Everyone start laughing at them.

Ennui said:
There is absolutely no reason for there to be a god.

The existence of our universe proves only that our universe exists, not that god exists.

End.
Click to expand...

A worthy application of Occam's Razor
 
spookymooky said:
Apparently the burden of proof lies on my, though you must refute all these arguments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Existence_of_God/Franc's_Fork

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_morality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_argument_for_the_existence_of_God
Click to expand...

Wow... this is the ultimate exercise in pointlessness since every one of those has a "Critiques & Objections" section.

I also don't appreciate your flooding technique when it comes to arguments. If you can't explain something, don't bury your opposition with external links, because then you're doing nothing but parroting information and prove yourself incapable of making an argument yourself.
 
I'm not making the arguments. I'm saying that they exist. My point is that rational arguments show that religion can be rational.

Probably shouldnt have posted in response to that, but I want to make sure that this is very clear: I'm not trying to prove that God exists, as my own thinking tells me this not to be the case. I want to show that religion can be rational.

I also realize I will not sway you, just as you will not sway me; that's the nature of people: to believe what we want to believe. While we might persuade a few others on the forum, I would be very surprised if either of us were to change our position in this sort of debate.
 
EDIT: Never mind. I have no urge to get into an epistemological argument right now.
 
Absinthe said:
EDIT: Never mind. I have no urge to get into an epistemological argument right now.
Click to expand...
Likewise, I just wrote up about 1000 words of a post about histories of various world religions, psychological theories on the origins of religion, evidence for evolution, the changing nature of the teachings of every religion, the conflicting views within the New Testament over who Jesus was and what Jesus did, and a bunch of other crap... then, I thought, "I don't really care about religion... why am I writing this? More specifically, why post it on halflife2.net? It's a huge waste of time." So, instead, I'm going to take the time I save and use it to squeeze out a quick one...
 
spookymooky said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_morality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_argument_for_the_existence_of_God
Click to expand...

Cosmological Argument:
1. Everything has a cause.
2. Nothing can cause itself.
3. Everything is caused by another thing.
4. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
5. There must be a first cause.
6. God was the first cause.
Click to expand...


Point five is circular, and is in conflict with point two.

Another alternate argument to this;
Point four on this is disputable. Firstly because you cannot prove that a casual chain exists in the formation of the universe. Secondly because the existance of infinity in the physical world is proven by the law of thermodynamics, in which its shown that energy cannot be removed and would countinue infinitely.


Teleological argument:
1. X is too complex to have occurred randomly or naturally.
2. Therefore, X must have been created by an intelligent being.
3. Y is that intelligent being.
4. Therefore, Y exists.
Click to expand...

How can Y create something more complex than itself, then? unless Z created Y? in which case, who created Z? This is also a violation of the Ontological argument.
This is a logical fallacy due to the flaw in the first point. It is plainly illustrated in established science that complex things can evolve naturally, through natural selection and evolution, chemical reactions, etc. Its basic science.

Ontological argument:
1) God is the entity than which no greater entity can be conceived.
2) The concept of God exists in human understanding.
3) God does not exist in reality (assumed in order to refute).
4) The concept of God existing in reality exists in human understanding.
5) If an entity exists in reality and in human understanding, this entity is greater than it would have been if it existed only in human understanding (a statement of existence as a perfection).
6) from 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 An entity can be conceived which is greater than God, the entity than which no greater entity can be conceived (logical self-contradiction).
7) Assumption 3 is wrong, therefore God exists in reality (assuming 1, 2, 4, and 5 are accepted as true).
Click to expand...

This is a philosophical argument that god can be comprehended to exist in reality. The logic in it is circular and relies upon the first point being true. The first point cannot be verified or otherwise found to be true by anyone or anything, and so, we can't use the argument to develop a logical proof.

It is a violation of the teleological argument

Thats all I can think of about those for now.
This is a good site for logic: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
I'm sure I broke some rules.

I dont see anything above that isnt based on faith to begin with, heresay, or logical puzzles without any observable science.
 
As part of the decision, the Board of Education also went so far as to redefine science itself, saying that it is 'no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.'"
Click to expand...

Yes is sodding well is:

The english sodding dictionary said:
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Click to expand...

Translation for those of you (mis)educated at a Kansas school...
Studying the natural world for explinations as to why things are the way they are, i.e. natural sodding phenomena. Arrogance. You can't rewrite pre-defined defenitions just because they happen to make you look stupid.



As to people that are pissed off at people mocking their religion. Why? You must accept that people that do not believe will always view you in the same way as you view people who worship Absinthe's spoon. Faith and worship for anything not cultuarlly acceptable is considered insanity. Why are your faiths accepted? Because enough people have faith...
 
OCybrManO said:
Likewise, I just wrote up about 1000 words of a post about histories of various world religions, psychological theories on the origins of religion, evidence for evolution, the changing nature of the teachings of every religion, the conflicting views within the New Testament over who Jesus was and what Jesus did, and a bunch of other crap... then, I thought, "I don't really care about religion... why am I writing this? More specifically, why post it on halflife2.net? It's a huge waste of time." So, instead, I'm going to take the time I save and use it to squeeze out a quick one...
Click to expand...
Well, if you have it saved, mind pming it to me? I don't want to dispute it, just curious as to what you wrote. This kind of stuff tends to interest me.
 
