GOD

Navigator · 20th June 2012, 03:13 PM

"GOD exists – Prove it!
There is no GOD – Prove it!
Discussion is the realm of the wise
Argument is the realm of idiots"

It seems all over the internet the argument persists regarding ‘GOD’.
Indeed, this is a carry-over from yesteryear – prior to internet it was still something to argue about.

Perhaps until humans come to some conclusion one way or the other – there will be no peace – because there seems to be the basic need to know for sure in an objective verifiable way.

Proof.

Funny thing though…my own observations led me to understand that among the many notions as to ‘what GOD is’ it is obvious that the general belief is that GOD is invisible…cannot be observed as being anything made of matter.

So obviously there is little point in saying ‘prove it! Show me GOD!’ because how can anyone show anyone else something invisible?
It is stupid to even ask for that kind of evidence.

How would this logic go the other way around?

Well, accordingly it is easy to prove the non existence of something that is invisible. You just point in any general direction and say “There it isn’t!”

Proven!

Or it is?

It depends really on ‘What GOD is’ in that yes…it is invisible, but what else is it?

Often it is regarded by a lot of religions to be ‘male’ and called ‘he’ but since it is invisible it is not possible to prove that GOD is a male except to say that female GODS are referred to as ‘GODESSES’ which then gives a good indication that there is more than one Being which is GOD and this can be seen to be more a human invention than actual ‘That Which Created The Universe’ should ‘That Which Created The Universe’ actually exist.

So we could deduce that ‘GOD’ is not male or female in that it cannot really be seen as being either of these things in relation to being the creator of the universe, because male and female came after the fact.

So we need then to remove the masks and costumes that have adorned the god concepts of human beings before we can even begin sensible discussion regarding GOD.

So too we may have to call it by some other name because ‘GOD’ is masculine.
So we step back before the time of human evolution and subsequent inference…and call it something more appropriate…like “The Source Of Everything.”

Now we get a different concept. We can at least now see the evidence for this. The SOURCE remains invisible but the handiwork is there to observe – at least it is visible.

We can understand how human beings experiencing a beginning within and upon something huge would attribute this creation to a creator and build upon the concepts and attribute known qualities to those concepts – as rudimentary as they began and as complex as they became, in line with the natural process of evolution.

And now in today’s modern world we understand the vastness evident in the science regarding the universe and its complexities and mysteries and possibilities and “The SOURCE” becomes just as complex and vast while GOD becomes redundant.

Yes – it is easy and necessary to remove the human inventions which have adorned GOD – dressed up to console human understanding.

What is left once The SOURCE has once more become naked?

Attributes?

Where GOD has been known to be LOVE, this can still apply to The SOURCE.

Is love how the invisible becomes visible?

Some would say “yes!” This is exactly how The Source of everything would be made visible…

But how is love expressed, but through creation? Is this to say that LOVE expressed through human beings is equivalent to The SOURCE?

What about other emotions?

What about HATE?

Arguably hate is not an expression of creation (The Universe) or creativeness…yet in the universe these two expressions work together…creation and destruction as one…but in working together what is being achieved…are we seeing destruction or creation?

It looks to be altogether an act of creation.

And recreation.

We understand hate here being played out on this Planet. We understand it is destructive, and that its destructiveness works in a similar way – it assists creativeness…but Earth is something of a closed system in comparison to the Universe…it is fragile with life…with consciousness and in this, acts of destruction – while not particularly relevant to the Planet, are quiet harmful to the life forms.

Biological life forms seem to be an anomaly in the Universe. It is almost as if they don’t belong here, but…well they are here so we – as those life forms - deal with that reality.

So while acts of destruction caused by tools created by human beings from the materials of Earth and wielded against other human beings – as in warfare – are acts of hate rather than love and are not evidenced as coming from or contributing towards creation – or preserving and supporting the fragile life upon Earth…except that each ‘side’ would argue that even their warring is an act of love…perhaps the particular understanding of ‘what love is’ need be examined.

In this act of hate we could say “There is no Source” because Source is not evident in its biological creation, but would we be correct?

We do not know the mind of Source or that biological creatures should even exist and that actions of hate may well be Sources way of getting rid of what is not required in this Universe.

But that is more stupidity than logic.

Besides which, there are acts of love – also through human beings which are consistently trying to preserve the anomaly of all life on Earth.

Would it thus be fair to suggest that ‘proving there is a Source’ will essentially be the preservation of Life on Earth and ‘proving there is not a source’ will be the destruction of Life On Earth?

