Yeah. That pretty much sums it up.

I disagree. You honestly think there is no useful way for humans to tell apart what's probably right and what's probably wrong? Get that idea of "well you can't COMPLETELY know for sure!!" out of your head, because that can be applied to anything, including Zeus, Krishna, Osiris, the Tooth Fairy, Santa, Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer, the Protoss, etc. We're talking about knowledge that is practical and useful to us. We "can't know for sure," but we casually say "there is no Santa," because we have established a common logical ground that such a fictional character doesn't exist. The same can be done for ANY fictional character, no matter how long he has existed in the minds of humans. I'm saying we CAN establish a logical common ground (or get close to one) regarding the idea of God, just as we can for any other mythology.

What you're trying to do is get the last word by putting science and mythology at level ground. If you honestly think the two are equal in the scale of plausibility, then heck, why don't we put every god up there? How about every fictional character, from Tassadar to Santa, since we can never be too sure? You may think these are on equal grounds, but they're not. The "Theory of the Stork" does not have equal ground of plausibility as an alternative to explaining human reproduction. Likewise, mythology does not hold equal weight against scientific explanations, just because more people happen to believe in it.

A) One CAN know what's "probably" right and "probably" wrong, but one cannot know what is ABSOLUTELY right or wrong. Thus, Agnosticism.

B) This is why we have so many religions and so many conflicts over religions. Some people believe that their view is the only correct one, no matter how much logic and evidence (or lack thereof) they have. Ironically, the statement "You can't know anything for sure!" is the only thing one CAN know for sure. (A better way of saying that would be "You can't know anything but this statement for sure.")

C) One can try and use logic to prove or disprove God, but one cannot be ABSOLUTELY sure due to human error and lack of reasonable evidence. Unless you want me to explain again how an omnipotent/Biblical god is logically unlikely to exist (which I have explained earlier in this thread), I will leave it at that.

As my history teacher once said, "If you don't change your mind once in awhile, it gets dirty!"

By that logic, then we can't be sure whether the criminals we place in jail/death row really deserve to be there. Therefore, they shouldn't be there, because of that slight possibility that they may be innocent. *looks at reality* Oh, wait.

It really doesn't matter if you know something absolutely or to a certain nonzero degree of accuracy. What matters is whether or not there is an indication of a correlation.
In this case, the question is whether or not there is a god.

To approach this, one must first ask what a god is. Criteria I've seen used are:
- It is a living entity (Non-living natural phenomena are not assumed to be god.)
- An intelligent entity (Meaning it has consciousness)
- A powerful entity (Powerful is a vague, unquantifiable, term, so I will say it is more powerful than other conscious entities. Namely humans.)

Now to address the first criterion, that a god is living.
Living things are complex systems that instigate changes in otherwise homeostatic situations, by acting as a catalyst. The catalytic process is inherently unstable, and the living thing must constantly renew the initial conditions for catalysis. (This is why we breath, eat, reproduce, poop, ect.)

In order for a god to exist it must satisfy this condition of instigating a change that would otherwise be a static environment.
Given that the universe is not static, with many interactions that are still moving towards an equilibrium, there is the allowable possibility that there is a living entity that is involved.

To address the second criterion, that a god is intelligent.
There has yet to be an identifiable cause for intelligence, which makes it impossible to know whether or not this criterion is fulfilled; however it is known that intelligence is a result of numerous complex processes. Alone these processes do not result in anything more than a change in the local static environment, but when combined together they result in a complex cascade of events. The cascade of events is influenced by external phenomena interacting with the system as a whole, while the individual processes are relatively unaffected. (Your brain sends different signals when you see different things, but the way it processes signals is always through neuronal signaling.)

In order for a god to exist, it must fulfill the act of having multiple processes in a sequence that do not change individually, but do have variable progression.
These events do occur in nature. (For instance, cloud systems contain many similar events, where water is evaporated and condensed in a cyclic fashion, yet this cycle does not always occur in the same way, sometimes clouds blow one way, sometimes they blow another, influencing the result of the identical individual processes.)

To address the third criterion, that a god is powerful.
Power is defined as a rate of energy per second, which means that powerful systems are those which occur very rapidly, or with very large amounts of energy.

In order for a god to exist, it must fulfill any act either very rapidly, or on very large scales.
Both of these may be true, as there are many processes that occur rapidly and on large scales in the universe. (Interactions with light is a very fast mechanism, while interactions with planets and galaxies are on grand scales.)