Absinthe said:
I took a glance and it said something about an atheist worldview. I then closed it because it because there atheism is not a worldview.
Click to expand...
Something told me you'd do something along those lines. Worth a shot anyway.
 
I'll be a bit more honest. I've given it a bit more of a glance and I'm still seeing a lot of rhetoric, circular reasoning using the Bible, and misrepresentations.

I'll give it a better look at some later point, but I doubt it holds anything I haven't read already.
 
How do you think the universe in its present form came into being, Absinthe?
 
spookymooky said:
How do you think the universe in its present form came into being, Absinthe?
Click to expand...

I don't pretend to know.
 
spookymooky said:
How do you think the universe in its present form came into being, Absinthe?
Click to expand...

God happened to sneeze at the exact same time that Allah vomitted.
 
Nat Turner said:
It's not hard to rule out something with a 0.1% likelihood.
Click to expand...
If I flipped a thousand-sided die, and came up with a 1, it wouldnt be impossible.
 
spookymooky said:
If I flipped a thousand-sided die, and came up with a 1, it wouldnt be impossible.
Click to expand...

So you're saying because you can't absolutely rule it out, it should be believed or presented? Should you present every other weird scenario you can think off the top of your head too?
 
spookymooky said:
But you rule our intelligent design?
Click to expand...

I don't rule it out. I just don't think there's any reason to buy into it.

If a creator being exists, it exists independently of any evidence or lack thereof. The same can be said for a multitude of things. But they are meaningless if we cannot find good reason to believe in them. ID, as it stands, is pseudoscience charading as a legitimate theory. It makes a lot of assumptions and horribly warps science to fit around it. The comparison to the Flying Spaghetti Monster couldn't be more apt.

Spooky, I think that the universe is literally a giant cosmic dinner plate and that we will be harpooned by a giant fork and shoved into the mouth of large gluttonous entity within the next thousand years. Is my belief a legitimate topic ripe for teaching in the public education system?
 
Nat Turner said:
So you're saying because you can't absolutely rule it out, it should be believed or presented? Should you present every other weird scenario you can think off the top of your head too?
Click to expand...
If it's widely accepted, I think it is alright to mention and explain it. I do not think it's alright to teach anything we don't know for sure as complete fact. And that includes pretty much anything other than math.
 
Do you understand what science is? You make logical or mathematical models from empirical evidence as a means to understand the universe and create theories. ID has no evidence. It is a random notion, not a theory.
 
spookymooky said:
If it's widely accepted, I think it is alright to mention and explain it. I do not think it's alright to teach anything we don't know for sure as complete fact. And that includes pretty much anything other than math.
Click to expand...

Sure it's ok to mention it and explain it, but in a politics or religion class, not a science class. It isn't science.
 
Nat Turner said:
Do you understand what science is? You make logical or mathematical models from empirical evidence as a means to understand the universe and create theories. ID has no evidence. It is a random notion, not a theory.
Click to expand...
The fact that matter/energy/time exists could be evidence towards ID. The fact that the universe is organized into laws. Not proof, but evidence.
 
spookymooky said:
The fact that matter/energy/time exists could be evidence towards ID. The fact that the universe is organized into laws. Not proof, but evidence.
Click to expand...

No, that's not evidence. That's just a random notion. And popular opinion doesn't make something evidence. For hundreds of years, popular opinion once forced everyone to teach that the sun went around the Earth. Doesn't make it true.
 
What Nat said. What you are describing is not evidence. You are only baselessly attributing natural phenomena to a creator being, as well as anthropomorphizing God (which is a sticky enough issue as it is). You make the implication that because the universe has laws (defined by humans, I should add), there is reason to believe there is some kind of lawmaker. But that is not the case.
 
Uriel said:
Keep the Religion Bashing to yourself. Its really starting to bug me.
Click to expand...

You tell people to keep their religion to themselves, and I'll keep the bashing to myself. It's really starting to bother me.

Capice?
 
If I flipped a thousand-sided die, and came up with a 1, it wouldnt be impossible.
Click to expand...
I believe this universe is *inside* the eye of a giant chicken roaming along the intergalactic highways using solar wind as a surfing tool.

^ The above statement cannot be proved or disapproved therefore it is substantial. Add it to all the other "substantial" theorys out there and it'll be one out of a infinite number of theorys. Therefore, the chance of it being true is one over infinity. Therefore it MUST be true !
 
spookymooky said:
If it's widely accepted, I think it is alright to mention and explain it.
Click to expand...

Firstly, your claim that things should be accepted because you cant prove otherwise is a bit of broken logic known as "Argumentum ad ignorantiam". It is an argument that suggests a certain thing is true because there is no proof to the contrary. It is no basis for an argument. Wholly illegitimate.

Secondly, your point that I have quoted is also broken logic- "Argumentum ad numerum" is what its called. An assertion that the more people believe something, the more valid it is. Which is not the case.
 
DOES NOT COMPUTE

dragoncon2005-3618.jpg
 
xLostx said:
DOES NOT COMPUTE

Click to expand...
You're going to get banned for those pictures one day, you're just lucky they're hilarious :laugh:

Oh, and as right about everyone in this thread said : ID = Teh suck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top