Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Therefore, the statement "God does not exist!" can be dismissed. Thanks!
Earth, and everyone on it, is utterly and completely insginficant
- Thread starter /MSG/
- Start date
Therefore, the statement "God does not exist!" can be dismissed. Thanks!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Untestable how? By spiritual standards? Subjective, maybe... but so is science. The very nature of a "theory" is subjective, isn't it?
You lack spiritual connection, therefore, you lack an understanding and comprehension of spiritual evidence. And therefore, you can't 'believe' in them... As the great Philosopher Wonder once said; "When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer!" You see spirituality akin to superstition, but the overwhelming spiritual evidence contradicts that. In fact, even the physical evidence is extraordinary, when you consider mankind's connection to spirituality for the existence of the species.
The possibility does exist. They could living in another realm or dimension we can't see or comprehend. The rules of their universe may be completely different than the rules of our physics and physical science. Can you prove that is not the case? If you can't prove this, you have to STFU and not proclaim that they don't. You can say you don't BELIEVE that is the case, and for the record, I don't BELIEVE magic unicorns are living on the moon, but I can't PROVE they aren't.
Again, going back to my point... "Does God Exist?" It depends on where your faith lies. There is an abundance of spiritual proof, you just reject it and don't believe it. It's outside your realm of comprehension or understanding, so you refuse to acknowledge it, but that doesn't mean it isn't spiritual evidence. You want to continue to apply your understanding of physical sciences to a supernatural spiritual entity, and that isn't valid proof of anything, except that physical science hasn't yet proven God exists physically. To try and turn that into a definitive "NO" on the possibility God does exist, is the ANTITHESIS of science itself. Science continues to explore the possibilities, regardless of lack of finding answers. It doesn't "conclude" anything. MAN can draw conclusions based on what science asks and explores, but science itself, is a never ending quest for answers.
There is indeed "faith" in science. The very principles of science rely on "faith," and I've addressed this in the other thread. People BELIEVE we descended from a common ancestor of the chimpanzee, there is no physical evidence to prove that as a fact, they have "faith" in the exploration of science, and draw this conclusion. People BELIEVE we all emerged from a primordial stew, ultimately from a single original organism... again, no physical evidence exists that this is the case.... MAN made a conclusion based on scientific exploration, SCIENCE did not decide this was fact. The Big Bang Theory... when it was first articulated, the actual name itself, was a put-down and insult to the ridiculous idea... there is still no physical scientific evidence of why this event happened, or if it actually DID happen... MAN concluded... MAN decided.
You either worship at the altar of Science, or you respect the nature of Science as one of God's most fascinating creations. It is all dependent on your personal faith.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
apple0154
MEOW
Earth, and everyone on it, is utterly and completely insignificant.
Should you contemplate changing careers I would advise against opening an empowerment retreat.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
Na, I think I'll keep my current job.
Rationalist
Hail Voltaire
"Spiritual evidence" is subjective because it cannot be observed. If Jesus and I hung out last week and he bought me a Slurpee, that's great for me, but it doesn't help anyone else. Science is not subjective at all. Scientists propose a hypothesis, which is then repeatedly tested. If the evidence supports the hypothesis, it may then be regarded as a theory. How is that subjective?
Why must they exist in another realm or dimension? Why not in ours?
Nothing can be proven 100%, but the likelihood of magic unicorns existing is so incredibly tiny that we may safely assert that they do not exist. There is zero evidence to support the existence of magic unicorns. Likewise, there is no physical evidence whatsoever to support the existence of God.
That is correct, I don't believe it. I reject so-called "spiritual proof" based on what I consider to be plausible. You do this as well. If you didn't, then you would believe everything - e.g. that Joseph Smith was visited by the angel Moroni and issued a set of golden plates, Muhammad was visited by Gabriel in a cave, etc. People make claims all the time. Some are insane, but most are liars.
The fossil record and endogenous retroviruses alone are sufficient evidence. No "faith" is required - I simply accept the evidence that is presented to me.
Just because you do not understand it does not make it untrue.
You are fundamentally retarded and unteachable.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
You are being subjective by merely formulating a hypothesis. Evidence is subjective, what you see as evidence, I may not see at all as evidence. I require faith to believe the evidence is actually evidence. Repeated testing does not confirm or deny, it merely predicts based on the parameters of the test and the conditions of the test at that time. You require faith to believe this means something. Faith is indeed subjective, but it's never irrelevant.
