Is there a god?

[NimNim]

Originally posted by Dave
You admaze me. How you can turn and twist words to fit your own agenda.


Slow down there soldier. I'm not twisting anything to fit my agenda. I'm pulling definitions of the words we have been throwing around (so we don't get into the semantics game).


The post title is "is there a God".

I don't think so, or I don't possess any knowledge to lead me to that conclusion - and - I'm trying to communicate why. Is this supposed to be a yes/no thread? If so - it wouldn't be very interesting.


Not how many words can I define to prove my point, not how many people can I convince otherwise and not how many people can we insult by calling their beliefs irrational.

I'm sorry you are insulted by the word irrational. I am arguing from a rational/irrational standpoint on the subject. It is only natural to identify what is rational/irrational. From the information you have provided - I have found your ideas to be irrational. Not an insult - an observation based on what I have learned so far - all you have to do is tell me why your ideas aren't irrational!


The poll would suggest the majority of people believe in a God. Yet your last statement says a religious person can not agree how irrational the idea of God is. Well, duh!! Get a clue. It's our belief.
And a belief based on faith is inherently irrational. Don't get all huffy puffy about it - but this is a fact. Apparently, you aren't willing to accept you are being irrational. If you were willing to accept this - then I would by all means leave it alone. This is the point though - I don't think any religious individual thinks (or realizes) they are irrational. Thus why I am interested to show otherwise and to observe the reaction.

[NimNim]

Originally posted by gopman
Why? Do you have explanations for everything in the universe? Only then would you have the basis to call belief in God irrational or illogical.

Again. Understand the definition of logical/rational. It has nothing to do with knowing everything - only using previous knowledge as a basis. No where does it state you must know everything.

[NimNim]

Originally posted by Duo_Maxwell
Nimnim, you cannot win this fight.

Possibly - but I'm not about to bow out.

[NimNim]

Originally posted by gopman
Why? Do you have explanations for everything in the universe? Only then would you have the basis to call belief in God irrational or illogical.

One more thing - you would be correct in this assumption if I said "there is no God." Then, yes, I would be guilty of irrationality.

However, note the difference in what I am saying - "The idea of God is irrational." Just because it is irrational doesn't mean it is false - but - based on my knowledge through reality I have every reason to think it is irrational. Furthermore, I have yet to find a single religious individual who can provide facts to base their knowledge through reality (rational) on the existence of God. Instead, they default to the "faith" argument - which automatically incriminates them with being irrational.

[Duo_Maxwell]

NimNim, I think you know as well as I do that trying to make the religious accept logic into their lives is about as easy as producing a quantam singularity reactor with sticks and stones. :)

Dave: NimNim is using dictionary defintions. Can't get clearer then that.

Why? Do you have explanations for everything in the universe? Only then would you have the basis to call belief in God irrational or illogical.

No, we don't. That doesn't mean that we simply just accept that what we don't know about is due to a higher being. That was the way of our past. It would be foolhardly to say what we don't understand is a product of a higher being. However, look at how far we have come from. Atristolian Physics believed we were the middle of the system, that each planet was a glass sphere, and beyond them lay the realm of God and the angels. Clearly, this accepted idea was shattered. Genetics is another example. We thought god deteremined our looks, Mendel started to unravel that concept. Now we know our own genetic code (with a degree of inaccuracy of course)! We can manipulate DNA! We know so much more about our surroundings then before!

Give it enough time, and we will have an explanation. Science will eventually unravel all of the universe's mysteries.

Impatiences is the unconscience attitude of the religious.

[ronin_asano]

Originally posted by gopman
Why? Do you have explanations for everything in the universe? Only then would you have the basis to call belief in God irrational or illogical.

not true.

having explanations for everything in the universe could provide the basis for *concluding* that belief in god is irrational and/or illogical.

however

the absence of explanations for everything in the universe is not enough on its own to dismiss a claim that belief in god is irrational.

[gopman]

I think this has become an argument about the definition of irrational. I don't care what that is. The question is "is there a god," and since we can't prove it either way, then it's based on belief. It's useless to call anyone irrational. DesCartes actually came to a rational proof of God, but his premises are disputable.

[mahayana]

Actually the thread asked "If so, what sort of god is he?"

I think gopman has been explaining this for quite a while.

There have been a lot of answers to an unasked question "why do you think anyone's ideas about God are foolish?"

[ronin_asano]

Originally posted by gopman
I think this has become an argument about the definition of irrational. I don't care what that is. The question is "is there a god," and since we can't prove it either way, then it's based on belief. It's useless to call anyone irrational. DesCartes actually came to a rational proof of God, but his premises are disputable.

descartes was not even close on this. it sounds as if you have read his 'meditations' so i take it you still recall the 'evil demon' of deception? his 'proof' for god was a huge cop out.

[gopman]

His proof (one of them) was that by definition God was perfect and therefore doesn't deceive. We have knowledge of him, and he's perfect and we can't have a perfect idea unless it's given to us by a perfect being. It's not a "cop out," but its foundations are weak. For example, I don't think we have a perfect idea of God.

[Vic]

people, you know, this isn´t a chat, but a forum :) :) :)

a few weeks more and you can write a book about this thread with so many posts it already has, 18 pages ....

[cpwill]

gopman; i've always pictured it as trying to cram too much information into too small of a space. our minds can't comprehend God, so we take in what we can, which leaves us with less than a full picture.

[Cobra]

The concept of a god or gods was an invention of man. The Greeks were the first to have gods in the image of man. The Christians stole that idea. They also stole Hercules and made him Jesus. The Roman Emperor Constantine decided to use Christianity as a means of maintaining political power, and the Bible was assembled under his supervision. The Bible, not surprisingly, validates the institution of slavery, which was absolutely essential to the Roman economy and way of life.

[cpwill]

LOL:lol::lol::lol::lol:


ooooweee, wow, (wipes tears) thank you for that, cobra; you helped wake me up.
(chuckles)

[Blueangel]

Originally posted by cpwill
LOL:lol::lol::lol::lol:


ooooweee, wow, (wipes tears) thank you for that, cobra; you helped wake me up.
(chuckles) With the exception of the Hercules part (I honestly don't know about that), the rest of Cobra's post is accurate.

[ronin_asano]

Originally posted by gopman
His proof (one of them) was that by definition God was perfect and therefore doesn't deceive. We have knowledge of him, and he's perfect and we can't have a perfect idea unless it's given to us by a perfect being. It's not a "cop out," but its foundations are weak. For example, I don't think we have a perfect idea of God.

i wasn't saying that he claimed god would deceive. you are correct, he considered god perfect, and hence that he would not deceive. however, he postulated that we may not be able to know the real world, as there could be some evil demon that warps our perception of the world.

this is one of the places where he copped out, simply claiming that god would never allow such an evil demon to do this to us. hence we can be sure we know the real world.

[mahayana]

Ronin, "La Vida Es Sueno"(life is a dream).

I'm surprised noone has suggested that God is Universal Consciousness. This is an attractive proposition.

Every thought and sense perception is part of God's ongoing experience and creation. We are the mind and eyes of God. Or at least a tiny part of it.

God loves to be worshiped and praised and thought of in many different ways, hence the different religions.

He even has a soft spot for doubters, who keep the believers from complacency and self-righteousness. (isn't vain pride a sin?)

And remember to remove the log from your own eye before you point out the speck in your neighbor's, hah!

[Dave]

Originally posted by gopman
I think this has become an argument about the definition of irrational. I don't care what that is. The question is "is there a god," and since we can't prove it either way, then it's based on belief. It's useless to call anyone irrational. DesCartes actually came to a rational proof of God, but his premises are disputable.


Thank you, a voice of reason is always a joy to read.

[Dave]

Originally posted by NimNim
Slow down there soldier. I'm not twisting anything to fit my agenda. I'm pulling definitions of the words we have been throwing around (so we don't get into the semantics game).
I don't think so, or I don't possess any knowledge to lead me to that conclusion - and - I'm trying to communicate why. Is this supposed to be a yes/no thread? If so - it wouldn't be very interesting.
I'm sorry you are insulted by the word irrational. I am arguing from a rational/irrational standpoint on the subject. It is only natural to identify what is rational/irrational. From the information you have provided - I have found your ideas to be irrational. Not an insult - an observation based on what I have learned so far - all you have to do is tell me why your ideas aren't irrational!
And a belief based on faith is inherently irrational. Don't get all huffy puffy about it - but this is a fact. Apparently, you aren't willing to accept you are being irrational. If you were willing to accept this - then I would by all means leave it alone. This is the point though - I don't think any religious individual thinks (or realizes) they are irrational. Thus why I am interested to show otherwise and to observe the reaction.


I wish I knew how you guys break up a quote the way you do. It seems much easier to stress a point that way.

Anyway, lets see if I can remain calm and not get all huffy puffy as you put it. For people that believe and have faith in a higher power, the belief is very rational. The thoughts that we just one day rose up out of the dirt with no devine hand is what is truely irrational. Something played a row in these events. Even if you believe in the evolution theory, a higher power had to make it happen. It's irrational to think otherwise. Proof: Throw a stick on the ground and see how long it takes to grow a human. Yep! Your right, that's irrational. Case proved.

Have a good day.

[ronin_asano]

Originally posted by Dave
I wish I knew how you guys break up a quote the way you do. It seems much easier to stress a point that way.



dave, there are several ways to do this, using 'ubb code'

the tags are as follows: <quote></quote> or <i></i> or <b></b>. note, i used angle brackets so the tags would appear in the message. normally they would be enclosed with [] and [/]

quote is formatting text as it appears when you hit the quote button to reply to a post. surround the text you wish to quote with the quote tags

italics and bold work the same way, if you prefer to use those.

[ronin_asano]

Originally posted by mahayana
Ronin, "La Vida Es Sueno"(life is a dream).

I'm surprised noone has suggested that God is Universal Consciousness. This is an attractive proposition.

Every thought and sense perception is part of God's ongoing experience and creation. We are the mind and eyes of God. Or at least a tiny part of it.

God loves to be worshiped and praised and thought of in many different ways, hence the different religions.

He even has a soft spot for doubters, who keep the believers from complacency and self-righteousness. (isn't vain pride a sin?)

And remember to remove the log from your own eye before you point out the speck in your neighbor's, hah!

yes, this is the reasoning of george berkeley, one of the british empiricists. i find it odd that an empiricist would arrive at such a conclusion, especially the way berkeley does. however, i do admire the way he gets there, it is really entertaining.

the text is pretty short, so it's worth the read:

http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dwilkins/Berkeley/Hylas/

or

http://www.blackmask.com/books68c/scthtdex.htm?http://www.blackmask.com/books68c/scthtcon.htm

both links have the same content. the first one offers printable formats.

[Blueangel]

Thanks for that Ronin.
I've just sent Dave a PM explaining the different methods. Nobody taught me either and I had to learn by trial and a lot of embarrassing errors. :p

[Simon666]

I'm going to make a practice thread in the Whistle Stop Station forum.

[Dave]

Originally posted by Simon666
I'm going to make a practice thread in the Whistle Stop Station forum.

Thanks, let me know when.

[ronin_asano]

Originally posted by Blueangel
Thanks for that Ronin.
I've just sent Dave a PM explaining the different methods. Nobody taught me either and I had to learn by trial and a lot of embarrassing errors. :p

no problem.

i suppose i could have pm'd instead of hijacking the thread. i just didn't think of that.

[NimNim]

Originally posted by gopman
I think this has become an argument about the definition of irrational. I don't care what that is. The question is "is there a god," and since we can't prove it either way, then it's based on belief. It's useless to call anyone irrational.

If this thread was only on "Is there a God" - we would only be posting yes/no's. However, this is a thread where discussion takes place.

It isn't useless by any stretch of the imagination to alert someone to irrationality. That would be like saying if you don't support the war, you are insulting anyone who does.

This thread has become "Do you believe there is a God" from the very first posts. I am claiming "no", and that it is irrational to think otherwise. I recognize the fact that the majority of religous individuals find their faith or belief to be rational. Faith, by definition, is irrational. Thus - your belief is irrational.

Why is this so hard to understand and why are you guys getting upset about it?

[NimNim]

Originally posted by Dave
For people that believe and have faith in a higher power, the belief is very rational.


No, it's not. Please re-read the definitions I pulled out of the dictionary.

Faith, by definition, is irrational. To accept faith, you accept that your belief is irrational.


The thoughts that we just one day rose up out of the dirt with no devine hand is what is truely irrational.

You are absolutely correct. However, on the same token, to think some magical supreme being created us is just as irrational.


Even if you believe in the evolution theory, a higher power had to make it happen.

How so?


It's irrational to think otherwise.

No - you are 180 degrees off. It is rational to think otherwise - since there are no facts or evidence to support it.


Proof: Throw a stick on the ground and see how long it takes to grow a human. Yep! Your right, that's irrational. Case proved.

I don't think it gets any more irrational than this.

[gopman]

Since there's no rational way to know either way, accusing either side of being irrational is useless. We'll never know rationally how we were created, so just leave it at that.

[nilz263]

I believe there is a god. Otherwise how did we get here? I don't buy into evolution and the big-bang. Life is just too complicated for such a simple explanation.:angel:

[ronin_asano]

Originally posted by nilz263
I believe there is a god. Otherwise how did we get here? I don't buy into evolution and the big-bang. Life is just too complicated for such a simple explanation.:angel:

excellent argument.

because you don't understand it, it must be god.

[gopman]

Or, on the other hand, because you don't understand it, it can't be God. No one understands it.

[NimNim]

Originally posted by gopman
Since there's no rational way to know either way, accusing either side of being irrational is useless.

Ahhh... incorrect. It is rational to disbelieve God's existence. It is irrational to say we rose out of dirt (at least with my knowledge of the subject).


We'll never know rationally how we were created, so just leave it at that.

This is also irrational. Based on past events and knowledge, it would be rational to think science will eventually determine how we were created.

[NimNim]

Originally posted by gopman
Or, on the other hand, because you don't understand it, it can't be God. No one understands it.

No, if I don't understand it, it would be irrational to claim it as the work of God.

[SantaMonica]

yes and you are not going to heaven.
I am.

[NimNim]

Originally posted by SantaMonica
yes and you are not going to heaven.
I am.

Because I am being honest with myself? Does it really make sense to punish people for being honest? Isn't this what is taught in the Bible - honesty?

Oh wait - that only includes what the Bible wants you to be honest about. Honesty that contradicts the idea of God is a SIN!
How convenient.

[Blueangel]

Originally posted by SantaMonica
yes and you are not going to heaven.
I am. I'm not going anywhere until I've read the guide and seen the star rating.

No air-conditioning, no heated swimming pool, no jacuzzi, no booze, no weed, no rock music....hmmm...maybe I'll give it a miss :D
We'll have to wait and see.

[SantaMonica]

Nothing but AAA rated 5 stars baby :angel:

[ronin_asano]

Originally posted by gopman
Or, on the other hand, because you don't understand it, it can't be God. No one understands it.

no, i don't make that claim. what i do assert is that there are often perfectly rational explanations for events that at least show a possibility other than god.

i also hold that a god who is said to have perfections (omniscience for one) is logically at odds with humans being his creation and having free will at the same time.

[ronin_asano]

Originally posted by SantaMonica
yes and you are not going to heaven.
I am.

you must be captain of the debate team.

how can one refute this?

let's see. you *know* you are going to heaven? please explain how you *know* this.

[SantaMonica]

I was told.

[ronin_asano]

Originally posted by SantaMonica
I was told.

told by whom?

at least make a point instead of whoring posts to up your count.

[NimNim]

Originally posted by SantaMonica
I was told.

This has significance and shows your mentality. Someone who accepts automatically what they are "told."

So I ask this, do you believe everything you are told?

[gopman]

Who told you that the universe was created otherwise?

Neither position is logically any better than the other. If you don't believe, that's fine, but if someone thinks they had an experience with God, you can't call them irrational. In fact, as empiricists, you would be inclined to believe their impressions rather than scientific theories.

[SantaMonica]

LOL. Predictable.

No, I do not believe everything...but I do believe in God.
Enough said.

[NimNim]

Originally posted by gopman
Who told you that the universe was created otherwise?

Neither position is logically any better than the other.


I guess I will have to post the definitions again......

Irrational: Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment.

Logic: Based on earlier or otherwise known statements, events, or conditions; reasonable.

Rational: Consistent with or based on reason; logical.

Belief: The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another.

Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Ok - let's try this again.

It is always rational to refute anything that does not provide known facts, conditions, or events.

The idea of God or his existence does not provide any of these. Thus, why everyone uses the term "faith." However, by doing so, is to automatically accept you are irrational.

So yes, not believing in God is a far superior logically than believing God exists by definition. You are confusing disbelief with providing another irrational solution.


If you don't believe, that's fine, but if someone thinks they had an experience with God, you can't call them irrational.

I most certainly can. Any thing you have experienced through God you can not provide known facts, conditions, or events to logically show God was involved. If you could, we wouldn't be having this argument.


In fact, as empiricists, you would be inclined to believe their impressions rather than scientific theories.

Who said I was an empiricist?

[NimNim]

Originally posted by SantaMonica
LOL. Predictable.


But it the only way you could predict anything would be through God!

You are able to use previous known events, and conditions to determine what I will most likely say next. This is rational.
So why is it that you can't apply that same rationality to God?


No, I do not believe everything...but I do believe in God.
Enough said.
Not enough said. Why do you refute some things (by being rational), but dismiss that tool when it comes to God?

[SantaMonica]

your response was predictable.

The belief in a "God" is personal. It is never opened for debate. Either one believes or one does not. It can neither be proven or disproven. Don't try.

[ronin_asano]

Originally posted by SantaMonica


The belief in a "God" is personal. It is never opened for debate.


if that is your position, then why post in this thread?


Either one believes or one does not. It can neither be proven or disproven. Don't try.

i don't recall anyone claiming to be able to disprove god. it doesn't matter, that is not the question being discussed. at present, the debate is focused on determining if belief in god is rational and/or logical. clearly, it is not, yet several of the believers here are making an attempt to argue that it is rational and logical.

or they claim to *know* god exists. you *know* no such thing. you may believe it all you like, but you do not *know* for a fact. you must appeal to faith and doing so commits you to an illogical position.

all you have to do is admit this and the discussion is over.

[SantaMonica]

The thread asked if you believed there was a God.
Simple. Answer=yes.

If so, what kind of God is it? Answer=God is good

Don't get all seriously philosophical. It's not that kind of question. It was a basic benign question.

If the question was something more intricate, then the answer would be more intricate.

It wasn't.

