The atheist's journey - Religious Debate for the mature

[beefbutcher88]

You once again are using science to justify religion, when you yourself have already said the two are incompatible.

I'm a total atheist. In fact, I'm a total nihilist. I think about philosophy probably more than anything else. I've come to the conclusion that nothing exists. Because this world is nothing but the perceptions made by my brain that lead me to believe that everything is in fact here. Furthermore, you can't prove that you, or any other person in the world exists as a living, thinking being to anyone but yourself, because once again, you and everyone else are simply a compilation of atoms made to move and behave in a certain way. I'm not any different, but I am me and I am apparently conscious, therefore I can have evidence to assume that I exist, although I can't be sure.

All matter is made of atoms. This has been proven. Therefore, I am atoms and am not really conscious. I cannot know anything, because knowledge is a bunch of molecules floating around in my brain telling me that I know something, when I in fact don't. Not even my brain exists, becasue it too is atoms. And in rality, I know nothing, because all I "know" is what I have perceived in my brain, which doesn't exist. In truth, atoms and energy are all that exist in the world. And even their existence can be questioned, since we have no means or standard of measuring existence.

When we get to this level of philosophical thought, considering that there is actually a big magical guy hiding somewhere who made everything seems like ridiculous material for a children's book, which by all means it can be and is. I could post about this as long as I want to, but it would be pointless to go on, becasue if you don't agree with me yet, then you wont be convinced by my typing more negative ideas.


Different view:
The Bible is nothing but a book of stories, which someone decided to base a religion off of. Christians are nothing more than Bible fanboys. So think next time you make fun of someone for loving the Lord of the Rings.

 

[Lumbro]

From Jax:

The third, however, demands something that seems to have no answer. How can something exist with no reason?

Okay, EAL already pointed out the fact that this still makes an assumption, that everything has a reason (I assume it's meant as a reason beyond cause-and-effect, right? Like a purpose?) However, even if this was the case, that we somehow agreed that nothing would exist without a reason, why is God exempt from this requirement?

It doesn't make any sense to say that the universe can't just exist, yet God can.

No, no, no, no. That's exactly the thing: things don't just happen without a reason, whether we understand or discover it or not. People give this example as proof that God does not exist, but all it does it make an extremely uninformed statement covering them on all bases.

You're already assuming the existence of God when you say this. It's not useful to assume that everything has a reason when proving God because the assumption that God exists and gives reason to all things is implicitly built into the assumption that everything has a reason. It's like saying "God gives purpose to everything. Nothing would exist if there was no purpose. Since things exist, and everything has a purpose, God exists"

So this would be what you're arguing, unless I somehow misunderstood you. IF I did, would you care to explain how you're so sure that everything has a reason? (I'm assuming you mean reason to be something other than cause-and-effect.) If the reason is God, then Aquinas' "proof" is ridiculously circular.

 

[GoronMoron]

You're already assuming the existence of God when you say this. It's not useful to assume that everything has a reason when proving God because the assumption that God exists and gives reason to all things is implicitly built into the assumption that everything has a reason. It's like saying "God gives purpose to everything. Nothing would exist if there was no purpose. Since things exist, and everything has a purpose, God exists"

No, I'm not. I am saying that the excuse that "things can just happen for no reason at all" is a very illogical statement. I'm talking anything causing anything. For every effect, there has to be a cause. A tree shakes: what causes it? The wind. show me something that they have CONCLUSIVELY stated is caused by nothing, and I'll back off. I won't until you do.

EAL, I misunderstood your statement, because I read it as "the matter and energy they contain is infinite." Maybe cyclical is a better word, or reused.

beefbutcher, read this and read it well: I said that SCIENCE and RELIGION are NOT incompatible.

The Bible is nothing but a book of stories, which someone decided to base a religion off of. Christians are nothing more than Bible fanboys. So think next time you make fun of someone for loving the Lord of the Rings.

You're trying to compare apples and oranges here. I'm not going to reargue this point.

 

[Lumbro]

No, I'm not. I am saying that the excuse that "things can just happen for no reason at all" is a very illogical statement. I'm talking anything causing anything. For every effect, there has to be a cause. A tree shakes: what causes it? The wind.

This argument came up because you were trying to refute a refutation of the third proof. You want to say that everything has a reason, and by this you mean cause (not purpose). Okay, fine, but if this is what is meant by the third argument then the problem reduces to the same problem with the first and second proofs. Why assume that it's impossible for there to be an infinite chain of finite things? Matter/energy aren't finite in their existence anyways.

From Jax:

Atheists believe in nothing supernatural. There is no absolute truth. Therefore anything is morally acceptable. try adhering to a strict moral code like we do.

Okay, for someone who has actually done some research this is an extremely arrogant and ignorant point of view. Some of my morals include having a clue what I'm talking about before I make a broad, false, insulting generalization and regard it as truth.

From GoronMoron:

show me something that they have CONCLUSIVELY stated is caused by nothing, and I'll back off. I won't until you do.

So you want to say that since nothing can be caused by nothing that God exists as a primary cause? Why is God exempt from this causal requirement? You know, if everything has a cause...

 

[GoronMoron]

So you want to say that since nothing can be caused by nothing that God exists as a primary cause? Why is God exempt from this causal requirement? You know, if everything has a cause...

Are you familiar with entropy? It is the tendency for an ordered system to become disorganized as time progresses. Taking that information, one could logically conclude that, as you go back in time, things reach a more and more organized state. Finally, at the beginning, there is no entropy; therefore, there is no movement (because movement creates disorder). Now, there was no movement...but here we are, creating disorder, so something started the ball rolling, and that had to be an outside force. I'll leave you to put the pieces together.

Matter/energy aren't finite in their existence anyways.

If matter and energy were infinite, we would not exist; the universe would be a seething mass of energy. Infinite matter = infinite energy.

 

[Lumbro]

Are you familiar with entropy? It is the tendency for an ordered system to become disorganized as time progresses. Taking that information, one could logically conclude that, as you go back in time, things reach a more and more organized state. Finally, at the beginning, there is no entropy; therefore, there is no movement (because movement creates disorder). Now, there was no movement...but here we are, creating disorder, so something started the ball rolling, and that had to be an outside force. I'll leave you to put the pieces together.

There's that word again, "beginning."

First of all there is no 0-entropy state. every time you measure entropy you measure it in relation to a state that's defined as 0 for the situation. It's like measuring electric potential (voltage), you need a reference point. This is why any formula that you will look at is either the change in entropy or requires a chosen reference.

EVEN IF there was some 0-entropy state that occurred, it's quite a leap to say "God." I could just as easily say Zeebotites did it. Zeebotites I conveniently define to be a bunch of beings that exist outside of this universe and therefore do not follow its rules. Yes I just made them up, but there's no reason to think that some benevolent creator did it as opposed to some mindless force or aimless occurence. Not only that, but you're awfully quick to say "it's obviously God" instead of maybe considering that it could be a different answer. Perhaps under extreme conditions, like the supposed "beginning" of the universe, laws of entropy aren't so clear. There could be thousands of other possibilities, but instead people assume "God did it. Next question."