Well that is more than enough for an OP…

Beelzebuddy · 20th June 2012, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by Navigator

So we need then to remove the masks and costumes that have adorned the god concepts of human beings before we can even begin sensible discussion regarding GOD.

And when we do that, we get a bronze-age sky deity named El, a myth like so many others. You seem to want to discard the root notion and worship the trappings of ineffability we erected to buttress him over the years.

Kid Eager · 20th June 2012, 03:30 PM

errrrr.... what's the tl:dr version?

truethat · 20th June 2012, 03:30 PM

and yeah TL

R

Which God. Your first mistake is using the generalized term instead of stating "which God"

We can prove that Allah, Yhwh and Zeus and Apollo don't exist. Is there another god you are talking about?

Don't sweep everything into the "god pile" I hate that.

Beelzebuddy · 20th June 2012, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by Kid Eager

errrrr.... what's the tl:dr version?

"Hey kids, I'm a deist."

dafydd · 20th June 2012, 03:37 PM

What is it in ''I do not believe in the existence of any god or gods'' that these people do not understand?

Navigator · 20th June 2012, 03:40 PM

I think I was away for ten minutes and when returning I discover the predictable! All replies except for the kids (which i dont understand but might also be included) are evidence that the OP was not fully read.

I await the influx of more of this same predictable behavior before the dust of such stupidity settles and the sensible arrive.

Foster Zygote · 20th June 2012, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by Kid Eager

errrrr.... what's the tl:dr version?

Not sure. But it's fun to read it in the voice of The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs At Midnight.

kerikiwi · 20th June 2012, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by Navigator

What is left once The SOURCE has once more become naked?

....

Where GOD has been known to be LOVE, this can still apply to The SOURCE.

Is love how the invisible becomes visible?

Some would say “yes!” This is exactly how The Source of everything would be made visible…

…

What? What? What? What?
I mean really, what?

Weak Kitten · 20th June 2012, 03:43 PM

I think one question that people on this forum often ask is "Is the concept of god relevant to anything?"

If you cannot sense or measure it in any way and a universe in which it exists is indistinguishable from one in which it does not exist does it even mater if the thing exists or not?

If a tree falls in the forest and it does not effect anyone's life does anyone care?

EdG · 20th June 2012, 03:44 PM

God created man in his image. Man is not invisible. Therefore, god, in whose image man was created, is not invisible. Since god is not invisible yet cannot be seen, god does not exist.

dafydd · 20th June 2012, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by Navigator

I think I was away for ten minutes and when returning I discover the predictable! All replies except for the kids (which i dont understand but might also be included) are evidence that the OP was not fully read.

I await the influx of more of this same predictable behavior before the dust of such ~~stupidity~~ healthy skepticism settles and the ~~sensible~~ believers arrive.

ftfy. No need for insults, read the member's agreement that you signed up to, assuming that you want to remain a member. Your OP was a real miss-mash, could you condense it into something more pithy and understandable ? ''Making the Source of everything visible'' sounds like New Age gibberish.

dafydd · 20th June 2012, 03:51 PM

Is this SOURCE anything like the FORCE?

AdolescentLogophile · 20th June 2012, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by dafydd

ftfy. No need for insults, read the member's agreement that you signed up to, assuming that you want to remain a member. Your OP was a real miss-mash, could you condense it into something more pithy and understandable ? ''Making the Source of everything visible'' sounds like New Age gibberish.

What she said.

dafydd · 20th June 2012, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by AdolescentLogophile

What she said.

He said. Does anyone know why saying that you do not believe in any of the many gods that mankind has invented is stupid?

Tinyal · 20th June 2012, 03:55 PM

I'm with dafydd (and others here), which is: I'm an ignostic/atheist and humanist, I have no need for any god/gods, nor need to consider anything supernatural, unless and until any worthwhile evidence is presented.

Got any?

In the meantime, feel free to chat with other believers all you want about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Just because some large percentage of the population seems to need a father-figure to run to, doesn't mean I have to consider any of it at all - not without extraordinary evidence.

Have a good day now.

dafydd · 20th June 2012, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by Tinyal

Have a good day now.

And lay off the source everybody.

Doubt · 20th June 2012, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by Navigator

Well, accordingly it is easy to prove the non existence of something that is invisible. You just point in any general direction and say “There it isn’t!”

Proven!

Or it is?

This is where I stopped wasting my time reading the screed.