[SantaMonica]

Originally posted by CyNix
Is there a god?
1. Yes
2. No
If so, what type of god is he?

[ronin_asano]

Originally posted by SantaMonica
The thread asked if you believed there was a God.
Simple. Answer=yes.

If so, what kind of God is it? Answer=God is good

Don't get all seriously philosophical. It's not that kind of question. It was a basic benign question.

If the question was something more intricate, then the answer would be more intricate.

It wasn't.

deftly done.

you have succeeded in dodging the debate again. yes, the orginal question was 'is there a god'.

in the natural course of discussion, debates evolve. this one has moved past 'is there a god'.

if you think there is a god, then you should vote yes in the poll and not post any comments.

[gopman]

"So yes, not believing in God is a far superior logically than believing God exists by definition."

Not unless you have facts to the contrary, and you don't- only theories.

"Who said I was an empiricist?"

You believe God doesn't exist because he can't be explained by anything in the world, and that's an empirical point of view.

"I most certainly can. Any thing you have experienced through God you can not provide known facts, conditions, or events to logically show God was involved. If you could, we wouldn't be having this argument."

Unless you are them, you can't definitively or logically say they didn't experience God. You can base it on scientific theory, but that's no more rational than basing a belief on God. Those theories are only true inasmuch as they provide practical use to us. The fact is, we don't have a clue. You can't prove the principle of uniformity of nature, so assuming science can explain the universe is no more logical than God.

[ronin_asano]

i might be mistaken here, but i was under the impression that the empiricist does not believe in anything that cannot be directly observed by the senses. so in that case, germs don't exist since we much us instruments to observe them.

maybe there is a branch of empiricism that holds what you are describing.

[gopman]

You're thinking of an extreme Humian version of empiricism. All it really means is that knowledge can only be based on observable phenomena.

[NimNim]

Originally posted by gopman
Not unless you have facts to the contrary, and you don't- only theories.
Incorrect. I have the facts of reality - knowledge of reality.


You believe God doesn't exist because he can't be explained by anything in the world, and that's an empirical point of view.

Not true. I don't believe God exists - based on the facts of what I know through reality.


Unless you are them, you can't definitively or logically say they didn't experience God.

Exactly, thus it would be irrational to embrace their unprovable experiences that don't jive with reality.


You can base it on scientific theory, but that's no more rational than basing a belief on God.

Are you kidding? Through science we have put men on the moon. Irrationality would not put anyone on the moon. What have you done through religion?


Those theories are only true inasmuch as they provide practical use to us. The fact is, we don't have a clue. You can't prove the principle of uniformity of nature, so assuming science can explain the universe is no more logical than God.
Wow... this is what happens when you accept irrational thoughts as fact.

Once again, science and knowledge through reality have provided more rational explanations for our universe than religion ever will or has. Explanations that were developed through known events, statements, or conditions. The idea of God only goes to stagnate thought with regards to reality because it is not based on anything other than a book.

We learn through reality - not some creative idea that has no meaning in reality - where we live and function.

[Blueangel]

Speaking of rationality, can you imagine the level of personal conflict many scientists go through when their faith is challenged by their work?
How can you believe in evolution and creationism?

[SantaMonica]

In defining the reality or not of "God" logic is irrelevant.

Define love. While I would hope a large majority would believe in "love," there would still be those who don't. Logical or not. We understand...those of us who believe in the attributes of "love" believe it to be good. We have "faith" in the power of "Love."
God, to believers, is all benevolent. It is the human individual who is not.

Ask 100 people what love is and you get 100 different answers for "love" is subjective. As is God.

To "intellectualize" God or to try is at best, futile.


There. Feel better?:angel:

[NimNim]

Originally posted by Blueangel
Speaking of rationality, can you imagine the level of personal conflict many scientists go through when their faith is challenged by their work?
How can you believe in evolution and creationism?

I think this is why the "atheist movement" is driven by technical individuals.

[NimNim]

Originally posted by SantaMonica
In defining the reality or not of "God" logic is irrelevant.

Define love. While I would hope a large majority would believe in "love," there would still be those who don't. Logical or not.

You have mistakenly confused that which is experienced through reality and that which is not. Love and God respectively.

[SantaMonica]

So you say...

[gopman]

"I have the facts of reality - knowledge of reality."

Really? Because there are some people who would like to have them. They've been talking about that for 2500 years. You have basically taken for granted that science can actually find truth. It can in a pragmatic sense, but that's it. There is absolutely no factual basis to the idea that God doesn't exist, other than the fact that no one's seen him, and that doesn't cut it.

[NimNim]

Originally posted by SantaMonica
So you say...
:rolleyes:

[SantaMonica]

Nim
You seem to be trying to win a unwinable debate. Why stress?

[gopman]

Neither side can "win" the debate. You have no evidence of God, so you don't believe in him. We don't believe science can explain everything, so we believe in him. Neither position is inherently better than the other.

[NimNim]

Originally posted by gopman
Really? Because there are some people who would like to have them. They've been talking about that for 2500 years.
My apologies. Let me rephrase. "I have learned facts through reality - thus gained knowledge through reality."


You have basically taken for granted that science can actually find truth. It can in a pragmatic sense, but that's it.

Care to handle this one ronin - sounds like Kant to me....


There is absolutely no factual basis to the idea that God doesn't exist, ....
So therefore he must exist? Is this your argument? There is plenty of knowledge gained through reality that demonstrates the idea of God does not fit reality, thus is irrational.


...other than the fact that no one's seen him, and that doesn't cut it.

Are you are listening to yourself?

Translated:

I can't push through a concrete wall, walk through it, run through it, kick through it, or bang my head through it, but this has no bearing on whether or not you can go through a concrete wall.

[gopman]

"So therefore he must exist? Is this your argument?"

If you would continue to the next half of the sentence, you would see a very simplified version of one of the reasons I believe in God. You don't know if he exists or not, and nothing can provide evidence that he doesn't. No observable fact or phenomenon. Ruling out the possibility of God (I said before not believing in him, but I have amended it) is equally as irrational as believing. That said, we can move on from that point and discuss, but we will never get past it if you continue to say that the idea God exists is irrational.

[NimNim]

Originally posted by SantaMonica
Nim
You seem to be trying to win a unwinable debate. Why stress?

As far as I am concerned I have won for the following reasons:

- It has been argued unsuccessfully that there are any facts regarding the existence of God.
- As a result, "Faith" was introduced to bridge the gap.
- I have shown that "Faith" in anything is irrational by definition.
- Religious individuals then argue they are not irrational despite using the word "faith".

If this isn't irrational - I don't know what is. It also explains why you believe in God.

At this point, I'm just trying to get you guys to admit you are irrational. But that's the problem, you are so blind, you don't even recoginize the definition of faith and it's inherent irrationality - somehow trying to avoid admitting you are in fact, by definition, irrational. How can you believe in God and still think it is rational?

[NimNim]

Originally posted by gopman
Ruling out the possibility of God (I said before not believing in him, but I have amended it) is equally as irrational as believing. That said, we can move on from that point and discuss, but we will never get past it if you continue to say that the idea God exists is irrational.

But no where have I "ruled out" the possibility of God. All I have provided was that the idea or belief in God was irrational.

In any case, to say he does not exist is rational, by definition of logical.

Logic: Based on earlier or otherwise known statements, events, or conditions; reasonable.

[NimNim]

Originally posted by gopman
Neither side can "win" the debate. You have no evidence of God, so you don't believe in him. We don't believe science can explain everything, so we believe in him. Neither position is inherently better than the other.

Wrong. The position based on reality is always better - because I can use that to gain more applicable real knowledge - instead of introducing contradictions into my thought process, slowly deteriorating my brain.

[gopman]

"The position based on reality is always better "

First of all, it's what you think is real. The fact is, you have no evidence that there isn't a God. Second of all, that's a value judgement.

[NimNim]

Originally posted by gopman
First of all, it's what you think is real.

So I bet the next thing you will say is that nothing is real? Are we not chatting, interchanging arguments? Is this not real?

This is a prime example of how mysticism and subjectivism destroys your mind until you don't know anything (nothing is real) - which leaves you no choice other than to believe in something like God in order to survive.

I know - I was once like you.


The fact is, you have no evidence that there isn't a God.

I have plenty of evidence there isn't a God. This is where you are wrong. This is why it is rational to not believe in God - and irrational otherwise. God does not fit into reality nor is there any logical evidence of it. Should I post the definition of logical again? I seriously don't think you are reading it.

To say there is no God is very different from saying there is no evidence to support the idea of God. I think you are confused with the difference here.


Second of all, that's a value judgement.
How about this. You try to learn about reality through mysticism and I do it through reality. Who do you think will learn more?

[SantaMonica]

You have won nothing NimNim. You have not succeeded where countless others have failed. You may think you have and that would certainly make you a legend in your own mind but that's it.

Trying to prove or disprove that can be neither. You are feebly attempting to attach your emotional insistance that God does not exist because you can not touch and feel him.

That would be YOUR problem.

How shallowly elitest of you to assume that for the lack of "belief" you are therefore superior. Hah!

This thread and you are pointless.

[NimNim]

Originally posted by SantaMonica
You have won nothing NimNim. You have not succeeded where countless others have failed. You may think you have and that would certainly make you a legend in your own mind but that's it.

I guess when the facts are mounting against you, you choose to not read anymore?

