Disproving the existence of God

[A Tripolation]

This is a major disconnect for me, what questions do you mean?

 

Why are we here, what is the meaning of life, etc, etc.

 

But, any effects he has on reality should be testable but as far as can be tested there is no supernatural influence anywhere....

 

Omnipotence would allow his effects to go unnoticed, if God so chose to intervene.

 

What about other more ancient writings about god or gods? How do they fit in, are they just as deserving of worship as yours?

 

The monotheistic religions are pretty much all worshiping the same God. The polytheistic religions were mostly created to explain stuff like thunder or the seasons. Jesus is historical fact. That seems to lend more credibility to Christianity than most other religions. But, yes, they may be right and I may be wrong. That is a very true possibility. I don't claim to know the truth.

 

 

If you invalidate the OT doesn't leave the NT kind of twisting in the wind? Not to mention Jesus's own support of slavery and other extreme laws of the old testament?

 

How is Jesus' sacrifice in any way dependent upon the time it took to create the Earth as we know it today?

[immortal]

First of all the things you are linking to are highly disputed, second exactly what knowledge has been gained by any of this stuff? Don't make me read three novels to find out, what is specifically is this knowledge and can it be confirmed in any other way and of what use is this knowledge?

 

 

In simple words a different set of models means a different set of possibilities in reality and we can see its effects on the physical world.

 

Consciousness and Immortality - From ancient times we have pondered over the question as to why we should be aware of our own bodies, what purpose does consciousness serve. The thing is that we don't have to be aware of our bodies, we don't have to be subject to the constraints of space and time, the body has enough intelligence to survive on its own and will look for ways to reduce its entropy by itself. Having this knowledge means you can seperate yourself from your body and your brain and not suffer the effects on your body.

 

We have looked for the fountain of youth to defy the process of ageing but Aryas wouldn't try to transform a mortal body into an immortal one instead they would simulate their consciousness outside of space and time and exist forever defying death. If strong AI can simulate my consciousness and make me run on a machine then again this knowledge will be disproved.

 

Having a portal to communicate with the gods opens up endless possibilities, we can communicate with the rain gods and bring rain at places where people are suffering from heavy drought. You can imagine the possible uses of such a communication channel.

 

This knowledge means that brain, mind and intelligence are different things and not one. We don't have to learn things instead we can just access or load such information on to our minds and will be able to speak new languages without even taking time to learn them since intelligence is viewed as a physical entity existing in its own realm.

 

Having control over such light rays means we don't have to reduce entropy and can survive without eating for days since those light rays are responsible for self organisation in biological entities.

 

It will take years of time and further research to demonstrate above claims and I can not do it all alone. You yourself will be transformed into something else in the process of falsfying it so it takes years of time.

 

The important point is that these above knowledge can only be possible if the basic stuff of those God's light rays exists and I have presented a method in my previous post which addresses the heart of the matter and shows that those light rays exist and it can be tested and falsified.

 

If neurologists can show those light rays on request and induce a feeling of presence of a personal god then this belief system will be disproved and we can say that man created god.

Scientists often predict such advanced technology but they either think that such knowledge comes from extraterrestrial beings or from artificial intelligence and they don't realize the possibility that such supreme intelligence can come from god too and say God is dead, I think he is very much alive for now.

 

 

[Keenidiot]

The monotheistic religions are pretty much all worshiping the same God. The polytheistic religions were mostly created to explain stuff like thunder or the seasons. Jesus is historical fact. That seems to lend more credibility to Christianity than most other religions. But, yes, they may be right and I may be wrong. That is a very true possibility. I don't claim to know the truth.<br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); ">

Sort of true, sort of not. Judaism has evolved over time, from a early, polytheistic style religion to what we know of it as today. There are still traces of this in it's practices and texts.

Christianity branched off from Judaism, and the existence of the Biblical Jesus is in doubt.

