For those who are upset...
- Thread starter Aplunk1
- Start date
DonaldAnderson
Experienced Member
- Reaction score
- 5
mogadon said:
Don't disrespect god like that. Go to hell.
ACT10Npack
Experienced Member
- Reaction score
- 0
You can believe or disbelieve in god. That's up to you as long as you don't tell our kids in biology class that intelligent design is a valid theory because it's NOT!!!!! Science can not prove or disprove GOD. SO GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!
No, it probably can't, but science & logic can help us understand the question a bit better...ACT10Npack said:
For example, the omnipotnce paradox:
Hypotheses: If God exists then he is omnipotent.
Question: Can God create a stone so heavy that even he cannot lift it?
Possible answers:
1)Yes. But if he can create such a stone, then there is an object in the universe that he can't lift. So he can't be omnipotent.
2)No. Then clearly God is not omnipotent.
Conclusion: Thus God cannot be omnipotent. So God cannot exist.
Interesting paradox.
biff
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 2
Lopfraze said:
Just because God isn't omnipotent doesn't mean it can't exist. I'm not religious, but until someone can prove what started the universe I'm willing to keep an open mind about the existance of God.
The whole question of God has got bogged down with too much religious crap. Obviously we weren't created in God's image as creationists/religious nuts believe. There is too much evidence proving we have evolved into what we are over millions of years. But there is a chance that some higher force got the ball rolling with the Big Bang.
If this is the case you then get the question "If something created the Big Bang then what created the force that created the Big Bang?" Maybe whatever it was is totally beyond our understanding in a universe that doesn't have the same laws as our universe. Maybe in this other universe there is no such thing as time and therefore no such thing as creation or destruction?
junior_senior
Member
- Reaction score
- 1
DonaldAnderson said:
You clearly aren't doing too much critical thinking, so allow me to do it for you.
With such a statement you're implying a god exists. However, similar to any archetypal theological arguments declaring the existence of a god, you're forgetting that by making a positive assertion such as "god exists," you're left with what's called a BURDEN OF PROOF.
I simply do not believe in god (similarly as I don't believe in green unicorns that govern the Universe's behavior), thus I am not left with the burden of proof.
If you're going to make some abstract claim about the nature of reality, you really do need to provide evidence. Otherwise, given the creative nature of the human imagination, we could make a seemingly infinite amount of claims about what reality entails. To reiterate as an example, the Green Unicorn model I used above.
Theists commonly use the poor argument of "if you cannot prove it doesn't exist, then it exists"; however, under this paradigm, any abstract construct can be evidenced:
I cannot provide proof of my Green Unicorn Gods that govern all life in the Universe *But I have sooo much faith, you'll just have to trust me*. BUT, you also cannot provide proof that it's not there, thus it must be there. Try it, I dare you.... are you sure it's not there? They ARE invisible!
It's quite ridiculous, isn't it?
The point I'm trying to make is this: If you're going to make any claim as to the nature of reality, provide evidence. And simply scapegoating your responsibility of proof by placing the burden on skeptics doesn't qualify as a sound argument. "I cannot prove that Green Unicorn Gods exist; you, however, cannot proove they don't exist, thus, it is justifiable to assume they exist." This poor application of logic is used by many theists, and it's not a great argument. The requirement to proove that things don't exist would be too tedious; there is an infinite amount of abstract constructs to disprove. For example: It shouldn't be your burden to prove Green Unicorns don't exist, rather it is my responsibility to prove they do exist, which I cannot do because the concept is fabricated. For all reasons of practicality, the burden of proof is on the one making the positive assertion.
And I know this board is for hairloss, not for debunking religious myths/superstitions. Nonetheless, it's hard not to reply to posts such as the one above. And DonaldAnderson, you really need to disseminate the information you recieve about religion; the concepts of "god" and "hell" are anthropogenic, rather than universal axioms. They were enacted years ago to propogate social power heirarchies. They have no purpose in today's society. Hell?? Seriously? Do you really believe in that nonsense?
Also: All Hail the Great Green Unicorn Gods, or risk bearing their wrath!!
Dinzy
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 3
biff said:
Some of those crazy string theory people postulate that when 2 branes collide they create a big bang and thus a universe. Basically what we call our universe could have been created by something wholy "outside" of our universe. So there can be a "god" that created this universe and he certainly didn't have to be omnipotent, he just had to bang two objects together. Or does the possile existence of a multiverse immediately map the idea of god to the creation of that larger reality, one that probably cannot even be probed from within this universe?
My stance on what the nature of reality is is that it is certainly not described by any human religion. Throughout mankind's existance there have been hundreds if not thousands of religions and it is pure arrogqance to think any one of them is right. The surviving religions today are those that won wars or gained power by some means. Had history been significantly different, the world's religious landscape would be as well. It's just like biological evolution only with a far less significant final product. But of course religious people will claim that god drove events to unfold as such for his chosen people.
Anyways I don't know why the hell I am even bothering posting this crap here. I did want to mention that when I saw DonaldAnderson's post I thought he was trying to be punny. I mean isn't it disrespect to god to tell someone to go to hell?
junior_senior said:DonaldAnderson said:
You clearly aren't doing too much critical thinking, so allow me to do it for you.
