Mor(m)ons

[Woodruff]

god being disproven? perhaps. but i believe it is within the realm of possibility.

I don't think you understand. You can't prove a negative. You cannot prove that God does not exist. This will never be possible.

[john9blue]

god being disproven? perhaps. but i believe it is within the realm of possibility.

I don't think you understand. You can't prove a negative. You cannot prove that God does not exist. This will never be possible.

no, but you can gain enough evidence for an alternative theory as to render the god explanation extremely unlikely, thereby inductively "proving" that god doesn't exist.

[jonesthecurl]

god being disproven? perhaps. but i believe it is within the realm of possibility.

I don't think you understand. You can't prove a negative. You cannot prove that God does not exist. This will never be possible.

no, but you can gain enough evidence for an alternative theory as to render the god explanation extremely unlikely, thereby inductively "proving" that god doesn't exist.

...and at what point would you be stisfied that that had been done?
Would it be the same point at which Player would concede?
Lionz?
NightStrike?
Ja2AJay?

[john9blue]

god being disproven? perhaps. but i believe it is within the realm of possibility.

I don't think you understand. You can't prove a negative. You cannot prove that God does not exist. This will never be possible.

no, but you can gain enough evidence for an alternative theory as to render the god explanation extremely unlikely, thereby inductively "proving" that god doesn't exist.

...and at what point would you be stisfied that that had been done?
Would it be the same point at which Player would concede?
Lionz?
NightStrike?
Ja2AJay?

i'm not THAT stubborn, jonesey

[jonesthecurl]

My contention would be that we have already reached that point.

[john9blue]

My contention would be that we have already reached that point.

what's your alternative, god-disproving theory, then?

[jonesthecurl]

That it is extremely unlikely that there is a God because I can see no rfeason to assume that the universe is not naturally occuring.
Maybe there is a God that does nothing, and never has but if there is, um, so what?

[john9blue]

That it is extremely unlikely that there is a God because I can see no rfeason to assume that the universe is not naturally occuring.

in nature, you never get something from nothing

[Haggis_McMutton]

That it is extremely unlikely that there is a God because I can see no rfeason to assume that the universe is not naturally occuring.

in nature, you never get something from nothing [citation needed]

Besides, how about the inductive argument I mentioned. Namely that the 'god of the gap's domain has been shrinking for thousands of years and that it is rather unreasonable to say you're going to wait till every single gap is filled.

Also, I believe we were having a discussion about complexity a while ago that got cut short.
Maybe my memory is failling me, but did you agree that a god would have to be less complex than the universe in order for him to be at all usefull as a scientific hypothesis regarding the creation of the universe?

[jonesthecurl]

That it is extremely unlikely that there is a God because I can see no rfeason to assume that the universe is not naturally occuring.

in nature, you never get something from nothing

sez who?

[Woodruff]

god being disproven? perhaps. but i believe it is within the realm of possibility.

I don't think you understand. You can't prove a negative. You cannot prove that God does not exist. This will never be possible.

no, but you can gain enough evidence for an alternative theory as to render the god explanation extremely unlikely, thereby inductively "proving" that god doesn't exist.

We already have this. It doesn't seem to have worked.

[john9blue]

sez who?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

Besides, how about the inductive argument I mentioned. Namely that the 'god of the gap's domain has been shrinking for thousands of years and that it is rather unreasonable to say you're going to wait till every single gap is filled.

the GOTG domain is shrinking because people are stupid and have a tendency to take good ideas and run with them and ruin them

"our universe probably needs a creator" sounds good...

but centuries later... "our creator is a bearded guy in the clouds who makes it rain and can change the course of nature if i ask nicely"... =/

Also, I believe we were having a discussion about complexity a while ago that got cut short.
Maybe my memory is failling me, but did you agree that a god would have to be less complex than the universe in order for him to be at all usefull as a scientific hypothesis regarding the creation of the universe?

define "complexity" in a way that allows us to measure it.

[jonesthecurl]

sez who?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

.

Well, if you're gonna give me that as indiputable, here we go.
"energy can be neither created nor destroyed."
So there can be no creator.
Q.E.D.

[john9blue]

sez who?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

.

Well, if you're gonna give me that as indiputable, here we go.
"energy can be neither created nor destroyed."
So there can be no creator.
Q.E.D.

someone give this guy a nobel prize

[jonesthecurl]

Me and Oolon Qualuphid, we're best buds. Shame he was run over on theat pedestrian crossing.

