There is no God - discuss:

BoneSoft

Though he has in recent years lured a few serious scientists to his side, I'd argue that Mr. Tegmark's infinite alternate universes theory is a little less provable and documented than God. I put it a few notches above string theory on the Scientist-Generated-Fiction-BS-o-meter. But Michael Crichton sure made a neat book out of it. :-D

Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.

R Giskard Reventlov

I would rather posit Russell's teapot[^] and invite you to prove[^] the existence of something for which, in my exeperience and view, there is no evidence. I will, naturally, remain open minded and examine any demonstrable evidence you, or anyone, is able to provide.

me, me, me

hairy_hats

Why would a creator god who existed *before* the universe was created be subject to the laws of physics of the world he created? As he/she/it clearly cannot be, quantum mechanics can have no effect on whether or not our universe does or not come with a creator god in the Christian sense.

Le centriste

I don't know if there is a God, but I know that I don't base my life on his existence and what he thinks about it. If God is merciful, I have nothing to worry about.

hairy_hats

You're gonna fry!

Le centriste

I want to go to hell, all my friends will be there.

Oakman

Maxxx_ wrote:

There seems to be a popular misconception that in an infinite universe all possibilities must happen. This is simply not the case. Sorry.

The whole post was just an idea of a joke in the hope that it would elicit some response Sorry if that wasn't quite clear enough for you - I'll remember to dumb it down next time.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Rob Graham

The problem with Russel's Teapot is that the corollarycontrary is equally valid. It is also impossible to prove that there is NOT a teapot orbiting the sun. The analogy is also an association fallacy - specifically a falsus in unus, falsus omnibus fallacy. It's very wording reveals its weakness, since it depends on ridiculing religion to make its point, rather than on any solid logical conjecture. I would argue that neither position is provable from the evidence we are capable of perceiving, leaving the determination of which to chose to accept up to personal preference. Some (including Einstein, at various points in his life) find it unacceptable that the universe is merely an accident. You clearly do not find that premise difficult, but that does not mean you are necessarily correct. I am inclined to share your view, but am not willing to out of hand reject the possibility that the universe is the result of an intelligent causality of some sort. I do find it a stretch to go from creation by an external agent to the concept of a deity with detailed personal concern for each and every individual.

R Giskard Reventlov

Neither do I reject anything out of hand; however I've never seen any evidence to point to anything other than the utterly random nature of the universe. Whilst I'm happy to conced that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence I do find it odd that there is not a single shred of demonstrable evidence of a god whilst if there were no god then there is nothing to prove and the absence of evidence would be as expected. Phew: hard subject whatever you believe and therein lies the rub.

me, me, me

Lost User

I gave you 5, even though I don't believe in God. I saw a copy on a second-hand bookstall in a Church, unread - to judge from the spine, and only 50 pence. So I bought it. It's not just that it's boring, he is just so smug.

Bob Emmett

Vikram A Punathambekar

I thought it was a fairly good book, but nothing to wax eloquent about. Have you tried his seminal book The Selfish Gene? That was fantastic.

Cheers, Vıkram.

I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it.

peterchen

That attitude is perfect at not letting you down. If that is the only thing that matters to you...

Burning Chrome ^ | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighist

Lost User

Repost

___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')

Lost User

Bob Emmett wrote:

It's not just that it's boring, he is just so smug.

Yep and he cant make a point with out quoting a dozen other people. He also complains in the prefix about being quoted out of context yet gives very little context for the quotes he uses.

Oakman

Maxxx_ wrote:

Repost

Got my five. :laugh:

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface