God exists. Here are the arguments

[Raz]

To continue with the humour.

Damn hilarious.

[xzxzzx]

Raz: I lost intrest after a few screens, but yeah, that's pretty funny. I'll have to watch some more later.

[Myxomatosis]

well, religion keeps people in line. imagine life without god huggers. if we were all nilihists, the world would be chaotic. people who believe in god are just afraid of death and want continue something that WILL end. only the strongest can be atheist.

[squakMix]

Here's my two cents:

God doesnt Exist. Flying dragons, and Certainly Lepricons Dont exist.

Many many children believe in Purple dragons and Lepricons.
We cant prove that they dont exist. We just have to take the childs word on this. They MUST Exist if Millions of children Believe in them. Millions of children also believe in santa clause. Probably more santa believing children than Christ believing Adults. We can't prove that there ISNT a santa somewhere, Hibernating . Seriously though, If we believe in god, we say that There possibly ARE all of these creatures that we "know" dont exist. Hey, There were books written about them werent there?

"I saw some little footprints in my garden. Lepricons must exist." - all the proof a christian would need.

Note:
I am not saying christians are bad people. I am saying that They need to fucking look at the facts as they are.
Just think about it.... We cant disprove Bigfoot, aliens, or lepricons. How could we disprove god!!?

[squakMix]

You know, I think I'll start a religion where I claim a band of lepricons in a spaceship made the universe. "Ha,Ha" you can't prove me wrong! They must exist.

I will also claim that I saw one in my backyard Jump in his little rocket, and fly into the solar system.

"Can't prove me wrong. What are you ganna do now?"

Become an Athiest.

[Smeggle]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh but wait, that’s right, death doesn’t affect believers, they live forever... I forgot that bit...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So do we all, because we are all eternal beings or our non-physical self is. I tend to look at it, as the energy that is a person, That gives him/her there thoughts, feelings etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I tend to look at it as brain functions. It's easy to proclaim the existence of some mysterious "energy" that can't be detected any way, you know that you could just as well call that energy God (some people actually do)?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That it is eternal and it's next path on the journey, whether that be a part of a collective whole or not is unknown.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Could that be because it isn't known if it even exists?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does a person have to concern and worry them selves in what will happen after the 'So called Physical' body is no more?

I am a part of every thing as every thing is part of me.
A strong statement? but can I back up that statement?

Simply put yes, for every thing is made from atoms, and those atoms are connected via a miniscual energy. In that then I am as connected to 'YOU' as you are to 'ME'. It means by thought alone I can travel where ever I so wish, for thought is simply a transfereal of energy and that is passed between atoms. If all atoms are connected by this energy, then it can only follow that I am as connected to another person, thing, whatever you wish and vice versa.

That would then raise the question " Do we really need a machine to communicate? when really if we look hard enough we can see all, hear all, feel all. That has to be true if you follow the original Premise (statement) I made.
It must then follow from that, if thought is real, as I have just indicated, that God is also a thought, there for in that sence God exists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If your premise was true you could communicate via telepathy or leave your body and fly to Andromeda. Can you?
And of course god exists or, to be more precise, at least one god exists in the head of every believer.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is the semantics as I said of Philosophy. On one hand I can place a premise that discounts the theory and in the very same theory find the basis of God's existence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Except that oxymoronic theories usually aren't accepted by scientists and yes, philosophy is a science.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
which ever you choose to believe is up to the individual and rightly so, as it is that, that gives us our own uniqueness and individuallity.
The right of choice or free will. To say to some one 'This is what it is', is to impose on thats persons free will to not see it that way and it also then has to follow that the reverse is true. To say to another that 'nah, God can't exist' is an imposition on the believers free will.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Why oh why do people always forget (or even outright dismiss) the possibility that someone might also choose not to believe?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My choice? Believe that which you will, choose that which you will but in what ever you do, harm no-one either mentally or physically. Do not impose your will on another simply share it and rechoice in what you believe ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And please stop trying to make others follow your rules.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dunno, works for me and I find I have a lot more respect for other people and there free will to exist and believe in there own individuality.