I didn't say it must. It may not. It's not likely it exists in our physical realm, because we find no physical evidence of it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist in some other realm, or even, that it doesn't exist in the physical realm, and we've just not discovered it. We can draw conclusions, but science doesn't. It continues to explore possibility. It doesn't answer definitively, YOU make a conclusion. Sometimes, maybe that's fine... in the case of universal laws of physics or gravity... but sometimes it's detrimental to science to conclude, as it closes the mind to possibility. Science might one day unlock the mysteries of the spiritual realm, and make a legitimate physical connection, you don't KNOW that won't happen. You can't SAY that is a certain impossibility. You just don't see any evidence before you at this time, and don't believe it... and that's fine.
Well, I would say, with the ability we've had to explore the moon, it's highly unlikely that a physical unicorn exists on the planet. I would also say it's highly unlikely God exists in a physical sense.... which almost no known organized religious belief portends, btw. This does not mean that unicorns or God MIGHT exist, and we just don't understand their existence, and can't comprehend it in our physical world. That still remains a distinct possibility, as much as you wish to deny it.
Well okay, so you completely reject anything that is spiritual proof, but how does that differ from someone who completely rejects all scientific proof? IF someone believed spiritually, that God makes it rain when he cries, and that someone absolutely refuses to accept your scientific and physical evidence, how is that any different than what you are doing, in evaluating a SPIRITUAL entity? You want to reject SPIRITUAL evidence.
Well, but the fossil records are incomplete, and often have unexplained flaws and absences. They don't "prove" anything, we draw our own conclusions from what we define to ourselves as 'evidence' and this is largely based on our FAITH.
Oh, but I do understand it! I didn't say it was untrue! When the Big Bang was first proposed, many scientists laughed at the notion... they said... So you think everything all started with some Big Bang? ...LMFAO! It was a put-down, a ridicule, of a CRAZY idea, which had absolutely NO credible science to support! For YEARS, people just like you, who worship at the altar of science, have tried to pound it in our heads that this is an undeniable fact of life we ignorants should accept... now they are finding that theory might not be correct. Whether it is or not, still... it has not been explained by science, and in many ways, contradicts all the physics principles known about our universe. The same with the "primordial soup" theories, abiogenesis, and cross-species evolution. You have FAITH in theories, you do not have conclusive PROOF of anything!
I am very open-minded and teachable, unlike you. I am also extremely smart, which doesn't bode well for your type. But I don't really blame you for running away from the debate and resorting to ad-homs, I have come to understand that's how you handle your PWNAGE here, it's no real surprise.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
I should point out that while this isn't untrue, the nature of a scientific theory isn't fully explained here. There are many 'theories' in science that are essentially scientific laws, such as evolution. However because we are continually learning new things about HOW things evolve, the nature of how we further learn and understand them changes. Thus the word theory in that context means something we know to be true (law) but the nature of said understanding is not entirely complete, thus we relegate it to theory because we do not know all the variables, we only know the end result.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
depends on which theory of evolution you're talking about....
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
There aren't ANY to my knowledge.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
Gravity, evolution, heliocentricity are three that come to mind.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
I am wrong? Then you are wrong as well based on the same logic.
I may be wrong about god existing. But in any case I do not want to hang out for all eternity with Jerry Falwell and most other "christians" that ase sure they are going to heaven.
People that go to hell will be much more fun to hang out with.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
Hmm, one of those strikes me as prime bait...
Shoosh, you'll ruin the fun.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
If I had the power to stop a murder and didn't, I do not expect that "I didn't want to interfere with the murderer's free will" would be a satisfactory explanation to the persons family. Such a course of action would probably result in serious injury to my person. Since God is infinitely powerful, he can stop any murder, and even worse, it would be infinitely easy for him to do so. It's not even an inconvenience for him. So it's sort of like if you refused to go slightly out of your daily routine to do some minor action that would prevent a person from getting murdered, if you just had to go to a website and press a button, and instead you said, you know what, fuck it, I'm not done fapping. Actually, since that action is at least finitely difficult, it's still not quite as bad.
