Conquer Club

is really really bothering me. I'd like to see proof of a 'higher power'. And don't say 'well there's no way you can disprove it' because that's more annoying...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

Not that I buy into it... but it's a thought.

RELIGION YEAH UH! WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! YEAH UH!

Snorri1234 wrote:RELIGION YEAH UH! WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! YEAH UH!

Say it again y'all.

There is no concrete proof of a higher power, or for that matter of evolution and the Big bang that can't be explained thouroughly by another religion/realm of science. That's why I'm agnostc .

Proof you say. For that we must turn to Sir Andrew Willes and his fantastic finding that all rational semistable elliptical curves are modular which by implication provides proof to Fermat's Last Theorum that it is impossible to seperate any power higher than the second into two like powers. Hope that clears it up.

Bertros Bertros wrote:Proof you say. For that we must turn to Sir Andrew Willes and his fantastic finding that all rational semistable elliptical curves are modular which by implication provides proof to Fermat's Last Theorum that it is impossible to seperate any power higher than the second into two like powers. Hope that clears it up.

Best
answer
ever

Bertros Bertros wrote:Proof you say. For that we must turn to Sir Andrew Willes and his fantastic finding that all rational semistable elliptical curves are modular which by implication provides proof to Fermat's Last Theorum that it is impossible to seperate any power higher than the second into two like powers. Hope that clears it up.

My math teacher showed me a video about the guy who proved Fermat's last theory. Biggest waste of 7 years EVER.

In response to the original topic: There is no definitive single "proof" that there is a God. There is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence and some compelling philosophical argument, but there is no one rigorous proof for it. Descartes tried, but his were rather weak.

The case for God is not restricted to any one area of knowledge or way of knowing. It's a synergy of all of them. There are several currently active threads in which issues in each are being discussed, so I'd refer you to them

ParadiceCity9 wrote:is really really bothering me. I'd like to see proof of a 'higher power'.

Sure this is easy.
X^Y X Raised to the Power of Y
X^(Y+1) X Raised to a "higher power."

(For every Y there exists Y+1 which is higher than Y)
(This would have been cuter if we had support for the sup tag.)

Don't worry. Your proof will come most likely in this life time. Whether it be from old prophecies taking place or from a person whom God chooses. If you lived back when Jesus was alive you wouldn't even be asking.

Of course there's always the Bible and other sources to which God himself directed and inspired.

I like to refer to it loosely as God's biography. Of course it's alot of teaching also.

edit-- screw it, I want my own topic.

Ditocoaf wrote:edit-- screw it, I want my own topic.

Eh?

Neoteny wrote:

Ditocoaf wrote:edit-- screw it, I want my own topic.

Eh?

oh, I posted a really long post, then decided not to hijack this thread. It's up now, if you feel like reading an essay on an over-discussed topic.

Ditocoaf wrote:

Neoteny wrote:

Ditocoaf wrote:edit-- screw it, I want my own topic.

Eh?

oh, I posted a really long post, then decided not to hijack this thread. It's up now, if you feel like reading an essay on an over-discussed topic.

Over-discussed it isn't, and read it I have done.

Neoteny wrote:

Ditocoaf wrote:oh, I posted a really long post, then decided not to hijack this thread. It's up now, if you feel like reading an essay on an over-discussed topic.

Over-discussed it isn't, and read it I have done.

Have you ever read The End of Faith by Samuel Harris? Excellent book. The part I really like is how he puts forth the possibility of an absolute moral code that's not grounded in an external all-powerful being. If you simply start from the assumption that things that cause more happiness than suffering are good, and things that cause more suffering (physical, emotional, phsychological, or anything) than happiness are bad, then potentially a sort of "science" of good and evil could be developed. The concept has some flaws, but I like the overall idea.

Ditocoaf wrote:

Neoteny wrote:

Ditocoaf wrote:oh, I posted a really long post, then decided not to hijack this thread. It's up now, if you feel like reading an essay on an over-discussed topic.

Over-discussed it isn't, and read it I have done.

Have you ever read The End of Faith by Samuel Harris? Excellent book. The part I really like is how he puts forth the possibility of an absolute moral code that's not grounded in an external all-powerful being. If you simply start from the assumption that things that cause more happiness than suffering are good, and things that cause more suffering (physical, emotional, phsychological, or anything) than happiness are bad, then potentially a sort of "science" of good and evil could be developed. The concept has some flaws, but I like the overall idea.

I have not, but it is on my to-do list. Your topic has a response. :]

would one of those flaws be that what is good for us does not always make anyone happy?

Good and evil seem a little complex to be weighed in terms of happiness.

MR. Nate wrote:would one of those flaws be that what is good for us does not always make anyone happy?

Good and evil seem a little complex to be weighed in terms of happiness.