~
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would prefer it if you want to quote against something I wrote that you quote corectly. This piece is one whole piece and to break it up as you have is to lose it's context. i.e. opening Argument/Explanation/Concllusion. thank you

however, in answering you leave me with little alternative but to deal with your individualisations seperately as well some thing I find distasteful. ( This is an addin: *hmmm And that again can confirm my argument about Imposing on anothers free will...intersting (also as it's philosophical my request imposes on your free will...*) interesting ... * )

If your premise was true you could communicate via telepathy or leave your body and fly to Andromeda. Can you?
And of course god exists or, to be more precise, at least one god exists in the head of every believer

1. Yes I can..Can you disprove other wise? Can I prove I can? Does that really matter?
And 2. How can you say 'of course God Exists' Where is your support? it's only partially true as your second statement says and negates the first.

Why oh why do people always forget (or even outright dismiss) the possibility that someone might also choose not to believe?

Re-read it properly and you may understand it. I said What ever someone wants to believe is up to them. Any one can see that the reverse argument is there i.e. yours...And yes for the semantics of free Will you are free to say that....

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My choice? Believe that which you will, choose that which you will but in what ever you do, harm no-one either mentally or physically. Do not impose your will on another simply share it and rechoice in what you believe ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And please stop trying to make others follow your rules.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dunno, works for me and I find I have a lot more respect for other people and there free will to exist and believe in there own individuality.

Nope they are not rules they are morals or they could be termed as Self Rules. And By quoting in the middle, you completely destroy your argument that I am trying to make others follow Rules [] Because the last paragraph states 'Dunno, It works for me and I find I have more respect etc.....' That quite clearly indicates My own way of going around stuff....

Please do enlighten me as to where I state another has to follow what I do? if you are refering to the first parragraph, To do other than hwat I stated is to impose on the other's 'Free Will'. That in any moral sence is wrong.


and finally

Except that oxymoronic theories usually aren't accepted by scientists and yes, philosophy is a science.

Em have you done Philosophy at all? It's totally oxymoronic.
One argument can defeat itself by it's very essence as I proved above by using the 'Semantics' I spoke of.
In my first example a few posts earlier I showed how the argument disproved and In this how the argument is proved (existence of God) So if that is oxy moronic as you say, Then that means Philosophy is an oxy moron.

As for it being a Science ? Sorry wrong Science can prove 100% that a thing exists.. that it is real and through action can be proved. In Philosophy nothing can be proved as there is allways an argument to counter the next (Such as what you or some one may come back at on this, There by proving the point)[Notice I only indicate 'May- thats the operative word]
In that sence then Philosophy cannot be a Science and in fact is probably why it is contained with in The Humanities, of which I did my Degree in...

most of your comments disprove them selves I'm afraid, in how you are actually placing your argument and your Operative words. Although some do raise interesting connotations and could expand into some very intersting avenues......

~

[Mike H.]

Why do atheists care what Christians believe? If you are right in believing there is no God, then when we die, it does not matter whether we believed or not.

[squakMix]

Originally posted by Smeggle
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh but wait, that’s right, death doesn’t affect believers, they live forever... I forgot that bit...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So do we all, because we are all eternal beings or our non-physical self is. I tend to look at it, as the energy that is a person, That gives him/her there thoughts, feelings etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I tend to look at it as brain functions. It's easy to proclaim the existence of some mysterious "energy" that can't be detected any way, you know that you could just as well call that energy God (some people actually do)?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That it is eternal and it's next path on the journey, whether that be a part of a collective whole or not is unknown.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Could that be because it isn't known if it even exists?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does a person have to concern and worry them selves in what will happen after the 'So called Physical' body is no more?

I am a part of every thing as every thing is part of me.
A strong statement? but can I back up that statement?

