|
|
| Post Number: 41
|
CatKnight 
Jedi Republican
Group: Members
Posts: 3807
Joined: Dec. 2000
|
 |
Posted on: Jul. 23 2002,23:00 |
|
   |
| Quote (Bozeman @ 22 July 2002,15:46) | You can do experiments to see if those exist. You can't do an experiment to see if God exists.
If you could, we would have had this whole religion thing figured out a long time ago. |
someone who hadn't performed the experiment himself might proclaim that x-rays don't exist until you show him. in fact no one knew about x-rays at all until roentgen.
in the same way you would conclude it is illogical to assume something about science MUST be true or must NOT be true, it is just as illogical to assume god must or must not exist. the former can only be proved through profound spiritual realization.
--------------
[url=http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/d/b/dbl125/dfa.jpg]If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful that you can possibly imagine.[/url]
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 42
|
a2n3d7y
The Jerry Springer of Detnet
Group: Members
Posts: 84
Joined: May 2002
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 24 2002,00:25 |
|
 |
HEY THIS IS WHAT I THINK!!!! me me me me me IM SO IMPORTANT SO YOU WILL LISTEN (ya right)
Well, I think GOD is just a bearded man floating around space with magical powers.
ROTFLMAO
--------------
???ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED!!!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 43
|
TheTaxMan
Controversial Thug
Group: Members
Posts: 874
Joined: Apr. 2001
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 24 2002,00:29 |
|
|
I concede that GAWKI (God as we know it  ) doesn't exist for multiple reasons (in no particular order):
1) Nothing I have experienced in my life or have seen in my friends lives denotes the existance of a 'higher power.'
2) On our planet alone probably thousands of religions have evolved, many of them not even monotheistic. In the entire universe of probably millions of civilizations there have likely been billions of religions some probably very obscure compared to christianity. Although there is no way to say for certain, the numbers on this planet alone make it odd to assume one 'God.'
3) Inconsitency. The Christian God has so many flaws even as a theory, imho. Gender, moral values expounded by the religion and it's people, etc. The omnibenevolent diety has removed himself from all responsibility by giving people the right to choose? That isn't omnibenevlent. That is seeing the errors in your 'project' and not doing anyhting about it (to change it). Why all the cruelty in the world? If he is omnicient, why didn't God create a more loving race that still had the right to choose. The side project that humanity seems like is really just that, a side project by some diety. I don't like that.
4) Heaven and Hell. The spirit world. Repenting sins to go to heaven, etc. This seems very unresonable to me.
5) Order in the universe. If I drop a glass in a vacuum and it shatters and I drop that glass the exact same way, it breaks the same. You could right a computer program to simulate this (although people seem to be having trouble doing so). The brain works on electrochemical reactions. You could write a computer program to simulate this (AI). It seems possible that you could write a program that examined the chemical reactions in the brain and predict what a person was going to do. This seems very resonable to me. The idea of a 'soul' does not sound resonable at all. A mysterious force that is our guiding light.
6) There are others, but I don't want to type them out.
As usual, imho.
--------------
Four billion years of evolution and this is all we have to show for it?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 44
|
Necromancer
Ace Rimmer
Group: Members
Posts: 419
Joined: Feb. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 24 2002,01:06 |
|
|
there are too many variables to prove god doesn't exist. everyone has bias, hidden agendas and misunderstanding.
also "God" as he/it/she/thing is may reveal itself to people in different ways.
i came to a nice analogy the other day about the universe and life being a book. You can read simple symbols printed on its pages and a whole world emerges with a history and a future and yet you can at the same time take yourself out of the story and just see the symbols for what they are mere symbols (how many of you have been reading a book and all of a sudden cant read any more because though you can read the words you mind cant form a picture of the story) though you have to read from the beginning to the end for to do so in reverse would suddenly make no sense. It has a finite distinct begining and an end before and after these two events there is no book yet you can finish it and it still remains it does not dissapear out of existance even though the story has finished. And possibly just possibly this book is one among others in a library of books, in a world that has no relation to how the universe in the book works so therefore from the point of view of the book it is incomprehensible and as it can have no reaction with the outside of its pages it cannot prove it exists.
I like the idea i came up with of how even though it is a story that ends the book and all its component parts remains for someone to read again.
I think thats probably the most insightful post i shall ever write so don't expect any more of that kind of crap from me unless i decide to smoke some solvents again.
--------------
There'll be time for explanations later... and hopefully, some sex
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 45
|
DougTheFatBaby
FNG
Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: Jul. 2002
|
 |
Posted on: Jul. 24 2002,01:54 |
|
|
Here's something for religious-types to think about:
morality is doing what is right no matter what you are told.
religion is doing what you are told no matter what is right.