Islam branched off from Judaism and and Christianity, as well as taking with it parts of the more tribal religious elements. Mohammad is well attested to in the historical record, unlike Jesus.

While there are similarities due to this branching, there are also some rather definite differences in the different religions. To say that they all pretty much worship the same god rather glosses over this.

As for the sacrifice, if it occurred... how much does it mean to sacrifice if the sacrifice is then reversed?

[ydoaPs]

How is Jesus' sacrifice in any way dependent upon the time it took to create the Earth as we know it today?

I'm not sure, but I think he was talking about the fall of man stuff.

[Tres Juicy]

It's impossible to disprove god, any "proof" offered can be dismaissed as the will of said god as a test of faith.

 

I heard a similar argument when I asked a street preacher to explain dinosaurs...

[dimreepr]

Not really, because the answers that religion provides me are answers that science will never be able to have, due to the nature of the questions. Either I take the answers from some form of religion or I believe that the questions are meaningless and without substance. I tend towards the former.

 

 

 

I don't mind being asked. The existence of a God, such as a God like the Judeo-Christian one that transcends all of reality, is unfalsifiable. That's what I mean by that.

 

Is the Bible falsifiable? Certainly. And this is why I know there are translation errors (statistical probability), bias errors (Council of Nicaea, King James, etc), incompleteness (unmentioned deuterocanonical texts, the Apocrypha), and the question of the authors of the various texts in the anthology (many, if not all, of the texts in the New Testament were written AFTER the named Authors had passed. The OT is rife with author credibility). All of these things lead me to believe the Bible is the work of flawed men. It is not the complete word of God. But it is the closest thing we have, in my opinion.

 

I reject many notions of the Bible as the work of primitive man. The OT is violent and bloodthirsty. Genesis is a fairy-tale. The entity that I believe in, Jesus, is a monumental figure in all three Abrahamic religions, and is accepted as a historical figure that existed. His divinity is what is in question. And I believe He was divine. Again, that is a personal opinion I have made after thinking over the situation for many a year.

 

 

I have to agree, Jesus was real, however insted of devine. I think he had a huge intellect and realised the only way to solve the problems of the day was to re-invent the excisting religion, around himself. In challenging the authorities, he new his death was inevitable and so wove this into the myth he new he was creating. A very great man.

[Tres Juicy]

I have to agree, Jesus was real, however insted of devine. I think he had a huge intellect and realised the only way to solve the problems of the day was to re-invent the excisting religion, around himself. In challenging the authorities, he new his death was inevitable and so wove this into the myth he new he was creating. A very great man.

 

 

A charismatic cult leader

[dimreepr]

A charismatic cult leader

 

 

Maybe but it did work for a while.

[Tres Juicy]

Maybe but it did work for a while.

 

 

More than a while mate..... He was good.

 

Imagine what someone like Derron Brown could accomplish 2000 years ago...

[Moontanman]

Why are we here, what is the meaning of life, etc, etc.

 

IC, god does not answer those questions for me. but science does.

 

Omnipotence would allow his effects to go unnoticed, if God so chose to intervene.

 

So if he intervened we wouldn't know? That seems rather convenient...

 

The monotheistic religions are pretty much all worshiping the same God. The polytheistic religions were mostly created to explain stuff like thunder or the seasons. Jesus is historical fact. That seems to lend more credibility to Christianity than most other religions. But, yes, they may be right and I may be wrong. That is a very true possibility. I don't claim to know the truth.

 

 

That is an honest answer for sure.

 

How is Jesus' sacrifice in any way dependent upon the time it took to create the Earth as we know it today?

 

 

What I was asking had nothing to do with that, it's Jesus's support of slavery and his assertions about the old laws like stoning unruly children and his many referrals to the old testament in some of these he claims Genesis is true, this kills any possible divinity for Jesus, he supported slavery, one of the most immoral practices humans have ever come up with. He was in a unique position to do something about slavery but he didn't he supported it. He does make those claims, that ties him in with the OT, no way around it, he supported the same morality of the OLD testament.

