They don't embrace God, they embrace their science and technology, aka the devil.

They don't embrace God, they embrace their science and technology, aka the devil.

If you're being sarcastic devilesk, you aren't doing it right.

If you're being sarcastic devilesk, you aren't doing it right.

[Quote=PwnPirate]If you're being sarcastic devilesk, you aren't doing it right.[/Quote] I'm not, but as a blasphemer you wouldn't understand.

Quote from PwnPirate

If you're being sarcastic devilesk, you aren't doing it right.

I'm not, but as a blasphemer you wouldn't understand.

[Quote=devilesk]They don't embrace God, they embrace their science and technology, aka the devil.[/Quote]People who embrace reason and logic over ancient myth and tradition have no reason to believe in your archaic bed time stories. ~Ayra

Quote from devilesk

They don't embrace God, they embrace their science and technology, aka the devil.

People who embrace reason and logic over ancient myth and tradition have no reason to believe in your archaic bed time stories.

~Ayra

The creation of Earth through science is just as logical as having a all-powerful creator.

The creation of Earth through science is just as logical as having a all-powerful creator.

[Quote=Falkoner]The creation of Earth through science is just as logical as having a all-powerful creator.[/Quote]Care to elaborate? Your position suggests that Pastafarianism holds just as much validity as your religion. ~Ayra

Quote from Falkoner

The creation of Earth through science is just as logical as having a all-powerful creator.

Care to elaborate? Your position suggests that Pastafarianism holds just as much validity as your religion.

~Ayra

In my mind it is more likely that there is a creator than we happened to get lucky enough for a perfect atmosphere, and a perfect solar system from some kinda of 'big bang'

In my mind it is more likely that there is a creator than we happened to get lucky enough for a perfect atmosphere, and a perfect solar system from some kinda of 'big bang'

I don't believe in a god. Using the argument that God created the universe doesn't really mean anything, because then where did god come from? A response I expect is this; God has always existed and always will exist. I ask why god had to exist at all, it could just be matter/energy has always existed, and always will exist. I hope that made sense, I'm a wee bit sleepy and having trouble putting my thoughts into words. [EDIT] Also, apparently there are more galaxies that we know of than there are grains of sand on the entire planet, and generally there are hundreds of millions of solar systems in each galaxy, so to think that life existed like our purely by chance isn't that hard to believe for me. [/EDIT]

I don't believe in a god. Using the argument that God created the universe doesn't really mean anything, because then where did god come from? A response I expect is this; God has always existed and always will exist. I ask why god had to exist at all, it could just be matter/energy has always existed, and always will exist.

I hope that made sense, I'm a wee bit sleepy and having trouble putting my thoughts into words.

[EDIT]
Also, apparently there are more galaxies that we know of than there are grains of sand on the entire planet, and generally there are hundreds of millions of solar systems in each galaxy, so to think that life existed like our purely by chance isn't that hard to believe for me.
[/EDIT]

I dont care very much about religon or how the world was created... I belive cus its just nice to belive something else is there....

I dont care very much about religon or how the world was created...
I belive cus its just nice to belive something else is there....

Quotes from [URL=http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/no_god.htm] and a couple comments about them. [QUOTE]The theodicé problem We also have the theodice problem, stated by David Hume: If the evil in the world is intended by god he is not good. If it violates his intentions he is not almighty. God can't be both almighty and good. There are many objections to this, but none that holds since god is ultimately responsible for the existence of evil. Besides, if only god can create he must have created evil. If somebody else (the devil) created evil, how can one know that god, and not Satan created the universe? [/QUOTE] This is my capital argument. He can't be all the things he is cracked up to be at once. Here is another problem: [QUOTE]Neccesary a god is a being that is worth worshipping, so if there is no being worth worshipping there cannot be a god. Not any of the existing religions can provide such a god. How do we know if there are no undiscovered beings worthy our submission? Well if there is a being that has either failed or not tried to communicate with us that being is not worth worshipping either, so the ontological evidence against god holds, even without complete knowledge of the world. There is a test, based on the ontological evidence against god, that you can do to try the existence of god. Pray, and ask god to provide you with a clear proof for his existence within a week. After that week, if you have got a proof that god exists, send me the evidence. If not, there are only three reasons I can think of that are plausible: (1) God does not exist, (2) God does not want to or (3) God can't give you this evidence. Because of the ontological evidence, alternative (2) and (3) are not worth your worship and thus they equal alternative (1). So if you get no response there is no god [/QUOTE] [QUOTE]What do we mean by existence? The very definition for existence is that a thing is said to exist if it relates in some way to some other thing. That is, things exist in relation to each other. For us, that means that something is part of our system ('The known world'). God is defined to be infinite, in which case it is not possible for there to be anything other than god because "infinite" is all-inclusive. But if there is nothing other than god then either god cannot be said to exist for the reason just explained, or god is the known world, in which case, by definition, god is not a god.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Occam's razor Occam's razor was formulated by William of Occam (1285-1349) and says: "Non est ponenda pluralites sive necessitate" or in english: "Do not multiply entities unless necessarily". It is a principle for scientific labour which means that one should use a simple explanation with a few explanatory premises before a more complex one. Let's say that everything must be created, and that was done by an omnipotent god. A god which stands above time, space, moral and existence, which is self containing and in it self has it's own cause. This entity can surely be replaced by the known world. The world stands above time, space, moral, existence, is self containing and in it has it's own meaning. Most theists agree that god has a nature. Then we must raise the question, who created god's nature? If we just accept that god has a nature and exists without a cause, why not say that the known world just is and that the laws of physics are what they are, without a cause? God is not really an explanation, only a non-explanation. It is impossible to gain information from non-information so God as an explanation is a dead end. When we have said that the reason for something is that 'god did it that way' there is no way to understand it any further. We just shrug our shoulders and accept things as they are. To explain the unknown by god is only to explain how it happened, not why. If we are to investigate the world and build our views of life from the world, we cannot assume a god. Because adding god as an explanation leaves as many, if not more questions than it explains, god has to be removed with Occam's razor if we are serious in investigating the world. [/QUOTE] There are many more problems like these, all proving that god cannot be all the things he is said to be without countering his own existence.