Simply put yes, for every thing is made from atoms, and those atoms are connected via a miniscual energy. In that then I am as connected to 'YOU' as you are to 'ME'. It means by thought alone I can travel where ever I so wish, for thought is simply a transfereal of energy and that is passed between atoms. If all atoms are connected by this energy, then it can only follow that I am as connected to another person, thing, whatever you wish and vice versa.

That would then raise the question " Do we really need a machine to communicate? when really if we look hard enough we can see all, hear all, feel all. That has to be true if you follow the original Premise (statement) I made.
It must then follow from that, if thought is real, as I have just indicated, that God is also a thought, there for in that sence God exists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If your premise was true you could communicate via telepathy or leave your body and fly to Andromeda. Can you?
And of course god exists or, to be more precise, at least one god exists in the head of every believer.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is the semantics as I said of Philosophy. On one hand I can place a premise that discounts the theory and in the very same theory find the basis of God's existence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Except that oxymoronic theories usually aren't accepted by scientists and yes, philosophy is a science.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
which ever you choose to believe is up to the individual and rightly so, as it is that, that gives us our own uniqueness and individuallity.
The right of choice or free will. To say to some one 'This is what it is', is to impose on thats persons free will to not see it that way and it also then has to follow that the reverse is true. To say to another that 'nah, God can't exist' is an imposition on the believers free will.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Why oh why do people always forget (or even outright dismiss) the possibility that someone might also choose not to believe?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My choice? Believe that which you will, choose that which you will but in what ever you do, harm no-one either mentally or physically. Do not impose your will on another simply share it and rechoice in what you believe ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And please stop trying to make others follow your rules.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dunno, works for me and I find I have a lot more respect for other people and there free will to exist and believe in there own individuality.

~
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I would prefer it if you want to quote against something I answered to us ethe whole piece and not jump a comment in four or five lines into the argument. That way you may quote correctly.



1. Yes I can..Can you disprove other wise? Can I prove I can? Does that really matter?
And 2. How can you say 'of course God Exists' Where is your support? it's only partially true as your second statement says and negates the first.


Re-read it properly and you may understand it. I said What ever someone wants to believe is up to them. Any one can see that the reverse argument is there i.e. yours...And yes for the semantics of free Will you are free to say that....

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My choice? Believe that which you will, choose that which you will but in what ever you do, harm no-one either mentally or physically. Do not impose your will on another simply share it and rechoice in what you believe ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And please stop trying to make others follow your rules.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dunno, works for me and I find I have a lot more respect for other people and there free will to exist and believe in there own individuality.

Nope they are not rules they are morals or they could be termed as Self Rules. And By quoting in the middle, you completely destroy your argument that I am trying to make others follow Rules [] Because the last paragraph states 'Dunno, It works for me and I find I have more respect etc.....' That quite clearly indicates My own way of going around stuff....

Please do enlighten me as to where I state another has to follow what I do? if you are refering to the first parragraph, To do other than hwat I stated is to impose on the other's 'Free Will'. That in any moral sence is wrong.


and finally



Em have you done Philosophy at all? It's totally oxymoronic.
One argument can defeat itself by it's very essence as I proved above by using the 'Semantics' I spoke of.
In my first example a few posts earlier I showed how the argument disproved and In this how the argument is proved (existence of God) So if that is oxy moronic as you say, Then that means Philosophy is an oxy moron.

As for it being a Science ? Sorry wrong Science can prove 100% that a thing exists.. that it is real and through action can be proved. In Philosophy nothing can be proved as there is allways an argument to counter the next (Such as what you or some one may come back at on this, There by proving the point)[Notice I only indicate 'May- thats the operative word]
In that sence then Philosophy cannot be a Science and in fact is probably why it is contained with in The Humanities, of which I did my Degree in...

most of your comments disprove them selves I'm afraid, in how you are actually placing your argument and your Operative words. Although some do raise interesting connotations and could expand into some very intersting avenues......

~

For the love of god:
I cant tell if you are for No god, or god.

Ps:
Athiests care if christians believe or not, becuase they veiw the Idea as obsurb. Would you try and prove wrong someone that believes lepricons ate his cat?