All three of these criteria have the potential of being satisfied by interactions occurring in the universe. There is therefor the possibility of the existence of a god. There may actually be many descriptions that could coincide with the definition of living, some that are a part of a larger whole. (Just like a cell is living, and so is a person, even though the cell can be a part of the human.)
If you take the sum of all processes, the universe is the god.

There is one important thing to realize about the process in the universe though. The average living thing on earth is based on a very unique timescale, with cumulative actions that occur on the order of seconds, minutes, hours, days, and years. Many natural processes do not fit this time, occurring over decades, millions-billions of years or nanoseconds for small events. Thus, if god does exist as a product of these events, any typical living thing would never be able to relate to it, and communication would be impossible. So stop praying, it can't hear you.

The difference of not knowing completely for sure between childhood characters and all-powerful entities is something that you said yourself: Knowledge that is practical and useful to us.
There is a difference between something such as “Where did we come from?”, “Why are we here?”, “What is the meaning of life?”; and “Who brings me the Christmas presents under my tree?”
How we were brought upon this earth is one of the most underlying and important issues today, and I’m open to all ideas and answers for this question, but my preference is to believe in God.

No amount of scientific explanation will disprove God’s existence, neither will all the story-telling and praying that can be done will prove His existence. Get the idea that a “scientific explanation” disproves God, because even the scientists don’t know how the universe was created.
The Big Bang, Bubble Universes, Holographic Reality, all of them are just theories: an explanation for any natural aspect.
Where did the primeval atom come from? What caused it to expand? How could there be more than one universe? Where did the other ones come from, and what created ours? As far as we know, there is no possible way to answer these questions, other than to say “it just did.” Sound familiar?

As far as I’m concerned, a holographic reality sounds like the most logical explanation. Nothing exists, and that this is all some sort of freakish imagination spawned out of nothingness. But whoever believes in that sounds like a horrible person, who expects nothing out of life and nothing of the after-life. Why would I want to believe in something that doesn’t give hope for something after death? I love life. If I could live forever, I would, but that’s what it boils down to: What if? What if? We’ll never know. But God sounds like the best option for me, I doubt anyone will live forever. For now, I’ll live my life as best I can, and wait until my judgment comes.

A point I would like to reiterate: The Stork is not a valid explanation for human reproduction because we KNOW where babies come from. If you’re seriously going to sit there and try to tell me that science can explain where we all came from, don’t bother. I’ll just end up laughing at you.
Mythology and science do hold equal ground, because we’ll never know for sure. Nothing will explain where we came from, nothing can explain where we came from; not science, not even God. That’s what I meant when I said “well you can’t COMPLETELY know for sure!!” It’s all a matter of belief, and I believe in God.

When you're all saying "a god" you might as well be saying "the Christian's god" because I see so many references to the Christian belief of a god.

Based on what everyone has said, we currently cannot disprove or prove that there is a god. We cannot disprove or prove that there is not a god. If you hold a belief leaning on either side then your initially ignorant of the possibility of the other choice (being a god or no god). Let's just say you believed in a god and had your own beliefs of what that god is and does and wants done. Well guess what? You're wrong. There's about an infinite number of reasons anyone could make. If a god really existed then there would only be one truth and the chances of you guessing everything correctly is impossible. But what if he talked to you? Well one there are a variety of other ways he could interact with you than simply talking and you assuming it's the all powerful being. Two, many people on Earth have claimed to have spoken or interacted with a god and most of what god said to them differs substantially.

But hey, who's to say there is just one god? Psh maybe there is hundreds? Oh wait there are an infinite amount that just keep producing forever. To get to the point you can say you believe in a god but the infinitely expanding chances say you're dead wrong. All you have basically is your imagination and faith. Maybe it also feels good that there is someone out there watching over you? But really, the god is not going to have his full attention on you. I mean on Earth alone he has 6+ billion more people to look over. While he's watching you he'll also be watching a Russian actress whore out to the local mailman.

Anyway, You can't disapprove that a god exists. You could always disapprove of ones idea of a god because as I said before, there is only one truth and the chance of them getting it right is about nothing. Unless this God has a personality disorder or something. Some Atheists believe in what science has to say while others dislike their theories and believe there is more to be learned. The theory of The Big Bang actually has some evidence. However this evidence isn't an amount that would sweep a person of their feet (maybe unless you believe even baby steps are extremely exciting ones). There are believed to be quite a few faults but I did not research it enough to pinpoint them directly. I think one of the big questions would be "Why did this happen?". Why questions are more difficult to answer because it seems hard to give nonliving things reasons to do this. Then again with the abstract Why questions you could ask a How and What questions for the god. How did this god form? What made this god? Oh look another infinite more reasons that just popped out of nowhere.

