I'm only 12.5% sure that God exists...
-
BernardIE5317 wrote:
agnostic . i believe science in particular Physics will sooner or later settle the matter one way or the other
That's not what agnostic means.
ag·nos·tic : a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of GodIn my opinion, one can be both theistic and agnostic, they are not mutually exclusive.thanks for the clarification . it seems i do not know the proper term for my situation . perhaps it is "idonotknowanddonotcareonewayortheother" .
-
BernardIE5317 wrote:
i believe science in particular Physics will sooner or later settle the matter one way or the other
Odd supposition. Normal definition of God is being outside the universe. Normal definition of Physics is that is contained within the universe. It cannot prove anything outside. Which as best I understand is proving something of a problem with String Theory (for some variants.)
perhaps the "normal" definitions are not correct . i give it at most one-thousand years for the matter to be settled . by then we will either know or know we can not know .
-
Which god? There are many. Why should I bet on the god of a fairly recent religion when I can choose the Norse pantheon, the ancient Greek one and the Roman copy, the Egyptian one or even any of the fertility goddesses that pre-date even the Egyptian society? What makes one true and the other false? Pascal chose to bet on a single deity out of thousands, his probability of winning is basically the same as to not bet at all.
GCS/GE d--(d) s-/+ a C+++ U+++ P-- L+@ E-- W+++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X The shortest horror story: On Error Resume Next
den2k88 wrote:
What makes one true and the other false?
Trying to prove that God or indeed any event defined to be outside normal physics does not exist is the same as attempting to prove that it does. Both require assumptions which by their very nature cannot be proven. And in logic if one refutes the assumptions then the proof no longer has any value. This is of course different then taking a given proof, any proof, and invalidating it. Either because the proof is badly formed or because, as above, the assumptions are rejected. It is of course not up to the person that rejected an assumption to then prove the assumption false. Rather it is up to the original author of the proof to then validate the assumption to the reader. Additionally one often forgets or attempts to ignore than one does not actually need to be a theist, agnostic or atheist. Humans are more flexible than that because they can choose to simply ignore the question altogether. Similar to ignoring who will win a national sport championship at the start of a season.
-
BernardIE5317 wrote:
i believe science in particular Physics will sooner or later settle the matter one way or the other
Odd supposition. Normal definition of God is being outside the universe. Normal definition of Physics is that is contained within the universe. It cannot prove anything outside. Which as best I understand is proving something of a problem with String Theory (for some variants.)
There can be nothing outside the Universe, hence the term. By definition, the Universe contains everything. If you have a circle, and discover something outside the circle, simply draw a bigger circle, the first circle was in error. Theists may state that religion is the study of the works of God, but if God exists, then science is the study of the works of God.
-
den2k88 wrote:
What makes one true and the other false?
Trying to prove that God or indeed any event defined to be outside normal physics does not exist is the same as attempting to prove that it does. Both require assumptions which by their very nature cannot be proven. And in logic if one refutes the assumptions then the proof no longer has any value. This is of course different then taking a given proof, any proof, and invalidating it. Either because the proof is badly formed or because, as above, the assumptions are rejected. It is of course not up to the person that rejected an assumption to then prove the assumption false. Rather it is up to the original author of the proof to then validate the assumption to the reader. Additionally one often forgets or attempts to ignore than one does not actually need to be a theist, agnostic or atheist. Humans are more flexible than that because they can choose to simply ignore the question altogether. Similar to ignoring who will win a national sport championship at the start of a season.
"I refuse to prove that I exist." -- God, HHGTTG
-
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
Jeremy Falcon
-
Q: What's the difference between an atheist and a theist? A: One thinks they're smarter with no proof the other thinks God is smarter and sees signs of it everywhere. I guarantee all y'all gonna be singing a different tune when you come near the end of your life.