With such a statement you're implying a god exists. However, similar to any archetypal theological arguments declaring the existence of a god, you're forgetting that by making a positive assertion such as "god exists," you're left with what's called a BURDEN OF PROOF.
I simply do not believe in god (similarly as I don't believe in green unicorns that govern the Universe's behavior), thus I am not left with the burden of proof.
If you're going to make some abstract claim about the nature of reality, you really do need to provide evidence. Otherwise, given the creative nature of the human imagination, we could make a seemingly infinite amount of claims about what reality entails. To reiterate as an example, the Green Unicorn model I used above.
Theists commonly use the poor argument of "if you cannot prove it doesn't exist, then it exists"; however, under this paradigm, any abstract construct can be evidenced:
I cannot provide proof of my Green Unicorn Gods that govern all life in the Universe *But I have sooo much faith, you'll just have to trust me*. BUT, you also cannot provide proof that it's not there, thus it must be there. Try it, I dare you.... are you sure it's not there? They ARE invisible!
It's quite ridiculous, isn't it?
The point I'm trying to make is this: If you're going to make any claim as to the nature of reality, provide evidence. And simply scapegoating your responsibility of proof by placing the burden on skeptics doesn't qualify as a sound argument. "I cannot prove that Green Unicorn Gods exist; you, however, cannot proove they don't exist, thus, it is justifiable to assume they exist." This poor application of logic is used by many theists, and it's not a great argument. The requirement to proove that things don't exist would be too tedious; there is an infinite amount of abstract constructs to disprove. For example: It shouldn't be your burden to prove Green Unicorns don't exist, rather it is my responsibility to prove they do exist, which I cannot do because the concept is fabricated. For all reasons of practicality, the burden of proof is on the one making the positive assertion.
And I know this board is for hairloss, not for debunking religious myths/superstitions. Nonetheless, it's hard not to reply to posts such as the one above. And DonaldAnderson, you really need to disseminate the information you recieve about religion; the concepts of "god" and "hell" are anthropogenic, rather than universal axioms. They were enacted years ago to propogate social power heirarchies. They have no purpose in today's society. Hell?? Seriously? Do you really believe in that nonsense?
Also: All Hail the Great Green Unicorn Gods, or risk bearing their wrath!!
well said, good post
DonaldAnderson
Experienced Member
- Reaction score
- 5
DonaldAnderson
Experienced Member
- Reaction score
- 5
junior_senior said:DonaldAnderson said:
You clearly aren't doing too much critical thinking, so allow me to do it for you.
With such a statement you're implying a god exists. However, similar to any archetypal theological arguments declaring the existence of a god, you're forgetting that by making a positive assertion such as "god exists," you're left with what's called a BURDEN OF PROOF.
I simply do not believe in god (similarly as I don't believe in green unicorns that govern the Universe's behavior), thus I am not left with the burden of proof.
If you're going to make some abstract claim about the nature of reality, you really do need to provide evidence. Otherwise, given the creative nature of the human imagination, we could make a seemingly infinite amount of claims about what reality entails. To reiterate as an example, the Green Unicorn model I used above.
Theists commonly use the poor argument of "if you cannot prove it doesn't exist, then it exists"; however, under this paradigm, any abstract construct can be evidenced:
I cannot provide proof of my Green Unicorn Gods that govern all life in the Universe *But I have sooo much faith, you'll just have to trust me*. BUT, you also cannot provide proof that it's not there, thus it must be there. Try it, I dare you.... are you sure it's not there? They ARE invisible!
It's quite ridiculous, isn't it?
The point I'm trying to make is this: If you're going to make any claim as to the nature of reality, provide evidence. And simply scapegoating your responsibility of proof by placing the burden on skeptics doesn't qualify as a sound argument. "I cannot prove that Green Unicorn Gods exist; you, however, cannot proove they don't exist, thus, it is justifiable to assume they exist." This poor application of logic is used by many theists, and it's not a great argument. The requirement to proove that things don't exist would be too tedious; there is an infinite amount of abstract constructs to disprove. For example: It shouldn't be your burden to prove Green Unicorns don't exist, rather it is my responsibility to prove they do exist, which I cannot do because the concept is fabricated. For all reasons of practicality, the burden of proof is on the one making the positive assertion.
And I know this board is for hairloss, not for debunking religious myths/superstitions. Nonetheless, it's hard not to reply to posts such as the one above. And DonaldAnderson, you really need to disseminate the information you recieve about religion; the concepts of "god" and "hell" are anthropogenic, rather than universal axioms. They were enacted years ago to propogate social power heirarchies. They have no purpose in today's society. Hell?? Seriously? Do you really believe in that nonsense?
Also: All Hail the Great Green Unicorn Gods, or risk bearing their wrath!!
Just like the poster above me. Why didn't you call him out too. His claim had no evidence and he pretty much said the same type of comment. You just wanted to get on your soapbox and try to sound intelligent. I gave my opinion. Im not trying to convince anyone.
You don't know what I believe. Don't call me out like that again.