God does not exist.

xfilesfan,

So OK how about telling us your story. Why do you believe in a god?

Is it your own choice or have you been encouraged by someone else, perhaps friends or family? Have you always believed or is this a recent thing? If you have always believed have you ever considered not believing?

What would be useful to hear is whether there is something in particular that has convinced you that your belief is better than not believing.

Happy x'filing.
Cris
 
______________________

One more thing (and I hope this makes sense to you):
It's clear to me that every Christian must concede that their God might be a fake.

You see, Allah could have been having a laugh and decided to fool lots of people by inventing an alter-ego and making those people worship a 'holy cow', the Christian God.
Or a Hindu deity could have done the same.
Or an Other-worldly malevolent force.
Or some aliens on UFO's.

The suggestion is that if someone posits that a divine force (esp. an omnipotent one) exists then they must also concede that that force can make them believe whatever it wants them to.
If they concede that this force can make them believe whatever it wants them to then they must concede that their faith is subject to another's whim and therefore has the potential to be unsound.

Therefore any divine theory suffers from inherent***

oh bugger - I've just been laid off - I have some things to sort out. This is so funny. Maybe God is trying to punish me for my wilful blasphemy. Sorry, anyone else want to carry on my thread of argument feel free. Later guys.

SHIT.

_______________________


Now class, these are what you call speculations that cannot be scientifically tested. They are at odds with the data mentioned in the Bible and they are not based upon logic. Now class, can anyone tell me what happens to material such as this?

*Vinnie raises his hand*

Yes Vinnie, tell us what happens.

"I have four answers.

1. Some smart, handsome and witty theologian, such as myself, will, to use Boris' words, refute the snot out of them.

2. That is merely a "trivial objection."

3. That claim contradicts a vast body of Biblical data, testable data mind you.

4. Non-testable speculations of this nature delineate the credibility of their poster. Material such as this has taken a detour from the realm of science through the convenient land of metaphysics where all acedemically invalid statements/arguments vie for the crown of ultimate worthlessness."

Very good Vinnie. Nice Job!!

Peace,
Vinnie
 
Vinnie,

Scientific testing, logic, data and the Bible in the same passage? Quite curious.

Apparently, you do not consider your own apologeticist excursions into aposteriori reconciliation of the Bible to natural sciences as a trip through the "convenient land of metaphysics where all academically invalid statements/arguments vie for the crown of ultimate worthlessness." An intriguing stance, provided that you are straining yourself to twist the meaning of a fairy tale to match actual reality -- all the while hoping against hope that your ridiculous notions of souls and afterlife do not disintegrate within your lifetime under the penetrating light into which they have finally been dragged. Albeit it is fascinating how you manage to face the biochemical reality of life and yet not believe in it at the same time; one could only admire how someone with such a split personality could be considered sane, much less fit for teaching others. Indeed, one can only stand in awe of a person who would go to such great lengths to convince self that a miraculous communication between a higher power and a primitive lifeform had occurred a few thousand years ago, never before nor after, involving only a select few among a tiny desert tribe out of all humanity past and present, on a miserable little planet in the backwater of an ordinary galaxy lost in the vastness of the universe, and at an unremarkable moment in history to boot. This, of course, being only one insignificant voice among a chorus of thousands, all claiming supernatural miracles, histories and sources, remarkably (but hardly surprisingly) clustered along tribal boundaries. It may come as a shock, but you aren't the only apologeticist around, and every single religion in existence today has its own set of apologetic reconciliatory accounts. Of course, none of those accounts ever succeed (and neither do yours); at best they manage only a crude approximation to agreement with the known reality, paying a high cost and inevitably managing to clash with the very things they purport to emulate. Such failures are shoved under the rug and obscured by the supposed successes, but these endeavors ultimately demonstrate only two things: the desperation of those who undertake them, and the conceptual flexibility of informal linguistic communication that allows arbitrary reinterpretation of any statement.

You denounce any alternative myths as "speculations that cannot be scientifically tested". Yet you claim the opposite of your own myth. Astonishing, that. For your information, no speculation can be scientifically tested unless it generates a prediction that can be subsequently verified through experiment. If anything, your own mythology of choice has been responsible for a veritable slew of qualitative predictions which not only were subsequently disproven, but through religiously modulated social dynamics had acted to impose significant barriers to scientific progress. Moreover, no statement can claim to be scientifically testable unless it is framed in such a fashion that it can be construed to have one and only one meaning. Clearly, you Bible does not fit that bill.

