Christian forums

[Neoteny]

I believe in these arguments. Now, the fact these cretins don't understand or know of them is beyond my control, so if I sound pretentious or patronizing, that's only an effect created by their sheer ignorance.
You can't seriously believe these clowns when they proclaim

If we reject the Bible, as well as all other religious texts, there is no real reason to believe in god. That's the logic behind it.

That's just idiotic.

I cannot express enough how much enjoyment I get seeing you trot my statement out again. Does it really bother you that much? You haven't offered any valid proofs, and I haven't heard any others, so I will stand by my statement.

Additionally, when we ask that you offer some of these amazingly lucid evidences for religion, you just keep repeating your old arguments that we have demonstrated aren't good enough and begin insulting everyones' intelligence who doesn't agree with you. We offer rebuttals to whatever philosopher you bring up and are then faced with a response similar in vein to "yu is a poopy-face." This is not a very good debate style, I must say.

[Neutrino]

My goal is clear and unequivocal : dismantle the ignorant and boorish notion that the Religious texts alone provide reason for belief in a Deity. It has not wavered since whatsit first made that statement a few pages back.

You're not doing fantastically well then...

Priori arguments do not count. The idea that something like God can be totally proved without a shread of evidence ever entering the debate is absurd. In fact, the logic they are based on is also quite frequently absurd too. Humanity cannot imagine infinity. Period. I can imagine 100 000 apples but not an infinite number. I can imagine 10 metres, but not an infinite distance. I can imagine a being of finite power, but not one of infinite power.

And since you are bound to make a claim that the "There is no God" side has yet to make any points, I'll transfer my arguments from the other thread (since you can never have enough simultaneous arguments on exactly the same subject) to here: the inhospitability of the universe to humanity. Creating a universe with the ticking timebomb known localy as entropy built in is not a smart move for an infinite God. No more humans, no more worship. It's almost as if God never created the universe...

[Napoleon Ier]

My goal is clear and unequivocal : dismantle the ignorant and boorish notion that the Religious texts alone provide reason for belief in a Deity. It has not wavered since whatsit first made that statement a few pages back.

Priori arguments do not count.

Well. In the immortal words of luns101 : you're now saying that 1+1 doesn't equal 2.

But that's an epistemological debate which I don't really even have to go into to prove my original point.

[Dancing Mustard]

So at the end of the day, we just proved that there's no God.














Again.







Right?

[Colossus]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh, the sheer hilarity of anyone referring to a 'smart move for God'. That's shit's funny! Neutrino, IF there is a supreme being, do you think that any human, as puny and finite as evolution has made us could ever see His mind? Seriously, that's no kind of argument! Saying the existence of entropy is evidence against the existence of God is ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. It's not a remotely scientific argument! You're saying that entropy means there is no God because you cannot imagine why a God would create a world with entropy. Do you still hide from the monsters in your closet by covering your head with your covers? Seriously, dude, I thought you were smarter than that. God cannot be proven. Nor can he be disproven. This has been proven time and time and time again with actual hard scientific data. Show me some logical reasoning that goes from entropy to NO GOD! without being filled with wild assumptions and you'll convince me.

[Snorri1234]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh, the sheer hilarity of anyone referring to a 'smart move for God'. That's shit's funny! Neutrino, IF there is a supreme being, do you think that any human, as puny and finite as evolution has made us could ever see His mind? Seriously, that's no kind of argument! Saying the existence of entropy is evidence against the existence of God is ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. It's not a remotely scientific argument! You're saying that entropy means there is no God because you cannot imagine why a God would create a world with entropy. Do you still hide from the monsters in your closet by covering your head with your covers? Seriously, dude, I thought you were smarter than that. God cannot be proven. Nor can he be disproven. This has been proven time and time and time again with actual hard scientific data. Show me some logical reasoning that goes from entropy to NO GOD! without being filled with wild assumptions and you'll convince me.

I must inform you that you are missing the point by quite a few miles.