Examples - Robin Hood, Road To Perdition, Payback, Leon The Professional. Basically any story where the protagonist is an outlaw, they're all going to hell no matter what they did.
That's why I've decided to go by laws of morality - they're pretty much built in (with the help of parents), and you don't have to spend an hour of life a week at a building that smells like national geographic magazines.
(covers face from tomatoes being thrown by people who hate newbie posters)
--------------
A deep and clever signature goes here.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 46
|
CNCJake
the invisible man
Group: Members
Posts: 86
Joined: Oct. 2001
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 24 2002,07:45 |
|
|
I was an agnostic for quite some time. One day I reached down my pants, grabbed my balls and proclaimed that I was now an atheist.
--------------
I pinged your mom, and got 100% packet loss.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 47
|
Darth Liberus
Emperor of Detnet
Group: Members
Posts: 2246
Joined: Jan. 1970
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 24 2002,10:19 |
|
|
| Quote (TheTaxMan @ 23 July 2002,16:29) | | 5) Order in the universe. If I drop a glass in a vacuum and it shatters and I drop that glass the exact same way, it breaks the same. You could right a computer program to simulate this (although people seem to be having trouble doing so). |
actually, this probably isn't true. the evidence for hard determinism is looking pretty shabby these days. it's more likely that the way a glass breaks is a random, non-repeatable event.
| Quote | | The brain works on electrochemical reactions. You could write a computer program to simulate this (AI). It seems possible that you could write a program that examined the chemical reactions in the brain and predict what a person was going to do. |
impossible. although the design of neurons makes them largely deterministic, the network itself constantly monitors and reacts to its environment, making it non-deterministic for all intents and purposes. in addition, a single random failure in a neuron can be rapidly amplified and propagated and alter the entire neural state... ever had a muscle twitch? did you notice how your attention snapped from what you were doing to that stupid muscle? that's a good example of what I mean 
| Quote | | The idea of a 'soul' does not sound resonable at all. |
The big problem with denying some sort of "soul" is that it goes directly against some of the strongest evidence we have - we all feel ourselves sitting here perceiving things. If you ask me, it takes a lot more faith to believe that we don't have some sort of "spirit" or "soul" than it does to believe we do have one. It seems much more logical to me to say "hmm, we have an awful lot of direct evidence, so the burden of proof lies on soul-deniers to disprove their existence... and they haven't yet... so for the time being, we will continue to assume the existence of some sort of soul/spirit and think of clever ways to study their properties."
I have my suspicions that randomness and "spirit" or "free will" may be one and the same, but that's just me... heh... can you imagine that electrons do whatever they damn well please? And events with high probabilities are things that electrons generally like to do? lol
--------------
"let's travel around with our laptops, plug in, and destroy the very fabric of modern reality." -a2n3d7y
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 48
|
demonk
The other white meat
Group: Members
Posts: 800
Joined: Aug. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 24 2002,17:09 |
|
|
Once you start merging Chaos Theory and Quantom Mechanics together, you can see that things that seem to be "influinced" by a higher power is just a shit load of variables coming together. To truely dig into the guts of how the universe works is to see that we are only scratching the surface on understanding how it works. That doesn't mean we can just say "Oh well, we don't understand it so it much be god at work". The opposite is true. We know that we can figure it out, it just takes time and lots of math. By the time the Pentium 20 is out, we will probably be able to run simulations on incredibly complex systems, down to the subatomic level. By this point I think we will be able to show that "free will" of atoms and such is just the laws of the universe being expressed. I"m rabbling now, so I'll stop here.
--------------
I'm just two people short of a threesome!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 49
|
hannibal
FNG
Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: May 2001
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 24 2002,19:30 |
|
|
| Quote (Bozeman @ 22 July 2002,12:46) | You can do experiments to see if those exist. You can't do an experiment to see if God exists.
If you could, we would have had this whole religion thing figured out a long time ago. |
How can you be so sure you cannot do an experiment to see if God exist? Just because you cannot see it doesnt mean it is not there. 2000 years ago if you told someone the Earth was round they wouldnt believe you because with the technology they had at disposal they could not prove it.
I do not think there is a God as christians would have you believe or any other religion for that matter. I would probably call myself an agnostic because i do not believe I am advanced enough to prove if there is or is not a God.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 50
|
CatKnight
Jedi Republican
Group: Members
Posts: 3807
Joined: Dec. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 24 2002,21:16 |
|
|
demonk, correct me if i'm wrong, but is your stance that god does not exist because math can explain and predict events?
--------------
[url=http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/d/b/dbl125/dfa.jpg]If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful that you can possibly imagine.[/url]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