So basically I appreciate that science is trying to narrow down the reasons and questions and try to find reasonable answers. Simply spewing out random abstract beliefs is simply not going to get you the truth. Even though theories like the Big Bang and such may need some more work, it has more evidence than the existence of any deity out there.

This is why I was saying Humans, I assume that you are- get over their heads daily. This assumes that life requires some sort of mechanism that we, ourselves can measure. This also assumes that God is limited to this Universe, or time at all. Indeed, in the Bible- the God they state does indeed state that it is a living, intelligent entity. But who is to say that complex has to occur physically, or limited to this universe or dimension, or some phenomena not even explored or discovered?
I mean, us, our science, is puny. Our knowledge of nature, and universe is puny. We are still trapped in this small rock, and we suffer daily of our insane lives. And yet, here we are, full of ourselves.
Also, by your definition Rantent- any race or entity superior to us would fit in the criteria of your 'God'. Which probably isn't a God at all.

EzTerix, just accept the fact that he wants to believe in a God. What do you know about the Big Bang theory? Of course you know that the Universe, was formed from a singularity that imploded into space, time, energy, and matter. And in time, particles collided to make more heavier elements, and heavier elements into complex systems, from big to small. But the Big Bang theory never states where that singularity came from, why it imploded (don't say it just did, or just does because there are countless singularities in this universe alone.). That cannot be explained with our Science, because we haven't found a way yet, or maybe never. So we say 'We have no Idea, because we don't know what the fuck it is, because no one can prove it yet.'
In fact, if the Big Bang is correct, then the Universe had a 'beginning'- which directs it closer to a 'God'. Funny, Science narrows it more down to God. But you'll find that, no matter how much you narrow it down- the question and mystery of this Universe still remains infinite- which does remind us that we are still Human, tiny, puny, weak, and still trapped in this rock.

Anyways, the point from the last few posts still stand that being skeptical of the mystery of 'why' and 'how' isn't wrong. Its more right then black and white.

And I just caught this.
If God cannot even have full attention of merely over 6+ billion people in this small piece of shit rock, then that is no God. Anyways, anything less of omnipresent, living, and almighty (all powerful, vague, unquantifiable by human standards)- then that is no God. Why? Because http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/God Because that's just how we defined what the fuck it is.

Even if God can't be disproved, it's logically conclusive that he doesn't exist.

If a magical, all-knowing, all-powerful being is found, then call me. It just sounds like nonsense if you think about it. Our universe is bound by absolute laws. Not even a God can break those laws.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Dec 21 2009, 7:15 pm by CecilSunkure. Reason: Combining two posts into one.

Yeah, it 'sounds' like. You know what? I suggest you read this topic first, and then talk.
Also, if by definition 'God' is the supreme ruler, and creator of this Universe- then it should be bound by no laws in this Universe, or Universes, or Universe of Universes, and so on.
I am thinking. I am thinking that it makes no sense to not have a God. If you think about it anyways, because out of all this creation, it would be better to assume it exists rather than not exist. I mean, just think about it. I mean, yeah if you think about it yeah. Currently, this is the only logic I see in your posts.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Dec 21 2009, 5:00 pm by BeDazed.

We have not seen anything that goes against our laws of the universe. By that logic god or gods either does not do anything, or cannot do things beyond the laws of the universe.
What are these benefits to believing in god or gods? Please do not use religious examples. Usually people who believe in them are illogical and tend to promote such ideals with foolish dogma.
Do not ask someone to "think about it". You should state exactly what you mean.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Dec 21 2009, 6:31 pm by MasterJohnny.

That's terrible logic. 'We haven't seen anything that goes against the laws of our universe so nothing that goes against the laws of our universe can exist.'
I've never been to brazil, but I'm pretty sure brazil exists. I've never seen God, but I'm pretty sure He exists too. Whereas your logic says that, as I haven't seen Brazil, it doesn't exist.

This is a false analogy. You have heard of Brazil and you can provide evidence for its existence. However you cannot provide evidence for god or gods doing something in our universe. My logic still stands correct.

Here's a better one, perhaps. Until people proved that the earth was round, it was generally considered to be flat. Yet it was still round. Just because there is no evidence (no evidence that will convince YOU at least) that God exists, doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.