If you're gonna rely on entropy so much, why discard conservation of mass/energy? You're perfectly willing to use the entropy argument in an unbending fashion to say God had to cause things to start moving. Yet, if God created the universe, one would assume He created all the matter in it too. This would violate the conservation of mass/energy. So you're willing to use science only when it would help your view, but ignore it when it would detract. Consistency, folks.

If matter and energy were infinite, we would not exist; the universe would be a seething mass of energy.

Say there is an infinite field. Say for every acre of field, you have 10 trees. How many trees are there? Infinite. Does that mean that the field is a seething mass of trees? no. In the same way when you take the limit of a ratio of 2 sequences that go to infinity, the answer is usually not infinity/infinity.

I don't know if the universe is actually infinite in dimension. However, I wasn't even arguing that to begin with. I was arguing that matter/energy is infinite in time, in the same sense EAL was arguing it. I was not arguing that there's an infinite amount.

3rd year physics major 4twinz. kthxbye

 

[GoronMoron]

Say there is an infinite field. Say for every acre of field, you have 10 trees. How many trees are there? Infinite. Does that mean that the field is a seething mass of trees? no. In the same way when you take the limit of a ratio of 2 sequences that go to infinity, the answer is usually not infinity/infinity.

How much matter in those trees? A finite amount. Now, if each of those trees had an infinite amount of matter, they'd have an infinite amount of energy. Since that matter would have to be spread out about an infinite area, you'd have, in effect, a seething mass of energy. Flawed example on your part.

First of all there is no 0-entropy state. every time you measure entropy you measure it in relation to a state that's defined as 0 for the situation. It's like measuring electric potential (voltage), you need a reference point. This is why any formula that you will look at is either the change in entropy or requires a chosen reference.

EVEN IF there was some 0-entropy state that occurred, it's quite a leap to say "God." I could just as easily say Zeebotites did it. Zeebotites I conveniently define to be a bunch of beings that exist outside of this universe and therefore do not follow its rules. Yes I just made them up, but there's no reason to think that some benevolent creator did it as opposed to some mindless force or aimless occurence. Not only that, but you're awfully quick to say "it's obviously God" instead of maybe considering that it could be a different answer. Perhaps under extreme conditions, like the supposed "beginning" of the universe, laws of entropy aren't so clear. There could be thousands of other possibilities, but instead people assume "God did it. Next question."

If you're gonna rely on entropy so much, why discard conservation of mass/energy? You're perfectly willing to use the entropy argument in an unbending fashion to say God had to cause things to start moving. Yet, if God created the universe, one would assume He created all the matter in it too. This would violate the conservation of mass/energy. So you're willing to use science only when it would help your view, but ignore it when it would detract. Consistency, folks.

Okay, let's play on your turf. Suppose there is no God, and he didn't create the matter. And suppose that all the matter came from the Big Bang. Where did that matter come from? It just "happened to appear"? Tell me, because I am curious.

Entropy in science allows one to calculate a system when it is in a state of equilibrium. In our example above, entropy would allow us to find out the state of equilibrium; that is, when there is no disorder/order unbalance.

As I stated above, tell me where that mass came from, if not from an outside force. To connect a thin thread to this conversation, look through history (wow, history gets added to the mix once again). Unrelated cultures often come up with the idea of a god or gods. Coincidence? Maybe, but then again...it could mean something. Could.

 

[Novowels]

Originally posted by GoronMoron
Unrelated cultures often come up with the idea of a god or gods. Coincidence? Maybe, but then again...it could mean something. Could.

Of course. It means anthropomorphization.

 

[EvilAttackLlama]

How much matter in those trees? A finite amount. Now, if each of those trees had an infinite amount of matter, they'd have an infinite amount of energy. Since that matter would have to be spread out about an infinite area, you'd have, in effect, a seething mass of energy. Flawed example on your part.

No, not really. He's not saying each of those trees has an infinite amount of matter. He's saying that collectively, they have an infinite amount of matter. I thought he made that quite clear.

Okay, let's play on your turf. Suppose there is no God, and he didn't create the matter. And suppose that all the matter came from the Big Bang. Where did that matter come from? It just "happened to appear"? Tell me, because I am curious.

Ok, I'm moving over to your turf for a bit. So God has always been here, there, everywhere, right? Always. Why couldn't the universe have always been in existence? You apply one standard to religion, and a different one to real life.

Entropy in science allows one to calculate a system when it is in a state of equilibrium. In our example above, entropy would allow us to find out the state of equilibrium; that is, when there is no disorder/order unbalance.

I don't know enough about entropy to argue this point. I'd like to know though, where your knowledge of entropy comes from.

Unrelated cultures often come up with the idea of a god or gods. Coincidence? Maybe, but then again...it could mean something. Could.

Unrelated cultures often come up with the idea of writing. They often come up with the idea of houses. They often come up with the idea of government.

The reason unrelated cultures come up with religion is to try to explain things around them. It is part of human nature to seek understanding. Religion gives people explanations for the seemingly inexplicable.

 

[Lumbro]

How much matter in those trees? A finite amount. Now, if each of those trees had an infinite amount of matter, they'd have an infinite amount of energy. Since that matter would have to be spread out about an infinite area, you'd have, in effect, a seething mass of energy. Flawed example on your part.

The point of my example was that just because you had an infinite quantity of something, that does not mean that it's overpowering when compared to another infinite quantity. You said before "If matter and energy were infinite, we would not exist; the universe would be a seething mass of energy." I showed an example that countered that statement, which means that it's not true. I provided a scenario in which there was an infinite supply of a finite idea (trees) and yet, the landscape was not "seething" with the object.

Just because you can come up with a different example that allows that argument doesn't mean it's true. You changed the example so that every tree itself had infinite mass. Are you saying that every particle of matter in the universe is itself an infinite mass? Your example isn't analogous.

Additionally, if I say all cops love donuts but then find one cop that doesn't that means my original statement was false. It doesn't matter how many cops I find that do in fact love donuts, it only takes one counter example. My example works, yours is useless. If space was also infinite then infinite mass/energy would work like a ratio rather than filling it completely so it was seething with mass/energy.

That was all, of course, off topic. It was also completely unnecessary to the argument. I'm not arguing that there's an infinite supply of space, matter, or energy. I'm sorry I brought it up.

Entropy in science allows one to calculate a system when it is in a state of equilibrium. In our example above, entropy would allow us to find out the state of equilibrium; that is, when there is no disorder/order unbalance.

Equilibrium does NOT mean 0-entropy. Yes you can use entropy to find an equilibrium point, but so what? That equilibrium point could be at 300K for example. This is obviously not some absolute, 0-entropy state.This equilibrium will likely be used as a reference point. Your argument doesn't lead to some infinite regression back to a state of absolute 0-entropy for the universe. Entropy is still defined relative to a reference point.