I have not attempted to disprove the existence of God. I have only shown that the belief of God is irrational. If you can't see this, I wouldn't be surprised since you denounce reality by accepting God on faith. Might as well try to walk through a concrete wall.


Trying to prove or disprove that can be neither. You are feebly attempting to attach your emotional insistance that God does not exist because you can not touch and feel him.
Emotional insistence? I think not... it would be cognitive insistance. Yours is emotional insistance - not cognitive - again - irrational.


That would be YOUR problem.
Please explain to me the eliteness you accuse me of is any different from the eliteness of experiencing God?


How shallowly elitest of you to assume that for the lack of "belief" you are therefore superior. Hah!
Superior in reality without question. This is not hard to understand - since I accept and embrace reality - whereas you do not. I learn through reality. Acceptance of God through reality is anti-knowledge. You exhibit little knowledge of reality, as well as your religious counterparts. Thus, it is easy to conclude that those who embrace reality are superior in it.


This thread and you are pointless.
Only because you don't like what I'm saying. Debate has no meaning to you because it is based on the rational and clearly you are not rational. I would get pissed and start throwing insults around too - if I were you.

[Duo_Maxwell]

There is absolutely no factual basis to the idea that God doesn't exist, other than the fact that no one's seen him, and that doesn't cut it.

There is no factual basis to the idea of that God exists. None.

First of all, it's what you think is real.

Only a idiot would say this. You know nothing. You simply BELIEVE much to be true. How you do know that you were placed here 5 minutes ago with false memories? You don't! No one can ever truly know anything. We simply believe much. However, those beliefs can be based on factual events we believed to have happened, and those which we can recreate.

The wisest man alive is the one who knows he knows nothing.

SantaMonica is a perfect example of when logic goes head to head with religion. One side just gives up because they have nothing of substance to prop their argument up with.

[Dave]

Originally posted by Blueangel
Speaking of rationality, can you imagine the level of personal conflict many scientists go through when their faith is challenged by their work?
How can you believe in evolution and creationism?


Easy.

Maybe in another debate I'll explan it to you.

[Dave]

NimNim--- Would it help you to admit there was a God, if we called him Webster's?

[NimNim]

Originally posted by Duo_Maxwell
Only a idiot would say this. You know nothing. You simply BELIEVE much to be true. How you do know that you were placed here 5 minutes ago with false memories? You don't! No one can ever truly know anything.

Maybe we should start another thread for this one...

Two things:
1) You can truly know many things through reality.
2) Suppose for a moment you were right. What benefit would that serve to anyone. All it would do is cause the destruction of your brain if you didn't believe you knew anything. But this is impossible - because if we didn't know anything - we would be useless vegetables.


The wisest man alive is the one who knows he knows nothing.

Again - for another thread.....

This is a contradiction in terms. If he knows nothing - then he can't know that he knows nothing. Unless you are saying there are no wise men....

Second, as described previously, if he knew nothing - he wouldn't be wise - he would be a useless vegetable. If he knew nothing, he would have nothing to base anything on to learn from or expand ideas. If he knew nothing, it would only serve to kill him.

It is human nature to survive and without knowledge a human can't survive. Thus, it is not only impossible, but not even close to being wise to believe this.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Two things:
1) You can truly know many things through reality.
2) Suppose for a moment you were right. What benefit would that serve to anyone. All it would do is cause the destruction of your brain if you didn't believe you knew anything. But this is impossible - because if we didn't know anything - we would be useless vegetables.

For all general purposes, being a true skeptic is horrible.
However, i'll entertain this a bit longer.
1) What is reality? And how do you know?
2) It wouldn't serve any. A true skeptic denies any existance of truth. Thus it is totally illogical and detremiental to be a true skeptic.

Actually, there aren't any.

However, you are missing my point. A wise man understands that everything he believes to be true, may ultmitely be an illusion. He understands that his entire belief and knowledge system may actually be a large sham. Everything he has been taught and learned, may simply be false. However, you cannot live like this all the time, but just accept that everything may be a fascade and move on. It's all philsophical BS.

You can't agrue with a true skeptic. It's impossible. They deny all existance of truth.

To understand this idea, you must understand that all known and accepted knowledge may be false.

Surivial may mean something entirely different then what we know.

It's all philsophical BS in the end. Don't take it too seriously. I don't.

[cpwill]

Originally posted by NimNim
- I have shown that "Faith" in anything is irrational by definition.

incorrect; you "rationally" live by "faith" in many things every day. when you go through an intersection, you are showing "faith" that the other drivers will stop at their redlight. when you try to put something down, you are showing "faith" that gravity will keep it there (when in reality we have no idea what gravity is). by the laws of aerodynamics bumblebees cannot fly.
you have faith in these things because that is what has happened before, although it is not necessarily perfectly garunteed, it is extemely likely and therefore you have "faith" in it. why should i, therefore, not operate in "faith" with something that has given me 100% results?

How can you believe in God and still think it is rational?

LOL, who do you think set up the puny little laws that you label "rationality"?;):p
that's like the folks that thought you couldn't believe in God and the Big Bang; as if the first couldn't have made the other:D

[Dave]

Originally posted by NimNim
Maybe we should start another thread for this one...

1) You can truly know many things through reality.


I agree this could be another thread. However, reality teaches us very little, unlike history. Let me tell you why.

Reality is only available to the person living it. That person's preception has great influence on the reality. Exsample: I see this thread as a great insult to the people who believe in a higher power. That's my reality. You see, that your only asking for proof. Same reality, two different preceptions.

If you really want to talk on another thread lets make the decussion on where reality ends and history starts.;)

[POWERSTROKE]

There has to be a god out of simple reason. I did my college thesis on this very subject. To simplify a very long idea, there is too much order on this planet and the universe in general, for this to be an accident.

[NimNim]

Originally posted by cpwill
incorrect; you "rationally" live by "faith" in many things every day.

No - do I need to post definitions again. Is anyone reading them? Clearly not. How can we have an argument when no one understands the words they are using?


when you go through an intersection, you are showing "faith" that the other drivers will stop at their redlight.

This is not faith either, it is a probability ... see below.... and this is why aggressive drivers, who are not rational with regards to probability, get creamed at intersections.


when you try to put something down, you are showing "faith" that gravity will keep it there (when in reality we have no idea what gravity is).

There is no "faith" here. AGAIN, read the definition of "faith".

I'll try this one more time.

Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Gravity, is based on logical proof and/or material evidence.


by the laws of aerodynamics bumblebees cannot fly.

Whooptie doo! Please note that we have material evidence of them flying. Uhh... they fly. All this shows is that the law of aerodynamics is flawed. I find it interesting that since the law of aerodynamics is flawed, there must be a God. I don't know how many fallacies that statement violates.


you have faith in these things because that is what has happened before, although it is not necessarily perfectly garunteed, it is extemely likely and therefore you have "faith" in it.

AGAIN. Please read the definition of "faith." Are you immune to it's definition or something? Sweet jesus!

You have contradicted yourself bigger than ^*@#$ here. Look at the definiton of "faith" and you will see that faith is independent of what has happened before. However, you use the two as the same (describing eachother) - contradicting yourself.


why should i, therefore, not operate in "faith" with something that has given me 100% results?

You fail to understand the difference between probability and faith.

Faith - based on no prior known events, conditions, or statements.

Probability is the likelihood some event, condition, or statement will repeat itself. In order to have the probability of someting, it must have occurred at some point or another, otherwise it has 0 probability. Faith = 0 probability by definition. By definition, faith is based on things in which no prior knowledge exists.


People.... before trying to argue the irrationality point in the future, please understand the defintions of "faith", "logical", and "rational". If you can't understand these, then you are wasting your time and mine...

[NimNim]

Originally posted by POWERSTROKE
There has to be a god out of simple reason. I did my college thesis on this very subject. To simplify a very long idea, there is too much order on this planet and the universe in general, for this to be an accident.

Wow. Please explain to me, by understanding the definitions of the words you use so loosely without comprehension, how "God exists because the universe has too much order," uses reason to conclude this?

[ronin_asano]

Originally posted by POWERSTROKE
There has to be a god out of simple reason. I did my college thesis on this very subject. To simplify a very long idea, there is too much order on this planet and the universe in general, for this to be an accident.

the argument of intelligent design is old and tired and false.

you cannot show god to exist through reason.

[POWERSTROKE]

Let me turn the table totally 180 degrees. Prove that there is no god. This should be fun.

[ronin_asano]

first of all, i'm not taking the bait to attempt to prove a negative, nice try.

second, i haven't made the claim that is possible to disprove the existence of god through reason, only that it can be shown that belief in god is illogical, hence the necessity of faith. see previous posts in the thread for the relevant arguments/discussion.

so, the ball is back in your court, why don't you show us how faith is rational/logical, something the believers have been failing at to this point.

[POWERSTROKE]

In typical atheistic behavior, you cannot even offer an ounce of proof to your argument. Give me one reason why god would not exist. One.

[ronin_asano]

have you been paying attention to the thread? i realize you have joined this particular discussion only recently, but please go back and read the previous pages.

it has been stipulated several times that neither side can proffer 'proof' one way or the other. the discussion has evolved into a debate on the 'rationality' of believing or not believing.

give me a reason that god does exist without an appeal to faith. or would the behavior of the typical believer require that you attempt to rationalize faith?

besides, who said i was an atheist?

[Captain America]

What blows me away is how agnostics think that they will ever be able to logically reason with someone who believes, (or claims they do,) in myths, superstition, fairy tales, and religion in general.

