Subtle Ownage about Religion - Page 2

o_yomamashouse · 02-02-2007, 11:50 PM

I'm not exactly sure how to address that but I suspect you disagree with me so what I will say is that there is a chance they are correct but the chance is so small we can say the are most likely wrong because something with nothing to prove it or at least back it up is likely not going to be correct.

Circuitous · 02-02-2007, 11:57 PM

Whatever you wanna believe, dude.

(See what I did there?)

o_loader · 02-02-2007, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YoMamasHouse

I'm not exactly sure how to address that but I suspect you disagree with me so what I will say is that there is a chance they are correct but the chance is so small we can say the are most likely wrong because something with nothing to prove it or at least back it up is likely not going to be correct.

There's a chance who is correct? The sciencetists?

o_yomamashouse · 02-03-2007, 12:13 AM

No people who think we were intentionally placed on Earth.

o_accrede · 02-03-2007, 02:11 AM

It cannot be proven that fairies, unicorns, vampires etc. do not exist either??

o_yomamashouse · 02-03-2007, 02:17 AM

This isn't the court system, beliefs are guilty(aka false) until proven innocent(true). If the only thing something has going for it is the fact that no one has disproved it yet then it isn't worth a whole lot.

So, to correct the previous statement, it cannot be proven that they do exist, that is what matters. It isn't even that they havent been proven 100% that matters, they have no evidence or anything to suggest they exist at all.

o_uber · 02-03-2007, 02:32 AM

Heh. God, in the sense of empirical findings of science, is unfalsifiable. He is verifiable though. Of course, truth is independent of falsifiability and verifiability. They are only the manners in which we acquire knowledge.

o_yomamashouse · 02-03-2007, 02:56 AM

That is exactly what bugs me when someone says that I cant prove they are incorrect in their stance on God. The burden is not on me to prove them wrong, it is upon them to prove themselves right, or at least prove the belief has some form of reason to it. Once they present their points then the disproving can begin, otherwise it is nothing more than faith and hoping.

I am not Atheist, I think firmly believing in the non-existence of a God is not much different than a firm belief in the existence of one. Basically, beliefs are worthless until they have more than "You can't disprove _______".

And you are correct, we can't scientifically disprove God but it may be possible to prove it exists someday, though exactly how is well, well beyond me at the moment.

o_uber · 02-03-2007, 03:36 AM

Well there's a lot of arguments for and against God. Almost all of them philosophical ideas. In fact, I believe there's a whole branch of philosophy that examines existence of God, theism, existence, etc.

So for example, a simplified argument of St. Anselm for theism is:
1. God = most perfect conceivable being--one who is whatever it is better to be than not to be.
2. It is better to be real than to to be--better to exist than not to.
Thus,
3. God exists.

This is the idea of necessary existence, and is better to look at his actual reasoning. Needless to say, it has been criticized many times over, as have other philosophical ideas for and against a God.

An other, often support by William Lane Craig is the probability argument:
The evidence in favor of the Big Bang theory is extremely impressive. According to this theory, though, the initial conditions of out universe were inherently chaotic: from such beginnings, and with no helpful interventions from a higher power, it is inconceivably unlikely that a animate universe would evolve. Craig reckons the odds at one in then to the ten to the ten one-hundred-and-twenty-fourth-power.

So, Pr(universe animate/Big Bang + atheism) = .000...(10^124 times)...1.

But this otherwise unlikely result (animate universe) is just what theism would lead one to expect: ours is the sort of universe God would see fit to create.

So, Pr(universe animate/Big Bang + theism) = 1.

The problem with demanding scientific explanations for everything that is, is that it is the fallacy of scientism. The notion is then that all can be known through science alone, which in it of itself is unscientific. I don't, I really suggest you talk to Hellsy about it. He's a former UGC admin but idles in #absolutezero on IRC. He's been studying philosophy for a while now, and has some really amazing ideas.

o_sta_sirtiger · 02-03-2007, 03:41 AM

Theoretically, uBeR is an atheist for believing in Steven Hawkins.

o_uber · 02-03-2007, 03:43 AM

I believe Stephen Hawkings is a person. Yes.

o_sta_sirtiger · 02-03-2007, 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uBeR

I believe Stephen Hawkings is a person. Yes.

Jesus lord, may god seal the burning-hell when your soul leaves your body. God, my personal Jesus Lord Christ savior of all evil, please take mercy in this atheist and seal those doors. I, Jonathan Wildian, will be praying day and night for you to seal those sparkling cracks! Beneath the soil, crispy layerly core, and beyond all evil, those purified cracks will be blu-rayed seal by our Jesus, Lord, Christ, in the name of all the saviors, God. Please forgive uBeR, even if he believes that that Stephen Hawkins is a person and portrays his true atheism and the resistance against you, please God, I PRAY, I PRAY EVERY DAY, PLEASE!

o_thewetmule · 02-03-2007, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by accrede

It cannot be proven that fairies, unicorns, vampires etc. do not exist either??