Okay, let's play on your turf. Suppose there is no God, and he didn't create the matter. And suppose that all the matter came from the Big Bang. Where did that matter come from? It just "happened to appear"? Tell me, because I am curious.

Current big bang theory posits that all the matter in the universe was present in the singularity from whence the big bang happened. But I'm not even trying to argue that the Big Bang is correct.

Besides, I haven't offered any explanation of what actually happened. I am saying that assuming that it had to be created, and that the creator was God, like Aquinas argues, is poor logic. I'm not ready to assume that it was created over assuming that it always was.

"So you want to say that since nothing can be caused by nothing that God exists as a primary cause? Why is God exempt from this causal requirement?"

At worst, saying that the makeup of the universe has always existed is on the same level as saying that God has always existed and He created the universe. They both rely on the assumption that something has existed for all time. At it's best it's far better than relying on the existence of God because it's simpler and makes fewer assumptions.

It still doesn't make sense to say "The universe cannot have existed forever... so it had to have a Creator!.....who has existed forever...."

 

[EvilAttackLlama]

At worst, saying that the makeup of the universe has always existed is on the same level as saying that God has always existed and He created the universe. They both rely on the assumption that something has existed for all time. At it's best it's far better than relying on the existence of God because it's simpler and makes fewer assumptions.

The reason it's a better conclusion is because you can see the universe. You can't see god.

It is somewhat reasonable (although unwarrented) to state that the universe has always existed, because at least the universe is present and visible. God does not meet those standards.

 

[GoronMoron]

Of course. It means anthropomorphization.

Do you even know what that means? It means to describe something as human. That's it. For more of an explanation, see further down this post.

No, not really. He's not saying each of those trees has an infinite amount of matter. He's saying that collectively, they have an infinite amount of matter. I thought he made that quite clear.

Infinite matter in a finite space...uh-huh. Yeah, right.

Ok, I'm moving over to your turf for a bit. So God has always been here, there, everywhere, right? Always. Why couldn't the universe have always been in existence? You apply one standard to religion, and a different one to real life.

The universe could've existed always, since the beginning of time. So? Does that change my point? Why can't the universe and God both have been around? I still stand by the entropy theory that I proposed earlier.

Unrelated cultures often come up with the idea of writing. They often come up with the idea of houses. They often come up with the idea of government.

Something odd about that, isn't there? That is, of course, unless purely being human includes the ability to govern, build buildings, and write. That is to say, genetics is everything, huh? Meh. I don't think so.

Equilibrium does NOT mean 0-entropy. Yes you can use entropy to find an equilibrium point, but so what? That equilibrium point could be at 300K for example. This is obviously not some absolute, 0-entropy state.This equilibrium will likely be used as a reference point. Your argument doesn't lead to some infinite regression back to a state of absolute 0-entropy for the universe. Entropy is still defined relative to a reference point.

Reference point...got it. OK, so you have disorganized and you need to compare it to...well, look at that...ORGANIZED. That means 0-ENTROPY. All is stable, all is organized, nothing within can cause the imbalance. And, if you look at it the way I stated it (equilibrium), in our example organization would be balanced with disorganization.

I provided a scenario in which there was an infinite supply of a finite idea (trees) and yet, the landscape was not "seething" with the object.

My correction works just as well. It is impossible for an infinite supply of matter to be in a finite space. The "finite idea" (trees) have a finite amount of matter. In short, the example you gave gives an finite amount of matter in an infinite amount of space--not the same thing as you stated before (infinite matter in an infinite space).

The reason it's a better conclusion is because you can see the universe. You can't see god.

Here's the age-old comparison, yet it still holds true: can we see wind? Nope. Do we feel its effects? Yup. Do we see God? Nope. Do we see his effects upon us? God's effects are the emotions we experience and share. Emotions are illogical, when you think about it. Emotions like greed, jealousy, and hatred do absolutely no good. Same with love and forgiveness. But we have them, and as a consequence they have shaped our entire civilization. There are no chemical explanations for many emotions. Yes, things happen as a result, but an outside force causes them to actually happen. We were given emotions by God. I could name other effects God has upon us, but you'd blow them off with your false logic and faulty understanding.

That was all, of course, off topic. It was also completely unnecessary to the argument. I'm not arguing that there's an infinite supply of space, matter, or energy. I'm sorry I brought it up.

The way I understood it, you did. But, you are right in that we need to stop this line of argument. And don't go crying "I won! He gave up!" This is merely getting repetitive.

 

[EvilAttackLlama]

Do you even know what that means?

I'm sure he does. He's saying we ascribe human characteristics (AKA God) to things not human (AKA nature and the universe). You, apparently, are all too ready to jump to the conclusion that people who disagree with you don't know what they're talking about.

Infinite matter in a finite space...uh-huh. Yeah, right.

For many posts now, Lumbro and I have been saying almost the opposite. Read:

The point of my example was that just because you had an infinite quantity of something, that does not mean that it's overpowering when compared to another infinite quantity.

Since that matter would have to be spread out about an infinite area, you'd have, in effect, a seething mass of energy.

See my point? You even acknowledged it:

Since that matter would have to be spread out about an infinite area, you'd have, in effect, a seething mass of energy.

Wow, have you done a shoddy job of backpedaling.

The universe could've existed always, since the beginning of time. So? Does that change my point? Why can't the universe and God both have been around? I still stand by the entropy theory that I proposed earlier.

No, it doesn't mean that God couldn't have existed. It does prove, however, that the point that "God must have created everything" is bogus. Which is the point you were trying to make, and which we just disproved. Excuse me but, duh.

Something odd about that, isn't there? That is, of course, unless purely being human includes the ability to govern, build buildings, and write. That is to say, genetics is everything, huh? Meh. I don't think so.

What exactly are you saying? How does this support your point, or contradict mine? How are you debating here?

Reference point...got it. OK, so you have disorganized and you need to compare it to...well, look at that...ORGANIZED. That means 0-ENTROPY. All is stable, all is organized, nothing within can cause the imbalance. And, if you look at it the way I stated it (equilibrium), in our example organization would be balanced with disorganization.

Excuse me, but wouldn't no entropy mean, well nothing? Wouldn't it mean no energy, absolute zero temperature, nothing moving? If the universe were ever in that state, it would never get out.

It is impossible for an infinite supply of matter to be in a finite space.

Yes, but you are making the unwarrented assumption that the universe is a finite space. That has not been proved to be true. What Lumbro was doing was merely starting with a different set of untested assumptions, and he got completely different results. He was showing that you can't just assume things if you want your argument to stand up.

Do we see his effects upon us?

Nope. And we don't feel them either. Or at least, if we do, you don't have any evidence for it. So it's a moot point, until you have evidence that is. So present your evidence.

Emotions? No, they are not all chemical. Some are only electrical impulses. Our brains are very complex, and science has not yet fully explored them. Neither, however, has religion.

The way I understood it, you did. But, you are right in that we need to stop this line of argument. And don't go crying "I won! He gave up!" This is merely getting repetitive.