At best, then, your endeavors can be described as being analogous to relaxation-driven pattern matching. Such algorithms generate a random template which is then iteratively tweaked to adapt to patterns in the input using a cost function that measures the difference between the input and the model reflected by the template at some particular instant. In essense the internal model starts out with a high degree of freedom and a lot of "tension" due to incompatibility with the input, and gradually "relaxes" into a closer match with the input, losing its freedom in the process. Your mythology originates as a set of highly informal statements whose meaning can be reinterpreted at will; in the process of matching your mythology with recently-observed reality, you constrain the meanings of those statements to generate a closer fit, losing freedom of interpretation in the process (not to mention trampling the more straightforward and obvious interpretations that would not fail to be derived by the original target audience, and thereby discrediting a cornerstone of your myth.) One downfall of such pattern matching algorithms, is that the degree of their ultimate approximation to the input depends upon their original random configuration; the primordial cost landscape biases the progression of the template's model toward a certain trajectory along parameter space and along additional constraints of self-consistency, and therefore the template fails to explore alternative models which may lead to better approximation. Another downfall of such algorithms, is that they only succeed in capturing the very general patterns in the data, typically failing to model more subtle details because they get overwhelmed by the variability of the input and end up averaging over it, tracking only lower-moment statistical trends. Your approach (and the approach of any apologeticist) suffers from both of these drawbacks. Not only is your ultimate explanatory ability limited by the original content of your myth, but the "explanations" you derive at best model only some of the rougest aspects of reality, and at that only crudely -- while being utterly blind to certain other major aspects of reality, and failing miserably to illuminate the subtleties. (One of the beauties of science, is that it is not confined in principle to a fixed set of premises that constrains its ultimate progress; rather, any conflict between prediction and observation has potential to uproot an entire theory and alter the fundamental axyoms. Of course, such a thing is not possible in a religious context, because the entire religious mythology exists only to support the central premises, and will bend over backwards to accomodate any clashing observables rather than allow any harm to come to the hallowed axyoms. This makes one of the many reasons why your attempts to equate apologeticism to science are naive at best and disingenuous in any case.)

But whatever your final degree of success, one thing's for sure: you are not on a quest for enlightenment, you are merely engaged in passive pattern-matching. Given the pragmatic futility of your energy expenditures, your ultimate motives are transparent and pitiful. You are engaged in a defence of a static and arbitrary worldview, and your only motivation for continuing such a defence is a perceived advantage in cost over a complete overhaul of your paradigms. You are prisoner to your own freedom-losing enterprise -- or perhaps your enterprise is merely a reflection of your own freedom-losing mindset -- but it hardly matters now whether the chicken or the egg came first. The issue now is whether you can still break out of your vicious circle, or whether you addiction is terminal.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited February 21, 2001).]
 
Cris,

Ah yes, I fondly remember Star Trek as well - the real Star Trek, that is - with Captain Kirk, and my favorite Star Trek character of all time, Mr. Spock. I used to watch that one occasionally, but the Twilight Zone was probably my favorite show back in those days.

Nope - I'm not quite a Deist, although I do reject all of the "revealed" religions. Although I doubt if I fit all that well into any one category, I guess I'm best described as a pagan. But more than anything, I seem to forge my own roads through life. I would call myself a freethinker, but I get the idea that as a group, freethinkers would prefer that those who label themselves as such also adopt an atheistic philosophy, or at the very least, an agnostic one. I guess I'm just too independent and rebellious to allow anyone else to define my religious beliefs/philosophies for me! To me, that's what freethought is all about (but I'm probably the only one who sees it that way - as usual).

Wow - 3 teenaged daughters! That sounds like quite the challenge - but it also sounds like you've done an excellent job raising them so far. Keep up the good work! :)

Emerald

------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.
 
Cris--

A little more on Steve Austin ... apparently he thinks he's God, or something.
http://rock13.com/austin/bio/austin.html

John, 3.16: "For whosever believeth in me ...."

Stone Cold, 3.16: "I just whooped your ass!"

What happens if grown men rolling around together in their underwear become the opiate of the masses?

Of course, for an entertainment that is taken so seriously on such a widespread level, such contradictions as we find in "pro wrestling" provide an amazing reflection of the show itself. For instance, in certain states, sodomy and fellatio are against the law and has been for some time. It is also demonstrable that, heterosexually, these laws are rarely enforced; only when dragged into a divorce hearing, or when visited upon a minor. The laws are generally designed, we all know, to snag male homosexuals. Yet in these states the sight of oily, muscle-bound, grown men playing around in Underoos is a huge draw.

I still smile when I think of Terry "Hulk" Hogan advising kids to, "Say your prayers, eat your vitamins ...." Who does he pray to? After all, if he was a Christian, he would have forgiven Andre the Giant.

Sorry to be so digressing, but when pro wrestling pops up amid a religious debate, I'm more than amused. But these ideas are somewhat telling. I mean, you'd think that in the Bible Belt of the American south, Austin would find some sort of resistance for usurping the Bible (John 3.16) for promotional--hence, personal and financial--considerations. Yet these nearly-naked, writhing "combatants" are somehow more acceptable and less offensive in their "content", or "moral attitude", or other factors by which these same constituencies have taken offense to musicians, artists, poets, writers, ad nauseam.

I gotta admit, though, the Wonderful World of Flesh proves far more useful in socio-theological considerations than it does in its own niche of homoerotic glatiator entertainment.