And vice versa. It's quite a big hole in that theory. I was thinking the same thing Nate as I read through the posts. You got to it first though I see.

You could try "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. For any more, the real answer is .. sorry to dissapoint you, but the proof must come from within. Why one person believes and another does not is beyond me.

PLAYER57832 wrote:You could try "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. For any more, the real answer is .. sorry to dissapoint you, but the proof must come from within. Why one person believes and another does not is beyond me.

I just read the answer to that question last night. I refer you to the sower of the seed. You'll find it in under Mark 4.

Ditocoaf wrote:

Neoteny wrote:

Ditocoaf wrote:oh, I posted a really long post, then decided not to hijack this thread. It's up now, if you feel like reading an essay on an over-discussed topic.

Over-discussed it isn't, and read it I have done.

Have you ever read The End of Faith by Samuel Harris? Excellent book. The part I really like is how he puts forth the possibility of an absolute moral code that's not grounded in an external all-powerful being. If you simply start from the assumption that things that cause more happiness than suffering are good, and things that cause more suffering (physical, emotional, phsychological, or anything) than happiness are bad, then potentially a sort of "science" of good and evil could be developed. The concept has some flaws, but I like the overall idea.

I think that by defining good and evil, he seems to be establishing himself as God.

As an atheist I don't see why you would accept that basic assumption.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:

Ditocoaf wrote:

Neoteny wrote:

Ditocoaf wrote:oh, I posted a really long post, then decided not to hijack this thread. It's up now, if you feel like reading an essay on an over-discussed topic.

Over-discussed it isn't, and read it I have done.

Have you ever read The End of Faith by Samuel Harris? Excellent book. The part I really like is how he puts forth the possibility of an absolute moral code that's not grounded in an external all-powerful being. If you simply start from the assumption that things that cause more happiness than suffering are good, and things that cause more suffering (physical, emotional, phsychological, or anything) than happiness are bad, then potentially a sort of "science" of good and evil could be developed. The concept has some flaws, but I like the overall idea.

I think that by defining good and evil, he seems to be establishing himself as God.

As an atheist I don't see why you would accept that basic assumption.

So god defines what is good and bad, right?

MeDeFe wrote:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:

Ditocoaf wrote:

Neoteny wrote:

Ditocoaf wrote:oh, I posted a really long post, then decided not to hijack this thread. It's up now, if you feel like reading an essay on an over-discussed topic.

Over-discussed it isn't, and read it I have done.

Have you ever read The End of Faith by Samuel Harris? Excellent book. The part I really like is how he puts forth the possibility of an absolute moral code that's not grounded in an external all-powerful being. If you simply start from the assumption that things that cause more happiness than suffering are good, and things that cause more suffering (physical, emotional, phsychological, or anything) than happiness are bad, then potentially a sort of "science" of good and evil could be developed. The concept has some flaws, but I like the overall idea.

I think that by defining good and evil, he seems to be establishing himself as God.

As an atheist I don't see why you would accept that basic assumption.

So god defines what is good and bad, right?

Exactly, athiests who do believe in absolute morality (obviously) don't believe it would come from a god, but is merely a way in which humans view the world.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:

Ditocoaf wrote:

Neoteny wrote:
Over-discussed it isn't, and read it I have done.

Have you ever read The End of Faith by Samuel Harris? Excellent book. The part I really like is how he puts forth the possibility of an absolute moral code that's not grounded in an external all-powerful being. If you simply start from the assumption that things that cause more happiness than suffering are good, and things that cause more suffering (physical, emotional, phsychological, or anything) than happiness are bad, then potentially a sort of "science" of good and evil could be developed. The concept has some flaws, but I like the overall idea.

I think that by defining good and evil, he seems to be establishing himself as God.

As an atheist I don't see why you would accept that basic assumption.

So we're back with the assumption that good and evil can only come from God?

Snorri1234 wrote:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:

Ditocoaf wrote:

Neoteny wrote:
Over-discussed it isn't, and read it I have done.

Have you ever read The End of Faith by Samuel Harris? Excellent book. The part I really like is how he puts forth the possibility of an absolute moral code that's not grounded in an external all-powerful being. If you simply start from the assumption that things that cause more happiness than suffering are good, and things that cause more suffering (physical, emotional, phsychological, or anything) than happiness are bad, then potentially a sort of "science" of good and evil could be developed. The concept has some flaws, but I like the overall idea.

I think that by defining good and evil, he seems to be establishing himself as God.

As an atheist I don't see why you would accept that basic assumption.

So we're back with the assumption that good and evil can only come from God?

Well it has to come from somewhere, and for the sake of argument I'm semantically labeling that source as "God." Personally, I am unwilling to allow anything short of an all-powerful being define good and evil for me, which is why I'm curious why someone would allow some random guy to define it for him.