Once you stop arguing, I will. If you want it to stop, you've got to stop arguing. Don't try to get in your counterpoint, and then stop the argument.

And the way you understood it was wrong. Lumbro was merely presenting a hypothetical situation based on different assumptions than yours. He was, unlike you, not stating as fact that which he did not know. Look at his first post on the subject:

Say there is an infinite field.

It is so blindingly hypothetical that I fail to see how you could have missed it.

 

[Lumbro]

Infinite matter in a finite space...uh-huh. Yeah, right.

Go back and reread it. I said infinite field.

It is impossible for an infinite supply of matter to be in a finite space. The "finite idea" (trees) have a finite amount of matter. In short, the example you gave gives an finite amount of matter in an infinite amount of space--not the same thing as you stated before (infinite matter in an infinite space).

Okay, let's break it down shall we? Quoting myself:

Say there is an infinite field. Say for every acre of field, you have 10 trees. How many trees are there? Infinite. Does that mean that the field is a seething mass of trees? no.

In the analogy trees would be like atoms/particles/matter (which is interchangeable with energy) and the universe would be like the field. That's an infinite number of finite things in an infinite space, and it can make perfect sense. On every acre there would be 10 trees. You have an infinite number of acres, and you have 10X as many trees as acres. I didn't think this was a difficult concept. It defeats the assumption that "If matter and energy were infinite, we would not exist; the universe would be a seething mass of energy." because you assume the dimensions of the universe to be finite. I say you probably don't really know whether it's finite or infinite. Assuming it's finite is the same fallacy as assuming the timeline of the universe is finite. I don't know either way either, but that doesn't mean you can just assume.

If you want to "defeat" my analogy by changing finite trees into infinite trees, you're allowed to look dumb. After all, lots of people will agree that any and every mass has an infinite quantity of matter in it....

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That was all, of course, off topic. It was also completely unnecessary to the argument. I'm not arguing that there's an infinite supply of space, matter, or energy. I'm sorry I brought it up.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The way I understood it, you did.

Here's the paragraph immediately after the first mention of the tree/field analogy:

don't know if the universe is actually infinite in dimension. However, I wasn't even arguing that to begin with. I was arguing that matter/energy is infinite in time, in the same sense EAL was arguing it. I was not arguing that there's an infinite amount.

The only conclusion is you either didn't read it or you forgot. I explicitly stated that I wasn't arguing that when I formed the analogy. The confusion on the issue astonishes me. The only reason it was mentioned was to show that your assumption about seething mass/energy wasn't necessarily true.

Reference point...got it. OK, so you have disorganized and you need to compare it to...well, look at that...ORGANIZED. That means 0-ENTROPY. All is stable, all is organized, nothing within can cause the imbalance. And, if you look at it the way I stated it (equilibrium), in our example organization would be balanced with disorganization.

Umm, because a state is more organized relative to another state does not mean that it's some absolute 0-entropy state. Are you really trying to say that because we find some equilibrium for a physical system and call that 0-entropy that this argues that there was an absolute 0-entropy state at the supposed beginning of the universe? I could be missing something, but the link isn't apparent to me. Equilibrium in a hypothetical system could still occur at maybe 300K for example, or 1000K or any range of temperatures really. Yet this would clearly not be a 0-entropy state.

"Reference point...got it. OK, so you have disorganized and you need to compare it to...well, look at that...ORGANIZED. That means 0-ENTROPY."

Sorry dude. You compare it to a more organized state, or less disorganized, or however you want to say it. You define a circumstance to have 0 entropy for a single problem, but in another context it wouldn't be. It's still relative. The 0-entropy simply doesn't exist. That would entail absolute 0, which is impossible even in theory.

Won't you stop butchering my major?

And in the end, your entropy argument still maintains laws of entropy are unbending to the ends and beginnings of time, yet conservation of mass/energy can be thrown right out the window. Consistency, folks.

 

[Novowels]

Originally posted by GoronMoron
Do you even know what that means? It means to describe something as human. That's it. For more of an explanation, see further down this post.

Yes. It means to give human characteristics to something that is not human. IMO, Gods are easily described as the anthropomorphization of natural phenomena that are outside the control of man. For more extremely transparent examples see: general "nature" gods, ocean gods, storm gods, sun gods... Even volcano gods (heh) and/or prime-mover gods. (hehe)

Emotions like greed, jealousy, and hatred do absolutely no good.

Incorrect. Greedy and jealous people are more likely to get/have more/better stuff and kill more rivals (in a pre-civilized world, obviously) ergo they will live longer and procreate more.

Same with love and forgiveness.

Incorrect again. Loving and forgiving people are more likely to help each other out and create groups that can work together harmoniously, thus surviving longer and raising/protecting kids better (in a healthy sense, not particularly a moral sense).

There are no chemical explanations for many emotions. Yes, things happen as a result, but an outside force causes them to actually happen.

I don't know about chemical explanations, but there are neurobiological and psychobiological explanations for emotions. Any animal with a halfway decent braincase can feel love, hate, greed, and jealousy - even labrats have been seen to have these emotions.

They are very helpful in an evolutionary sense, and can all be easily explained without needing to appeal to anything supernatural.

Occam's razor.

 

[GoronMoron]

Go back and reread it. I said infinite field.

I don't have time right now to type a lot, but I'd like to clear something up; I was talking about the trees. EAL said each tree had an infinite amount of matter. I wasn't talking about the field.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

GoronMoron- drop the sig.

 

[Lumbro]

I don't have time right now to type a lot, but I'd like to clear something up; I was talking about the trees. EAL said each tree had an infinite amount of matter. I wasn't talking about the field.

Is that so? let's investigate.

This is quoting the first 2 paragraphs of the first post EAL makes after I first bring up the tree thing:

quote:[from GoronMoron]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How much matter in those trees? A finite amount. Now, if each of those trees had an infinite amount of matter, they'd have an infinite amount of energy. Since that matter would have to be spread out about an infinite area, you'd have, in effect, a seething mass of energy. Flawed example on your part.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No, not really. He's not saying each of those trees has an infinite amount of matter. He's saying that collectively, they have an infinite amount of matter. I thought he made that quite clear.

GM, it looks like you were the only one who ever made any argument that involved each of the trees being infinitely massive.

 

[MasterFreak]

i cant really rember what it is called but on the discovery channel they did a thing about discovering jesus's remanes and using technolgy to see how he really looked and i also heard that he was a carpenter for a living.

 

[GoronMoron]

GM, it looks like you were the only one who ever made any argument that involved each of the trees being infinitely massive.

You know what? Fine. I messed up on that little thing. I read it wrong. However, my point still stands. If the trees collectively have an infinite amount of mass, then that means that they create a giant expanse of mass in an infinte area, therefore, they have an infinite amount of energy. Okay? Get what I am saying?

Incorrect. Greedy and jealous people are more likely to get/have more/better stuff and kill more rivals (in a pre-civilized world, obviously) ergo they will live longer and procreate more.