 

 

I also have to ask how was it a sacrifice if he came back?

 

In simple words a different set of models means a different set of possibilities in reality and we can see its effects on the physical world.

 

Consciousness and Immortality - From ancient times we have pondered over the question as to why we should be aware of our own bodies, what purpose does consciousness serve. The thing is that we don't have to be aware of our bodies, we don't have to be subject to the constraints of space and time, the body has enough intelligence to survive on its own and will look for ways to reduce its entropy by itself. Having this knowledge means you can seperate yourself from your body and your brain and not suffer the effects on your body.

 

We have looked for the fountain of youth to defy the process of ageing but Aryas wouldn't try to transform a mortal body into an immortal one instead they would simulate their consciousness outside of space and time and exist forever defying death. If strong AI can simulate my consciousness and make me run on a machine then again this knowledge will be disproved.

 

Having a portal to communicate with the gods opens up endless possibilities, we can communicate with the rain gods and bring rain at places where people are suffering from heavy drought. You can imagine the possible uses of such a communication channel.

 

This knowledge means that brain, mind and intelligence are different things and not one. We don't have to learn things instead we can just access or load such information on to our minds and will be able to speak new languages without even taking time to learn them since intelligence is viewed as a physical entity existing in its own realm.

 

Having control over such light rays means we don't have to reduce entropy and can survive without eating for days since those light rays are responsible for self organisation in biological entities.

 

It will take years of time and further research to demonstrate above claims and I can not do it all alone. You yourself will be transformed into something else in the process of falsfying it so it takes years of time.

 

The important point is that these above knowledge can only be possible if the basic stuff of those God's light rays exists and I have presented a method in my previous post which addresses the heart of the matter and shows that those light rays exist and it can be tested and falsified.

 

If neurologists can show those light rays on request and induce a feeling of presence of a personal god then this belief system will be disproved and we can say that man created god.

Scientists often predict such advanced technology but they either think that such knowledge comes from extraterrestrial beings or from artificial intelligence and they don't realize the possibility that such supreme intelligence can come from god too and say God is dead, I think he is very much alive for now.

 

 

So you pretty much have no more evidence than any other theists has?

[A Tripolation]

IC, god does not answer those questions for me. but science does.

 

Science can never answer WHY we're here. Science can never answer what our purpose is. Those are not scientific questions.

 

So if he intervened we wouldn't know? That seems rather convenient...

 

It falls from the definition of omnipotence. This is unexpected to you?

 

 

 

What I was asking had nothing to do with that, it's Jesus's support of slavery and his assertions about the old laws like stoning unruly children and his many referrals to the old testament in some of these he claims Genesis is true, this kills any possible divinity for Jesus, he supported slavery, one of the most immoral practices humans have ever come up with. He was in a unique position to do something about slavery but he didn't he supported it. He does make those claims, that ties him in with the OT, no way around it, he supported the same morality of the OLD testament.

 

Yes. That's interesting. Would you care to give me some of the more compelling verses you have come across that indicate this is how Jesus thought? Please do not just copy-and-paste from evilbible.com. I would much prefer to read and dissect the verses that lead you to believe Jesus agreed with this morality.

 

 

I also have to ask how was it a sacrifice if he came back?

 

Because He died. Because He endured pain and torment. Because, at some point during the crucifixion, He declared that God had abandoned him, yet he still did not curse the Romans or try to sell anyone out. That is a sacrifice.

[immortal]

So you pretty much have no more evidence than any other theists has?

Unfortunately I'm undertaking medication in a hospital and I will respond to your post as soon as I get back my wellness. Posting from my cell phone.

[immortal]

So you pretty much have no more evidence than any other theists has?

 

 

It atleast doesn't make me intellectually dishonest since I have a rational empirically verifyable reason to believe in theism if not an evidence which can be shown to the sense organs. It atleast proves that some real knowledge can be passed on among the theists and I have atleast provided falsifiable theistic models just like the scientific models for those theists who are willing to worship him and think that he is deserved to be worshipped.