That in itself ought to tell you that they are not playing with a full deck. Why bother? It's like pissing up a rope.

Move on. It's no hair off my butt if somebody wants to believe in this craziness. Unless, of course, they get violent with it. Then they should be humanely "put down" like an animal with rabies.

[NimNim]

Originally posted by POWERSTROKE
Let me turn the table totally 180 degrees. Prove that there is no god. This should be fun.

Nobody is that retarded.. It is no different than trying to prove God exists.

However, if you read anything prior to this page, you would see the argument is not to disprove God, but to show that the idea of God is irrational.

[Immanuel]

"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." Heb. 11:1.

"By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible" Heb 11:3.

"By faith Enoch was taken from this life so that he did not experience death" Heb 11:5.

"By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family" Heb 11:7.

"By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only sone, even though God had said to him, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death." Heb 11:17-19.

"By faith the people passed through the Red Sea as on dry ground, but when the Egyptians tried to do so, they were drowned" Heb 11:29.

Hebrews 11:32-38 points out the deeds done by other Biblical "heroes". If you read the entire chapter you will see the consequences and deeds of all these people who lived by faith.

Is faith rational? I don't know that I can say "Yes, faith is rational." Is it rational to believe that those who live by faith are blessed by God? Probably not, but it appears that people who live by faith are afforded opportunities that others would not receive.

By that statement I include historical as well as biblical characters. There are historical people such as Martin Luther, Martin Luther King Jr., John Calvin, Billy Graham, Corrie Ten Boom, Joni Erickson Tada and many more who live by faith and appear to have been blessed for it.

Are there others who do not appear to live by faith and have been blessed. Sure there are, but how deep are their blessings and what have they really acheived? In contrast look at those who have lived "evil" lives. Hitler, Hussein, Amin, Stalin, Lenin etc. they prospered here on earth, but they have gone down in history at least as... well... more or less as failures.

I can't prove that faith does anything for me or anyone else, but the examples of people who "lived by faith and prospered (were blessed)" and those who lived without faith or worse yet opposed to it, bear heeding.

[NimNim]

Originally posted by Captain America
What blows me away is how agnostics think that they will ever be able to logically reason with someone who believes, (or claims they do,) in myths, superstition, fairy tales, and religion in general.


You are absolutely correct. Though, I think the "irrational" argument is effective since it clearly alerts to anyone with half a brain that the idea of God is irrational. It can't be refuted - by defintion.

I am bewildered by the fact religious individuals argue otherwise - when it is right in front of their faces, plain as day. Astonishing. When solid proofs are presented, they claim they can't read and/or comprehend anymore.

[POWERSTROKE]

Originally posted by NimNim
Nobody is that retarded.. It is no different than trying to prove God exists.

However, if you read anything prior to this page, you would see the argument is not to disprove God, but to show that the idea of God is irrational.
Haha...nice doubletalking jive on your end. Proving that something irrational is the same as saying that something is not true. C'mon, now that is retarded.

[ronin_asano]

Originally posted by Immanuel
"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." Heb. 11:1.

"By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible" Heb 11:3.

"By faith Enoch was taken from this life so that he did not experience death" Heb 11:5.

"By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family" Heb 11:7.

"By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only sone, even though God had said to him, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death." Heb 11:17-19.

"By faith the people passed through the Red Sea as on dry ground, but when the Egyptians tried to do so, they were drowned" Heb 11:29.

Hebrews 11:32-38 points out the deeds done by other Biblical "heroes". If you read the entire chapter you will see the consequences and deeds of all these people who lived by faith.

Is faith rational? I don't know that I can say "Yes, faith is rational." Is it rational to believe that those who live by faith are blessed by God? Probably not, but it appears that people who live by faith are afforded opportunities that others would not receive.

By that statement I include historical as well as biblical characters. There are historical people such as Martin Luther, Martin Luther King Jr., John Calvin, Billy Graham, Corrie Ten Boom, Joni Erickson Tada and many more who live by faith and appear to have been blessed for it.

Are there others who do not appear to live by faith and have been blessed. Sure there are, but how deep are their blessings and what have they really acheived? In contrast look at those who have lived "evil" lives. Hitler, Hussein, Amin, Stalin, Lenin etc. they prospered here on earth, but they have gone down in history at least as... well... more or less as failures.

I can't prove that faith does anything for me or anyone else, but the examples of people who "lived by faith and prospered (were blessed)" and those who lived without faith or worse yet opposed to it, bear heeding.

i think i must be missing something. what is to be heeded in the examples you provided? what is the connection between men of faith and being blessed? this is not something i think you can show.

at most you have a coincidece; this person believes and yet he is blessed. also, what is the definition of blessed? is this not subjective as well? i may consider financial success a blessing while another may consider the fact that his children were born healthy a blessing.

i'm not certain how this helps the believer's position.

[ronin_asano]

Originally posted by POWERSTROKE
Haha...nice doubletalking jive on your end. Proving that something irrational is the same as saying that something is not true. C'mon, now that is retarded.

then make with the proof.

you did an entire college thesis on it, there for it must be that god exists, logic demands it.

[NimNim]

Originally posted by POWERSTROKE
Haha...nice doubletalking jive on your end. Proving that something irrational is the same as saying that something is not true. C'mon, now that is retarded.

I think at this point it is important that you pay a visit to your dictionary - because you clearly don't understand the words you are using.

Proving that something is irrational is by no strech of the imagination equivalent to proving the same thing to be false. It only goes to show that something is most likely false based on known evidence, events, conditions, statements, etc...

[Immanuel]

Originally posted by ronin_asano
i think i must be missing something. what is to be heeded in the examples you provided? what is the connection between men of faith and being blessed? this is not something i think you can show.

at most you have a coincidece; this person believes and yet he is blessed. also, what is the definition of blessed? is this not subjective as well? i may consider financial success a blessing while another may consider the fact that his children were born healthy a blessing.

i'm not certain how this helps the believer's position.

Ronin,

You are not missing anything. I agree with you. It is all subjective.

I don't believe that in this discussion anyone can prove anything. Faith and the Blessings that come from it are purly subjective. From my reading of the thread some are trying to prove that God exists and others are saying that cannot be proven. It seems like they are arguing two different things; one does God exist? or two Is it rational to believe in God? They are not even arguing the same debate.

Also, the true "blessings" can not be proven or disproven on this side of eternity.

However, if you study the lives of those men who did live by faith, the examples of their lives show many earthly desirable acheivements. Study those lives of the ones who I pointed out as being "evil" and I doubt that anyone who is rational would want to follow in their footsteps.

I happen to believe that God exists. I take that belief from my study of the Scriptures, archeological discoveries, men of faith and many other areas of my experience that proves to me God's existence. But, I cannot prove it to anyone. Nor, can they prove to me that God does not exist.

I did not mean for my examples to help those of faith. Just to show that living by faith has its advantages and that living in opposition to God has its own set of consequences.

[ronin_asano]

understood.

however, i think the discussion can show that belief is illogical, which is why faith is needed.

as for faith having advantages, i don't buy that one. i don't see what advantage faith has unless it turns out there is in fact a god, and that he is as described the bible.

as long as i live without infringing on the rights and choices of others, as the 'good' person, i think i can have just as many if not more 'blessings' than a person of faith, and the lack of faith commits me to no different consequences than those who do believe unless i should turn out to be wrong and the revealed diety is the one from the bible.

[POWERSTROKE]

Originally posted by ronin_asano
understood.

however, i think the discussion can show that belief is illogical, which is why faith is needed.
That is what religion is all about. No surprises here.


as for faith having advantages, i don't buy that one. i don't see what advantage faith has unless it turns out there is in fact a god, and that he is as described the bible.
Advantages over what? Not having faith? This makes no sense

as long as i live without infringing on the rights and choices of others, as the 'good' person, i think i can have just as many if not more 'blessings' than a person of faith, and the lack of faith commits me to no different consequences than those who do believe unless i should turn out to be wrong and the revealed diety is the one from the bible.good person according to whom? blessings from whom? I love it.

[ronin_asano]

you are entertaining, there's no doubt.

in addition following NimNim's suggestion regarding researching some definitions, you should also investigate the meaning of terms in quotation marks.

blessings amount to nothing more than luck, hence the quotes.

[Captain America]

I am not religious but I do have many blessings, if that is what you wish to call them, many a result of making wise decisions. Some blesssings were lost by making unwise decisions as well.

I do belive that if you do good, good comes back to you and if you do bad, likewise.

As for me and my house, we shall serve the rule of logic and the dictates of reason.

Go forth. Do good.

[ArabGirl]

What kind of God??
The God that you can't see but you can feel that he is there...
The God that make you while you are watching this precise and clever system of life, space, land and sky , be sure that all of this was not an accident and that there must been a great power that made this system.
The God who you feel id you get in trouble or you were about to die he is there for you...
The God that even if you denied he is there he is still dealing you with mercy and love...
even if you deny his existenece you feel he is there
This is GOD

[Immanuel]

Originally posted by ronin_asano
you are entertaining, there's no doubt.

in addition following NimNim's suggestion regarding researching some definitions, you should also investigate the meaning of terms in quotation marks.

blessings amount to nothing more than luck, hence the quotes.

I'm not certain who you addressed this last to, whether it was me or Powerstroke. It doesn't seem to fit anything I said.