I would also not expect for some idiots to attempt rationalize me, or make desperate attempts to utterly absolve me of any and all responsibility for my actions, such as "Perhaps He thought the murder victim had it coming?" (that would make most people, besides God, a judgmental douchebag), or "It's all part of His plan!" (God apparently doesn't have to get peoples permission before setting out on plans that involve their death), or "He didn't want to interfere with the murderer's free will, and he will later punish the murderer regardless." (apparently the one limitation on God's power is the power to do both simultaneously). I suppose you will naturally attempt to oncemore absolve God of responsibility for His actions by saying "Durrr Watermark U can't apply hooman standards 2 God!" Call me crazy, but I was under the impression that those with more power should be held to stricter, not laxer, standards. If the president murdered someone, that'd wouldn't be more acceptable than if I did, it'd be worse. And it'd be worse yet if some national and religious symbol, like Ghandi, or George Washington, had randomly decided to murder someone - again, not more acceptable.
I suppose then I am mistakenly applying "human logic" to God. But really, we do have plenty of precedents for societies applying God like logic to leaders in order to refuse to hold them accountable for anything. I am thinking of Stalin, Hitler, and other totalitarians who blanket their societies in fear and oppression so that you either have to come up with stupid rationalizations like this or be killed. And that is, really, how you see Christians acting - like oppressed victims of a crazed dictator, desperate to avoid His gaze. I don't find your behavior stupid because of how non-human I find it to be, I find it stupid because of how very human it is.
Perhaps there is a powerful entity out there who created everything. But, I'm sorry, it cannot be said to have morality in the human sense. It's inappropriate to apply labels such as "compassionate" and "omnibenevolent" to a being that has no apparent effect on the world besides being attributed credit for everything good that happens to his believers and everything bad that doesn't happen to them, and being let off the hook otherwise. Especially when good and bad things happen just as much to his believers as they do to anyone else. And really, would it even mean that such a creator was "evil" in some objective sense? Is a bear evil when it eats me? Who are we to apply human morality, good or bad, to other species? Why should we expect the creator to care about us? Isn't it honestly kind of pathetic and egomaniacal for us to think that such a being has nothing better to do than to contribute to our survival? Human morality is the way it is because people in the past who had the set of moral instincts we have tended to die less often than those who didn't. Other creatures quite clearly have different instincts, which worked for them, because they survived in different circumstances and had to deal with different issues. Why would we expect to think something as dissimilar from us as God would share our moral instincts when animals that are much more closely related to us clearly differ radically?
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Need in what sense? I suppose that no one's going to punish him for not adhering to the morality Voltaire laid out (which is rather non-controversial in most aspects, besides to sociopaths, so it would be more appropriate to call it "our" rather than "your" morality, unless you're a sociopath).
Anyway, true, it's not a life or death issue for him. But in the sense that there are certain things you cannot do if you want to meet the requirements of being a compassionate or good person, I wouldn't expect the average person to describe a being that sits around while people die as a good person. Unless, of course, they believed they were under the threat of torture by Him or something.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Fucking ridiculous. No, it's not a bad thing that child rapists would not have the "free will" to rape a child. Would you not do everything in your power to take such a "freedom" away? Committing injustices is not a "freedom", that's why we put a great deal of effort into stamping out such exercises in "free will". They freely chose to get punished for their actions when they committed them. If we lived in a universe where you got zapped out of existence when you raped a child, honestly, could they say they didn't see it coming? Did they honestly think that, perhaps, this was just the one time in which they wouldn't face any consequences for their actions? I suppose we could complain just as well about how the law of gravity takes away our freedom to jump off of skyscrapers. We could use help in our effort to stamp out the "free will" of people who rape children. God is both infinitely powerful and offers none.
I mean, the word "freedom" is honestly a somewhat confusing one, so it gets stupidly used like this all the time. I guess if you took it literally, you could say it was basically little more than the lack of restrictions on a persons ability to exercise their power. However, when most people use it, they implicitly insert a sense of justice into the word, so that it's the lack of restrictions on a persons ability to exercise their power to do something that's not specifically unjust. I mean, if we are literally to use the word in the first sense, then freedom is a stupid concept that is utterly unworthy of our respect, and God is immoral for respecting it. If we use it in the second sense, yes, God would be limiting a rapists power to rape, but rape is not a just use of their power, they should not have the power to rape, there is not a freedom of rape, and if God is seriously up there sitting around, fretting about the freedom of rapists, then fuck him.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Gravity is not a theory, it's a law and property of physics. One that we still don't fully understand, by the way.
Evolution is completely a theory, especially cross-species evolution and abiogenesis.
Heliocentricity used to be one of two theories about the modeling of our solar system, but it is now considered a fact, and geocentrisity was disproved.
All of the above requires some degree of faith to believe as "facts."