Some random scientist type dude actually prooved Vampires couldn't exist or.. we wouldn't :P was something along the line of if each vampire ate a fully grown male body that'd make two, needing them to eat two each night etc :P

I SAW A UNICORN THO lololololol

o_ekim · 02-03-2007, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uBeR

So for example, a simplified argument of St. Anselm for theism is:
1. God = most perfect conceivable being--one who is whatever it is better to be than not to be.
2. It is better to be real than to to be--better to exist than not to.
Thus,
3. God exists.

This is the idea of necessary existence, and is better to look at his actual reasoning. Needless to say, it has been criticized many times over, as have other philosophical ideas for and against a God.

Probably because they are ludicrous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by uBeR

An other, often support by William Lane Craig is the probability argument:
The evidence in favor of the Big Bang theory is extremely impressive. According to this theory, though, the initial conditions of out universe were inherently chaotic: from such beginnings, and with no helpful interventions from a higher power, it is inconceivably unlikely that a animate universe would evolve. Craig reckons the odds at one in then to the ten to the ten one-hundred-and-twenty-fourth-power.

So, Pr(universe animate/Big Bang + atheism) = .000...(10^124 times)...1.

But this otherwise unlikely result (animate universe) is just what theism would lead one to expect: ours is the sort of universe God would see fit to create.

So, Pr(universe animate/Big Bang + theism) = 1.

Well, pulling figures out of your ass and pretending they mean anything is always fun. Let's see..

Pr(Such a darn huge universe leads to life | No god) = 0.999...

Pr(God is anything like what uBeR believes in | God exists) = 0.000...

BritishTang · 02-03-2007, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YoMamasHouse

They are wrong to believe it if they don't have anything to back it up.

Some religions have different philosophies on the background of the universe and everything that coexist with scientific theories.

Once again, for us religious folk. It's all faith based. Many of us don't believe that the earth was created in seven days in a literal sense nor do we believe that the earth is only "6010" years old.. give or take 2000 years.

Love you guys.

o_ekim · 02-03-2007, 01:46 PM

So.. why do you have faith?

o_sh4x · 02-03-2007, 02:04 PM

Because reality sucks and he needs recomfort.

Just a guess.

o_yomamashouse · 02-03-2007, 02:20 PM

I had no problem with an escape from reality for those who don't want to handle it until they started implementing into the government and applying it to social issues which are in fact real while it isn't. Trying to solve real, palpable issues with something that isn't( in this case faith) is folly.

And Uber those are definitely the stupidest attempts at logic to be put on these boards, you are starting to turn into your favorite counter part(you know who he is).

Here look what the local astrologist wrote

Pr(God Exists|He thinks we're special) = 0.00000000000000000000000...

See anyone can do this.

o_ekim · 02-03-2007, 03:32 PM

That's my gig!

o_yomamashouse · 02-03-2007, 04:42 PM

I don't know how such an unbiased logical thought process can belong to one person, but if that's how it is here is mine.

1. Superman = most perfect conceivable being--one who is whatever it is better to be than not to be.
2. It is better to be real than to to be--better to exist than not to.

He can be considered perfect now because his only weakness, kryptonite, doesn't pass the test so it doesn't exist. He also saves the world on a regular basis so I think it would be better if he did exist.

therefore....

3. Superman exists!!!!!

02-02-2007, 11:57 PM	#22
Circuitous Useless Retired FF Staff Join Date: Jun 2005 Class/Position: D Soldier, O Scout Gametype: AvD Posts Rated Helpful 9 Times	Whatever you wanna believe, dude. (See what I did there?) __________________ Look at all those dead links.

02-03-2007, 02:17 AM	#26
o_yomamashouse Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Your Mamas House Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	This isn't the court system, beliefs are guilty(aka false) until proven innocent(true). If the only thing something has going for it is the fact that no one has disproved it yet then it isn't worth a whole lot. So, to correct the previous statement, it cannot be proven that they do exist, that is what matters. It isn't even that they havent been proven 100% that matters, they have no evidence or anything to suggest they exist at all. Last edited by o_yomamashouse; 02-03-2007 at 02:25 AM.