[Napoleon Ier]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh, the sheer hilarity of anyone referring to a 'smart move for God'. That's shit's funny! Neutrino, IF there is a supreme being, do you think that any human, as puny and finite as evolution has made us could ever see His mind? Seriously, that's no kind of argument! Saying the existence of entropy is evidence against the existence of God is ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. It's not a remotely scientific argument! You're saying that entropy means there is no God because you cannot imagine why a God would create a world with entropy. Do you still hide from the monsters in your closet by covering your head with your covers? Seriously, dude, I thought you were smarter than that. God cannot be proven. Nor can he be disproven. This has been proven time and time and time again with actual hard scientific data. Show me some logical reasoning that goes from entropy to NO GOD! without being filled with wild assumptions and you'll convince me.

I must inform you that you are missing the point by quite a few miles.

When there is no real point, it's hard to find it.

[Dancing Mustard]

there is no real point, it's hard to find it.

That's not what your mum said last night.

Geddit?

[Napoleon Ier]

there is no real point, it's hard to find it.

That's not what your mum said last night.

Geddit?

She's not red-headed

[Snorri1234]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh, the sheer hilarity of anyone referring to a 'smart move for God'. That's shit's funny! Neutrino, IF there is a supreme being, do you think that any human, as puny and finite as evolution has made us could ever see His mind? Seriously, that's no kind of argument! Saying the existence of entropy is evidence against the existence of God is ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. It's not a remotely scientific argument! You're saying that entropy means there is no God because you cannot imagine why a God would create a world with entropy. Do you still hide from the monsters in your closet by covering your head with your covers? Seriously, dude, I thought you were smarter than that. God cannot be proven. Nor can he be disproven. This has been proven time and time and time again with actual hard scientific data. Show me some logical reasoning that goes from entropy to NO GOD! without being filled with wild assumptions and you'll convince me.

I must inform you that you are missing the point by quite a few miles.

When there is no real point, it's hard to find it.

The point is that it's not a proof for the non-existence of God. Just as all those a priori arguments aren't proof for God's existence.

It is however a decent argument. The bad design of this world for us has always been a ridiculous notion, and I always wondered about it. Ofcourse the "we can't possibly understand God"-rebuttal is always used, which shows how ridiculous the whole debate actually is.

[Guiscard]

God cannot be proven. Nor can he be disproven. This has been proven time and time and time again with actual hard scientific data.

So you agree to the original premise then?

You certainly don't agree with Nappy, who seems to believe outright any -logical proof article he comes across without giving any credence to the countless and decisive philosophical flaws in each one.

[Colossus]

Scientifically, there cannot be any proof or disproof of God. Over the last few days, I've made that argument in the 'Are atheists more intelligent than theists?' thread. The crux of my argument is that the physics of quantum mechanics have clearly demonstrated that the universe is not deterministic and can never be fully defined or described by Man. Since only a full description of existence in the language of Man would constitute disproof of God, and science has proven that a complete description of existence is impossible, science has therefore proven that it can never disprove God. And since the most fundamental ingredient of scientific thought is the notion that nothing can ever be completely proven, no one can prove God's existence either.


As for the original premise, I really don't know what it is because I haven't gone back and read the whole thread.

[Napoleon Ier]

That is a good point. However there is reason to believe in God.

[Guiscard]

Scientifically, there cannot be any proof or disproof of God. Over the last few days, I've made that argument in the 'Are atheists more intelligent than theists?' thread. The crux of my argument is that the physics of quantum mechanics have clearly demonstrated that the universe is not deterministic and can never be fully defined or described by Man. Since only a full description of existence in the language of Man would constitute disproof of God, and science has proven that a complete description of existence is impossible, science has therefore proven that it can never disprove God. And since the most fundamental ingredient of scientific thought is the notion that nothing can ever be completely proven, no one can prove God's existence either.


As for the original premise, I really don't know what it is because I haven't gone back and read the whole thread.

The original premise was that religious texts constitute the only 'real' proof of God. God is unprovable in any other way. If we don't believe in religious texts or teachings then, essentially, there is really no reason to believe in, or proof of, God.

It has sparked such vitriolic lexical gems as 'I believe in these [non-religious text based] arguments. Now, the fact these cretins don't understand or know of them is beyond my control, so if I sound pretentious or patronizing, that's only an effect created by their sheer ignorance. You can't seriously believe these clowns...'

