Is there a god?

[PLAYER57832]

the primary reason religion developed is to "control the masses"? not as an answer to physical phenomena like lightning/stars/etc.? that's a very dismal outlook lol

I'd like to know how religion tries to explain light and stars.

They are balls of mass experiencing nuclear and other reactions, thus resulting in a giant ball of light.

The limits those saying "science and not religion" try to place on science are no more real than the limits religious places on science.

That is, religion is firm about morals, some other details (there is a God.. or some other type of power, depending on the belief system). Science identifies specific facts based on various mostly, but not entirely, tangible proofs. (ice melts, fossils exist, etc.) BUT... neither is entirely limited to that. Religious belief relies on some proof, including tangible proof and science depends very heavily upon open minds willing to explore even that which seems utterly insane initially. Science relies on faith/belief as much as proof to fully expand and grow.

Beyond that, religion can try to claim science wrong. Occasionally they actually prove valid (thinking of things like some tribes referring to a "spirit" in a particular substance that actually winds up providing a real science cure.. but there are likely other examples). Science absolutely has proven many religious beliefs false. However, therein lies the arrogance. Many want to sasy that because science has proven so much of ancient religious belief false, therefore it will prove ALL religious belief false. Except.. they ignore the fact that science itself has proven most of "ancient" science false. From alchemy to much of modern science, the number of missteps far outweighs the number of valid conclusions.

Not sure about that. Most religions are about ethics rather than morals. Indeed, in Abrahamic faiths, morality is considered original sin- the knowledge of good and evil as opposed to obedience to rules. Religion is indeed firm about about morals, at least with regards to Christianity- they are part of the deepest most original sin. Knowledge of good and evil.

Humanity fell from ethics into morality.

Haven't had my coffee yet, so a tad esoteric, even for me, right now.

Seriously, in the way I was speaking thats a distinction without a difference. I get what you are saying, and it is a good point. I would put it into a slightly different framework, but I think in modern usage the terms "ethics" and "morals" are pretty interchangable... at least at the superficial or general level.

[natty dread]

Beyond that, religion can try to claim science wrong. Occasionally they actually prove valid (thinking of things like some tribes referring to a "spirit" in a particular substance that actually winds up providing a real science cure.. but there are likely other examples). Science absolutely has proven many religious beliefs false. However, therein lies the arrogance. Many want to sasy that because science has proven so much of ancient religious belief false, therefore it will prove ALL religious belief false. Except.. they ignore the fact that science itself has proven most of "ancient" science false. From alchemy to much of modern science, the number of missteps far outweighs the number of valid conclusions.

I disagree.

When some natives have a religious belief about some plant being able to cure some ailment, and they attribute the cause to "spirits", they may be correct about the curing ability of the plant but not about it's actual cause. It takes science to investigate the matter and find the actual cause to the curing ability of that plant, for example, some chemical or organism within it. Thus, in such a situation, science is not confirming a religious belief, it's in fact refuting it, and providing a better explanation.

Also, while alchemy and such has been proved false, I wouldn't call it "ancient science". The scientific method hasn't really been followed that long, and what you refer to as "ancient science" is really nothing more than another brand of superstition, only with a sort of science-y "feel" to it. Anyway, whenever science shows earlier scientific work to be mistaken, that's not a flaw in science, it's exactly how science is supposed to work - it doesn't invalidate science, it only makes it more accurate.

The fallacy is assuming that since we can't know anything for 100% sure, then everything is equally possible. This isn't so. Even though anything we know today may be refuted in the future, and current theories will be made more accurate, it is not a reason to discount current knowledge, because it's still the best knowledge we have. And if we discard the current knowledge, there's no way to get to those future discoveries.

[natty dread]

No one lives near Chernobyl or Hiroshima or Nagasaki today.

This guy... you don't actually bother finding out about the truth of anything that you claim, do you???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima

As of 2006, the city has an estimated population of 1,154,391

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagasaki

Population (January 1, 2009)
• Total 446,007

[Woodruff]

Sisko's a beast.

Worst Star Trek Universe EVER!

[Woodruff]

Proven? I'd have to absolutely say "no"...if it were provable, it would have been done by now.

Everything that can be invented has been invented.