[squakMix]

Someone proved that energy and Matter were Interchangable, and are infinite. Energy and matter doesnt go away, it changes state.

Ok; Here's the only argument one needs to prove Christianity wrong:

What seperates god from fairy tales?
Only the fact that millions of adults believe in christianity. Nothing more.

If you can tell me something that truly seperates it from a fairy tell, Speak up.

[Mike H.]

That logic could apply to anything. What about the old philosophical debate about whether we exist? I can't really prove that I exist, but I can't disprove it either. By your logic (which is when in doubt, choose the negative) I don't exist.

[AJCF88]

The simple message here is you either believe or you don't believe. Arguing over it will not change the outcome in most cases. It only drives your commitment to your ideals even further into your soul.

I believe in God. God has given us free will to choose to accept or deny. Even Satan denied God when he felt like he was just as powerful as God. That is why he was cast down into Hell.

About God making everything all rosey and perfect in this life..... Free Will. We make smart choices or stupid ones. They can have a postive or negative impact on our environment (world). If we act corupt and hateful..... well that is what well see in society. If we act compassionate and hopeful.... guess what? that's what we can expect to see in society. God does not make bad things happen. People who are wrecked in the head make bad things happen..... like murder, rape, child pornography, kidnapping.... and the list goes on. Were not God's version of the Sim's..... we are simply given life. What we do with it is up to us.

If Free Will was not a factor, then God really would be a ruler of controlled drones.....

So, we have a choice. To accept and believe and know that based on that belief that eternal life after death in a place of paradise will be our reward. Sure, it might be crappy at times to live in this life but the bible even tells us that this is a sin cursed world and our reward is in heaven.

You say, What if you're wrong and there's no heaven or paradis? Well, living a clean and decent life here is not goiing to hurt anyone right? If you die and that's really the end, then why not live a life that is helpful to others and do something positive.

What if the bible is right? What if God does exist and both heaven and hell exist? What's the harm in believing then? If you die now...... where would you end up if the bible is true?

I don't put my faith in man, I don't believe in a denomination or religious group. I believe in God, and the plan of Salvation. I'll leave you with that and this
link to what I believe

http://azcowboy88.***********/livingcf/id3.html

[squakMix]

Originally posted by Mike H.
That logic could apply to anything. What about the old philosophical debate about whether we exist? I can't really prove that I exist, but I can't disprove it either. By your logic (which is when in doubt, choose the negative) I don't exist.

Except that You can see you. You can touch you. You can Prove that the atoms of you are actually Working. You are thinking.

The Philosophy is proving if EVERYONE ELSE exists. I believe that they exist because I can see, taste, and touch them. I can ineract with them. They ACTUALLY give a little (ALOT) signal to their existance.

nothing tells me that god exists.

[Smeggle]

Which again proves the point I was making Mike H. What you wrote (except the doupt bit at the end) again is oxymoronic. i.e. each argument disproving itself by it's very statement...leads you to wonder whatis real and what isn't but thats another argument (i.e. Philosophical debate, As this is essentially what Philosophy isArgument)

No wonder I got so bored with it and took 6 years to do the course. Once I clicked (very early on) that, I lost interest. I even put a paper in against a mark I recieved (It put me on a border line pass for the third year),as I said I sent a basic argument disproving there mark down andended up with a full pass.(they told me not to do it again thoughLOL) (btw I left it for a year and dumped six mnths of another, course should have taken 4 years)

That as well also indicates that it can not indeed be Scientific because no matter how you place it, there is allways an argument against (which is what confused spakmix [try use the edit button more ]).

With one statement/Argument conclusion I can disprove some thing but that in it self is disproved under the basic Principle of Philosophy Argument.
Should rename it to Catch22 or some thing like that cause ther is allways a catch no matter what you say...

however if you use your words correctly and place your operative words correctly, you can lead to conclusion.