Quotes from http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/no_god.htm and a couple comments about them.

Quote

The theodicé problem
We also have the theodice problem, stated by David Hume:
If the evil in the world is intended by god he is not good. If it violates his intentions he is not almighty. God can't be both almighty and good. There are many objections to this, but none that holds since god is ultimately responsible for the existence of evil. Besides, if only god can create he must have created evil. If somebody else (the devil) created evil, how can one know that god, and not Satan created the universe?

This is my capital argument. He can't be all the things he is cracked up to be at once. Here is another problem:

Quote

Neccesary a god is a being that is worth worshipping, so if there is no being worth worshipping there cannot be a god.

Not any of the existing religions can provide such a god. How do we know if there are no undiscovered beings worthy our submission? Well if there is a being that has either failed or not tried to communicate with us that being is not worth worshipping either, so the ontological evidence against god holds, even without complete knowledge of the world.

There is a test, based on the ontological evidence against god, that you can do to try the existence of god. Pray, and ask god to provide you with a clear proof for his existence within a week. After that week, if you have got a proof that god exists, send me the evidence. If not, there are only three reasons I can think of that are plausible: (1) God does not exist, (2) God does not want to or (3) God can't give you this evidence. Because of the ontological evidence, alternative (2) and (3) are not worth your worship and thus they equal alternative (1). So if you get no response there is no god

Quote

What do we mean by existence? The very definition for existence is that a thing is said to exist if it relates in some way to some other thing. That is, things exist in relation to each other. For us, that means that something is part of our system ('The known world'). God is defined to be infinite, in which case it is not possible for there to be anything other than god because "infinite" is all-inclusive. But if there is nothing other than god then either god cannot be said to exist for the reason just explained, or god is the known world, in which case, by definition, god is not a god.

Quote

Occam's razor
Occam's razor was formulated by William of Occam (1285-1349) and says: "Non est ponenda pluralites sive necessitate" or in english: "Do not multiply entities unless necessarily". It is a principle for scientific labour which means that one should use a simple explanation with a few explanatory premises before a more complex one.

Let's say that everything must be created, and that was done by an omnipotent god. A god which stands above time, space, moral and existence, which is self containing and in it self has it's own cause. This entity can surely be replaced by the known world. The world stands above time, space, moral, existence, is self containing and in it has it's own meaning. Most theists agree that god has a nature. Then we must raise the question, who created god's nature? If we just accept that god has a nature and exists without a cause, why not say that the known world just is and that the laws of physics are what they are, without a cause?

God is not really an explanation, only a non-explanation. It is impossible to gain information from non-information so God as an explanation is a dead end. When we have said that the reason for something is that 'god did it that way' there is no way to understand it any further. We just shrug our shoulders and accept things as they are. To explain the unknown by god is only to explain how it happened, not why. If we are to investigate the world and build our views of life from the world, we cannot assume a god. Because adding god as an explanation leaves as many, if not more questions than it explains, god has to be removed with Occam's razor if we are serious in investigating the world.

There are many more problems like these, all proving that god cannot be all the things he is said to be without countering his own existence.

None of those prove anything. They're still based on faith: it assumes god is a religious god, for example, a christian god.

None of those prove anything. They're still based on faith: it assumes god is a religious god, for example, a christian god.

I don't get why people attempt to prove or disprove of god's existance. It's simply futile. Don't.

I don't get why people attempt to prove or disprove of god's existance. It's simply futile. Don't.

Devilesk, cut the shit already. I don't think you're funny and you're getting a bit repetitive.

Devilesk, cut the shit already. I don't think you're funny and you're getting a bit repetitive.

That's what I told him >.>

That's what I told him >.>

I don't believe in the Christian god or indeed any god. The only possibility that I am willing to entertain is that of a creator, existing outside time and space, and indeed not bound by any of the laws of physics.

I don't believe in the Christian god or indeed any god. The only possibility that I am willing to entertain is that of a creator, existing outside time and space, and indeed not bound by any of the laws of physics.

That's exactly what God is.

That's exactly what God is.

So why put your faith in the Bible, which is a book written by men?

So why put your faith in the Bible, which is a book written by men?

Because the Bible is written by men of God, men who honor God, we do not put faith in the Bible, we put our faith in God, and the Bible gives us his will.

Because the Bible is written by men of God, men who honor God, we do not put faith in the Bible, we put our faith in God, and the Bible gives us his will.

So if I were somehow under some revelation and added to the bible, you would believe me. Maybe not during this time, but let's say in the past, I was under the influence of god and somehow was able to add to the bible, you would have believed anything I said?

So if I were somehow under some revelation and added to the bible, you would believe me. Maybe not during this time, but let's say in the past, I was under the influence of god and somehow was able to add to the bible, you would have believed anything I said?

How do you know that it was written by men such as that? The Bible surely gives us the will of the men who wrote it, and not the Christian god. How do we know that the words of Jesus were recorded faithfully, for example, when they were written down decades later, and underwent many edits over the last 1900 years?

How do you know that it was written by men such as that? The Bible surely gives us the will of the men who wrote it, and not the Christian god. How do we know that the words of Jesus were recorded faithfully, for example, when they were written down decades later, and underwent many edits over the last 1900 years?