A few people considered the earth to be round. They were scoffed at, because the only evidence they had at the time was the bible. Same thing for people believing that there is a god today.

If he can't be disproved, it's also logically conclusive that he does exist. A lack of evidence leads to uncertainty, not certainty.

If a God were to create our universe, I wouldn't consider him worthy of my worship if he was bound by the laws he set for our universe. Something that cannot act outside of the laws of the universe sounds more like a human than a god to me. Your second line is more of a straw-man argument than anything, as you never defined god, and then attacked your unannounced and undefined version of god that supposedly is bound by universal laws.

Your first sentence and second sentence are connected only by your own want for there to be no god, not be definitive logic. If God were perfect, then he would be able to do whatever he wants within the bounds of the universe. He would also be able to set the universe up so perfectly that all his will would be carried out from the moment he let the dice roll. And one more very key thing found in my previous post:
Hopefully the above quote can add a new perspective as to why a god wouldn't allow humans to be able to reasonably prove his existence (why he wouldn't act outside the laws of the universe in plain sight of everyone); it would nullify the value in a human's choice to not rebel against god since him making himself reasonably provable could impede upon our free will.

What are you talking about? 90+% of people on Earth are theist, and a whopping 60+% of Americans are Christian alone. The spherical Earth theory came from observations of the material world, and evidence continuously supports this theory. I don't know how this has anything to do with religion, since it is considered to be a "test of faith," independent of faith and logic.

I was demonstrating how MasterJohnny's 'logic' was wrong.

I am not proving/disproving god or gods exist. I am debating against your position that believing in god has a benefit by demonstrating the effects on god or gods. Also you seem to be saying that the bible is not a good source of evidence which it is not.

The first and second sentence has nothing to do with having no god or gods. It is about if there is a god... My logic still holds. You can say god exists because it let the dice roll but everything thereafter is not controlled by god but is merely set in motion. So god or gods either do nothing or cannot do anything beyond the laws of the universe. That last part you seem to agree with because you state "he would be able to do whatever he wants within the bounds of the universe". Also denying the ability to make god or gods provable is impeding on free will.

That's true, we can't really be sure. But some pieces of evidence may tell a dozen people, "Hey, this guy killed this other guy!" Even though humans make errors, the chances of 12 people making the same mistake are slimmer than one person (if you want to argue about courtroom rhetoric, lying, etc. please use a new topic.). Apparently the general majority of society deems this as an appropriate way of deciding the "truth." But that doesn't mean everyone has to agree with their decisions.

People keep debating whether an omnipotent or at least a mighty god exists. Once again, I could claim I am God. I could tell this to a pile of ants, but they wouldn't understand me. I'd live for what seems like an eternity to them, watching their mound, nourishing them (bringing them food), inflicting plagues (deploying pesticides), causing a great flood to their world (turning on the sprinkler system), etc. Yeah, I'm a supreme being that has enormous power on a grand scale!

The point is, what seems like a "grand scale" or "large amounts of energy" to us humans would be nothing in the eyes of an all-powerful god. A non-omnipotent god is difficult to prove, but easier to prove (and is more likely to exist) than an omnipotent god. By human logic, it is more likely that a lesser god rather than an all-powerful god exists.

As for the afterlife, no human can really know where they're going. Maybe God says, "If you've generally obeyed the ten commandments, you can come to heaven." It's just as likely God would say, "Whoever has ever owned a four-legged purple snail gets a free ticket to heaven! Everyone else goes to HELL!!!" Once again, humans are prone to error and cannot be 100% certain of a "divine message," whether that message truly exists or is just a drug-induced hallucination. Perhaps nothing happens to a person after they die-- after all, the human mind is just a simple combination of electrical impulses, right?

This is debatable, because by definition- God is all-powerful. Simply bending all of reality and changing time to compensate would still be unnoticeable for us Humans. As if our free will mattered to anyone off the Earth, or even to your neighbor's dog. This is Humans, thinking high and mighty of ourselves.
Hey Dog, do you care about my free will? Awful lot of silence. If the Dog could talk, then he would answer back "Do you with my free will? Obviously not."
Then by human logic, anything more powerful then Humans themselves must be a God. Which I find it inherently flawed, and nothing but an omnipotence be a God.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Dec 22 2009, 7:53 pm by CecilSunkure. Reason: You need to add names to your quotes or this will be deleted.