Are you asserting that God was just recently invented?

[john9blue]

Are you asserting that God was just recently invented?

i'm asserting that your claim that "everything that is provable has been proven" is remarkably short-sighted

[PLAYER57832]

Beyond that, religion can try to claim science wrong. Occasionally they actually prove valid (thinking of things like some tribes referring to a "spirit" in a particular substance that actually winds up providing a real science cure.. but there are likely other examples). Science absolutely has proven many religious beliefs false. However, therein lies the arrogance. Many want to sasy that because science has proven so much of ancient religious belief false, therefore it will prove ALL religious belief false. Except.. they ignore the fact that science itself has proven most of "ancient" science false. From alchemy to much of modern science, the number of missteps far outweighs the number of valid conclusions.

I disagree.

When some natives have a religious belief about some plant being able to cure some ailment, and they attribute the cause to "spirits", they may be correct about the curing ability of the plant but not about it's actual cause. It takes science to investigate the matter and find the actual cause to the curing ability of that plant, for example, some chemical or organism within it. Thus, in such a situation, science is not confirming a religious belief, it's in fact refuting it, and providing a better explanation.

But you are putting a narrow focus and your own interpretation on that. See, the fact that science can provide an explanation doesn't preclude the possibility that "spirit" IS involved.

This is the diacotamy that makes no sense. The argument is that religion only applies when there is no other explanation and then as soon as a corollary explanation is found, poof..that proves religion is wrong. But, that's like saying that because I can prove that showing you a certain picture or such creates a certain synaptic reaction, presenting you with that picture cannot cause x to happen. A Christian accepts that God is "behind" all of science. It was God that set up the system. That we now understand better than "poof.. it just happened" is no more proof that God doesn't exist than knowing those synaptic pathways is proof that neither pictures nor smells generate sensational responses in humans. And, equally false.

Also, while alchemy and such has been proved false, I wouldn't call it "ancient science".

Yes, of course, technically true. It is, however the precursor and did lay the foundation for what we call science today.

Anyway, whenever science shows earlier scientific work to be mistaken, that's not a flaw in science, it's exactly how science is supposed to work - it doesn't invalidate science, it only makes it more accurate.

EXACTLY!
And when science provides explanations for things that religious individuals believe.. it merely affirms, does not disprove that belief, except when there is an affirmative and definitive other explanation. For example, we do know that Thor is not literally pounding his hammer to make lightening. That God created the Earth.. has not been disproven.

The fallacy is assuming that since we can't know anything for 100% sure, then everything is equally possible. This isn't so. Even though anything we know today may be refuted in the future, and current theories will be made more accurate, it is not a reason to discount current knowledge, because it's still the best knowledge we have. And if we discard the current knowledge, there's no way to get to those future discoveries.

Who said anything about disproving? I said that until things ARE disproven, the remain possible. Also, there is too much out there once thought false that we now know to be very, very true.. from the velliger larvae (crab larvae stage) that for years and years were thought to be a parasite, to the idea that bacteria cause at least some ulcers, to the idea of giant plates moving and that the continents were all joined at one point. ALL of those were considered "silly" in times past.

Who can really say that God won't be proven to exist? You can argue all sorts of metaphysical type arguments.. aka more or less as Woodruff did, in saying that religion just encompasses things about which there can be no proof. BUT, you cannot argue that there definitively will never be proof of God.

[everywhere116]

the primary reason religion developed is to "control the masses"? not as an answer to physical phenomena like lightning/stars/etc.? that's a very dismal outlook lol

I'd like to know how religion tries to explain light and stars.

They are balls of mass experiencing nuclear and other reactions, thus resulting in a giant ball of light.

The limits those saying "science and not religion" try to place on science are no more real than the limits religious places on science.

Religion places no limits on science. Science works independent of religious beliefs.

That is, religion is firm about morals, some other details (there is a God.. or some other type of power, depending on the belief system).

Those are opinions. You can be firm about your opinions, but that doesn't make them objective fact on the level of anything discovered with the scientific method. After all, different religions give very different answers to morality questions.

Science identifies specific facts based on various mostly, but not entirely, tangible proofs. (ice melts, fossils exist, etc.) BUT... neither is entirely limited to that. Religious belief relies on some proof, including tangible proof and science depends very heavily upon open minds willing to explore even that which seems utterly insane initially.