[Colossus]

Of course religious texts are not 'proof' of God. There is no proof of God that can be put on paper, in my opinion. I'm a believer because of two things:

1. I know from my studies that the best scientific explanation for the natural world to date demonstrates the non-disprovability of God AND requires a built-in mechanism through which a supreme being *could* act if such a supreme being did exist.

2. I have had many experiences in which I have felt what I have interpreted to be the presence of the divine.

That's it. I've been studying science for about the past 12 years or so. That study has been motivated by a constant drive to learn about how this world, particularly living stuff, *really* works. During that time, my belief system has changed A LOT, but I have yet to come across some good scientific explanation for the times that I have experienced what I have interpreted to be the presence of the divine. I still have such experiences, and unless someone someday can give a firm scientific explanation why those experiences exist (and I don't think that explanation is possible because of quantum mechanics), I will still believe.

But as for the whole religious texts being proof...well that's really just nonsense. That's like saying that scientology is real because L. Ron Hubbard wrote it down or the the giant spotted snorkack is real because Calvin and Hobbes saw it in the Sunday funnies. In my opinion, each believer's reason to believe boils down to personal experience and what feels right. People can dress up theism or atheism how ever they want, but both sides boil down to that.

[Neoteny]

Scientifically, there cannot be any proof or disproof of God. Over the last few days, I've made that argument in the 'Are atheists more intelligent than theists?' thread. The crux of my argument is that the physics of quantum mechanics have clearly demonstrated that the universe is not deterministic and can never be fully defined or described by Man. Since only a full description of existence in the language of Man would constitute disproof of God, and science has proven that a complete description of existence is impossible, science has therefore proven that it can never disprove God. And since the most fundamental ingredient of scientific thought is the notion that nothing can ever be completely proven, no one can prove God's existence either.


As for the original premise, I really don't know what it is because I haven't gone back and read the whole thread.

The original premise was that religious texts constitute the only 'real' proof of God. God is unprovable in any other way. If we don't believe in religious texts or teachings then, essentially, there is really no reason to believe in, or proof of, God.

It has sparked such vitriolic lexical gems as 'I believe in these [non-religious text based] arguments. Now, the fact these cretins don't understand or know of them is beyond my control, so if I sound pretentious or patronizing, that's only an effect created by their sheer ignorance. You can't seriously believe these clowns...'

Also, "poopy-face."

[Neutrino]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh, the sheer hilarity of anyone referring to a 'smart move for God'. That's shit's funny! Neutrino, IF there is a supreme being, do you think that any human, as puny and finite as evolution has made us could ever see His mind? Seriously, that's no kind of argument! Saying the existence of entropy is evidence against the existence of God is ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. It's not a remotely scientific argument! You're saying that entropy means there is no God because you cannot imagine why a God would create a world with entropy. Do you still hide from the monsters in your closet by covering your head with your covers? Seriously, dude, I thought you were smarter than that. God cannot be proven. Nor can he be disproven. This has been proven time and time and time again with actual hard scientific data. Show me some logical reasoning that goes from entropy to NO GOD! without being filled with wild assumptions and you'll convince me.

I wasn't seriously trying to prove there is no God with that (a pointless task if ever there was one). What I was doing is attempting to get Napoleon to post something more interesting and debate-worthy than "priori > evidence".

[Colossus]

It's just that you've brought up the entropy argument several times now. You seem to put a lot of stock in it, and it really doesn't hold water. The fact is that the UNIVERSE tends toward higher entropy. Yes, there is local tendency toward higher entropy, but enthalpic interactions are always acting in opposition, and in the end, systems behave according to the total energy of these two competing contributions. The amazing thing is that life exists at all. It does seem to be the ultimate 'F*** you' to entropy. As a matter of fact, the really, really amazing thing is that living systems often turn entropy on its head and use the energy available in creating local disorder to drive order in other places. The reason that proteins and DNA have the structures that they have (which drives their function) is because of entropic effects of water as a solvent. Really amazing stuff. Water is so driven toward higher entropy that it forces all the larger molecules of our body into specific shapes that lets them have function. Without entropy as a major component, life as we know it couldn't exist.