Sorry, but you don't understand how to prove something. To prove that something exists, invisible or not, is normally far easier to prove than the non-existence of something. That is why the burden of proof rests on those making a positive assertion.

The standard here is that you must prove that God exists. Otherwise, the null hypothesis is taken as conditionally true pending better evidence. That would be no god exists. However, you are free to believe whatever you like. Just don't assume that you have proven anything.

This is the same burden placed on the prosecution in any reasonable legal system and the same standard used in science.

Learn critical thinking and get back to us.

MG1962 · 20th June 2012, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by Navigator

Biological life forms seem to be an anomaly in the Universe. It is almost as if they don’t belong here, but…well they are here so we – as those life forms - deal with that reality.

Wow there tonto - what do you base this statement on?

Toontown · 20th June 2012, 04:08 PM

Yep. That's the whole problem with the whole question. Extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence.

Ain't got none. Never had none. Didn't matter back in the old days when the God-mania took root, because people back then didn't need much in the way of evidence. Since there was precious little evidence of any form to be had back then, people were accustomed to not ask for much. And they sure as hell didn't get much either, judging by the holy books and myths.

dafydd · 20th June 2012, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by MG1962

Wow there tonto - what do you base this statement on?

Omniscience?

truethat · 20th June 2012, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by Navigator

I think I was away for ten minutes and when returning I discover the predictable! All replies except for the kids (which i dont understand but might also be included) are evidence that the OP was not fully read.

I await the influx of more of this same predictable behavior before the dust of such stupidity settles and the sensible arrive.

Nice try. Which GOD are you discussing. I asked you a straight up question and you ignored it.

You've got all these abstract blatherings and nothing clear. You say there's no proof that GOD doesn't exist? BS. Which GOD? I have proof a plenty that GOD doesn't exist. So I have no clue what you are trying to say.

Which God are you talking about?

Jodie · 20th June 2012, 04:14 PM

42

Gord_in_Toronto · 20th June 2012, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by Navigator

I think I was away for ten minutes and when returning I discover the predictable! All replies except for the kids (which i dont understand but might also be included) are evidence that the OP was not fully read.

I await the influx of more of this same predictable behavior before the dust of such stupidity settles and the sensible arrive.

You first premise seems to be that the prove of God's non-existence or not depends on the impossibility of proving the existence of something that is invisible.

All I can say to that is "DON'T BE SILLY!"

Gawdzilla · 20th June 2012, 04:15 PM

It's such a simple idea. "Can you prove any god or gods exist?"

Everything else is irrelevant until that question is answered.

Toontown · 20th June 2012, 04:16 PM

Originally Posted by truethat

Nice try. Which GOD are you discussing. I asked you a straight up question and you ignored it.

You've got all these abstract blatherings and nothing clear. You say there's no proof that GOD doesn't exist? BS. Which GOD? I have proof a plenty that GOD doesn't exist. So I have no clue what you are trying to say.

Which God are you talking about?

I've seen it before. As soon as you disprove one God, they claim that's not the one they meant, and pull another one out of their ass, forearmed with the knowledge that the newly ass-extracted God must not have the vulnerability of the one you just disproved.

Navigator · 20th June 2012, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by Navigator

I think I was away for ten minutes and when returning I discover the predictable! All replies except for the kids (which i dont understand but might also be included) are evidence that the OP was not fully read.

I await the influx of more of this same predictable behavior before the dust of such stupidity settles and the sensible arrive.

Here is some appropriate music while we all wait:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekytTpFy96o

Hokulele · 20th June 2012, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by Kid Eager

errrrr.... what's the tl:dr version?

It's basically the Kalaam cosmological argument, but not being applied to any specific god(s). Not quite Deism, as there is much discussion about intent and emotions, but a sort of undefined Theism.

In other words, not terribly useful nor interesting.

Toontown · 20th June 2012, 04:20 PM

But what the hell. I'm a huckleberry...

The most simple disproof of the existence of God is the mere fact that It cannot prove It exists. Which probably explains why mere humans have been fruitlessly engaged in the endeavor for millenia.

truethat · 20th June 2012, 04:24 PM

Why would you write that biological forms seem to be an anomaly in the Universe? Have you seen the entire Universe?

Also what does the source have to do with being male or female? The sun is not male or female so why would a "source" be? Btw that source can also be described as energy. Energy is not male or female and it doesn't love or hate. So it's energy. What does that have to do with GOD?

And once again which God are you talking about?