[PLAYER57832]

god being disproven? perhaps. but i believe it is within the realm of possibility.

I don't think you understand. You can't prove a negative. You cannot prove that God does not exist. This will never be possible.

no, but you can gain enough evidence for an alternative theory as to render the god explanation extremely unlikely, thereby inductively "proving" that god doesn't exist.

We already have this. It doesn't seem to have worked.

No, you most definitely have not provided any such thing. What has been provided is mostly disproving atheistic ideas of what God "must" be, often pretty childish ideas at that (such as "if a prayer is not immediately given a positive answer.. it proves prayer doesn't work). I mean, natty coming up with "when has the Pope..." is particularly telling. He repeatedly makes arguments against the Roman Catholic church as if it were the only Christian church or thinking in existance.. and even then, doesn't take into account the true breadth of Roman Catholic thinking.

Most of the arguments voiced are pretty centered on things outside our universe or before our universe began somehow following rules similar to what we see today on Earth. That's like those who saw sailors go off into the distance and thought they "must" be sailing off the deep.. because the idea of a round Earth was just inconceivable.

Ironically, you yourself actually provided what (given what we know today) seems to be one of the more likely possibilities.. namely that all time is concurrent.

So, we get back to the truly frustrating part. No one, here, is saying that you or anyone else MUST believe in God (not in this conversation, not among the posters in here that I have seen, anyway) or that people who think that way are illogical, idiots, etc. However, to claim that people who believe in God are either is just wrong.

[PLAYER57832]

That it is extremely unlikely that there is a God because I can see no rfeason to assume that the universe is not naturally occuring.

And, folks in the middle ages would say much the same about the Earth being flat. Assuming that you know enough to prove there is no God is a pretty big assumption.

Maybe there is a God that does nothing, and never has but if there is, um, so what?

That is a possibility, and certainly reason enough to say that the "no God" bit is unproven. However, most believers will say that God does act.. but that the proof of those actions is generally not something easy to trot out.

Or, to bring up an old point... several of you have stated that miracles don't happen because there are scientific explanations for them. Yet.. why is that a requirement of God? That is rather what I mean by atheistic ideas of God being disproven, not believer's ideas or requirements.

[jonesthecurl]

Well, if a miracle doesn't require divine intervention, it's not a miracle.

Unless it's the Curlson getting up on time. That would be a bloody miracle.

But to say that there are miracles which are explainable is to twist the language all out of shape.

Reminds me of the ghost tour we took in Cape may. "How do you know that half the people in that crowd over there aren't ghosts?" said the guide. We;ll I can't prove they aren't without interviewing them all, and if I did that the ghosts might dissappear while I was talking to someone else - it's impossible to prove that isn't so, and therefore "logical" to believe it's possible.
But excuse me if I doubt it mightily.

[GreecePwns]

Since we can rule out divine intervention in almost every aspect of the universe, the only possible rational beliefs are deism/intelligent design or atheism, with agnostics being the ones choosing not to choose.

Player argues that things explained by natural law are still miracles, or involving divine intervention (that's what she means by miracle, or at least what is almost always meant in this context). No they are not. They're natural by definition.

And religion derives a lot of things from this belief in divine intervention that are instantly disproven.

[Woodruff]

god being disproven? perhaps. but i believe it is within the realm of possibility.

I don't think you understand. You can't prove a negative. You cannot prove that God does not exist. This will never be possible.

no, but you can gain enough evidence for an alternative theory as to render the god explanation extremely unlikely, thereby inductively "proving" that god doesn't exist.

We already have this. It doesn't seem to have worked.

No, you most definitely have not provided any such thing.

Sure we have. A large number of people are simply too wrapped up in their comfort zone to look at the situation objectively.

Ironically, you yourself actually provided what (given what we know today) seems to be one of the more likely possibilities.. namely that all time is concurrent.

Of course I did. Because I try to view things objectively, which means I try to find "ways to make it work". That doesn't make those things "likely".

So, we get back to the truly frustrating part. No one, here, is saying that you or anyone else MUST believe in God (not in this conversation, not among the posters in here that I have seen, anyway) or that people who think that way are illogical, idiots, etc. However, to claim that people who believe in God are either is just wrong.

I wouldn't say that all are illogical, and certainly not idiots. I would suggest that most aren't allowing themselves to look at the situation with a clear view, mostly because of comfort level. Granted, that's just my personal opinion, so it doesn't mean much.