Wouldn't a complete lack of emotions be more beneficial to the individual and a group? An empire can fall because of greed and jealousy. If it was a well-oiled machine, where all are happy with their place, wouldn't it work better? People would procreate with their given profession, place, etc. But as it stands, we have emotions that are as of yet not fully understood. It could be our brains, but it could be something else. I do realize that I am opening myself for attack here.

If you want to "defeat" my analogy by changing finite trees into infinite trees, you're allowed to look dumb. After all, lots of people will agree that any and every mass has an infinite quantity of matter in it....

I read the blasted thing wrong, I ADMIT IT. But as I said above, MY REFUTATIONS STILL STAND. Now, your last statement confuses me. Of course every mass has a finite amount of matter. Now, what is the sarcasm for?

Excuse me, but wouldn't no entropy mean, well nothing? Wouldn't it mean no energy, absolute zero temperature, nothing moving? If the universe were ever in that state, it would never get out.

That is my point. It would have had to be acted upon by an outside force (for me, this stands, reasonably, as God).

And the way you understood it was wrong. Lumbro was merely presenting a hypothetical situation based on different assumptions than yours. He was, unlike you, not stating as fact that which he did not know. Look at his first post on the subject. It is so blindingly hypothetical that I fail to see how you could have missed it.

I know that it was a hypothetical example. But you can't prove a point with false hypothetical examples. I was merely making it a TRUE hypothetical example, as I stated above. What in the blazes made you think I thought there was an infinite field with an infinite amount of trees?

Won't you stop butchering my major? And in the end, your entropy argument still maintains laws of entropy are unbending to the ends and beginnings of time, yet conservation of mass/energy can be thrown right out the window. Consistency, folks. And in the end, your entropy argument still maintains laws of entropy are unbending to the ends and beginnings of time, yet conservation of mass/energy can be thrown right out the window. Consistency, folks.

I never said to throw out conservation of mass and energy. I believe I admitted that it is possible for the universe to have existed from the beginning of time. Doesn't mean God couldn't have existed within that, does it? However, the post to which you refer talked about the Big Bang (which you do not agree with). If that was proven true, that means that all mass was created in an instant, defying that law. If that is true, why is it so hard to say that God put that into motion? It's a reasonable explanation.

No, it doesn't mean that God couldn't have existed. It does prove, however, that the point that "God must have created everything" is bogus. Which is the point you were trying to make, and which we just disproved. Excuse me but, duh.

See above for my explanation.

Sorry dude. You compare it to a more organized state, or less disorganized, or however you want to say it. You define a circumstance to have 0 entropy for a single problem, but in another context it wouldn't be. It's still relative. The 0-entropy simply doesn't exist. That would entail absolute 0, which is impossible even in theory.

It's a logical chain of thought. If each example is more disorganized than the previous, you eventually reach a state of complete organization. I've said this before, and I'll say it again if I have to.

Once you stop arguing, I will. If you want it to stop, you've got to stop arguing. Don't try to get in your counterpoint, and then stop the argument.

Did I say to stop the entire argument, that I was right, and leave it at that? No, I was expressing my exasperation at the pointless length of this tangent. I could keep arguing it, I could go on for as long as I can. It just gets repetitive. And why do I have to stop? I could just as easily accuse you of stopping where it was convenient for you. But, no. I won't. Not until one of us cripples the other's argument to the point of death. Or one of us concedes, which isn't going to happen.

No more trees. No more field. No more infinite masses in infinite spaces. That's all I'm trying to say.

Oh, and thanks for reminding me, BBT.

 

[Urza_the_Artisan]

Rsponse, and its me Jim.

Facts and explanations are usually great for proving or disproving things that may be theoretical, technical, composed of observable parts, etc. alot of times anything that is to some extent, understandable or discussable, if you will. What such debatable logic is not that good for is things that cannot be easily understood or proven. What can't be easily understood or proven by many is the debate of religion, or as some have referred to it in this specific postage/thread as "Christians vs. Atheists".

To put it bluntly, many debates such as this one wholly dissolve into petty arguments over this fact or that fact that contribute not in a great way to the bottom line: Is there a God or is there not a God? ( I think that was what this recurring debate was actually about).

The truth: No matter what any Christian or any Atheist says, the facts are plain:

1.) No Christian can offer any type of religious proof or otherwise that a God exerts influence over the world as we perceive it. If they have, please present it and this statement will stand corrected. (Hypothetical scenarios often don't contain solid, unqestionable proofs).

2.) No Atheist can offer any type of religious proof or otherwise that a God does not exert influence over the world as we perceive. If they can, please present it and this statement will stand corrected. (Hypothetical scenarios often don't contain solid, unquestionable proofs).

For you Christians: Most of you will take your beliefs on faith, as is the freedom of most of mankind to do. There is nothing legally wrong with that, nor is there anything morally wrong with it, because to do so is to simply exercise the right of freedom of choice/religion. Not all people have such a freedom in this world, as most people realize. Such Christians as yourselves often don't need solid proofs of the Bible or a constant religious influence in your lives in order to be able to nod your head in acknowledgement toward the existence (significance? relevance?) of some kind of Divine Entity [a g*d?]. The bottom line: if you've got the freedom to choose your religion and/or beliefs and the moral platform to do so without hindrance, then no atheist will be able to disprove your beliefs. They certainly haven't proven strong enough to shake my own.

Atheists: Likewise, the Christians that many of you "hate" or "find annoying" really can't prove your beliefs wrong because you too have (or should have) the freedom of choice to believe whatever you want to believe. Just because one person believes one thing does not necessarily mean that the next person is wrong for believing something else. Perhaps it is this contrast that both sides ignores (or perhaps doesn't ignore.) The blunt fact is, it appears that neither side will ever truly get the other side to see things in their perspective. Some might call such a struggle "futile". Isn't it variety that can sometimes add spice to things?

Well. It might be interesting to see how many *more* pages this debate might take.

By the way, knowing an answer to whether or not the universe is infinite in dimension and all that physics stuff may not have a bearing on something we might not be able to understand. Such as, the question of "g*d".

 

[EvilAttackLlama]

You know what? Fine. I messed up on that little thing. I read it wrong. However, my point still stands. If the trees collectively have an infinite amount of mass, then that means that they create a giant expanse of mass in an infinte area, therefore, they have an infinite amount of energy. Okay? Get what I am saying?

Yeah, we never argued that. We were saying that it wouldn't be a "seething mass of energy" because it might be so spread out that the energy would be very little throughout.

Wouldn't a complete lack of emotions be more beneficial to the individual and a group? An empire can fall because of greed and jealousy.

Groups are not part of evolution. Any individual is better served by taking advantage of every situation, whether it is moral or immoral to do so.

That is my point. It would have had to be acted upon by an outside force (for me, this stands, reasonably, as God).

Or it would mean that your interpretation of entropy is wrong. Which is what I'm suggesting.

But you can't prove a point with false hypothetical examples. I was merely making it a TRUE hypothetical example, as I stated above.

Lumbro was merely explaining that you cannot make the assumption that the universe is finite. Because you made that assumption in your argument, your argument is moot.