Religion relies on proof? What kind of proof? How can you prove religion?

Science relies on faith/belief as much as proof to fully expand and grow.

This tells me you know nothing about the scientific method or how it works. Science does not rely on faith, that would be religion. Science relies on evidence, reason, and logic.

Beyond that, religion can try to claim science wrong. Occasionally they actually prove valid (thinking of things like some tribes referring to a "spirit" in a particular substance that actually winds up providing a real science cure.. but there are likely other examples).

No, that would be science discovering the true cause of a phenomenon that the primitive tribe noticed but could not explain.

Science absolutely has proven many religious beliefs false. However, therein lies the arrogance. Many want to sasy that because science has proven so much of ancient religious belief false, therefore it will prove ALL religious belief false.

Science can't prove religious beliefs true or false. The reason why a rational scientific mind will not accept a religion as a fact is because there is no credible evidence presented by the religious to demonstrate the validity of their claims.

Except.. they ignore the fact that science itself has proven most of "ancient" science false. From alchemy to much of modern science, the number of missteps far outweighs the number of valid conclusions.

Alchemy was barely above superstition on the scientific scale. But you are right about one thing: Science does move on and has disproven former scientific assumptions, but that is a strength, not a weakness. That is the scientific body preening itself, growing and becoming more accurate as more evidence becomes available. Trying to use that against science, once again, shows me that you know nothing about it.

[PLAYER57832]

the primary reason religion developed is to "control the masses"? not as an answer to physical phenomena like lightning/stars/etc.? that's a very dismal outlook lol

I'd like to know how religion tries to explain light and stars.

They are balls of mass experiencing nuclear and other reactions, thus resulting in a giant ball of light.

The limits those saying "science and not religion" try to place on science are no more real than the limits religious places on science.

Religion places no limits on science. Science works independent of religious beliefs.

correct, and that was actually my point. Some people within religion and within science do try to claim those things.

That is, religion is firm about morals, some other details (there is a God.. or some other type of power, depending on the belief system).

Those are opinions. You can be firm about your opinions, but that doesn't make them objective fact on the level of anything discovered with the scientific method. After all, different religions give very different answers to morality questions.

Except, in initial stages, science is just opinion as well. The difference comes in proof. Scientists expect a specific kind of proof. Religious individuals accept another, more personal type of proof. Most people, whether they admit it or not, actually accept some of each.

Science identifies specific facts based on various mostly, but not entirely, tangible proofs. (ice melts, fossils exist, etc.) BUT... neither is entirely limited to that. Religious belief relies on some proof, including tangible proof and science depends very heavily upon open minds willing to explore even that which seems utterly insane initially.

Religion relies on proof? What kind of proof? How can you prove religion?

Science relies on faith/belief as much as proof to fully expand and grow.

This tells me you know nothing about the scientific method or how it works. Science does not rely on faith, that would be religion. Science relies on evidence, reason, and logic.

LOL LOL LOL
Try again on the "don't understand science" bit. You mistake the end result for the beginning, the work of the majority of scientists who are basically technicians working on specific ideas and those few who are at the very forefront. Folks have cited Stephen Hawkins quite a bit here. But, did you know that not even his closest associates really knew if he believed in God or not?

Beyond that, religion can try to claim science wrong. Occasionally they actually prove valid (thinking of things like some tribes referring to a "spirit" in a particular substance that actually winds up providing a real science cure.. but there are likely other examples).

No, that would be science discovering the true cause of a phenomenon that the primitive tribe noticed but could not explain.

Science absolutely has proven many religious beliefs false. However, therein lies the arrogance. Many want to sasy that because science has proven so much of ancient religious belief false, therefore it will prove ALL religious belief false.

Science can't prove religious beliefs true or false. The reason why a rational scientific mind will not accept a religion as a fact is because there is no credible evidence presented by the religious to demonstrate the validity of their claims.