 

You are unwilling to worship him and its quite fine, its quite fair but your challenge is huge because you have requested evidence which can be seen through the sense organs for a phenomena which happens beyond the sense organs in the subjective mind. You want me to bring such a phenomena to the scientific method of enquiry and your demand for such an evidence is like creationists who demand evidence for macroevolution with in a person's or a generations of life time for an event which is so rare and takes millions of years to occur.

 

I am not backing away from your challenge as I have made a few claims whose effects on the physical world can be easily seen but it takes time and will to sacrifice one's life to go on meditating( along with yoga) for years to gain such a knowledge and to demonstrate them and therefore such a event is higly unpredictable.

 

I cannot bring God in front of your eyes, you yourself have to communicate with him. I cannot easily disprove the existence of god for people who stick with the scientific method of enquiry with in a person's life time as such knowledge is highly unpredictable while it can be easily disproved if we are prepared to change and believe in a different method of enquiry.

 

There is a sharp disconnect here, it is not about the evidence, it is about the belief on the methods used to test the hypothesis which disconnects me from you and there is no common ground for a purposeful argument. It atleast shows that all theists are not crackpots and will change their views once evidence has been shown to them and it shows that some religion do contain real knowledge and it is not completely true to say that it is a cancer to the society.

 

 

[ydoaPs]

Because He died. Because He endured pain and torment. Because, at some point during the crucifixion, He declared that God had abandoned him, yet he still did not curse the Romans or try to sell anyone out. That is a sacrifice.

So, the price for one person is infinite, but the price for everyone can be paid by one bad weekend? The accounting doesn't seem to work.

[Moontanman]

It atleast doesn't make me intellectually dishonest since I have a rational empirically verifyable reason to believe in theism if not an evidence which can be shown to the sense organs. It atleast proves that some real knowledge can be passed on among the theists and I have atleast provided falsifiable theistic models just like the scientific models for those theists who are willing to worship him and think that he is deserved to be worshipped.

 

 

Rational empirically verifyable reason to believe in theism? If you do then everyone who hears voices does too, what real knowledge have you obtained from this to pass on?

 

You are unwilling to worship him and its quite fine, its quite fair but your challenge is huge because you have requested evidence which can be seen through the sense organs for a phenomena which happens beyond the sense organs in the subjective mind. You want me to bring such a phenomena to the scientific method of enquiry and your demand for such an evidence is like creationists who demand evidence for macroevolution with in a person's or a generations of life time for an event which is so rare and takes millions of years to occur.

 

This is a total fallacy, your evidence may well be an hallucination for all you know and can show, just knowing is not knowledge any more than faith is proof.

 

 

I am not backing away from your challenge as I have made a few claims whose effects on the physical world can be easily seen but it takes time and will to sacrifice one's life to go on meditating( along with yoga) for years to gain such a knowledge and to demonstrate them and therefore such a event is higly unpredictable.

 

I am sorry dude, but this is the same stuff being sold by religious snake oil salesmen the world over.

 

I cannot bring God in front of your eyes, you yourself have to communicate with him. I cannot easily disprove the existence of god for people who stick with the scientific method of enquiry with in a person's life time as such knowledge is highly unpredictable while it can be easily disproved if we are prepared to change and believe in a different method of enquiry.

 

More snake oil to add the already growing supply?

 

There is a sharp disconnect here, it is not about the evidence, it is about the belief on the methods used to test the hypothesis which disconnects me from you and there is no common ground for a purposeful argument. It atleast shows that all theists are not crackpots and will change their views once evidence has been shown to them and it shows that some religion do contain real knowledge and it is not completely true to say that it is a cancer to the society.

 

You've shown no such knowledge only that by dedicating your life to belief and having faith you might be able to see something that could very well be an hallucination, this is no better than any other religion on the planet.