[PLAYER57832]

Well, if a miracle doesn't require divine intervention, it's not a miracle.

Who decides when God intervenes and doesn't.

We have long passed a point when we see everyday things that would have been considered "miracles" evenin my granparent's childhoods.
Nothing in the Bible or the Christian faith sets up such a rule.. it is something those outside religion try to claim.

Like I said, you disprove ideas you have set up as "requirements"... even if they truly are not.
God set up the systems we see. Why is it not within ihs power to ensure that certain things happen at specific times or unusual ways?

Reminds me of the ghost tour we took in Cape may. "How do you know that half the people in that crowd over there aren't ghosts?" said the guide. We;ll I can't prove they aren't without interviewing them all, and if I did that the ghosts might dissappear while I was talking to someone else - it's impossible to prove that isn't so, and therefore "logical" to believe it's possible.
But excuse me if I doubt it mightily.

No one is saying you cannot doubt. THAT is the key. You are/have claimed that to believe is illogical .. yet your above statement shows that it is, in fact, not.

And, well... regarding ghosts, there actually is some evidence that something of the sort exists, though not what the "media" hypes, and probably more rare than thought.

[natty dread]

And, well... regarding ghosts, there actually is some evidence that something of the sort exists

Care to substantiate this claim?

[PLAYER57832]

god being disproven? perhaps. but i believe it is within the realm of possibility.

I don't think you understand. You can't prove a negative. You cannot prove that God does not exist. This will never be possible.

no, but you can gain enough evidence for an alternative theory as to render the god explanation extremely unlikely, thereby inductively "proving" that god doesn't exist.

We already have this. It doesn't seem to have worked.

No, you most definitely have not provided any such thing.

Sure we have. A large number of people are simply too wrapped up in their comfort zone to look at the situation objectively.

LOL, LOL, LOL

OK, fine... state your points, again, then.

Ironically, you yourself actually provided what (given what we know today) seems to be one of the more likely possibilities.. namely that all time is concurrent.

Of course I did. Because I try to view things objectively, which means I try to find "ways to make it work". That doesn't make those things "likely".

Teh difference between "unlikely" and "possible" is the difference between man walking on the moon and not. Science is very much about proving the unlikely is true.
Somehow, there is a group that thinks just because something is religious, those rules don't apply. Sad to see you among them.

And.. the concurrent time idea is actually one of the most likely ideas for why things are the way we percieve them, according to much of the most modern and current physics thinking.

So, we get back to the truly frustrating part. No one, here, is saying that you or anyone else MUST believe in God (not in this conversation, not among the posters in here that I have seen, anyway) or that people who think that way are illogical, idiots, etc. However, to claim that people who believe in God are either is just wrong.

I wouldn't say that all are illogical, and certainly not idiots. I would suggest that most aren't allowing themselves to look at the situation with a clear view, mostly because of comfort level. Granted, that's just my personal opinion, so it doesn't mean much.

And I/many religious individuals would turn that back at you.. but ALSO add a fair amount of you consider yourself superior arrogance to it. Which, well, is how a lot of religious individuals feel about the non-religous (not me, I personally find them equally distasteful).

ANY closing of your mind to ideas not yet disproven is a limitation, a closing of the mind, not opening it. I prefer an expanded mind.

[PLAYER57832]

And, well... regarding ghosts, there actually is some evidence that something of the sort exists

Care to substantiate this claim?

Done already, in other threads (not by me.. I generally avoid this one, since I am not a "firm believer".. just acknowledge some room for skepticism), but let's be clear.. "some evidence" does not mean "proof".

Some evidence is a a myriad of sightings by very credible people that have had no other explanation.

But, well, you have already shown yourself to be too closed minded to consider that you might be wrong. Like I said before, you can't even seem to grasp that there is a significant difference between what the Roman Catholic Pope says and what Protestants believe.

[natty dread]

And, well... regarding ghosts, there actually is some evidence that something of the sort exists

Care to substantiate this claim?

Done already, in other threads (not by me.. I generally avoid this one, since I am not a "firm believer".. just acknowledge some room for skepticism), but let's be clear.. "some evidence" does not mean "proof".

Some evidence is a a myriad of sightings by very credible people that have had no other explanation.

But, well, you have already shown yourself to be too closed minded to consider that you might be wrong. Like I said before, you can't even seem to grasp that there is a significant difference between what the Roman Catholic Pope says and what Protestants believe.

Nicely dodged.