In this case the conclusion, Of my argument anyway, is that an argument against my point will only further prove my point, in the sence that you, the arguer, would be arguing my point as that is my whole point. That may sound a bit confusing but if you look at it a few times you will see that it is in fact very simplistic.

~



n.b: looks like you got your wish for a change Mike

[squakMix]

Your argument Doesnt have to do with the argument of this Thread.

you say: Debating about debating is proving your point.
I say: God doesnt exist, and I can prove it that when things die, they do not have the capacity for thought anymore. However, a christian cannot prove a soul, heaven, hell, or ANY sort of afterlife.

[squakMix]

Christianity is a condition.
"You will go to hell if you dont believe in it"
Pretty convincing to most people.

"He gave us the choice to believe in it."
Most people say "Hey, That works! ...And if i dont believe in it, I will get punished, so I had better."


Btw: i didnt edit, Just to annoy you :

[Mike H.]

I have never tried to prove the existence of God. I simply choose to believe, just as you choose not to. Also, I have never tried to change your beliefs. I have only asked why you care about mine.

[mrharhar]

Strange article.
Scientific valid. Scientificly unexplanable.

God acts in strange ways.

Dont forget to read the electronic resposnces, for the other side!

[squakMix]

I know.
Again:
it's like someone saying a lepricon ate their Cat.
It sounds obsurd, and I'm trying to help you better yourselves.
just think about this. Seriously think about it. it doesnt seem to make Sense at ALL.
Just like, a lepricon Eating your cat.


ps: I know I sound Selfish.

[Mike H.]

Your logic is flawed, again.

1. There are lots of things that happen every day that you CAN prove because you can see them, that do not make any sense at all.
2. The Big Bang theory doesn't make sense. The theory that life was randomly created by amino acids doesn't make sense. NO THEORY MAKES SENSE. So what am I supposed to believe caused the creation of the world and the human race? Obviously, I have to believe something that makes no sense.

[AJCF88]

If God does not exist..... stop using His name in your profanity. JC, GD, OMG,

Unless profanity does not exist......

I know, cheap poke at the athiest crowd.

[Mike H.]

[offtopic]
I don't say OMG, I just have it in my avatar to make fun of n00bs who talk like that.

(Shouldn't you be saying that to us Christians, too? After all, we believe it's a sin, atheists don't. )

[/offtopic]

[AJCF88]

Christians who use profanity in any form should re-evaluate their lifestyle. Profanity is a filthy habit.

A person who truly undertands their commitment to a "Christ-like" life.... would not feel the need to use profanity. Many times.... Christians who go around claiming to be a Christian and then live no different than the rest of the world give Christianity a bad rap.

Example: Jesus Saves bumper sticker on a car where the driver cusses you out in traffic.

Another thing I don't like is a Bible pusher who thinks they are holier than thou. They are the only perfect people on earth and everyone else are horrible vile sinners. We have to remember that it is not our place to judge others. Jesus also instructed us to love your enemy. How can we help anyone if we present a negative and hostile approach?

[Mike H.]

That leads to yet another debate, a debate on exactly how you define profanity. I'm not touching that one.

[AJCF88]

.... LOL . I don't think I will either.

[Smeggle]

Originally posted by squakMix

Btw: i didnt edit, Just to annoy you :

twas a favour I was trying to give you. Whilst it is of little concern to myself, ther are other's around here who do take exception to the lack of it's use. It's there for a reason, to save on bandwidth etc. Every time you post a new html section has to be written by the php scripting.
This includes table attributes/images etc.
This in turn can greatly increase band width if done consisyently, as you have done up to now since joining this thread, when a simple edit would have been easier. It also put's a lot more pressure on the data base, which is under heavy use as is it is and gives more potential to data base errors.
Hence a friendly hint to use the edit button

Your argument Doesnt have to do with the argument of this Thread

In what way?
[Statement]
Constructively the thread was about the proof that God exists.
[Argument]
It gave a statement/ an Argument (the link) and a conclusion...That then took it into the realm of Debate and Debate is to 'Argue a point to it's conclusion (if possible) via Premis (Statement) Argument (Support of your Statement) and Conclusion 'Correlation of Proof via Argument of your Statement).