Hmmm... something tells me you have not, personally seen the evidence of tectonic plates. (I have, by-the-way) YET..you believe that idea. (as do I, of course) You base your ideas on what others have taught you, in part. Religion is no different in that. Science can and has proven some religious ideas false, but not all. The rest is just arrogance of some people claiming their thoughts and their thinking are superior to others.. pretty much as one scientist often argues and debates any other with differing ideas.
However, whereas most scientists fundamentally respect and understand even their "arch enemies", for some reason a few scientists seem to think they are more superior for not giving the same respect to those types of ideas they find "uncomfortable", such as religion. It is arrogance, pure and simple.

Except.. they ignore the fact that science itself has proven most of "ancient" science false. From alchemy to much of modern science, the number of missteps far outweighs the number of valid conclusions.

Alchemy was barely above superstition on the scientific scale. But you are right about one thing: Science does move on and has disproven former scientific assumptions, but that is a strength, not a weakness. That is the scientific body preening itself, growing and becoming more accurate as more evidence becomes available. Trying to use that against science, once again, shows me that you know nothing about it.

Then again, you might reread what I wrote, because that was my point. Science challenging itself is seen as a strength, yet religion that takes science and combines it, modifies itself within the limits of that system are dismissed by those like you as somehow not being consistant, etc.

[Woodruff]

Are you asserting that God was just recently invented?

i'm asserting that your claim that "everything that is provable has been proven" is remarkably short-sighted

I made no such claim, thus your assertion is ridiculous.

[john9blue]

Are you asserting that God was just recently invented?

i'm asserting that your claim that "everything that is provable has been proven" is remarkably short-sighted

I made no such claim, thus your assertion is ridiculous.

LOL i KNEW you would do this!

"you just didn't read correctly john, herp derp"

tell me the fucking difference between

everything that is provable has been proven

and

if it were provable, it would have been done by now.

please. i'm all ears.

[Woodruff]

Are you asserting that God was just recently invented?

i'm asserting that your claim that "everything that is provable has been proven" is remarkably short-sighted

I made no such claim, thus your assertion is ridiculous.

LOL i KNEW you would do this!

"you just didn't read correctly john, herp derp"

tell me the fucking difference between

"everything that is provable has been proven"

and

if it were provable, it would have been done by now.

please. i'm all ears.

Why don't you try providing the context behind that statement, john? Why is that? Ah, because then your claim falls flat.

[john9blue]

Why don't you try providing the context behind that statement, john? Why is that? Ah, because then your claim falls flat.

oh, so the god question follows a different kind of logic than every other question? makes sense.

[Woodruff]

Why don't you try providing the context behind that statement, john? Why is that? Ah, because then your claim falls flat.

oh, so the god question follows a different kind of logic than every other question? makes sense.

I was specifically speaking of the god question, as the context plainly shows. You then attempted to take my specific question and pretend that I meant it in a very general sense. So to clarify, when I say "You're a dipshit", I'm speaking of you, john9blue, not of everyone in the Atmospheric Noise forum.

[john9blue]

oh, so the god question follows a different kind of logic than every other question? makes sense.

I was specifically speaking of the god question, as the context plainly shows. You then attempted to take my specific question and pretend that I meant it in a very general sense. So to clarify, when I say "You're a dipshit", I'm speaking of you, john9blue, not of everyone in the Atmospheric Noise forum.

what is so special about the god question that makes you think we should have solved it by now?

[zimmah]

But the better question is can the existence of God be proven using the physical scientific method. Once again the answer is Yes!

Please elaborate.

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/atheists-riddle-2/

Well, the above link will explain it better then I could, but simply putting it like this...

Any design demands a designer. Any laws demand a law provider or a law giver and our own DNA Codes demand an intelligent creator writer of those very DNA codes in our genes.

If Atheist's are correct in their assumption that The Universe began with a meaningless big bang and that quite by accident Galaxies, Star and Planets formed and then by accident life began on some of those planets; Than any mindless act should be producing intelligent life all the time. At least most of the times if not at the very least once upon a time in man's history.

Why the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs should have lead to a proliferation of new life forms. If that were the case. The Chernobyl nuclear accident should have produce some new and strange life form by now if that were the case. Perhaps just cooking vegetable soup should have shown us a new created being in the soup, just before we ate it because if the Atheist are correct then life happens just like shit happens. It just happens all the time.