TRUE hypothetical example

Hypotheticals, by definition, are not yet acknowledged to be true. If they were, they wouldn't be hypothetical.

I believe I admitted that it is possible for the universe to have existed from the beginning of time.

What I'm suggesting is that there was no "beginning of time. Time itself may be infinite.

If that was proven true, that means that all mass was created in an instant, defying that law.

No, the Big Bang did not create matter. Let me give a quick summary:

1. Singularity - All the matter confined in a single point. Sort of a super black hole.
2. For some reason (unknown), the singularity becomes unstable and explodes, releasing matter and energy into the universe. This is probably caused by internal instability in the singularity.
3. As matter spreads out, gravity attracts it together. Stars and planets are formed. Sol and earth are formed. You know the rest.

As you can see, matter was neither created nor destroyed in the Big Bang.

It's a logical chain of thought. If each example is more disorganized than the previous, you eventually reach a state of complete organization. I've said this before, and I'll say it again if I have to.

Or it could be exponential, in which case absolute zero would not be reached.

No more trees. No more field. No more infinite masses in infinite spaces. That's all I'm trying to say.

Yes, and what I'm trying to say is that if you want to stop talking about them, stop bringing them up. You don't have to get in your counterpoint.

I could just as easily accuse you of stopping where it was convenient for you.

You could, but it wouldn't make sense. I don't tell people to stop immediatly after I make my point, but before they get to make theirs. I'm not saying you're doing this intentionally, but you are doing it. If you want to stop a particular argument, just stop arguing about it. Others won't have anything more to refute, and will have to follow suite, whether they like it or not.

 

[GoronMoron]

Yes, and what I'm trying to say is that if you want to stop talking about them, stop bringing them up. You don't have to get in your counterpoint.

You know what? None of you will listen. In each and every counterpoint, I present valid evidence. If you (Lumbro, I believe) were actually in college, you would have me whimpering on the floor, defeated. But you realize something? I'm not. You are either lying or hiding behind your major saying "see, I'm right". Flawed examples started this whole tangent: I presented real evidence. You don't listen. From this point on, I am leaving this debate. Wallow in your stupidity, revel in your opponent's false defeat. I'm not defeated. There is nothing that you have shown me that proves me undeniably wrong. Nor have I changed your mind any more than I yours.

Yes, posts will follow stating my "cowardice." Hah. Pompous idiots.

Oh, and EAL...VALID hypothesis. Is that better?

 

[EvilAttackLlama]

You know what? None of you will listen. In each and every counterpoint, I present valid evidence. If you (Lumbro, I believe) were actually in college, you would have me whimpering on the floor, defeated. But you realize something? I'm not. You are either lying or hiding behind your major saying "see, I'm right". Flawed examples started this whole tangent: I presented real evidence. You don't listen. From this point on, I am leaving this debate. Wallow in your stupidity, revel in your opponent's false defeat. I'm not defeated. There is nothing that you have shown me that proves me undeniably wrong. Nor have I changed your mind any more than I yours.

How am I lying? I assume you won't respond here, but if you would like to PM me I would appreciate it. I know I'm not lying. I may be mistaken in some of my points, but I'm not lying. And I'm definitely not hiding behind my degree, seeing as I don't have one.

As far as I know, neither I nor Lumbro has given flawed evidence either. If you're talking about those hypotheticals, well, we all did that. I would like to know where I gave flawed evidence as well, so that I won't continue to give that evidence. Please, PM me.

Anyway, this is a debate. We're going to disagree with you. Don't take it personally. I was enjoying debating with you, and would like it if you came back. But if you don't, oh well. Sorry.

 

[Novowels]

Originally posted by GoronMoron
Wouldn't a complete lack of emotions be more beneficial to the individual and a group?

To a group, yes. But all something needs to be beneficial for is one generation.

An empire can fall because of greed and jealousy. If it was a well-oiled machine, where all are happy with their place, wouldn't it work better?

Sure, but life's not perfect like that. You're talking about civilization, whereas I was talking about greed, jealousy, etc being useful for thriving in a pre-civilized world. Once they get civilized and create an empire, they still have to work with what they have.

But as it stands, we have emotions that are as of yet not fully understood. It could be our brains, but it could be something else.

Could be. But I say, "We don't fully understand emotions, so let's study them and work to figure out what they are." You say, and I quote: "God's effects are the emotions we experience and share." and "We were given emotions by God."

Well, you say you're leaving the debate anyways so I'll just say thanks for your input. I can't speak for everyone, of course, but personally I enjoy debating in order to learn new information and to try and see things from a different point of view. I'm not trying to "prove anyone wrong" or change anyone's mind.

Originally posted by Urza_the_Artisan
To put it bluntly, many debates such as this one wholly dissolve into petty arguments over this fact or that fact that contribute not in a great way to the bottom line: Is there a God or is there not a God? ( I think that was what this recurring debate was actually about).

I agree EoG debates can dissolve into petty arguments. But this debate actually started about "the aethiest's (sic) journey" not the EoG. Although it has turned into an EoG debate, yes.

In any case, IMO you seem to be mischaracterizing the atheist (heh) position.

No Atheist can offer any type of religious proof or otherwise that a God does not exert influence over the world as we perceive. If they can, please present it and this statement will stand corrected.

I don't think any atheist attempts to do that. We are merely skeptical of claims that any god or gods do such a thing.

Just because one person believes one thing does not necessarily mean that the next person is wrong for believing something else.

I don't know about that. If someone believes that 2+2=4, and someone else believes that 2+2=5, one of them is wrong. I would say that either god/s exist or t/he/y do not. One pov is actually. We just don't know which one of us is wrong. (hence, this debate)

Otherwise, nice post.

 

[Urza_the_Artisan]

Re

Hey Thanks Novowels...I guess. I realize that you aren't attacking me personally but I do want to clarify some things that you may or may not have misinterpreted:

Urza:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Atheist can offer any type of religious proof or otherwise that a God does not exert influence over the world as we perceive. If they can, please present it and this statement will stand corrected.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Novowels: I don't think any atheist attempts to do that. We are merely skeptical of claims that any god or gods do such a thing.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree, I don't think most of them attempt to do that either.


Another thang:

Urza:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just because one person believes one thing does not necessarily mean that the next person is wrong for believing something else.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Novowels: I don't know about that. If someone believes that 2+2=4, and someone else believes that 2+2=5, one of them is wrong. I would say that either god/s exist or t/he/y do not. One pov is actually. We just don't know which one of us is wrong. (hence, this debate)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The assumption here (good point btw) is that the two people are utilizing the same equation, but a different result. Since I think most reasonable people would agree that neither side can truly, truly, know or prove their side is correct, that perhaps neither is wrong, or neither is correct. To put it into more how I want to say it...one person says 2+2=4 and the other says -2 - (-6) = 4, or that [-x = -2 - (-(-2) ]. Perhaps we are looking at the same thing but just see it through different scopes. Contrasting beliefs can be shown to coexist without crossing into the realm of illogicity or disharmony.