 

What real knowledge dude, so far all you have done is make claims, churches all over the USA regularly are visited by angels and many people claim to be able to see then as they walk among the congregation and anyone who doesn't see them just don't have enough faith or doesn't believe hard enough. Your claim is no different and is no more intellectually honest than any other theistic supernatural claim.....

 

Science can never answer WHY we're here. Science can never answer what our purpose is. Those are not scientific questions.

 

Science may not be able to provide answers that satisfy you but there are answers to those questions, they just don't involve a god.

 

 

Yes. That's interesting. Would you care to give me some of the more compelling verses you have come across that indicate this is how Jesus thought? Please do not just copy-and-paste from evilbible.com. I would much prefer to read and dissect the verses that lead you to believe Jesus agreed with this morality.

 

Exodus 21:2-6

Leviticus 25: 39-46

Luke 12: 42-48

1Peter 2:18-21

Ephesians 6:5-9

1Timothy 6:1-2

Exodus 21: 7-11

Exodus 21: 20-21

Genesis 9:25

[Tres Juicy]

There is no way to prove or disprove any of this

 

Thats why religion is still around

 

If you:

 

A) Disprove religion then everyone abandons it (you would hope)

 

B) Prove religion then it's not a religion anymore as religion requires faith/belief (I don't "believe in the postman, I know he's real because he brings me my post and says "hello" to me)

 

So religion is set up to be impossible to prove either way

Edited January 12, 2012 by Tres Juicy

[ydoaPs]

Science can never answer WHY we're here. Science can never answer what our purpose is. Those are not scientific questions.

As why is a question of intent of a causal agent, "why" is a silly question to ask if there's no causal agent. You have said several times that physics does not show that there must be a causal agent. Purpose is similar, though it is not quite the same. With purpose, you can divide into the intended purpose (which is roughly synonymous with the "why") and actualized purpose (which is how it is used). There are two main ways of answering these questions and both are scientific. One way phenomenologically and the other is behaviourally; We either ask the intentional agent and/or we observe it and it's interactions with the byproducts of the causal event. If there is no overall intended purpose due to a lack of a causal agent, that does not mean there is no actualized purpose. If there is no purpose from gods, then there is still purpose from humanity; your purpose is up to you.

 

All of our knowledge of the universe is via the senses. We map the universe from how the universe appears to us via our senses. We use these observations to build our models. In philosophy, your arguments are based on premises that are derived from other arguments, observed, induced from observations, or assumed. Bad philosophy uses assumed premises. In good philosophy, you can trace it all back to that which comes to us from our senses. When an area of philosophy gets sufficiently good, we call it "science". Science is the perfection of philosophy. If we can have knowledge of it (remember that all knowledge traces back to observation), then it is within the scope of science. If science can't answer a question, why on God's green Earth do you think Religion could do any better?

Edited January 12, 2012 by ydoaPs

[immortal]

Rational empirically verifyable reason to believe in theism? If you do then everyone who hears voices does too, what real knowledge have you obtained from this to pass on?

 

What real knowledge dude, so far all you have done is make claims, churches all over the USA regularly are visited by angels and many people claim to be able to see then as they walk among the congregation and anyone who doesn't see them just don't have enough faith or doesn't believe hard enough. Your claim is no different and is no more intellectually honest than any other theistic supernatural claim.....

 

Its a false comparison those people won't give you a method to falsify their claim, they just claim it, they don't provide a method to repeat those voices again and hence they cannot be passed on, that's why its not real knowledge while I have given you a method to repeat those experiences again and that experience can be passed on therefore it constitutes knowledge because such knowledge is repeatable. They won't say that angels will visit only when we walk backwards or in right angles so that we can perform and falsify their claim.

 

This is a total fallacy, your evidence may well be an hallucination for all you know and can show, just knowing is not knowledge any more than faith is proof.

 

You've shown no such knowledge only that by dedicating your life to belief and having faith you might be able to see something that could very well be an hallucination, this is no better than any other religion on the planet.