Anyway here is the definition of Blessing from 'The American Heritage Dictionary, Office Edition' copyright 1994

Definition #3
"Something promoting or contributing to happiness; boon"

and boon is defined as

"Something beneficial; blessing".

It doesn't say anything about luck.

as long as i live without infringing on the rights and choices of others, as the 'good' person, i think i can have just as many if not more 'blessings' than a person of faith, and the lack of faith commits me to no different consequences than those who do believe unless i should turn out to be wrong and the revealed diety is the one from the bible.

I am not so certain that I agree with this. We are talking about different types of Blessings here. You are talking about living as a good person and receiving financial rewards. I am talking about the blessings of the "Faithful" person. The faithful person's blessings are of a different nature and are subjective even as to whether or not they actually exist.

If you have read the Bible or about men who 'lived by faith', I don't think you can claim to have received the same blessings as they.

But, go back to my original post. I point back to the examples of the 'evil' people. The ones who lived in opposition to faith. Their is a distinct difference between the blessings received by 'men of faith' and 'those in opposition to faith'. Being in the middle as you are speaking of does not bring out the curses as living in the opposition.

Might you (as a 'good' person) be blessed here on earth. Sure you can, there is no doubt. I do not dispute that, but will you receive the "blessings" from the diety that you ignore or deny even exists?

Again, I say, I cannot prove to you whether God exists or not. I don't even care to try. I am more than happy to discuss religion, faith, athieism(sp?), etc. on a friendly basis, between parties who want to discuss it. I will not force my beliefs on anyone. I will not discuss it with anyone who does not show a general interest in those beliefs.

I am just as interested in their beliefs as I am in sharing mine. How else can I learn?

[NimNim]

Originally posted by Immanuel
I'm not certain who you addressed this last to, whether it was me or Powerstroke. It doesn't seem to fit anything I said.

I don't think he directed it at you. Clearly you posess some rationality, despite your beliefs :D.


I am not so certain that I agree with this. We are talking about different types of Blessings here. You are talking about living as a good person and receiving financial rewards.

I'll add to ronin's comments.

When one takes personal responsibility and holds no contradictions in their beliefs, I contend the happiness derived from having an in sync mind is beyond any happiness an irrational or contradictory ridden mind ever will reach.

By accepting the idea of God - only goes to introduce conflict into your mind (since the idea of God is irrational). Because part of you accepts reason, and the other part does not. This is not healthy for your mind.....


But, go back to my original post. I point back to the examples of the 'evil' people. The ones who lived in opposition to faith. Their is a distinct difference between the blessings received by 'men of faith' and 'those in opposition to faith'. Being in the middle as you are speaking of does not bring out the curses as living in the opposition.

I would also argue that these poeple have excessive cognitive contradictions - much like mystics (see religiously spawned wars).


Again, I say, I cannot prove to you whether God exists or not. I don't even care to try.

We agree on this...


I am more than happy to discuss religion, faith, athieism(sp?), etc. on a friendly basis, between parties who want to discuss it. I will not force my beliefs on anyone. I will not discuss it with anyone who does not show a general interest in those beliefs.

This post indicates you have potential. :D

[ronin_asano]

Originally posted by ArabGirl
[B]What kind of God??
The God that you can't see but you can feel that he is there...


describe it. i feel the air moving around me, that's it.


The God that make you while you are watching this precise and clever system of life, space, land and sky , be sure that all of this was not an accident and that there must been a great power that made this system.


that 'god' created the world does not follow from the fact that we do not understand all the laws of nature.


The God who you feel id you get in trouble or you were about to die he is there for you...


there for you how? when i'm in trouble, anything i 'feel' is an emotional reaction happening inside the body. it's all about chemistry. and i'm the one who gets me out of trouble, no one else does it for me.


The God that even if you denied he is there he is still dealing you with mercy and love...
even if you deny his existenece you feel he is there
This is GOD

no, this is confusion. why would i waste time denying something that i don't 'feel'. what is this feeling?

[mahayana]

One almost certain blessing of joining a religion comes from the relationships you form with the people in your congregation. People need acceptance, and stating publicly that you agree with a group's deepest beliefs will get you that.

Your parents will be pleased that you imitated them.

In a lot of churchs you get to sing and hear beautiful music.

You get to hang out with people who follow the same rules and want to better themselves.

Most churchs I've been in are clean, warm places, full of kind helpful folks.

All a blessing!

[NimNim]

Originally posted by mahayana
One almost certain blessing of joining a religion comes from the relationships you form with the people in your congregation. People need acceptance, and stating publicly that you agree with a group's deepest beliefs will get you that.

Your parents will be pleased that you imitated them.

In a lot of churchs you get to sing and hear beautiful music.

You get to hang out with people who follow the same rules and want to better themselves.

Most churchs I've been in are clean, warm places, full of kind helpful folks.

All a blessing!
Are you willing to sacrifice your mind in exchange for a place you can show up on Sundays to be accepted, please your parents, sing, hear music, and hang out with like minded individuals who are helpful? Especially when you can do all this without sacrificing your mind? Well, only an irrational person would do this. But then again, I have already shown that the idea of God is irrational - so this is a natural progression.

[uglybastard]

"Is there a god?"

Yes. I can prove it to you.

I have felt his presence.

[NimNim]

Originally posted by uglybastard
"Is there a god?"

Yes. I can prove it to you.

I have felt his presence.

Well folks, this did it for me! I'm going to go to church this Sunday.

[POWERSTROKE]

If there is a God, or if there is not a god cannot be proven at all in this world. This whole discussion is actually pointless. Isn't it? :confused:

[NimNim]

Originally posted by POWERSTROKE
If there is a God, or if there is not a god cannot be proven at all in this world. This whole discussion is actually pointless. Isn't it? :confused:

Sigh.... Once again. For the umpteenth time. This is no longer a discussion about whether or not God exists. We have all agreed that it is pointless to argue.

We are now discussing "the idea of God is irrational."

[Immanuel]

Originally posted by NimNim
Well folks, this did it for me! I'm going to go to church this Sunday.

Is that all it took to convince you NimNim? :)

Heck, I expected much more of a fight than that. Oh well, there is always room for one more in my church. You'd be welcome.

Seriously though, I do not believe that just because I believe that God exists, that I am irrational. I still question things all the time. Just because God is not evident in everyday life, does not mean that God does not exist. I can't prove it, but neither can I disprove it. The funny thing is that everytime someone comes up with so-called proof that God does not exist, someone else comes up with information and or theries that contradict that "proof".

I believe that given time, science will ultimately bring us to the realization that God does exist. If I stick around on this forum long enough you will see me argue against specific "scientific" theories (i.e. evolution). Not because I believe that the theories are totally inaccurate, but because I don't believe that they are completely accurate either or have been significantly proven. Basically, I think much of science is "Wild *** Guesses". Just because they are guesses doesn't mean they are right or wrong, just not proven.

There are dogmatic people (like yourself maybe?) who are absolutely certain that God cannot possibly exist and anyone who believes God exists is irrational and does not think for themselves. Because these people can't see, touch, smell, taste or feel God, God does not exist.

Just because you cannot rationalize God does not mean that God is not real.

Is life itself rational? By this I mean is it ratonal that life exist at all on Earth or any planet whatsoever? What created life? How did it begin? Is it rational to believe that life evolved out of nothingness? Is it rational to believe that all living beings came from a single one-celled animal that over billions of years have evolved into the billions upon billions of different life forms (species?)? Is it rational to believe that mankind was placed here by some alien beings from another planet or maybe they were stranded here? If something like this did happen, where did that life come from?

I have already admitted that I cannot rationally explain God to you. Can you rationally explain to me exactly how life began?

[uglybastard]

nn said, 'Well folks, this did it for me! I'm going to go to church this Sunday.'

And so you should.

Who are you to tell me I haven't felt the presence of God when you can't even prove to me your own existance?

[Duo_Maxwell]

uglybastard, thank you for proving that it will be impossible to argue with a true skeptic.

I ask this question once again, and i do not expect an intelligent answer from the religious side.

Is the idea of god rational because it cannot be proven by any logical method? Is it rational to put faith into something you cannot see, hear, taste, feel, or smell? Is it rational to put faith into something that is based purely on what you believe to be true but can never be proven?

Man's unfailing capacity to believe what he perfers to be true, rather than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible, has always astounded me. We long for a caring universe to save us from our childish mistakes, and in the face of the mountains of evidence to the contrary, we will pin all our hopes on the slimest of doubts. God has not be proven not to exist, therefore he must exist! -- Academician Prokhor Zakharov, "For I Have Tasted The Fruit"

[uglybastard]

You can't even prove your own existance.

After you've proved your own existance, come back and we'll talk about God.

[Duo_Maxwell]

you can't.

However, the majority of the population doesn't reside in the true skeptic la-la land. Sorry.

It's fun for a while, but gets retarded before you know it.

[POWERSTROKE]

Originally posted by uglybastard
You can't even prove your own existance.

After you've proved your own existance, come back and we'll talk about God.
By that reasoning put a knife through your chest. just kidding, but when you get all philosophical, things get very complicated. We are here, and someone put us here, that person is God.

[uglybastard]

So you want to pretend that we are here, typing away on our keyboards?

Then I know God exists.

[gopman]

The only logical conclusion you can come to on this question is "I don't know if God exists." No position is inherently better than the other. There are equally convincing arguments for both sides. You can neither logically say that God exists because There is no evidence to the contrary nor can you say that he doesn't exist because you've never seen it. You have to believe something.