Aridas · 20th June 2012, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by Navigator

Would it thus be fair to suggest that ‘proving there is a Source’ will essentially be the preservation of Life on Earth and ‘proving there is not a source’ will be the destruction of Life On Earth?

No.

Edit - The short version is that we have no good reason, whatsoever, to believe that whether there is a Source has anything at all to do with the continuation of life, as it exists on our planet, much less whether such a Source would be benign or malign to said continuation.

dafydd · 20th June 2012, 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by Navigator

Here is some appropriate music while we all wait:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekytTpFy96o

Wait for what? For somebody to agree with you?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

dafydd · 20th June 2012, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by truethat

And once again which God are you talking about?

You are expecting an answer to that question?

truethat · 20th June 2012, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by dafydd

Wait for what? For somebody to agree with you?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

I think you've figured it out.

Navigator · 20th June 2012, 04:37 PM

This is better...less stupid of a response. Go deeper. re read the OP perhaps setting aside your bias...here check out this vid...I found it appropriate and humorous.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw5W3CszeAI

Originally Posted by truethat

Why would you write that biological forms seem to be an anomaly in the Universe? Have you seen the entire Universe?

No one has seen the entire universe. It is obvious why I said what I did about biological life forms. You know the answer already.

Originally Posted by truethat

Also what does the source have to do with being male or female? The sun is not male or female so why would a "source" be? Btw that source can also be described as energy. Energy is not male or female and it doesn't love or hate. So it's energy. What does that have to do with GOD?

Originally Posted by truethat

And once again which God are you talking about?

read OP again.

Navigator · 20th June 2012, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by Aridas

No.

Edit - The short version is that we have no good reason, whatsoever, to believe that whether there is a Source has anything at all to do with the continuation of life, as it exists on our planet, much less whether such a Source would be benign or malign to said continuation.

Why?

Aridas · 20th June 2012, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by Navigator

Here is some appropriate music while we all wait:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekytTpFy96o

From that -

Quote:

The epic "The Last Resort" is about the demise of society. It is the final track from the album "Hotel California".

So, are you saying that this thread is your attempt to claim that the lack of a belief in a deity of some form will cause the demise of society?

Also, that said, you might want to make your question and claims far more clear, if you want more direct answers from more people. The length, tone, vagueness, and so on of the OP is not conducive to discussion.

Aridas · 20th June 2012, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by Navigator

Why?

I explained exactly why my answer to your question is no. You're now attempting to shift the burden of proof away from yourself with nothing. It's your job to show that I'm wrong, if you think that I am, not mine to repeat myself.

dafydd · 20th June 2012, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by Navigator

No one has seen the entire universe. It is obvious why I said what I did about biological life forms. You know the answer already.

It is not obvious. Tell us the answer

Quote:

read OP again.

Once was enough. A little less arrogance would behoove a believer. We are not stupid just because we do not believe in imaginary beings. Why would you think that?

MG1962 · 20th June 2012, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by Navigator

No one has seen the entire universe. It is obvious why I said what I did about biological life forms. You know the answer already..

All the more reason to call you out on that - Science has not even designed the tools to detect life, so you can not use an absence of evidence as evidence, otherwise you blow the whole God concept out the door as well.