One of us may be wrong, one of us may be right. My point: Its in our rights of freedoms to choose our beliefs religiously. I get along fine with my atheist friends because we do not let petty arguments get in the way of questioning our opposing beliefs, nor do we let it get in the way of respecting each other as friends. Bottom line: in a world where beliefs can be as numberless as people, why let who's right and who's wrong get in the way of being who we are? *macabre chuckle* besides we'll know when we're dead won't we...the answers are just a matter of time.

(( Personal note: Novowels, if you're an atheist, you're one of the most respectful, and logical, atheists I've had the honor of discussing with))

 

[EvilAttackLlama]

Personal note: Novowels, if you're an atheist, you're one of the most respectful, and logical, atheists I've had the honor of discussing with

I feel so left out. *weeps*

No, Novowels is a much better debater than I.

The assumption here (good point btw) is that the two people are utilizing the same equation, but a different result. Since I think most reasonable people would agree that neither side can truly, truly, know or prove their side is correct, that perhaps neither is wrong, or neither is correct. To put it into more how I want to say it...one person says 2+2=4 and the other says -2 - (-6) = 4, or that [-x = -2 - (-(-2) ].

The thing is, people are using the same equation. For example:

Equation: The universe exists, and has certain laws which govern its existence.

Conclusions:
1. God must have made the universe and created those laws.
2. The universe has always existed and these laws are an inate part of the universe, like energy and matter.

See, two people use the same equations and derive varying results.

 

[Novowels]

Originally posted by Urza_the_Artisan
I agree, I don't think most of them attempt to do that either.

Coo.

The assumption here (good point btw) is that the two people are utilizing the same equation, but a different result.

Yes basically. Two people see the same universe and come to different conclusions.

Since I think most reasonable people would agree that neither side can truly, truly, know or prove their side is correct, that perhaps neither is wrong, or neither is correct.

Ooh, I don't know about that. The more vague a view is, however, the more likely it is to be unknowable.

To put it into more how I want to say it...one person says 2+2=4 and the other says -2 - (-6) = 4, or that [-x = -2 - (-(-2) ].

Mm, I don't know. I think we've said so far that the evidence (equation) is the same, it's the answer that isn't agreed upon. The answer also isn't known however so a mathematical example probably isn't very apt to fit. (Yeah, yeah, I know I started it. I didn't plan on this turning into the next big subject!) EvilAttackLama puts it better than I can in his last post.

Perhaps we are looking at the same thing but just see it through different scopes. Contrasting beliefs can be shown to coexist without crossing into the realm of illogicity or disharmony.

Heh, well. Not when one of them is "god exists" and the other one is "god doesn't exist." That's pretty difficult to harmonise.

One of us may be wrong, one of us may be right. My point: Its in our rights of freedoms to choose our beliefs religiously. I get along fine with my atheist friends because we do not let petty arguments get in the way of questioning our opposing beliefs, nor do we let it get in the way of respecting each other as friends. Bottom line: in a world where beliefs can be as numberless as people, why let who's right and who's wrong get in the way of being who we are?

Well, I have this little itch about knowing things that I gotta scratch. So I gots to know. That's why I read a lot. I get along with my religious friends fine too, though.

*macabre chuckle* besides we'll know when we're dead won't we...the answers are just a matter of time.

Maybe. Maybe we won't know anything because our brain's shut off. Guess we wouldn't care about knowing that way though, anyways.

(( Personal note: Novowels, if you're an atheist, you're one of the most respectful, and logical, atheists I've had the honor of discussing with))

I'll take the compliment, but it just tells me that you haven't met too many!

Originally posted by EvilAttackLlama
No, Novowels is a much better debater than I.

Heh, I dunno... I just got that 'armchair scientist' thing going on. You actually seem to know what you're talking about wrt astronomy and physics.

 

[Vepaot]

*Jumps on the bandwagon*

There's no way I'm going to read all of the posts up to this part of the debate so I'm just going to throw myself in here like the n00b that I am.

As a personal preference, I'm atheist. As a child I was raised up under the Assembly of God, and later when I lived with my father I got baptized in the Catholic Church. Maybe I'm reflecting my beliefs too much on standard religion today, but I no longer believe in a God because I was taught that God was loving, kind, etc., etc. Yet, throughout my life, I've seen some pretty wicked stuff and when I was a child I wondered how such a merciful God could sit back and watch me suffer as I prayed to him asking for help. And I even told God then,
"I know you can't fix all of my problems with the sweep of your hand, because you don't give anybody that break. But haven't I done enough now? I've been trying so long and so hard to fix these things, why can't you intervene just a little?"
And I never got a response. Granted, my life is better now, and some people can say that God just took his time and ended up helping me just recently, but why would God wait until I've lost faith for him to help me with my life? That's not one of "God's mysterious ways", I seriously doubt he intends to push people away like that.
I think the biggest part of atheism came from something I heard a long time ago and it's made perfect sense ever since:
Heaven is suppose to be perfect, right? Every person's idea of Heaven would have to be different then. And you can say now,
"But God can do anything, and he can make Heaven perfect for everybody".
But hear me out. I'm as sure that you know some people that when they die, if there is a God, they will not be going to Heaven. You may even love that person or care for them deeply. Now what happens per say, you and them are in a car accident and die at the same time; and they go to **** and you go to Heaven. Will God allow you to wallow and mourn the eternal loss of your friend because you cared about them? In that case then Heaven isn't perfect because not everybody you love will be there. Or will God simply remove the knowledge of that person from your mind? That doesn't seem fair or perfect either, because who wants to lose their memorys they had as a human?

 

[Lumbro]

You know what? None of you will listen. In each and every counterpoint, I present valid evidence.

The only evidence I'm aware of that you've used has been:
1) The universe exists
2) Human emotions exist
3) An incorrect notion of the bounds of entropy
The rest has been hypotheticals, which have been addressed.

If you (Lumbro, I believe) were actually in college, you would have me whimpering on the floor, defeated. But you realize something? I'm not. You are either lying or hiding behind your major saying "see, I'm right".

Okay, look, I'm not trying to make you whimper on the floor. I'm also not right just because I'm a physics major. I have, however, told you the way it is. If you come back to the debate I can give you excerpts about entropy from my statistical mechanics and thermodynamics books, I can give you equations. If you find a source or an argument that show me to be mistaken, say so.

I claim that just because a system is in equilibrium does not mean that it has 0-entropy. You can define that as a 0-entropy point for the problem, but in the scope of some absolute notion of 0-entropy for the universe it doesn't hold. There is no such thing as a device to measure the exact entropy. From Introductory Statistical Mechanics by Bowley and Sanchez:

[integral equation that I can't type here for lack of symbols]
.....
Only entropy differences are defined. Point a is taken to be a reference point and the entropy is defined with respect to it. The reference point is usually chosen s the lowest temperature that can be achieved - ideally it should be the absolute zero of temperature, but no real system can ever be cooled to the absolute zero of temperature....