[mahayana]

I, for one, love philosophy and etiology. But it's not for everyone.

Every philosophy requires logic; internal logic is how it works.

Which is not to say that any philosopher is rational, as Bertrand Russell noted earlier.

[POWERSTROKE]

I just cannot fathom how this all came out of nothingness. That alone, seems 110% illogical to me. Doesn't it? Put your prejudices aside. If you break it down to th most miniscule aspect and say fusion created this where two particles came together and caused this whole thing to start.........where did the two particles come from? When you think about it, it is totally amazing!

[Duo_Maxwell]

POWERSTROKE:

Actually, a rather nice and compromising theory is that God created two black holes. These holes canablized each other to the point where density and heat caused them to explode, sending energy and particles out into the void. Upon release, these particles condensed into subatomic particles. These further condensed into atoms, which bonded to each other and here we are. As the universe expands from this initial rupture, it will likewise contract. Blackholes will canabalize all material until only two exist. Whereby these two canablaize each other until a density point and heat point is reached and they explode again...and we start ALL over. Endless cycle put into motion by the Hand of a higher being.

gopman: We believe what we can logically see. We believe what we can feel, taste, smell, etc. hard evidence is where our fudenemtanl beliefs sit upon.

[POWERSTROKE]

Originally posted by Duo_Maxwell
POWERSTROKE:

Actually, a rather nice and compromising theory is that God created two black holes. These holes canablized each other to the point where density and heat caused them to explode, sending energy and particles out into the void. Upon release, these particles condensed into subatomic particles. These further condensed into atoms, which bonded to each other and here we are. As the universe expands from this initial rupture, it will likewise contract. Blackholes will canabalize all material until only two exist. Whereby these two canablaize each other until a density point and heat point is reached and they explode again...and we start ALL over. Endless cycle put into motion by the Hand of a higher being.

gopman: We believe what we can logically see. We believe what we can feel, taste, smell, etc. hard evidence is where our fudenemtanl beliefs sit upon.
Greato, so god does exist.

[Vic]

Originally posted by uglybastard
So you want to pretend that we are here, typing away on our keyboards?

Then I know God exists.

you think or believe god exists. other don´t believe it, or think they know there isn´t a god.

all relative :) :) :)

[POWERSTROKE]

But in the end, one side will be correct. The people that believe that Jesus is the son of god will be saved. The rest, that thought it would be fun, to poke fun will be damned. Simplicity!:)

[azov]

Originally posted by uglybastard
You can't even prove your own existance.

After you've proved your own existance, come back and we'll talk about God.

I think, therefore I am.

You --

But this isn't the Pravdaboard.

Bad azov, bad! [Sound of hand slapping hand on the keyboard. . . ] :D

[Duo_Maxwell]

azov: How do you know you are thinking?

I'm telling everyone RIGHT NOW, true skeptics are IMPOSSIBLE to argue with.

Don't even bother.

[ronin_asano]

Originally posted by POWERSTROKE
I just cannot fathom how this all came out of nothingness. That alone, seems 110% illogical to me. Doesn't it? Put your prejudices aside. If you break it down to th most miniscule aspect and say fusion created this where two particles came together and caused this whole thing to start.........where did the two particles come from? When you think about it, it is totally amazing!


d*mn, that's all it took for me. since powerstroke is unable to fathom creation without the intervention of a god, it must be that god exists.

i'm with NimNim. i'm done, i'm going to church on sunday. call me, NimNim, we'll ride together.

[mahayana]

I wondered if this discussion would wander over to the creationist/evolutionist subject. I'm rather glad it has, as I am way into evolutionary theory.

First, science is far from explaining the origin of the universe, or the origin of life. You can read Stephen Hawkins "A Short History of Time" to glimpse what the first set of theories involves.

Becoming conversant in multiple disciplines of science is required for intelligent discussion of the second part.

On a philosophical level, you can choose among:

There was a day or two of creation, about 5,000 years ago.

Energy and matter mysteriously appeared from nothing, several billion years ago.

Life exists only on this planet, so far as is known, and is all related since it shares identical RNA.

Life is common in the universe.

Etc.

Personally, I believe that one of Man's purposes on Earth (whether caused by God or not), is to be an agent of plant and animal evolution, which is an ongoing process.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Energy and matter mysteriously appeared from nothing, several billion years ago.

Life exists only on this planet, so far as is known, and is all related since it shares identical RNA.

Life is common in the universe.


Where nothing means the void of two black holes? :)

Of course all life on this planet is related, it's all from ONE acenstrial organism!

Ever hear of the goldilocks zone? :)

[Quincy Wisdom]

There is no proof of or not.

[xexon]

Proof, belongs to the mind.

You must move beyond your mental universe. How and when is up to you, ultimately.



x

[mahayana]

Duo, I have been studying your last post.

Black holes have been mathematically described and astronomically observed. Are you asserting that they are the source of matter?

How did the original RNA in the first Earth lifeform arise?

By referring to the Goldilocks Zone, are you saying that you believe life exists commonly in the universe?

Just checking.

[xexon]

I personally believe that the universe is bursting with life.

If you look at our position in the galaxy, we are kind of in the country.

We are on the outer reaches of our galaxy. Maybe the other civilizations think we are just hicks, and not worthy of a visit ?



x

[Duo_Maxwell]

Black holes have been mathematically described and astronomically observed. Are you asserting that they are the source of matter?

How did the original RNA in the first Earth lifeform arise?

By referring to the Goldilocks Zone, are you saying that you believe life exists commonly in the universe?

Possibly. We actually haven't studied blackholes up close yet :)
Not to mention that super dense bodies often result in strange readings....it's just a theory.

RNA, let me go check my old biology notes, I remember there being 5 theories....

If the right conditions permit, yes, I believe life exists commonly in the universe. Let's say the galaxy has 800 trillion stars. Half of those have planets, so we're done to 400 trillion. 1/10,000 of them have planets capable of life. 40 billion left. 1/1,000 actually have life, 40 million, 1/2 of those have semi sentient life, 20 million, now 1/4 of them actually have sentient life. 5 million different speices from 800 trillion stars. Quite a handful. Yes, I believe life exists all throughout the universe. If our own galaxy has only 5 million...the amount of sentient life must be astounding.

[Dave]

I am I said, to no one there.

The last word

[CyNix]

Originally posted by Duo_Maxwell
I ask this question once again, and i do not expect an intelligent answer from the religious side.

Is the idea of god rational because it cannot be proven by any logical method? Is it rational to put faith into something you cannot see, hear, taste, feel, or smell? Is it rational to put faith into something that is based purely on what you believe to be true but can never be proven?



I can see, hear, taste, feel and smell that which is around me. There must be a cause for the effect.
Can you see the wind? No. But you can certainly see, hear, taste, feel, and even smell the effects of the wind.
How do I know you are alive? Well, I can see the effects of your existance. Your words cross my computer monitor.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Originally posted by CyNix
I can see, hear, taste, feel and smell that which is around me. There must be a cause for the effect.
Can you see the wind? No. But you can certainly see, hear, taste, feel, and even smell the effects of the wind.
How do I know you are alive? Well, I can see the effects of your existance. Your words cross my computer monitor.

That cause can been investigated with science. Wind is a simple interaction between physical factors. That can easily be understood though expirements that can be repeated again and again.

You are trying to link what can be scientifically proven, what can be logically proven, to something that is completely irrational. It doesn't work. You cannot prove what cannot be proven. What cannot be proven would be irrational to place faith in.

Actually, you don't know i'm alive. I could simply be a extremely intelligent algorithn programmed to take in news from set sources and respond according to programing. You'd be amazed what the MIT dorks can produce.

Or i could simply be a figment of one's imagination. :)

[CyNix]

Originally posted by Duo_Maxwell
That cause can been investigated with science. Wind is a simple interaction between physical factors. That can easily be understood though expirements that can be repeated again and again.

You are trying to link what can be scientifically proven, what can be logically proven, to something that is completely irrational. It doesn't work. You cannot prove what cannot be proven. What cannot be proven would be irrational to place faith in.

Actually, you don't know i'm alive. I could simply be a extremely intelligent algorithn programmed to take in news from set sources and respond according to programing. You'd be amazed what the MIT dorks can produce.

Or i could simply be a figment of one's imagination. :)

My point was not so much science as simple logic. I see the effects of the wind, therefore the wind must exist, even if I cannot perform expirements on the wind. And do know that I am typeing in responce to something; be it a human, or a self aware computer, their is some form of intelligence on the other end of this argument.
Even if the existance of a being greater that myself cannot be directly proven, is it irrational to put faith in a cause to all that I see? Or was it all just a black hole? Where did it come from? What is the origin of all that is? The origin of all matter, space, and time? I believe in a cause to this effect.

[Duo_Maxwell]

My point was not so much science as simple logic. I see the effects of the wind, therefore the wind must exist, even if I cannot perform expirements on the wind. And do know that I am typeing in responce to something; be it a human, or a self aware computer, their is some form of intelligence on the other end of this argument.
Even if the existance of a being greater that myself cannot be directly proven, is it irrational to put faith in a cause to all that I see? Or was it all just a black hole? Where did it come from? What is the origin of all that is? The origin of all matter, space, and time? I believe in a cause to this effect.

Actually, you know nothing. As do I, as do every human in the world. We simply believe much.