20th June 2012, 03:13 PM	#1
Navigator Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,034	GOD "GOD exists – Prove it! There is no GOD – Prove it! Discussion is the realm of the wise Argument is the realm of idiots" It seems all over the internet the argument persists regarding ‘GOD’. Indeed, this is a carry-over from yesteryear – prior to internet it was still something to argue about. Perhaps until humans come to some conclusion one way or the other – there will be no peace – because there seems to be the basic need to know for sure in an objective verifiable way. Proof. Funny thing though…my own observations led me to understand that among the many notions as to ‘what GOD is’ it is obvious that the general belief is that GOD is invisible…cannot be observed as being anything made of matter. So obviously there is little point in saying ‘prove it! Show me GOD!’ because how can anyone show anyone else something invisible? It is stupid to even ask for that kind of evidence. How would this logic go the other way around? Well, accordingly it is easy to prove the non existence of something that is invisible. You just point in any general direction and say “There it isn’t!” Proven! Or it is? It depends really on ‘What GOD is’ in that yes…it is invisible, but what else is it? Often it is regarded by a lot of religions to be ‘male’ and called ‘he’ but since it is invisible it is not possible to prove that GOD is a male except to say that female GODS are referred to as ‘GODESSES’ which then gives a good indication that there is more than one Being which is GOD and this can be seen to be more a human invention than actual ‘That Which Created The Universe’ should ‘That Which Created The Universe’ actually exist. So we could deduce that ‘GOD’ is not male or female in that it cannot really be seen as being either of these things in relation to being the creator of the universe, because male and female came after the fact. So we need then to remove the masks and costumes that have adorned the god concepts of human beings before we can even begin sensible discussion regarding GOD. So too we may have to call it by some other name because ‘GOD’ is masculine. So we step back before the time of human evolution and subsequent inference…and call it something more appropriate…like “The Source Of Everything.” Now we get a different concept. We can at least now see the evidence for this. The SOURCE remains invisible but the handiwork is there to observe – at least it is visible. We can understand how human beings experiencing a beginning within and upon something huge would attribute this creation to a creator and build upon the concepts and attribute known qualities to those concepts – as rudimentary as they began and as complex as they became, in line with the natural process of evolution. And now in today’s modern world we understand the vastness evident in the science regarding the universe and its complexities and mysteries and possibilities and “The SOURCE” becomes just as complex and vast while GOD becomes redundant. Yes – it is easy and necessary to remove the human inventions which have adorned GOD – dressed up to console human understanding. What is left once The SOURCE has once more become naked? Attributes? Where GOD has been known to be LOVE, this can still apply to The SOURCE. Is love how the invisible becomes visible? Some would say “yes!” This is exactly how The Source of everything would be made visible… But how is love expressed, but through creation? Is this to say that LOVE expressed through human beings is equivalent to The SOURCE? What about other emotions? What about HATE? Arguably hate is not an expression of creation (The Universe) or creativeness…yet in the universe these two expressions work together…creation and destruction as one…but in working together what is being achieved…are we seeing destruction or creation? It looks to be altogether an act of creation. And recreation. We understand hate here being played out on this Planet. We understand it is destructive, and that its destructiveness works in a similar way – it assists creativeness…but Earth is something of a closed system in comparison to the Universe…it is fragile with life…with consciousness and in this, acts of destruction – while not particularly relevant to the Planet, are quiet harmful to the life forms. Biological life forms seem to be an anomaly in the Universe. It is almost as if they don’t belong here, but…well they are here so we – as those life forms - deal with that reality. So while acts of destruction caused by tools created by human beings from the materials of Earth and wielded against other human beings – as in warfare – are acts of hate rather than love and are not evidenced as coming from or contributing towards creation – or preserving and supporting the fragile life upon Earth…except that each ‘side’ would argue that even their warring is an act of love…perhaps the particular understanding of ‘what love is’ need be examined. In this act of hate we could say “There is no Source” because Source is not evident in its biological creation, but would we be correct? We do not know the mind of Source or that biological creatures should even exist and that actions of hate may well be Sources way of getting rid of what is not required in this Universe. But that is more stupidity than logic. Besides which, there are acts of love – also through human beings which are consistently trying to preserve the anomaly of all life on Earth. Would it thus be fair to suggest that ‘proving there is a Source’ will essentially be the preservation of Life on Earth and ‘proving there is not a source’ will be the destruction of Life On Earth? Well that is more than enough for an OP…
	__________________ "I have walked a mile in your shoes and discovered what your problem is...your feet are too small" ~σκεπτικιστής ακραίες

20th June 2012, 03:30 PM	#3
Kid Eager Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Australia Posts: 3,479	errrrr.... what's the tl:dr version?
	__________________ What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....

20th June 2012, 03:30 PM	#4
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,624	and yeah TLR Which God. Your first mistake is using the generalized term instead of stating "which God" We can prove that Allah, Yhwh and Zeus and Apollo don't exist. Is there another god you are talking about? Don't sweep everything into the "god pile" I hate that.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,624	__________________ “Do not argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain

20th June 2012, 03:37 PM	#6
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,447	What is it in ''I do not believe in the existence of any god or gods'' that these people do not understand?
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

20th June 2012, 03:40 PM	#7
Navigator Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,034	I think I was away for ten minutes and when returning I discover the predictable! All replies except for the kids (which i dont understand but might also be included) are evidence that the OP was not fully read. I await the influx of more of this same predictable behavior before the dust of such stupidity settles and the sensible arrive.
	__________________ "I have walked a mile in your shoes and discovered what your problem is...your feet are too small" ~σκεπτικιστής ακραίες

20th June 2012, 03:28 PM	#2
Beelzebuddy Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 1,714	Originally Posted by Navigator So we need then to remove the masks and costumes that have adorned the god concepts of human beings before we can even begin sensible discussion regarding GOD. And when we do that, we get a bronze-age sky deity named El, a myth like so many others. You seem to want to discard the root notion and worship the trappings of ineffability we erected to buttress him over the years.