02-03-2007, 03:36 AM	#29
o_uber Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	Well there's a lot of arguments for and against God. Almost all of them philosophical ideas. In fact, I believe there's a whole branch of philosophy that examines existence of God, theism, existence, etc. So for example, a simplified argument of St. Anselm for theism is: 1. God = most perfect conceivable being--one who is whatever it is better to be than not to be. 2. It is better to be real than to to be--better to exist than not to. Thus, 3. God exists. This is the idea of necessary existence, and is better to look at his actual reasoning. Needless to say, it has been criticized many times over, as have other philosophical ideas for and against a God. An other, often support by William Lane Craig is the probability argument: The evidence in favor of the Big Bang theory is extremely impressive. According to this theory, though, the initial conditions of out universe were inherently chaotic: from such beginnings, and with no helpful interventions from a higher power, it is inconceivably unlikely that a animate universe would evolve. Craig reckons the odds at one in then to the ten to the ten one-hundred-and-twenty-fourth-power. So, Pr(universe animate/Big Bang + atheism) = .000...(10^124 times)...1. But this otherwise unlikely result (animate universe) is just what theism would lead one to expect: ours is the sort of universe God would see fit to create. So, Pr(universe animate/Big Bang + theism) = 1. The problem with demanding scientific explanations for everything that is, is that it is the fallacy of scientism. The notion is then that all can be known through science alone, which in it of itself is unscientific. I don't, I really suggest you talk to Hellsy about it. He's a former UGC admin but idles in #absolutezero on IRC. He's been studying philosophy for a while now, and has some really amazing ideas. Last edited by o_uber; 02-03-2007 at 05:14 AM.

02-02-2007, 11:50 PM	#21
o_yomamashouse Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Your Mamas House Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	I'm not exactly sure how to address that but I suspect you disagree with me so what I will say is that there is a chance they are correct but the chance is so small we can say the are most likely wrong because something with nothing to prove it or at least back it up is likely not going to be correct.

02-03-2007, 12:13 AM	#24
o_yomamashouse Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Your Mamas House Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	No people who think we were intentionally placed on Earth.

02-03-2007, 02:11 AM	#25
o_accrede Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	It cannot be proven that fairies, unicorns, vampires etc. do not exist either??

02-03-2007, 02:32 AM	#27
o_uber Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	Heh. God, in the sense of empirical findings of science, is unfalsifiable. He is verifiable though. Of course, truth is independent of falsifiability and verifiability. They are only the manners in which we acquire knowledge.

02-03-2007, 02:56 AM	#28
o_yomamashouse Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Your Mamas House Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	That is exactly what bugs me when someone says that I cant prove they are incorrect in their stance on God. The burden is not on me to prove them wrong, it is upon them to prove themselves right, or at least prove the belief has some form of reason to it. Once they present their points then the disproving can begin, otherwise it is nothing more than faith and hoping. I am not Atheist, I think firmly believing in the non-existence of a God is not much different than a firm belief in the existence of one. Basically, beliefs are worthless until they have more than "You can't disprove _______". And you are correct, we can't scientifically disprove God but it may be possible to prove it exists someday, though exactly how is well, well beyond me at the moment.

02-03-2007, 03:41 AM	#30
o_sta_sirtiger Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Texas, THE USA!!! Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	Theoretically, uBeR is an atheist for believing in Steven Hawkins.

02-03-2007, 03:43 AM	#31
o_uber Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	I believe Stephen Hawkings is a person. Yes.

02-03-2007, 01:46 PM	#36
o_ekim Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Bristol UK Posts Rated Helpful 1 Times	So.. why do you have faith?

02-03-2007, 02:04 PM	#37
o_sh4x Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Montreal Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	Because reality sucks and he needs recomfort. Just a guess.

02-03-2007, 02:20 PM	#38
o_yomamashouse Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Your Mamas House Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	I had no problem with an escape from reality for those who don't want to handle it until they started implementing into the government and applying it to social issues which are in fact real while it isn't. Trying to solve real, palpable issues with something that isn't( in this case faith) is folly. And Uber those are definitely the stupidest attempts at logic to be put on these boards, you are starting to turn into your favorite counter part(you know who he is). Here look what the local astrologist wrote Pr(God Exists\|He thinks we're special) = 0.00000000000000000000000... See anyone can do this.

02-03-2007, 03:32 PM	#39
o_ekim Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Bristol UK Posts Rated Helpful 1 Times	That's my gig!

02-03-2007, 04:42 PM	#40
o_yomamashouse Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Your Mamas House Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	I don't know how such an unbiased logical thought process can belong to one person, but if that's how it is here is mine. 1. Superman = most perfect conceivable being--one who is whatever it is better to be than not to be. 2. It is better to be real than to to be--better to exist than not to. He can be considered perfect now because his only weakness, kryptonite, doesn't pass the test so it doesn't exist. He also saves the world on a regular basis so I think it would be better if he did exist. therefore.... 3. Superman exists!!!!!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)