You CANNOT use science to prove any logic or reasoning behind the idea of God. Science deals with the NATURAL world. God is NOT in the natural world.

Science will eventually unravel all of the universe's mysteries. Given its previous record, there is little doubt that with time we will know everything. I'm willing to wait to understand how everything works. I don't go jumping towards a irrational idea to underestand what I am too impatience to learn.

Science will teach us all the mysteries of this universe, it just will take a LONG TIME. But i am patient.

[gopman]

"Actually, you know nothing. As do I, as do every human in the world. We simply believe much."

You sound like you've read Hume. Which is perfectly sound logic, but based on the false assertion that knowledge comes only from "impressions."

"Science will eventually unravel all of the universe's mysteries."

Our minds couldn't possibly comprehend everything, even if we could see it. One thing science could neevr possibly unravel is the nonexistence of God.

[Cobra]

Originally posted by gopman
" One thing science could neevr possibly unravel is the nonexistence of God.

One problem with religion is that it makes outlandish assertions and then says prove it's not so.

The burden of proof lies with one making the assertion.

[Duo_Maxwell]

You sound like you've read Hume. Which is perfectly sound logic, but based on the false assertion that knowledge comes only from "impressions."

Nope. Not familiar with Hume. The sad fact is, nothing can ever really be proven. For all we know, we were placed her 5 seconds ago with false memories. For all we know we could simply be a figment of another's imagination. However, i've said it before, and i'll say it again, being at true skeptic is living in hell.

Our minds couldn't possibly comprehend everything, even if we could see it. One thing science could neevr possibly unravel is the nonexistence of God.

On the contrary, with enough genetic engineering that obstacle can be easily overcome. Once again science triumphs over your religion. Seeing is irrevelant, understanding through tried and true methods is revelant. Of course Science cannot prove or disprove God. Any idiot knows that. Science deals with the realm of natural. Religion works with the world of the Supernatural. Yet religion cannot even prove its that its own Gods exists. :)

Science can prove itself, can religion prove itself? :laughter:

The burden of proof lies with one making the assertion.

If i do remember correctly, God came first. Then questions about the validity of God came after. It's up to the one making the asseration that God, or even the idea of god is rational. After all, it was the first idea.

[mahayana]

I don't see anything illogical about postulating the existence of god, philosophically. (philosophy in general is stating postulates and offering proofs).

The 'effect therefore Cause' argument is elegant and simple. Also clever, since it mirrors the scientific method. Most scientific hypothesis is in this form: observe a phenomenon, seek to explain it, (find it's cause).

Scientists make many more postulations than do theologians, and one often hears scientists proclaim that they believe the cause will be found, a cure will be found, life definitely exists on other planets, etc. (statements of faith in science?)

I agree with Cobra that the place where those who postulate God run into trouble, is in making assertions beyond the linear logic that there must be an alpha and omega at each end of the timeline.

Theology itself is a series of postulations about the nature of the unknown Cause. ( C )

A-Theists are intellectually "outside the sphere of" theism." If C cannot be shown, derivative god-attributes must be false.

A-gnostics doubt the special spiritual "knowledge" of religious groups, but don't reject the possibility.

All three can be logical and philosophically consistent.IMHO

[Duo_Maxwell]

Originally posted by mahayana
I don't see anything illogical about postulating the existence of god, philosophically. (philosophy in general is stating postulates and offering proofs).

The 'effect therefore Cause' argument is elegant and simple. Also clever, since it mirrors the scientific method. Most scientific hypothesis is in this form: observe a phenomenon, seek to explain it, (find it's cause).

Scientists make many more postulations than do theologians, and one often hears scientists proclaim that they believe the cause will be found, a cure will be found, life definitely exists on other planets, etc. (statements of faith in science?)

I agree with Cobra that the place where those who postulate God run into trouble, is in making assertions beyond the linear logic that there must be an alpha and omega at each end of the timeline.

Theology itself is a series of postulations about the nature of the unknown Cause. ( C )

A-Theists are intellectually "outside the sphere of" theism." If C cannot be shown, derivative god-attributes must be false.

A-gnostics doubt the special spiritual "knowledge" of religious groups, but don't reject the possibility.

All three can be logical and philosophically consistent.IMHO

Misguided at best. Philosophy is hash in the end. It cannot be proven, simply accepted. Cause and effect does not work with the idea of God. Cause and effect requires one to actually understand the effect to understand the cause. You cannot do that with religion.

As for life, we know the impericial ratios of chemicals in other parts of the galaxy. We know how far certain planets are from their sun(s). We know their ages, as well as their compositions. It isn't hard to predict with high validity that life exists in the universe.

Theology is a tool for controlling the masses.

The idea of a God is irrational.

[mahayana]

LOL Shall I offer Bertrand Russell's words from the intro to "A History of Western Philosophy" again?

"All my life I have searched for evidence of Man's rationality. Thus far, I have found none."

I really agree with you, Duo. But I also admire CyNix's simple logic. As long as C is a postulate, in an equation, it is unassailable.

As I said earlier, philosophy is not for everyone!

[CyNix]

Why is belief in a higher being irrational? Because it cannot be proven? Can it be disproven?

I see the effect: every thing that exists. There must be a cause. this is why I believe belief in a being superior to myself is not irrational.

Originally posted by mahayana
But I also admire CyNix's simple logic.

I do not know if this is a compliment, but it is partialy true. I take things as I see them.

I see the human body, in its near perfection.
Simple logic tells me that no matter how many bombs I place in a computer factory, I will never get a whole computer. Most of the time all that will be produced is dust. If I am lucky, I may find a few components still intact.
This makes it difficult for me to believe that an explosion of all matter once squeezed into a singular point somehow created me. The human body is far more complex that my 3GHz P4, and I do not believe it is posible to recreate myself by blowing stuff up, even at a sub-atomic level.

The idea of a god defies no laws of nature. The very concept of god implies that this being, having created all laws of nature, would be unaffected be trivial things like time, and space. Both, scientists have recently found, can be manipulated, and neither are and end point defining what can and cannot exist.

Originally posted by Duo_Maxwell
Science will eventually unravel all of the universe's mysteries. Given its previous record, there is little doubt that with time we will know everything.

While I highly doubt this, even you acknowlege that we sill have much to learn about the universe. With the puny, trivial amount of real knowlege that humans do posses, how can anyone claim, based on science, that there is no god? Their is not enough pure facts on which to base such a statement on.

All my points have not touched any concepts in faith. Or a more real, or personal belief in God. I have only spoken about the scientific rationality or irrationality of my belief.

[mahayana]

It was a compliment, CyNix.

If it's any comfort, I just looked at www.adherants.com and, worldwide, nonbelievers account for about 14% of the world's population, athiests for less than 1%.

There were no figures for the number that are "rational."

[Duo_Maxwell]

Originally posted by CyNix
Why is belief in a higher being irrational? Because it cannot be proven? Can it be disproven?

I see the effect: every thing that exists. There must be a cause. this is why I believe belief in a being superior to myself is not irrational.

I do not know if this is a compliment, but it is partialy true. I take things as I see them.

I see the human body, in its near perfection.
Simple logic tells me that no matter how many bombs I place in a computer factory, I will never get a whole computer. Most of the time all that will be produced is dust. If I am lucky, I may find a few components still intact.
This makes it difficult for me to believe that an explosion of all matter once squeezed into a singular point somehow created me. The human body is far more complex that my 3GHz P4, and I do not believe it is posible to recreate myself by blowing stuff up, even at a sub-atomic level.

While I highly doubt this, even you acknowlege that we sill have much to learn about the universe. With the puny, trivial amount of real knowlege that humans do posses, how can anyone claim, based on science, that there is no god? Their is not enough pure facts on which to base such a statement on.

All my points have not touched any concepts in faith. Or a more real, or personal belief in God. I have only spoken about the scientific rationality or irrationality of my belief.

It is irration because there is no scientific evidence behind it. There is no path to logic to it. There is no method of proving that anything is actually behind your irrational idea.

Do you believe in something you cannot prove, cannot see, cannot feel, cannot test, cannot smell, cannot taste, cannot reason, cannot apply, cannot rationally use?

The cause and effect in your terms is the path of the impatience, weak minded, and easily controllable. Instead of putting your support behind a method that has been proven to work and has a past history of working, instead of putting your belief behind something you can actually understand, you think that if you do not understand it now, then there MUST be some superior power! Do you know who thinks this way? Young children.

The human body is nowhere near perfection. It ages, loses the ability to heal itself, is prone to millions of diseases, is delicate, weak, cannot survive on its own in many different climates, has thousands of defects, and is ill suited to governing this world. How is this close to perfection?

Simple logic is wrong. A ring pattern of Big Blues will take out any factory leaving only dust, or perhaps a huge empty hole. :) Or a single nuke. :)

Did you NOT take physics? OR have a lengthy discussion with physics professors?

Look at science's past. Then look at religion's. Who has accomplished more in terms of knowledge? :) LOL. I'm laughing at you right now. :laughter: Science will unravel all of the universe's mysteries. It hasn't failed us yet. Give it time. Religion on the other hand, doesn't prove jack. When we understand how the universe came to be, when we understand super strings, when we can manipulate blackholes, your kind will bow to the "God" of science. :)

THERE CAN BE NO SCIENTIFIC RATIONALITY OF RELIGION.

Religion cannot even prove itself. Yet you put faith in it. :)

[osiris]

I've been reading through the posts but didn't get through all of them.

There a