20th June 2012, 03:31 PM	#5
Beelzebuddy Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 1,714	Originally Posted by Kid Eager errrrr.... what's the tl:dr version? "Hey kids, I'm a deist."

20th June 2012, 03:40 PM	#8
Foster Zygote Dental Floss Tycoon Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge Posts: 14,389	Originally Posted by Kid Eager errrrr.... what's the tl:dr version? Not sure. But it's fun to read it in the voice of The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs At Midnight.
	__________________ It looks just like a Telefunken U47... You'll love it.

20th June 2012, 03:43 PM	#9
kerikiwi Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Bay of Islands NZ Posts: 5,843	Originally Posted by Navigator What is left once The SOURCE has once more become naked? .... Where GOD has been known to be LOVE, this can still apply to The SOURCE. Is love how the invisible becomes visible? Some would say “yes!” This is exactly how The Source of everything would be made visible… … What? What? What? What? I mean really, what?

20th June 2012, 03:43 PM	#10
Weak Kitten Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Lost and lonely...will you be my friend? Posts: 1,718	I think one question that people on this forum often ask is "Is the concept of god relevant to anything?" If you cannot sense or measure it in any way and a universe in which it exists is indistinguishable from one in which it does not exist does it even mater if the thing exists or not? If a tree falls in the forest and it does not effect anyone's life does anyone care?
	__________________ A quick reminder to all participants that although incomprehensibility is not against the Membership Agreement, incivility is. Please try and remember this, and keep your exchanges polite and respectful. -arthwollipot

20th June 2012, 03:44 PM	#11
EdG Scholar Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Arizona, USA Posts: 108	God created man in his image. Man is not invisible. Therefore, god, in whose image man was created, is not invisible. Since god is not invisible yet cannot be seen, god does not exist.

20th June 2012, 03:44 PM	#12
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,447	Originally Posted by Navigator I think I was away for ten minutes and when returning I discover the predictable! All replies except for the kids (which i dont understand but might also be included) are evidence that the OP was not fully read. I await the influx of more of this same predictable behavior before the dust of such ~~stupidity~~ healthy skepticism settles and the ~~sensible~~ believers arrive. ftfy. No need for insults, read the member's agreement that you signed up to, assuming that you want to remain a member. Your OP was a real miss-mash, could you condense it into something more pithy and understandable ? ''Making the Source of everything visible'' sounds like New Age gibberish.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away. Last edited by dafydd; 20th June 2012 at 03:49 PM.

20th June 2012, 03:51 PM	#13
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,447	Is this SOURCE anything like the FORCE?
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

20th June 2012, 03:51 PM	#14
AdolescentLogophile Scholar Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Da interwebz Posts: 64	Originally Posted by dafydd ftfy. No need for insults, read the member's agreement that you signed up to, assuming that you want to remain a member. Your OP was a real miss-mash, could you condense it into something more pithy and understandable ? ''Making the Source of everything visible'' sounds like New Age gibberish. What she said.

20th June 2012, 03:54 PM	#15
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,447	Originally Posted by AdolescentLogophile What she said. He said. Does anyone know why saying that you do not believe in any of the many gods that mankind has invented is stupid?
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

20th June 2012, 03:55 PM	#16
Tinyal Thinker Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: California, the 8th largest country in the world. Posts: 186	I'm with dafydd (and others here), which is: I'm an ignostic/atheist and humanist, I have no need for any god/gods, nor need to consider anything supernatural, *unless and until* any worthwhile evidence is presented. Got any? In the meantime, feel free to chat with other believers all you want about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Just because some large percentage of the population seems to need a father-figure to run to, doesn't mean I have to consider any of it at all - not without extraordinary evidence. Have a good day now.
	__________________ "*Evidence can be an impediment to conscious intelligent thinking with an open mind.*" - Yrreg

20th June 2012, 03:57 PM	#17
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,447	Originally Posted by Tinyal Have a good day now. And lay off the source everybody.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away. Last edited by dafydd; 20th June 2012 at 04:03 PM.

