you're god does not exist

Straightjacket

Straightjacket

Well-Known Member
God and religion are two different things. Religion is man made hocus-pocus, used to intimidate and manipulate. It has nothing to do with God. God if you will is a personal thing. You believe what you believe and I believe what I believe. It's when I try to get you to stop believing what you believe and start believing what I believe when the trouble starts. Some of the most hideous acts of humanity have been done in the name of religion. All in the name of God. The folly of these zealots who can't see past their own beliefs, miss the whole wonderful structure of this universe. We all can see what we are ready to see. No more. What is the real journey of Human. Can we learn to travel the stars using some meta-physical powers or will we develop a science that allows space travel to be a reality? I don't know, all I can do is look around me at the folly of man and wait for my body to be shed so that I can see the next chapter. In the mean time I'm gonna take another hit and be the best me I can.
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
Heisenberg said:
I happen to be atheist but that does not mean I can ignore the rules of logic and evidence. The burden of proof falls to the party making the claim. It does not matter if you claim that god does exist, or you claim he doesn't, the burden falls to the claimer. If you simply say "I am not convinced therefore I do not believe", you are making no claim, and so you need no proof.

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, it works both ways. If someone wants to say god does not exist, they need to provide proof. Otherwise they are stating a conclusion based on some element of faith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
Click to expand...
Technically, I agree. That said, my 'proof' is one by induction. I can clearly say that the Christian god does not exist. He cannot, too many contradictions. However, saying any god does not exist becomes much harder but is always going to be based on the definition. So first, before I can say god does not exist, we must first clarify what kind of god, because as pointed out, one could worship the sun, which clearly does exist (so far as we can say anything exists). Regarding the point well made about what we don't know based on looking honestly at mankind's ignorance, we still should be able to say that a god that alters physical laws, cannot exist if we are to continue to accept the most basic premises about causality. This type of god would undermine much of what we believe about how the universe works, if cause-effect can be altered, all of physics would come toppling down like a house of cards. This is what Hawking proposed when he said information could be lost in a black hole evaporating, imagine how things would change if we found out a black hole can be created by a magic being? So in spite of the insistence by some scientists that it must remain silent on this issue, i. e. non-overlapping magisteria, I cannot disagree more. Now get a new definition of a god that only has "metaphysical" effects on our physical world, I would then be unable to prove such a being does not exist, but then I have to ask what good does it do if it is something that cannot be explicitly described? Then we devolve into questions about the nature of the metaphysical, spirit, etc., something I have honestly sought from posters like CWE and ee, and the answers, if you can call them that, are typically self-serving and lacking real defining characteristics, eerily similar to the way people define anything subjective.
"I know it when I see it." SCOTUS Justice Potter Stewart, describing his threshold test for obscenity, which is not protected speech.
 
Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
mindphuk said:
Technically, I agree. That said, my 'proof' is one by induction. I can clearly say that the Christian god does not exist. He cannot, too many contradictions. However, saying any god does not exist becomes much harder but is always going to be based on the definition. So first, before I can say god does not exist, we must first clarify what kind of god, because as pointed out, one could worship the sun, which clearly does exist (so far as we can say anything exists). Regarding the point well made about what we don't know based on looking honestly at mankind's ignorance, we still should be able to say that a god that alters physical laws, cannot exist if we are to continue to accept the most basic premises about causality. This type of god would undermine much of what we believe about how the universe works, if cause-effect can be altered, all of physics would come toppling down like a house of cards. This is what Hawking proposed when he said information could be lost in a black hole evaporating, imagine how things would change if we found out a black hole can be created by a magic being? So in spite of the insistence by some scientists that it must remain silent on this issue, i. e. non-overlapping magisteria, I cannot disagree more. Now get a new definition of a god that only has "metaphysical" effects on our physical world, I would then be unable to prove such a being does not exist, but then I have to ask what good does it do if it is something that cannot be explicitly described? Then we devolve into questions about the nature of the metaphysical, spirit, etc., something I have honestly sought from posters like CWE and ee, and the answers, if you can call them that, are typically self-serving and lacking real defining characteristics, eerily similar to the way people define anything subjective.
"I know it when I see it." SCOTUS Justice Potter Stewart, describing his threshold test for obscenity, which is not protected speech.
Click to expand...
My original post was in response to a post that has since been changed. It said "your god does not exist, prove me wrong. it should be easy". Classic shift of burden of proof.