But that is not what we see in this universe. Meaningless explosions and events do not produce life forms or even intelligence or we would have at least seen Artificial Intelligence by now. Just the opposite is produced by Meaningless events or accidental events, they only cause death and decay to increase at a much more rapid accelerated rate. No one lives near Chernobyl or Hiroshima or Nagasaki today. Those are all dead zones. That's because only intelligent acts can create intelligence and only life can create life. Big bangs alone do not create life and a Universe.

The evidence to the existence of God is all around us. For those who will open their eyes and see. But hostility, or disagreement with God is what blinds people to the truth and the reason why people will not see or understand the evidence all around us. People have eyes and yet they do not see. Because they simply don't want to see the truth all around them. The evidence of the existence of God.

"Son of man, thou dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house, which have eyes to see, and see not; they have ears to hear, and hear not: for they [are] a rebellious house." - Ezekiel 12:2

one of the view comments in this topic that make sense and they just get trolled, seriously?

i believe it takes more faith to believe in random events resulting in life as we know it then to believe in a god that created law an order out of the chaos. the laws of the universe need a judge too, you know?

[Haggis_McMutton]

i believe it takes more faith to believe in random events resulting in life as we know it then to believe in a god that created law an order out of the chaos. the laws of the universe need a judge too, you know?

Not everyone feels the need to pretend they know everything.

Which statement takes more faith:
1. I know that an omniscient, omnipotent, undetectable being makes everything.
2. I don't know where everything came from.

?

[zimmah]

Beyond that, religion can try to claim science wrong. Occasionally they actually prove valid (thinking of things like some tribes referring to a "spirit" in a particular substance that actually winds up providing a real science cure.. but there are likely other examples). Science absolutely has proven many religious beliefs false. However, therein lies the arrogance. Many want to sasy that because science has proven so much of ancient religious belief false, therefore it will prove ALL religious belief false. Except.. they ignore the fact that science itself has proven most of "ancient" science false. From alchemy to much of modern science, the number of missteps far outweighs the number of valid conclusions.

I disagree.

When some natives have a religious belief about some plant being able to cure some ailment, and they attribute the cause to "spirits", they may be correct about the curing ability of the plant but not about it's actual cause. It takes science to investigate the matter and find the actual cause to the curing ability of that plant, for example, some chemical or organism within it. Thus, in such a situation, science is not confirming a religious belief, it's in fact refuting it, and providing a better explanation.

Also, while alchemy and such has been proved false, I wouldn't call it "ancient science". The scientific method hasn't really been followed that long, and what you refer to as "ancient science" is really nothing more than another brand of superstition, only with a sort of science-y "feel" to it. Anyway, whenever science shows earlier scientific work to be mistaken, that's not a flaw in science, it's exactly how science is supposed to work - it doesn't invalidate science, it only makes it more accurate.

The fallacy is assuming that since we can't know anything for 100% sure, then everything is equally possible. This isn't so. Even though anything we know today may be refuted in the future, and current theories will be made more accurate, it is not a reason to discount current knowledge, because it's still the best knowledge we have. And if we discard the current knowledge, there's no way to get to those future discoveries.

but if you're anxious holding onto a belief just because that's the current knowledge and the most accurate you have, without looking beyond that point, you end up being wrong all the time. That's why it's important to keep looking forward, and actually inspect if other statements are true. instead of just assuming you're right all the time.

"it's impossable to fill a glass that is allready full"


@Haggis if you ask the question like that everyone would choose 2. however judging by your previous posts and the posts of everyone else in this topic i would say you actually believe:

3) I know there s no god and somehow everything just appeared out of thin air and everything worked perfectly fine and balanced, and even though it's an universal law that when something is not maintained it will decay, we still believe the universe and the laws of the universe just randomly appeared.

now THAT would that a lot of faith to believe. yet, it seems a lot of people actually believe that.

that's also basically what (i believe it was viceroy) was saying. If you walk along the shore of an island that you thought was uninhabited and you bump into a stone that has writings on it, and it says something like Haggis 1203 then you'll automatically assume some human must have wrote that, right? then why do you think something as complex as human DNA just 'wrote itself'. you'd have more chance of bumping into a stone containing a complete english dictionary that had been eroded into a stone randomly by the elements, that's how low the odds are of things happening, and that is AFTER the laws of the universe were defined. because, once again, someone or something must have created the universal laws in the first place. a law book doesn't write itself either.