20th June 2012, 04:06 PM	#18
Doubt Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 5,443	Originally Posted by Navigator Well, accordingly it is easy to prove the non existence of something that is invisible. You just point in any general direction and say “There it isn’t!” Proven! Or it is? This is where I stopped wasting my time reading the screed. Sorry, but you don't understand how to prove something. To prove that something exists, invisible or not, is normally far easier to prove than the non-existence of something. That is why the burden of proof rests on those making a positive assertion. The standard here is that you must prove that God exists. Otherwise, the null hypothesis is taken as conditionally true pending better evidence. That would be no god exists. However, you are free to believe whatever you like. Just don't assume that you have proven anything. This is the same burden placed on the prosecution in any reasonable legal system and the same standard used in science. Learn critical thinking and get back to us.
Doubt Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 5,443	__________________ Doubt world tour locations: Mostly home for now. No international travel scheduled other than the Galapagos trip in March. Disclaimer: Not a high energy scientist! Last edited by Doubt; 20th June 2012 at 04:07 PM. Reason: fixed speeling

20th June 2012, 04:06 PM	#19
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	Originally Posted by Navigator Biological life forms seem to be an anomaly in the Universe. It is almost as if they don’t belong here, but…well they are here so we – as those life forms - deal with that reality. Wow there tonto - what do you base this statement on?

20th June 2012, 04:08 PM	#20
Toontown Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 3,555	Yep. That's the whole problem with the whole question. Extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. Ain't got none. Never had none. Didn't matter back in the old days when the God-mania took root, because people back then didn't need much in the way of evidence. Since there was precious little evidence of any form to be had back then, people were accustomed to not ask for much. And they sure as hell didn't get much either, judging by the holy books and myths.
Toontown Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 3,555	__________________ SEARCH NOW THE SPHERES PROBE THE UNIVERSE SEND BACK WORD WHAT FORCE SO IRRESISTIBLE AS THE WILL OF FREE MEN

20th June 2012, 04:08 PM	#21
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,447	Originally Posted by MG1962 Wow there tonto - what do you base this statement on? Omniscience?
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

20th June 2012, 04:14 PM	#23
Jodie Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 1,900	42
Jodie Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 1,900

20th June 2012, 04:15 PM	#24
Gord_in_Toronto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 13,411	Originally Posted by Navigator I think I was away for ten minutes and when returning I discover the predictable! All replies except for the kids (which i dont understand but might also be included) are evidence that the OP was not fully read. I await the influx of more of this same predictable behavior before the dust of such stupidity settles and the sensible arrive. You first premise seems to be that the prove of God's non-existence or not depends on the impossibility of proving the existence of something that is invisible. All I can say to that is "DON'T BE SILLY!"
	__________________ "Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick

20th June 2012, 04:15 PM	#25
Gawdzilla 121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri. Posts: 13,372	It's such a simple idea. "Can you prove any god or gods exist?" Everything else is irrelevant until that question is answered.
	__________________ World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources Hyperwar, WWII Military History Kido Butai did not transmit. 木戸舞台は、無線メッセージを送信しませんでした

20th June 2012, 04:16 PM	#26
Toontown Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 3,555	Originally Posted by truethat Nice try. Which GOD are you discussing. I asked you a straight up question and you ignored it. You've got all these abstract blatherings and nothing clear. You say there's no proof that GOD doesn't exist? BS. Which GOD? I have proof a plenty that GOD doesn't exist. So I have no clue what you are trying to say. Which God are you talking about? I've seen it before. As soon as you disprove one God, they claim that's not the one they meant, and pull another one out of their ass, forearmed with the knowledge that the newly ass-extracted God must not have the vulnerability of the one you just disproved.
Toontown Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 3,555	__________________ SEARCH NOW THE SPHERES PROBE THE UNIVERSE SEND BACK WORD WHAT FORCE SO IRRESISTIBLE AS THE WILL OF FREE MEN

20th June 2012, 04:17 PM	#27
Navigator Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,034	Originally Posted by Navigator I think I was away for ten minutes and when returning I discover the predictable! All replies except for the kids (which i dont understand but might also be included) are evidence that the OP was not fully read. I await the influx of more of this same predictable behavior before the dust of such stupidity settles and the sensible arrive. Here is some appropriate music while we all wait: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekytTpFy96o
	__________________ "I have walked a mile in your shoes and discovered what your problem is...your feet are too small" ~σκεπτικιστής ακραίες