[Conclusion]
So, as basic Philosophy was used in the construction of the thread, using basic philosophical principle, I can disprove your statement;

Your argument Doesnt have to do with the argument of this Thread

via as I have said the basic construction of Philosophical Premiss/Argument and conclusion. The essetial starting point of the thread. Which, to finally conclude in it self, has disproved your statement.


And as you fell quite neatly into the trap I had laid and choose to argue the point (Debate) you essentially in your own negation of my point proved it and also possibly (I would have to work on the construction) disproved it.

As I said Semantics of Philosophy, reason it is in Humanities and not the Sciences as it is so inconclusive....

[Mike H.]

Wasn't this thread started as a joke?

[Smeggle]

Originally posted by Mike H.
Wasn't this thread started as a joke?

Dunno, Think so..but then it got quite interesting.....



or more like Smeggled LOL

~

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by Mike H.
That logic could apply to anything. What about the old philosophical debate about whether we exist? I can't really prove that I exist, but I can't disprove it either. By your logic (which is when in doubt, choose the negative) I don't exist.

Because while you can't prove that we exist, there is overwhelming evidence.

Originally posted by Mike H.
Your logic is flawed, again.

1. There are lots of things that happen every day that you CAN prove because you can see them, that do not make any sense at all.
2. The Big Bang theory doesn't make sense. The theory that life was randomly created by amino acids doesn't make sense. NO THEORY MAKES SENSE. So what am I supposed to believe caused the creation of the world and the human race? Obviously, I have to believe something that makes no sense.

You can't definitively prove anything, ever.

The big bang theory makes a lot of sense, particularly if you start thinking of the universe in terms of space-time and not just "space".

The theory that life was randomly created also makes a lot of sense - the likelyhood of it happening is pretty high.

And yes, this thread was started as a joke. I should know.

[horse-fly]

Originally posted by Mike H.
I can't really prove that I exist, but I can't disprove it either. By your logic (which is when in doubt, choose the negative) I don't exist.

um... decartes, you might have heard of him, did kinda prove the existence of the individual...

"i think, therefore i am."

he mentions nothing of the body, only that the fact that i think, i exist somewhere, at some time, in some form... the specifics are ambiguous

[will]

Originally posted by Mike H.
Why do atheists care what Christians believe? If you are right in believing there is no God, then when we die, it does not matter whether we believed or not.

I, sir, am pro-common sense.

Also, we have a goddamned enough of snotty christans trying to convert us. And that really annoys me.

[gaekwad2]

@Smeggle: You're talking about dialectic, the concept in which for each thesis there is an antithesis and when the argument gets solved (synthesis) there already is another antitheasis to that etc.ad.inf.

But none of these statements have to contradict themselves. In fact only such statements are considered valid in an argument that don't.

Dialectic != Oxymoron

And dialectic is a very limited one-dimensional concept still based on binary logic that's been discarded by a lot of 20th century philosophers.

Science, however, is never about "absolute proof". All scientific proofs are relative to current knowledge and "as if" (ie. they don't state that something exists, they say everything appears as if it existed).


@Horse-Fly: Descartes' Cogito is plagued by circular logic.
If you're unsure about your own existence you can't say "I think" but rather "there are thoughts".

And even if you think you exist you can still be sceptical about everybody else's existence (aka solipsism).


This thread is now flying to Cuba.

[horse-fly]

@gaek...

ah... touche... i never thought of it that way

[squakMix]

There is nothing pointing to the existance of god.
I think when nothing is effected by, or has to do with, or shows the existance of something, or gives no logic at ALL to the existance of, I could safely say that I believe it doesnt exist.

Although you cant disprove a lepricon eating my cat, you know it could never happen.

Have you ever thought of Nothing? It is impossible to have nothing. So, Like the ancient Chinese believed: because there was nothing, there was something.