I agree. The more specific the description of God, the easier it is to rule God out. I like Hitchens take on this when he says he is an a-deist. We can not be thought of as atheist until the theist has justified the jump from deism to theism, which they never do and often get a pass on. The theist often argues for deism and then expects you to conclude from his arguments theism. They do not get the satisfaction of calling us atheist until they have addressed our a-deism. Of course logically any a-deist would have to be an atheist by extension, but it's absurd for the word atheist to exist in the first place, so no surprise the term a-deist is also absurd. Something else pointed out by Hitchens is the theist likes to have it both ways when it comes to the immutable laws of the universe. If the laws are constant and never change, they want to claim evidence of fine tuning and therefore God. If the laws are not constant and get subverted in the case of miracles, this also gets claimed as evidence of God.
 
tyler.durden

tyler.durden

Well-Known Member
It's been so long since I've seen a theist vs. atheist thread here, it almost seems fresh. Good to see you Sativa! You can start shit like no one else ;)
 
Seedling

Seedling

Well-Known Member
marc88101 said:
Do you really not know that stars are considered planets or are you joking? I think they teach us that at age 5.
Click to expand...
You have to define your terms.

Think of an object, such as a ball. The ball is considered an object, which is comprised of smaller objects. The ball is made of smaller particles. Those smaller particles are also made of smaller particles, and so on and so forth.

In terms of moons, planets, stars, galaxies, and universes, the same holds true of the hierarchy of the ball. The solar system can be considered "the ball" as a single object orbiting the black hole at the center of our galaxy. So the object the galaxy has a core (black hole) and orbiting objects (solar systems). The object the solar system also has a core (our sun), and orbiting objects (planets). The object the Earth-moon has a core (earth) and orbiting object (moon).

Every object has a core and orbiting object(s).

The universe is too an object, which orbits a core, along with many other universes orbiting that core at the same time, all the while that entire object (core object and orbiting universes) orbit their core, etc......

The universe is a hierarchy of different scale objects comprised of cores and orbiting objects.

The earth came from the sun!


God is a spirit that resides in people that believe.
 
marc88101

marc88101

Well-Known Member
Seedling said:
You have to define your terms.

Think of an object, such as a ball. The ball is considered an object, which is comprised of smaller objects. The ball is made of smaller particles. Those smaller particles are also made of smaller particles, and so on and so forth.

In terms of moons, planets, stars, galaxies, and universes, the same holds true of the hierarchy of the ball. The solar system can be considered "the ball" as a single object orbiting the black hole at the center of our galaxy. So the object the galaxy has a core (black hole) and orbiting objects. The object the solar system also has a core, our sun, and orbiting objects. The object the Earth-moon has a core (earth) and orbiting object (moon).

Every object has a core and orbiting object(s).

The universe is too an object, which orbits a core, along with many other universes orbiting that core at the same time, all the while that entire object (core object and orbiting universes) orbit their core, etc......

The universe is a hierarchy of different scale objects comprised of cores and orbiting objects.

The earth came from the sun!


God is a spirit that resides in people that believe.
Click to expand...
I'm really high right now and can't make heads or tails of much at the moment, its 3:52am and i'm not even sure why i'm awake. but yea, what you said sounds pretty good! My chick is asleep next to me and I just tried to get some titty, it didn't go well...
 
kpmarine

kpmarine

Well-Known Member
marc88101 said:
Do you really not know that stars are considered planets or are you joking? I think they teach us that at age 5.
Click to expand...
Yes, because that's why we call it the planetary system instead of the solar system... A "Planet" is a body orbiting a star, that is not a star. There are a few more specifics, to be fair. However, unless the sun went out, was generally round, and dropped into an observable orbit around a star, and reflected the light of said star; it would most definitely not be a planet. You probably shouldn't be using kindergarten as a reference, just a suggestion.
 
gaztron3030

gaztron3030

Active Member
marc88101 said:
Do you really not know that stars are considered planets or are you joking? I think they teach us that at age 5.
Click to expand...
LOL dude are you serious? Glad i didn't go to school where you grew up! Is the sun a planet? Stars are like our sun not like earth, a few of them are closer planets but most are distant suns!
 
Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
"Believing there's no God means I can't really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That's good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around." - Penn Jellette

"Believing there is no God gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, sex, Jell-O and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have." - Penn Jillette
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
marc88101 said:
Do you really not know that stars are considered planets or are you joking? I think they teach us that at age 5.
Click to expand...
I think you might have grounds to sue your kindergarten teacher. Planets are nonstellar satellites of stars. Small stars can orbit larger stars, but this is then called a double/multiple star. A star cannot be a planet, the way we use the term. cn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top