[chang50]

i believe it takes more faith to believe in random events resulting in life as we know it then to believe in a god that created law an order out of the chaos. the laws of the universe need a judge too, you know?

Not everyone feels the need to pretend they know everything.

Which statement takes more faith:
1. I know that an omniscient, omnipotent, undetectable being makes everything.
2. I don't know where everything came from.

?

Number 2 gets my vote,I'm not arrogant enough to believe number 1.

[zimmah]

i believe it takes more faith to believe in random events resulting in life as we know it then to believe in a god that created law an order out of the chaos. the laws of the universe need a judge too, you know?

Not everyone feels the need to pretend they know everything.

Which statement takes more faith:
1. I know that an omniscient, omnipotent, undetectable being makes everything.
2. I don't know where everything came from.

?

Number 2 gets my vote,I'm not arrogant enough to believe number 1.

in that case wouldn't it be wise to investigate the origin of things?

i mean what could be POSSIBLY be more important than the answer to the question: "how did it all start, and does this have anything to do with my life?"

also, i honestly believe that if there was no god, the universe would still be a random pool of chaos, maybe there'd be a lot of energy and explosions, probably not even that though, just a massive pool of chaos. or maybe just nothing at all.

[chang50]

i believe it takes more faith to believe in random events resulting in life as we know it then to believe in a god that created law an order out of the chaos. the laws of the universe need a judge too, you know?

Not everyone feels the need to pretend they know everything.

Which statement takes more faith:
1. I know that an omniscient, omnipotent, undetectable being makes everything.
2. I don't know where everything came from.

?

Number 2 gets my vote,I'm not arrogant enough to believe number 1.

in that case wouldn't it be wise to investigate the origin of things?

i mean what could be POSSIBLY be more important than the answer to the question: "how did it all start, and does this have anything to do with my life?"

also, i honestly believe that if there was no god, the universe would still be a random pool of chaos, maybe there'd be a lot of energy and explosions, probably not even that though, just a massive pool of chaos. or maybe just nothing at all.

Of course we should investigate the origin of things,as science does,it's fascinating,but I would not expect to find the final answer,that is where the arrogance kicks in,along with thinking it might have anything to do with the lives of the members of a partially evolved primate species on a tiny speck,in a nondescript galaxy lost in the vastness of the cosmos.

[Haggis_McMutton]

@Haggis if you ask the question like that everyone would choose 2.

Awesome. So you don't claim to know the origin of the universe?
So you're actually an agnostic theist, right?

however judging by your previous posts and the posts of everyone else in this topic i would say you actually believe:

3) I know there s no god and somehow everything just appeared out of thin air and everything worked perfectly fine and balanced, and even though it's an universal law that when something is not maintained it will decay, we still believe the universe and the laws of the universe just randomly appeared.

now THAT would that a lot of faith to believe. yet, it seems a lot of people actually believe that.

Once we both admit that we don't know anything for sure, then we can start discussing about what is more likely. There's a world of difference between saying: my best guess is that X happened and saying I know for sure that X happened.
Just to make it abundantly clear, I don't know for sure what happened and whether there is a god, but based on the available evidence, my best guess is that there is none.

that's also basically what (i believe it was viceroy) was saying. If you walk along the shore of an island that you thought was uninhabited and you bump into a stone that has writings on it, and it says something like Haggis 1203 then you'll automatically assume some human must have wrote that, right? then why do you think something as complex as human DNA just 'wrote itself'. you'd have more chance of bumping into a stone containing a complete english dictionary that had been eroded into a stone randomly by the elements, that's how low the odds are of things happening, and that is AFTER the laws of the universe were defined. because, once again, someone or something must have created the universal laws in the first place. a law book doesn't write itself either.

Again you're assuming you have so much knowledge of the universe.

What makes you think that an analogy about an island is in any way adequate to represent even a glimmer of this mind-boggling universe?

What makes you think that our intuitions are in any way adequate to judge the origin of a thing that is so vastly beyond our understanding?

It was intuitions and common sense we relied upon when we proudly declared that the Earth was flat, or that the sun revolved around us, or that we are the centre of the universe, or that the rotations of the planets are perfect circles, or that at the very least our galaxy is at the centre(hell we even had "proof" all of the other galaxies were moving away from us).
It's still intuitions and common sense we rely upon to declare that the universe was created for us by a being that is in our image. I wonder how many more times we have to be proven wrong before we learn some humility.

When your intuitions and common sense alone manage to reveal something like, say, quantum mechanics to you, then maybe you can make a statement like: "God exists because my intuition tells me so".

[zimmah]

@Haggis if you ask the question like that everyone would choose 2.

Awesome. So you don't claim to know the origin of the universe?
So you're actually an agnostic theist, right?

however judging by your previous posts and the posts of everyone else in this topic i would say you actually believe:

3) I know there s no god and somehow everything just appeared out of thin air and everything worked perfectly fine and balanced, and even though it's an universal law that when something is not maintained it will decay, we still believe the universe and the laws of the universe just randomly appeared.

now THAT would that a lot of faith to believe. yet, it seems a lot of people actually believe that.

Once we both admit that we don't know anything for sure, then we can start discussing about what is more likely. There's a world of difference between saying: my best guess is that X happened and saying I know for sure that X happened.
Just to make it abundantly clear, I don't know for sure what happened and whether there is a god, but based on the available evidence, my best guess is that there is none.

that's also basically what (i believe it was viceroy) was saying. If you walk along the shore of an island that you thought was uninhabited and you bump into a stone that has writings on it, and it says something like Haggis 1203 then you'll automatically assume some human must have wrote that, right? then why do you think something as complex as human DNA just 'wrote itself'. you'd have more chance of bumping into a stone containing a complete english dictionary that had been eroded into a stone randomly by the elements, that's how low the odds are of things happening, and that is AFTER the laws of the universe were defined. because, once again, someone or something must have created the universal laws in the first place. a law book doesn't write itself either.

Again you're assuming you have so much knowledge of the universe.

What makes you think that an analogy about an island is in any way adequate to represent even a glimmer of this mind-boggling universe?

What makes you think that our intuitions are in any way adequate to judge the origin of a thing that is so vastly beyond our understanding?

It was intuitions and common sense we relied upon when we proudly declared that the Earth was flat, or that the sun revolved around us, or that we are the centre of the universe, or that the rotations of the planets are perfect circles, or that at the very least our galaxy is at the centre(hell we even had "proof" all of the other galaxies were moving away from us).
It's still intuitions and common sense we rely upon to declare that the universe was created for us by a being that is in our image. I wonder how many more times we have to be proven wrong before we learn some humility.

When your intuitions and common sense alone manage to reveal something like, say, quantum mechanics to you, then maybe you can make a statement like: "God exists because my intuition tells me so".

i didn't say that, he asked what takes the least faith to believe, and that'd be option 2.

[chang50]

@Haggis if you ask the question like that everyone would choose 2. however judging by your previous posts and the posts of everyone else in this topic i would say you actually believe:

3) I know there s no god and somehow everything just appeared out of thin air and everything worked perfectly fine and balanced, and even though it's an universal law that when something is not maintained it will decay, we still believe the universe and the laws of the universe just randomly appeared.

now THAT would that a lot of faith to believe. yet, it seems a lot of people actually believe that.

No,that is what some theists,not the sensible ones,imagine atheists think.In my experience very few atheists are block-headed enough to say that.That is gnostic atheism and it is just as intellectually impossible to defend as gnostic theism.You might wish it were the case because it is a very easy position to knock down,agnostic atheism is a much tougher proposition and you have offered no counter arguments to it.

[Woodruff]

oh, so the god question follows a different kind of logic than every other question? makes sense.

I was specifically speaking of the god question, as the context plainly shows. You then attempted to take my specific question and pretend that I meant it in a very general sense. So to clarify, when I say "You're a dipshit", I'm speaking of you, john9blue, not of everyone in the Atmospheric Noise forum.

what is so special about the god question that makes you think we should have solved it by now?

God demonstrably wants to be worshipped, per pretty much any text around on the subject. Therefore, God would show himself in some provable fashion so that the worship-value would exponentially exponentiate. Thus, it would have been proven by now. Or God is a dumbass. One or the other.