Sounds perplexing, But the big bang theoretically is possible.

[godoncrack]

Originally posted by sgtfuzzbubble99
Yeah, god exists. I've been trying to buy a Nintendo from him for a while now...

You sound just like the people I use to sell weed to.

[AJCF88]

What if God used the big bang method and caused creation to be set into motion in that way......?

[Nimelennar]

From The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
"The Babel fish," said The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy quietly, "is small, yellow and leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy not from its carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish."
"Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God."
"The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'"
"'But,' says Man, 'The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'"
"'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanished in a puff of logic."
"'Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing."
"Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book Well That About Wraps It Up For God."
"Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloddier wars than anything else in the history of creation."

[GqSkrub]

Originally posted by squakMix
There is nothing pointing to the existance of god.
...

The most prominent of scientists would have to disagree with you. Thinkers such are Darwin and Watson ended up believing that science by itself does not account for the amazing things that happen in nature. They ended up saying there must have been a divine being. Even Crick (watson and crick discovered the helical shape of dna) did not believe that life came from spontaneous arrangement of acids.


Many high level physicist studying the big bang will tell you how insanely perfect the conditions of the big bang must have been for it to have occurred. If gravity was a smudge more powerful we have a big crush seconds after the big bang. If gravity was too small we have no accumulation of gas and therefore no planets, no stars, no galaxies. Things like how water gets less dense as it becomes a solid, how the final element of fusion within cores of stars is carbon.... there are lots of things that happened so perfectly. To believe that this is coincidence, chance, is naive.

[Smeggle]

The Babel fish doesn't translate stuff properly either


yes gaekwad2, I agre I am...but that again just proves the point I made that Philosophy is Dialectic/Oxymoronic. there is never a full conclusion becaue you have the 'Ah But'. The disproving argument.
One ofthos ethings that you can't have one without the other. Negative and positive? A never ending loop.

the only time I have seen it wirk andreack a logical conclusion is so:

statement: A cat has four legs (true)

argument(or support): My cat has four legs.

conclusion: Therefore I have a cat.
ok rather simplistic yes butthis is the only way philosophical premiss/argument/conlusion does actually work. The rest is totally oxymoronic.


~




n.b and anyone says my cat has three legs? it's still a cat ok

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by GqSkrub
The most prominent of scientists would have to disagree with you. Thinkers such are Darwin and Watson ended up believing that science by itself does not account for the amazing things that happen in nature. They ended up saying there must have been a divine being. Even Crick (watson and crick discovered the helical shape of dna) did not believe that life came from spontaneous arrangement of acids.


Many high level physicist studying the big bang will tell you how insanely perfect the conditions of the big bang must have been for it to have occurred. If gravity was a smudge more powerful we have a big crush seconds after the big bang. If gravity was too small we have no accumulation of gas and therefore no planets, no stars, no galaxies. Things like how water gets less dense as it becomes a solid, how the final element of fusion within cores of stars is carbon.... there are lots of things that happened so perfectly. To believe that this is coincidence, chance, is naive.

So let's say the chance of us being here is extremely small. So? The chance of the atoms in my eye being exactly 1,000,000 atoms at any given time is quite small, but it did happen. The chance that this message is exactly these characters is one in a very, very, very large number (2^(message length * 8)).

Ever heard of the anthropic principal?

See http://www.anthropic-principle.com

[Abarabusto]

If god can exist without a creator, then so can the universe.

However if there was not an intelligent force which created the universe, life won the mega jackpot lottery 52 weeks in a row, considering all the natural laws which have to be just right in order for it to exist.

But do not despair. A few more threads in this topic and I am certain we will have the answer. I can see the headlines now "WINAMP USERS, ALREADY ACKN0WLEDGED AS SOME OF THE BRIGHTEST PEOPLE ON THE PLANET FOR HAVING CHOOSEN THE CORRECT MP3 PLAYER, HAVE NOW SOLVED THE QUESTION THAT HAS PLAGUED MANKIND FOR MILLENIA"