Jeremy Falcon
-
BernardIE5317 wrote:
as for me i have always beeen agnostic
To me, there's more intelligence behind that than atheism - which is also a religion. I think most atheists confuse God with the flawed personification of God. Which is 100% flawed. But that speaks more to the flaws of man than God. I'll just say this, there are things I've seen that cannot be explained by coincidence. Some may call it the law of attraction or whatever, but it's the same thing. Funny video btw.
Jeremy Falcon
-
den2k88 wrote:
What makes one true and the other false?
Trying to prove that God or indeed any event defined to be outside normal physics does not exist is the same as attempting to prove that it does. Both require assumptions which by their very nature cannot be proven. And in logic if one refutes the assumptions then the proof no longer has any value. This is of course different then taking a given proof, any proof, and invalidating it. Either because the proof is badly formed or because, as above, the assumptions are rejected. It is of course not up to the person that rejected an assumption to then prove the assumption false. Rather it is up to the original author of the proof to then validate the assumption to the reader. Additionally one often forgets or attempts to ignore than one does not actually need to be a theist, agnostic or atheist. Humans are more flexible than that because they can choose to simply ignore the question altogether. Similar to ignoring who will win a national sport championship at the start of a season.
many assumptions in your discussion of assumptions .
-
Q: What's the difference between an atheist and a theist? A: One thinks they're smarter with no proof the other thinks God is smarter and sees signs of it everywhere. I guarantee all y'all gonna be singing a different tune when you come near the end of your life.
Jeremy Falcon
if a God exists who is he she it ? he she it presumably is an entity being "person" . why that particular entity being "person" is God and not another . how did he she it get the job ?
-
if a God exists who is he she it ? he she it presumably is an entity being "person" . why that particular entity being "person" is God and not another . how did he she it get the job ?
Let's assume one can't see past the personification of God with questions like that... Assuming neither of us are color blind, how do we know when you see the color green it's in fact the same color I see when I see green? The atheist would say, "oh we have the same color receptors in the eye, blah blah". But, how do we know for sure? In the context of this discussion one might also say, "we don't, so that proves my doubt". But, we trust that we do as system of understanding of existence for a concept none of us barely understand. Saying we understand because we know what green means to _us_ is a shallow misrepresentation of the point and only demonstrates a person cannot think deep enough. That's same with God. If you equate God with the likes of Santa, then you're doing it wrong buddy.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
I guarantee all y'all gonna be singing a different tune when you come near the end of your life.
I guarantee that you won't be disappointed when your days are counted. You won't be anything.
I told you to leave me alone. I don't need a commie who argues about pics of children talking to me. Go away. I don't associate with evil. Have enough self-respect to stop. And go be the miserable person we all know you really are.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
To me, there's more intelligence behind that than atheism - which is also a religion
Just like my favorite hobby is not to collect stamps.
You're not intelligent. You're sick. Go away.
Jeremy Falcon
-
You're not intelligent. You're sick. Go away.
Jeremy Falcon
-
I told you to leave me alone. I don't need a commie who argues about pics of children talking to me. Go away. I don't associate with evil. Have enough self-respect to stop. And go be the miserable person we all know you really are.
Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy: I have to remind you of UDHR Article 19. Please note that my posts are directed to every reader of this forum. Others may care for what I write, even if it was triggered by something you wrote. You have no right to censor what other people read, written by others than yourself, certainly not on the grounds that it is triggered by what you wrote. You have no god-given right to have the last word in a conversation. That is a right I might give you, by not answering to your last word, but that is my choice.
-
Let's assume one can't see past the personification of God with questions like that... Assuming neither of us are color blind, how do we know when you see the color green it's in fact the same color I see when I see green? The atheist would say, "oh we have the same color receptors in the eye, blah blah". But, how do we know for sure? In the context of this discussion one might also say, "we don't, so that proves my doubt". But, we trust that we do as system of understanding of existence for a concept none of us barely understand. Saying we understand because we know what green means to _us_ is a shallow misrepresentation of the point and only demonstrates a person cannot think deep enough. That's same with God. If you equate God with the likes of Santa, then you're doing it wrong buddy.
