in my example put her praying hands on the "on" button.

That's pretty nicely written but that's not what I'm talking about here. God do greater things then fixing heaters... And it's not magic, it's faith. It works in a different way.

If this was 5000 years ago and you saw an airplane, would you think "god did it"?

Of course not, God doesn't create imperfect things...

On chance: My definition of chance is "an amount of uncertainty in the thought of the outcome of a situation". My personal view on this is that chance occurs for the simple reason that we do not have either the perfect laws needed to predict and we do not have enough information (many times this means all of it, down the specifics like position and speed of individual particles).

Could you attempt to give me your definition of "chance"? And what exactly do you mean by "believe in chance".

For me is pretty much the same, but also probability. I believe that everything has a reason to happen behind it. I believe that all creation is there for a reason, that God never created something for the sake of creation. I believe everything that exist should be there. In this sense, probability becomes foolish, as all events actually has an importance in the total outcome. In your example, I agree that as we don't know all the laws and we don't have enough information, therefore we rely in chance and probability.

"Believe in chance" is to believe that something happen randomly, just by the sake of happening. If the law of cause and effect is true, then anything can happen ramdomly as it would affect improperly the whole.

 

[Frencheneesz]

Truthseeker:

"So you say that any reason is possible besides God?"

No, god is quite possible (in my mind). God is as possible in my mind as the idea of the Matrix (the movie), both possible, but neither have proof, and thus reasons for believing. I do not believe in god, simply, because I find that his existance is not neccesary to explain the world. Your existance is (I am talking to you), computer's existance is (i am writing on it), my existance is, etc. But I haven't seen anything that shows that god is there for sure. Things like the pleceabo affect do not contradict current laws, yet we cannot explain them. A contradiction would mean our laws suck (or god exists), but a simple lapse of understanding is only a wonder and a place for futher study, no more.

"Why don't you accept the God "hypothesis"?"

Accept? no. Accept the possibilty of? yes. I do not accept because (as I have stated) there is no proof (that I can see). I am not in denial, I am not crazy, but I cannot see the proof. And I do need proof, I would argue that those with "faith" also need proof, yet their proof is either faulty, vauge, or personal.

"you think that hope can grow your hand again if you would have lost it?"

If science saw that happening....

"Do you think that mere mental stimulation can make a tumor the size of a golf ball, or soccer ball (if it is possible this big... ) disapear with "no appearant explanation"? "

Do you think a caveman could watch an airplane fly overhead and disappear in the distance with "no appearant explanation? The answer is yes. No explanation does not imply god. If we get to understanding everything about biology and the human complex and STILL are then stumped about it, there might be something there..

"God do greater things then fixing heaters"

Sure sure, but since we do not know the mechanism (you think there is none) for a cancer curing placeabo affect, then I could not give you a cancer curing accident example. Not to mention it would have had to be super-complicated....

"Of course not, God doesn't create imperfect things... "

That is such an iopinion! God appearantly created man, and I think we all agree man is not perfect....

""Believe in chance" is to believe that something happen randomly, just by the sake of happening. If the law of cause and effect is true, then anything can happen ramdomly as it would affect improperly the whole."

Well, when a scientific person "believes" in chance, they are usually talking about quantum theory. I haven't found anything inherintly wrong with using probabilities for fundmental particles, except I just don't like it. Noone can dispute that the probabilities are there, but I think it is because of our inaccurate and incomplete data, while quantum theory says that things are inhernintly probabalistic. And, although some might differ, "things" would not happen "randomly" per se. Each interaction would have a certain probability of doing this or that. It would have no bearing on, say, the actions of a human. It would say that the fundemental subatomic particles have certain probabalistic properties which determine the fairly simple-to-understand properties of atoms, etc.

"In this sense, probability becomes foolish, as all events actually has an importance in the total outcome."

I have a similar view, but for a scientific point. I believe in a deterministic universe, where everything happens according to exact natural laws. A consequence of this is that I don't believe in freewill.

 

[James R]

Truthseeker:

<i>Chance doesn't exist. To believe in chance is foolish.</i>

What happens when I flip a coin? Is the result pre-determined by God? If you say "yes", what happened to free will?

 

[Jenyar]

Proverbs 16:33
The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD .
Proverbs 16:9
In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps.
Proverbs 21:31
The horse is made ready for the day of battle, but victory rests with the LORD.

Psalm 20:7
Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God.

Since when does free will determine the outcome of chance? God might not determine the outcome to the last detail, but in his wisdom he can include anything that happens in his plans. People are more often enslaved by "freedom of choice" than by justice. What use is free will if you cannot decide what to do with it?

 

[whatsupyall]

O my God...Am I the only one here with common sense? Is the "knowing means controlling" debate starting over again? Is the chance debate starting again? Must I terminate atheism 100 times before they can learn a lesson?

 

[EvilPoet]

2 Questions ...

Originally posted by whatsupyall
Must I terminate atheism 100 times
before they can learn a lesson?

What do you mean by terminate?

Why must you do this - is it job related?

 

[MarcAC]

Logic again?!?

Originally posted by wesmorris
Sorry for butting in here, but I must. I do agree, but existence has no bearing on validity. I cannot prove nor disprove the existence of god, therefore it would be illogical for me to BELIEVE in god. That simple statement with its simple logic, invalidates the presumption and arrogance of christianty as the arbitor of truth.

That is not my opinion, it is a smidge of objective truth. You can try to argue against it but the reasoning is sound. I challenge the greatest mind on earth to refute it.

(mind you, I'm not taking credit for anything more than recognizing truth)

Here, Sir Morris, you are religiously using logic as the 'arbiter of truth'.