20th June 2012, 04:19 PM	#28
Hokulele Official Nemesis Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Trying to decide whether to set defenses against an army, or against mole rats. Posts: 27,265	Originally Posted by Kid Eager errrrr.... what's the tl:dr version? It's basically the Kalaam cosmological argument, but not being applied to any specific god(s). Not quite Deism, as there is much discussion about intent and emotions, but a sort of undefined Theism. In other words, not terribly useful nor interesting.
	__________________ Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!" Some person: "Why did you shoot that?" Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!" - Tragic Monkey

20th June 2012, 04:20 PM	#29
Toontown Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 3,555	But what the hell. I'm a huckleberry... The most simple disproof of the existence of God is the mere fact that It cannot prove It exists. Which probably explains why mere humans have been fruitlessly engaged in the endeavor for millenia.
Toontown Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 3,555	__________________ SEARCH NOW THE SPHERES PROBE THE UNIVERSE SEND BACK WORD WHAT FORCE SO IRRESISTIBLE AS THE WILL OF FREE MEN

20th June 2012, 04:24 PM	#30
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,624	Why would you write that biological forms seem to be an anomaly in the Universe? Have you seen the entire Universe? Also what does the source have to do with being male or female? The sun is not male or female so why would a "source" be? Btw that source can also be described as energy. Energy is not male or female and it doesn't love or hate. So it's energy. What does that have to do with GOD? And once again which God are you talking about?
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,624	__________________ “Do not argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain Last edited by truethat; 20th June 2012 at 04:25 PM.

20th June 2012, 04:30 PM	#31
Aridas Crazy Little Green Dragon Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,107	Originally Posted by Navigator Would it thus be fair to suggest that ‘proving there is a Source’ will essentially be the preservation of Life on Earth and ‘proving there is not a source’ will be the destruction of Life On Earth? No. Edit - The short version is that we have no good reason, whatsoever, to believe that whether there is a Source has anything at all to do with the continuation of life, as it exists on our planet, much less whether such a Source would be benign or malign to said continuation.
	__________________ So sayeth the crazy little dragon. Last edited by Aridas; 20th June 2012 at 04:34 PM.

20th June 2012, 04:33 PM	#33
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,447	Originally Posted by truethat And once again which God are you talking about? You are expecting an answer to that question?
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away. Last edited by dafydd; 20th June 2012 at 04:35 PM.

20th June 2012, 04:37 PM	#35
Navigator Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,034	This is better...less stupid of a response. Go deeper. re read the OP perhaps setting aside your bias...here check out this vid...I found it appropriate and humorous. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw5W3CszeAI Originally Posted by truethat Why would you write that biological forms seem to be an anomaly in the Universe? Have you seen the entire Universe? No one has seen the entire universe. It is obvious why I said what I did about biological life forms. You know the answer already. Originally Posted by truethat Also what does the source have to do with being male or female? The sun is not male or female so why would a "source" be? Btw that source can also be described as energy. Energy is not male or female and it doesn't love or hate. So it's energy. What does that have to do with GOD? Originally Posted by truethat And once again which God are you talking about? read OP again.
	__________________ "I have walked a mile in your shoes and discovered what your problem is...your feet are too small" ~σκεπτικιστής ακραίες

20th June 2012, 04:39 PM	#36
Navigator Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,034	Originally Posted by Aridas No. Edit - The short version is that we have no good reason, whatsoever, to believe that whether there is a Source has anything at all to do with the continuation of life, as it exists on our planet, much less whether such a Source would be benign or malign to said continuation. Why?
	__________________ "I have walked a mile in your shoes and discovered what your problem is...your feet are too small" ~σκεπτικιστής ακραίες

20th June 2012, 04:39 PM	#37
Aridas Crazy Little Green Dragon Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,107	Originally Posted by Navigator Here is some appropriate music while we all wait: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekytTpFy96o From that - Quote: The epic "The Last Resort" is about the demise of society. It is the final track from the album "Hotel California". So, are you saying that this thread is your attempt to claim that the lack of a belief in a deity of some form will cause the demise of society? Also, that said, you might want to make your question and claims far more clear, if you want more direct answers from more people. The length, tone, vagueness, and so on of the OP is not conducive to discussion.
	__________________ So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

20th June 2012, 04:42 PM	#38
Aridas Crazy Little Green Dragon Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,107	Originally Posted by Navigator Why? I explained exactly why my answer to your question is no. You're now attempting to shift the burden of proof away from yourself with nothing. It's your job to show that I'm wrong, if you think that I am, not mine to repeat myself.
	__________________ So sayeth the crazy little dragon.