Jeremy Falcon
If you take the entire set of laws of nature, both those that we know well and those we do not yet fully understand, and call it "god", that is OK with me. I call them laws of nature. If you say that some entity can tell nature and its laws to bug off, set aside the laws, then I am not with you. Like setting aside math: 1 + 1 is no longer 2. Or logic: true OR false is not necessarily true. If you dead serious present an entity that can cancel math, logic and laws of nature, then you make me stall. (Well, not actually - to me it is so far out that I do not care to spend the effort of stalling). If math, logic and laws of nature are absolute, then there is no need for an entity that can_not_ set them aside. If there really was such an entity, it would be noticeable, in ways that left no doubt. Like math: If I got this many: *** and this many: ** and add them together, I obviously have this many: *****. Noone in their right senses would argue that. If someone says: I've got a god that can make *** + ** to be **** or ******! then I consider that person not to be in his right senses, even if he refers to something he calls 'god'. As long as that god is not willing to really show his ability to set my addition aside (without stealing one * away, or let an extra one roll out of his sleeve), then I tend to think that this 'god' entity only exists in the fantasy of the person promoting the belief. I will not be willing to cease believing in math, logic and laws of nature even on my dying day, no matter what you "know". (Jeremy: Don't forget UDHR Article 19 this time!)
-
Q: What's the difference between an atheist and a theist? A: One thinks they're smarter with no proof the other thinks God is smarter and sees signs of it everywhere. I guarantee all y'all gonna be singing a different tune when you come near the end of your life.
Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
I guarantee all y'all gonna be singing a different tune when you come near the end of your life.
William Shakespeare Wrote:
Hell is empty, and all the devils are here
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
-
Sander Rossel wrote:
I guess that makes me an 1/8 theist.
What makes up the other 7/8? I consider myself to be a Transient Agnostic Misotheist who isn't quite sure if he's also a Dysthiest. I might be Polythiestic, but I might be Monotheistic. I can't figure that out because I'm Agnostic. If God does exist, he's severely bipolar. One minute, he's flooding the entire Earth to kill everything. The next minute he creates a rainbow as a symbol showing that he will never flood the Earth ever again. That's nice and all, but we all know the next time he kills everything on Earth, he'll use fire. I think He may be a few tacos short of a combination plate.
Steve Raw wrote:
One minute, he's flooding the entire Earth to kill everything. The next minute he creates a rainbow as a symbol showing that he will never flood the Earth ever again. That's nice and all, but we all know the next time he kills everything on Earth, he'll use fire.
The rainbow (Genesis 9, 12-15) is a promise that God will not destroy the world again by flood. But a few verses earlier (Genesis 8, 22) God promises that the laws of nature will not change. That seems to preclude universal floods, fires, etc. Of course God said nothing about us doing it to ourselves. :~
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
-
if a God exists who is he she it ? he she it presumably is an entity being "person" . why that particular entity being "person" is God and not another . how did he she it get the job ?
Douglas Adams wrote:
Oolon Colluphid is the author of the "trilogy of philosophical blockbusters" entitled Where God Went Wrong, Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes, and Who is this God Person Anyway?. He later used the Babel Fish argument as the basis for a fourth book, entitled Well, That About Wraps It Up For God.
:)
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
I guarantee all y'all gonna be singing a different tune when you come near the end of your life.
William Shakespeare Wrote:
Hell is empty, and all the devils are here
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
Just because someone writes a play doesn't make them the arbiter of truth. Also, my statement doesn't _necessarily_ mean there's a hell, insofar as the common understanding of it. Granted, I can see the inference given its popularity. But anyway, I'd not use a playwriter as a gauge to determine anything of substance without first doing my own thinking.
Jeremy Falcon