 

Is it impossible to know the noumenon? I don't think so. Kant's distinction between two forms or terms 'Phenomenon' - the world as it appears through the sense organs and 'Noumenon' - the world which is unknowable and helps the mind in producing the phenomenon according to Kantian terms is quite familiar to all of us. Kant argued that all our known knowledge had to arrive to the mind transformed through the sense organs. So the only knowledge we have is of the phenomenon. The things which appear around us or in the physical world are not the things that exist in the actual physical world (i.e. the noumenon world) they exist only in our minds and has to the exact nature of the actual physical world we will never know it according to Kant.

 

I argue that there is a new kind of observation possible in humans which helps us to interact with the noumenon world directly. In this new kind of observation the knowledge does not arrive through the sense organs to the mind. Here observation is possible with out using the sense organs. The mind will be in a new state apart from the sleeping, waking and being aware. To understand this you have to understand our model of the mind. In our model brain ! = (not equal) to mind. To us brain and mind are two different things.

 

Mind is normally modeled has a tightly held rope with one end tied to the sense organs and the other end tied to the platonic forms. It is completely wrong to model the noumenon in this way because the only way to investigate is through experience and these experiences are not the kind of things that we normally see in the phenomenon world and the language we use to describe our experiences can be misleading, as it is understandable that our language was developed for the world of phenomenon. But it is inevitable we have to do this in order to make others understand what we are speaking.

 

When the mind unconnects itself with the ties it has made with the sense organs we have a mind which is like a fallen rope with the other end connected to the platonic forms it is in this situation we are able to interact with the noumenon world. Now how do we know it is really the noumenon world that we are seeing?

 

It is not a hallucination as the subjects who experience are quite normal and healthy and are not subjected to alcohol or any other kind of drugs and these noumenal experiences are not the kind of normal experiences that we normally see in the phenomenon world. One more important thing is that the experience always seem to occur only when the subject is in the process or perfroming the method to interact with the noumenon world and not at other times and hence this is not hallucination.

 

It is not an optical illusion. These experiences are not kind of things that appears when you switch on or switch off inputs to your sense organs and more importantly we should note that we are observing with out using the sense organs. These experiences are really rare and it is not the kind of thing that appears when you give inputs to your sense organs and the brain interprets it differently.

 

It is not an experience that is produced by stimulating some part of the brain. If it is then I will provide a test. The subject who has experienced the noumenon world has to be under stimulation if you are able to produce the same kind of pictures that the subject has already experienced then my argument will be wrong. But I bet you can't. However we can produce consistent observations i.e all subjects will see identical descriptions or experiences of the noumenon world.

 

It is not an experience created by the mind. If we assume that all the experiences that we experience are created by the mind then from where did the mind came from there has to be a basis for the mind and the noumenon world is the basis. This is established by the fact that the subjects have experienced or seen the structure of the mind as it is. Which I discussed before by giving a model.

 

To those who are wondering that how it was possible for me to look this issue from all angles was because this argument was under disscusion in the chat room. I posted here so that many people look at it and as all people will not be available at the same time.

 

Whether is this science is a different issue. One thing which troubles me from being to describe this as science is that we can not make predictions as to when the experience will happen. There is no math here and that may be the single reason others might not give importance to this but this is definitely not metaphysics.

 

I am neither going to argue this using scientific models nor i will try to reduce this to exact science. The models of noumenon world are very much differnt from the models of science and it is not surprising to see this because one talks about phenomenon and other about noumenon

It just provides us with a possible new Worldview and I think just scientific models are not sufficient to describe the universe completely we need these noumenon models but there are no one to one correspondance between the phenomenon and the noumenon models. Its completely different and if this is the new physics that Roger Penrose is looking for then everyone have to be prepared for big surprises.

 

I had argued about this a year ago that this is not a hallucination but no one took it seriously and I expected it.

 

I also have to ask how was it a sacrifice if he came back?

 

 

The new discovery of Gospel of Judas says that it was Jesus himself who sent Judas Iscariot to bring the romans to his hiding place, it was God's plan and Jesus knew what was coming and only a divine man can dare to do such a thing knowing the consequences of it. He sacrificed himself to save the world for us. Judas didn't betrayed Jesus Christ, infact he was the only one who truly understood Jesus. Nothing is what it seems.

[Tres Juicy]

 

The new discovery of Gospel of Judas says that it was Jesus himself who sent Judas Iscariot to bring the romans to his hiding place, it was God's plan and Jesus knew what was coming and only a divine man can dare to do such a thing knowing the consequences of it. He sacrificed himself to save the world for us. Judas didn't betrayed Jesus Christ, infact he was the only one who truly understood Jesus. Nothing is what it seems.

 

 

A: Judas would say that

 

B: Jesus wasn't stupid, he knew he was screwed and used it to perpetuate the myth he created

[A Tripolation]

So, the price for one person is infinite, but the price for everyone can be paid by one bad weekend? The accounting doesn't seem to work.

 

It never tells me when people quote me anymore.

 

Yes, it works when you think about how Jesus was perfect and didn't DESERVE to die. If he was a flawed man, I would agree with you. But he wasn't. He was a perfect man.

 

If science can't answer a question, why on God's green Earth do you think Religion could do any better?

 

Because science requires fact and empirical evidence before it can answer anything. Religion is not constrained by that. Yes, the answers could be wrong whereas science is only ever 'incomplete'. But it can still 'answer' questions that science cannot. As in, WHY we exist.

[ydoaPs]

Because science requires fact and empirical evidence before it can answer anything. Religion is not constrained by that. Yes, the answers could be wrong whereas science is only ever 'incomplete'. But it can still 'answer' questions that science cannot. As in, WHY we exist.

So, religion is better suited to the task because it doesn't give any method to know what the right answer is? o.O

Edited January 12, 2012 by ydoaPs

[A Tripolation]

So, religion is better suited to the task because it doesn't give any method to know what the right answer is? o.O

 

Not that it's better suited. Just that it can answer pretty much everything science can't because it has no discernible method of verification. It's all faith.

[ydoaPs]

Not that it's better suited. Just that it can answer pretty much everything science can't because it has no discernible method of verification. It's all faith.

So, you don't care whether or not the answer is true, you just want one regardless of whether the question is even valid? Why not just leave the answer at 42 and be done with it then?

 

This quote actually displays a quite disgusting attitude and I'm surprised to see it coming from you.

[A Tripolation]

So, you don't care whether or not the answer is true, you just want one regardless of whether the question is even valid? Why not just leave the answer at 42 and be done with it then?

 

Because I like the notion of some overseeing-creator.

 

 

This quote actually displays a quite disgusting attitude and I'm surprised to see it coming from you.

 

This quote displays quite a disgusting militant stance on atheism and I'm surprised to see it coming from you. You know I'm a theist. And you're surprised I have faith in that which cannot be seen or proven?

 

Please refrain from further usage of such negative adjectives when discussing my faith when I am trying to discuss it in sincerity with you. I almost reported your post, but decided to give you the benefit of a doubt based on the fact that I consider us friends.

[ydoaPs]

This quote displays quite a disgusting militant stance on atheism and I'm surprised to see it coming from you.

It's not about atheism at all, actually. It's about intellectually honesty in the search for truth. When you say that you just want an answer and you don't care whether or not it's true, that is the exact opposite of the sentiment that makes science great. There's a quote from Sagan that I like which displays just about the opposite attitude: "I don't want to believe; I want to know."

 

It's one thing to have faith. That's one of the things that I like about your discussion of religion. You lay your cards on the table and flat out say you believe on faith. But the elevation of faith as a virtue-to say it's good because it doesn't care about verification-is almost the very definition of anti-science.

Edited January 13, 2012 by ydoaPs