So I wasn't just trying to be difficult.

Flawed examples started this whole tangent: I presented real evidence. You don't listen. From this point on, I am leaving this debate. Wallow in your stupidity, revel in your opponent's false defeat.

Well, it's too bad you're leaving. But just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean they didn't listen. It doesn't have to be about who is "defeated." I'd rather you stayed and we cleared things up. Or you could just let me wallow in my stupidity.

I'm not defeated.

I disagree, but that shouldn't stop you. I'm not going to retract my arguments just because you leave. I'm sorry it came to that.

There is nothing that you have shown me that proves me undeniably wrong.

If I claimed that unicorns existed you couldn't prove me undeniably wrong either. That doesn't mean unicorns exist, or that you should believe in unicorns. What's important is what is more likely. I claim that God's extistence is less likely than his nonexistence.

Yes, posts will follow stating my "cowardice." Hah. Pompous idiots.

Ooops, never mind. You were right about everything all along. What was I thinking?

Vepaot, you make a good point. "How can I be happy in heaven when I know of loved ones in ****?" Dunno. Apathy maybe? Lack of empathy?

This argument only works against a Judeo-Christian God though. Generally for these types of arguments God just implies these 4 things:
1. Omnipotence (all-powerful)
2. Omniscience (all-knowing)
3. Omnibenevolent (all-good)
4. Creator (of the universe, generally)
It's just because this is generally a definition that everyone will agree upon. It doesn't have to mean Heaven/**** generally. It's just that on this board everyone thinks Christian.

 

[Vepaot]

Haha, I'm fully aware of that as well. It's just that I'm pretty sure all religious people believe in some sort of after-life. Then again, most religions believe such things, right?

Anyway I don't see how God could exist. This doesn't mean I believe in theorty of evolution. I always thought being an aethiest meant that you don't believe in anything. That's how I am. I basically don't care how we got here, because we're here now and that's all that's important.

 

[Lumbro]

It's just that I'm pretty sure all religious people believe in some sort of after-life. Then again, most religions believe such things, right?

Not all afterlifes are Heaven/**** though. Some believe reincarnation, like Hinduism. Some believe in enlightenment/Nirvana. There are other beliefs too. These account for billions of people.

I basically don't care how we got here, because we're here now and that's all that's important.

Wait, isn't that just assuming God doesn't exist? I mean, if He existed, that would be pretty darn important wouldn't it?

 

[chronojinx]

Originally posted by Aurora Grid
God gave us free will, so God wills nothing in our lives, Free will was given to us so we can either do the right or do the wrong, god doesn't choose if someone goes to **** or not it's based on that person's deeds, so when someone's world falls apart they were the cause of their own problems.

"But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away." -Isaiah 64:4

"What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.â€
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
" -James 2:14-18

Jax
Also, I did not mean that God only helps those that are prayed for. I personally believe that God incorperates himself into every aspect of life, even in non-christians. I don't believe that something has to be miraculous to be a miracle, as stupid as that sounds. God cares about even the most trivial aspects of our lives. For instance, if you can't figure out a problem in a math test, and in the last five minutes of a period, the theorem you need suddenly pops into your head, and you get a good grade on the test because of that, I would call that a miracle. Sure, it seems ordinary. Sure it seems like a mere coincedence, but that doesn't mean that God didn't have a hand in it. "Give thanks to God in all circumstances."
I don't mean that prayer has no effect. It does! But, I'm saying that God isn't this magical entity that only works when we pray to it.

"And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us" - Acts 17:26

 

[Bazooka Lucca]

well one thing is for certain:

I should be getting gil for all the replies/views this topic has gotten!

 

[Mike da King]

given: y = 5x - 2x

Christians: y = 3/4 really, look the bible says so!
Jews: y = 46i
Muslims: y = 7.5
Taoists: y = 37 times 10^65 coulombs
Hindus: y = 92 sin(x)
Confucious: ln(y) must be prime and greater than the maximum number of grains of rice that can fit into a can of paint.
Atheists: y = 3x

Religious argument: You CANNOT prove that y DOES NOT = (arbitrary silliness), so we are all just going to have to agree to disagree or kill eachother.

What do y'all think of my analogy? I didn't mean to offend anyone, but I don't much care if I did.

 

[MasterFoot]

all ChronicJinx has done was read off arbitrary passages from the OT and NT, and somehow he feels hes made an incredible point.


And your Algebraic Analogy has also proven to be more substainsal (sp?) then the above argument, for those of you who dont know (which is probably no one, but it wont hurt to explain)
y=5x-2x simplifies to y=3x. Which states that Athiest are all material, we like to take what we have and simplify it all the way down to basic facts.

 

[DN-Trebor9000]

if god ever gave firm definite proof of his existence, no one would bother tyrying to live.

so he can't give proof, and the bad effect is that we get people who bash on him left and right. but ultimately, it doesnt even matter, believe or dont believe,, hopefully you get the real important message, ie, be a good person, thats all that truly matters.

you dont have to believe in my faith, but my faith believes in you.

hah hah, and i'm drunk as **** right now, yet spouting such wisdom. go me.

 

[James Cruise]

How can there be a debate with no evidence on either side? i doubt that an aethist can sway a christian or any other religion to abandon their faith. And I don't think any christians will be able to sway any of the aethists either. No valid points are being excepted as far as I can tell, (note: I only read through about 25 pages.) and a christian cannot give proof that God does exist without having to explain the supernatural. Which again is frowned apon by most. It all comes down to faith and what they are told to do by the Father. I think by now you can tell that I'm a Christian, and I'm just going to say that out of the most of you all here, this is the most sensable debate I've seen. Most the ones I've witnessed are christians who are too dumb in their faith to give an arguement, and aethists that are too closeminded to accept anything they weren't taught in school. I've seen open minded aethists and knowledgable christians. Doubt I'll post here much, but PM me if you wish. See ya all later!

 

[snex]

you are misinterpreting "atheist" to mean the strong sense of the word, which is "denial of the existence of a supernatural being."

that is not the only type of atheism. real atheists (we non-ignorant ones) know that it means "disbelief in the existence of a supernatural being." the two are VERY different. so really, there is no faith involved in atheism. there is also nothing to prove.

 

[Evincar]

If 'god' was ever alive at one time, he is without a doubt, now, dead.

Personally, I am atheist. Well, perhaps leaning more towards agnostic. It is more that I simply see no reason or logic behind god than that I am against it. Were god proven to exist, I'd hop on the train. I might not worship like crazy, but I'd be more careful about my sins and so on.

Anyway...as for god existing...I think that if he ever did exist, he is dead now. The evidence of this is extraordinary. The main piece is that he has not 'spoken' to anybody in centuries. God supposedly speaks through dreams, or visions, or the angel Metatron. When was the last time this happened? Certainly it hasn't been since before medieval times, or 'the dark ages.'

Jesus was a real person, that much has been proven true. Whether god exists or not is left to be discovered. If there's any evidence of his existence, however, I'd say look to the past, for he is dead now.