Okay, I will cease this petty amusement with the spectacle of twenty-thousand people cheering about nearly naked men rolling around on the floor together. But still, it cracks me up.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
No, don't seek control, and the milk of heaven will flow. Why would you want to keep it from anyone? (Floater)

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited February 22, 2001).]
 
Does it really matter whether God exists or not? Sun is still shining. Earth is still spinning. People still get killed in car accidents. Life goes on.

God did nothing when some mad man waging wars using his name. God is not going to reduce the price of electricity in California. God didn't nothing in major that affects a large group of people. God only perform some small miracles that only a few selected persons can experiance. In order to resolve gas/electric price, God thinks the problem is created by human, so human beings should solve it by themselves. For every major problem in our socity, God blames us for creating the problem. And he is not going to do anything about it.

The bottom line is: God won't make you full without eating; God won't pay you bills no matter how hard you pray; God won't help you without you helping yourself first. We still need to solve every problem we are facing by ourselves. I just wonder what do we need God for? Who cares if he exists or not?
 
okay my beleif in god story, alright. but first off, how can you not no who steve austin is. anyways on with my story.

Well it was just what i was braught up with most of my life, I went to church with my parents as a younger tot. But i always remebered how annoying the church people were or alot of them. they were all talking like they were holy and what not but then if a black guy walked in the church they would go nuts, so it kinda made me sick the way they say you should love everyone but then if somoen didnt agree with their way of thinking or were different than they acted as if they were better. So then i figured hey i dont need to be around a bunch of liars who say everything is a sin and there so perfect when they are so obviously not. so then i stopped going to church but still did the bible reading and praying and what not. see i knew it wasnt gods fault for other peoples ignorance.

whoa i kinda got of course there, okay i will just give you a short and sweet answer about why i beleive in god and here it is. I JUST DO. so take it or leave it.
 
Originally posted by daktaklakpak:
Does it really matter whether God exists or not? Sun is still shining. Earth is still spinning. People still get killed in car accidents. Life goes on.

God did nothing when some mad man waging wars using his name. God is not going to reduce the price of electricity in California. God didn't nothing in major that affects a large group of people. God only perform some small miracles that only a few selected persons can experiance. In order to resolve gas/electric price, God thinks the problem is created by human, so human beings should solve it by themselves. For every major problem in our socity, God blames us for creating the problem. And he is not going to do anything about it.

The bottom line is: God won't make you full without eating; God won't pay you bills no matter how hard you pray; God won't help you without you helping yourself first. We still need to solve every problem we are facing by ourselves. I just wonder what do we need God for? Who cares if he exists or not?
Click to expand...

Did you ask Him to?

Mmmm......easier to whine about things than to do something about it hey?

God wont force change upon us, He will however bring it if we ask with pure motives.

Allcare

Tony H2o
 
Personally, I never ask God to do anything, for myself or for anyone else.

"He will however bring it if we ask with pure motives"

Maybe, however, it's still insignificant because the rest of us can't verify it and won't feel a thing about it.

I still think my paradox theory will solve all the contraditions about God. If God is in a paradox state, then he can exist and not exist, be good and evil, kill himself and revive himself, make something possible impossible and make something impossible possible, all at the same time.
 
okay here is my final word on this topic and then i quit on this one.

If you beleive in god great, if you dont great. Either way its your beleif and its nobody elses business.
 
Either way its your beleif and its nobody elses business.
Click to expand...

Amen.

Would someone please pop out and tell the evangelicals? For instance, the lovely five minutes I spent this morning with the Watchtower. Why do these people bother? How does their evangelism become their right to interject themselves into someone else's conscience?

To the other, rudeness on those occasions is apparently persecutory.

But you have the gist of it, X.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:


------------------
No, don't seek control, and the milk of heaven will flow. Why would you want to keep it from anyone? (Floater)
 
If you beleive in god great, if you dont great. Either way its your beleif and its nobody elses business.
Click to expand...

xfilesfan,

On that point, you appear to be in agreement with some of the greatest minds in history. As Thomas Jefferson put it, "Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to God alone. I inquire after no man's, and trouble none with mine." --Thomas Jefferson to Miles King, 1814. ME 14:198 :)

Emerald

------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.
 
Bowser,

That is who I thought of at first, but that show has been off the air for decades, hasn't it?
 
Yes, but that's who I think of when by kid talks about Steve Austin. I sometimes wonder if that isn't where the name was derived for its most recent fame.
 
does god exist?

To Cris

There is an interesting book you may wish to read. I have not finished it but it is quite interesting so far.

"The Physics of Immortality", by Frank J. Tipler

Basically it's a scientific approach towards the proof of god.
 
I remember I read an artical about physic of enternal in Discover magazine last year. The artical indicated that in order to enternal, one must conserve energy yet still maintain motion to indicate life. If one wants to last almost long as the universe, it must stay at very very close to zero degree Kelvin.
 
Lazarus thread...

This is my greatest triumph... this thread is over a year old. Have a good time.

-Mike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top