God does not exist

how can YOU not exist.. ?

 

I am not a divinely derivative form of man's need for mythological acceptance.

 

by not being in existancy!

 

if everything "exists" then what meaning does "exists" have?

 

Could you be specific?
When I suffer it is because I am not understanding. I don't waffle from this position. I take responsibility for my experience. The devil never makes me do it.

 

Isn't that weird.
Language is like math. Premises add up or they don't. There are theorems that we rely on to make certain calculations, integers that represent a consistent value, like pi. Every word I speak has been spoken before. The only one on here that I see with a unique language is tikoo and he learned that from his beast.

Decisions cut down the number of available choices. What is your metric for good? Why cast your die at all?

Pervert, words are for communication.

My dad asked me recently if I believed in god after all this time and all my investigations. That is not a question I ask myself. I have believed and I have not believed. Belief does not contend with the truth, only other beliefs. I represent what I see with terms I feel most closely approximates my experience. I don't have anything to add to subjects that I have not sufficiently informed myself with. I don't know how to describe the author of my gratitude other than my good is my god. My god is all and everything and I am never without it. I find myself beneficiary of the self organizing principle of life and I find all things kindly disposed toward me.

Theist, atheist.

 

What do you mean? We give the world all the meaning it has for us.

 

The opposite of the extant is not nonexistence it is illusion.

 

Actually part of the course is to understand your point and to compare the facts, but there is real proof evolution exists (not necessarily saying God doesn't exist). But I'm sure you'd come to realise the evolution arguement if you sat down and researched it properly. Try telling me that
1. The fossil record of all life on earth (which shows the simplest lifeforms further down, and with each layer of sediment after that these lifeforms slowly become more complex as its need increases, such as the creation of jaws and gills)
2. DNA, we have 98% of the genetic makeup of chimpanzees, and believe it or not approx. 20% of the genetic makeup of carrots, as animals arose from plants which evolved from single celled bacteria 3.5 billion yrs ago.
3. Homologous structures: A humans arm has the exact same bones as a whales flipper and a wing of a bat, just in varying proportions.
4. Analogous structures: Where two organisms evolved from two different lineages, but yet the same structure arose due to its effectiveness, such as the wing of a bat and a magpie.
5.Vestigial organs: Body parts which we have no need for, such as the appendix (found in large herbivorous animals to digest plant material, reduced in humans as we are not herbivorous), male nipples (only present as both male and female in some mammals possess mammary glands), tailbone (suggests we once had tails) and wisdom teeth (ancestors had larger jaws (proven in the fossils) and we have evolved smaller jaws, in 2,000 years im sure they wont be around anymore) and the tonsils (just to name a few)
6. Why is it taxonomists are able to connect all species that have ever existed, its all of the above, the DNA, the fossils, the homologous structures. They don't just spend their lives drawing random lines to random species.

Don't exist.

This list goes on and on I am a reasonable person and am will listen if you have a real point worth discussing, but quoting the bible and telling me how this proof is somehow wrong doesn't count. There are millions of scientific documents backing this up.

 

Just a side note; pi is not an integer. Integers are whole numbers.

Carry on.

 

Thank you. I mean that the symbol occupies the same function regardless of contextual application.

 

someone among us says his greatest fantasy is
to destroy religion . thus , his reasonableness is
pretentious .

 

Actually, I'm a long time believer in evolution by process of natural selection and have posted several defenses of it on Hip Forums, so in a sense you're preaching to the choir. In particular, I accept evolution, not necessarily because I think it's "true" but because it's the best we've done in developing a scientific, refutable theory that accounts for the known facts. So-called "scientific creationism" and Intelligent Design are little more than critiques of evolutionary theory, with no refutable hypotheses or independent evidence of their own to contribute. As such, they're of limited use, and certainly not science. My gripe with your professor, on the other hand, is that he seems to be implying a chauvinistic positivism--that if it ain't hard science it ain't worth shit.

 

Didn't you just answer your own question? Alternate universes are a possible explanation for what we experience in this universe, acceptance of them as fact requires empirical evidence, and there is none. So what to do? Dismiss them, or accept them as a real possibility--and one which colors how we think about such things as the order which we observe in our own universe and the possibility of a God? Physicist Steven Weinberg is takes them quite seriously. Why? Probably because he has strong extra-scientific reasons for rejecting the "Strong Anthropic Principle" that leads to belief in some kind of designer universe. Weinberg is clear about why he rejects such a view--for reasons which we've heard ad nauseum in this forum: religion causes wars, etc. He thinks that "on balance, the moral influence of religion has been awful". And his attitude leads him to his most famous saying:"The more comprehensible the universe becomes the more pointless it seems." He believes that, but his belief rests on a non-empirical foundation. What do we call that? Faith. As science writer Paul Horgan notes, Weinberg is possessed of "a profound faith in the power of physics to achieve absolute truth." And that what makes him "such and interesting spokesman for his tribe is that he...is acutely aware that his faith is just that, a faith.

 

thedope:

lol Not before you speak it. I find when I invent new words, I am not in a position to write them down. Nor do I want to be. :-D

You may as well ask why live. I smash the law tables of the good and the just. I do not smash the good and the just themselves. Do you really want to go beyond good and evil? To where "situational awareness" as you call it is not compromised? You'd have to become less uncompromising than you are. I have found the lawmakers do not yet know how to create amongst themselves. Do you know why you uphold the status quo? lol

:-D You think communication would not be had regardless of how we might pride ourselves in ruling certain aspects of it?! Are you troubled that in tasking myself I might task you!? LOL You say your god is everything, but everything is actually what it is. God alone is good you say. Perversion. Why not let his friends gather about him? Are you afraid they may pronounce him dead?!

How did you answer your Dad? He sounds like a straight shooter.

How boring. If I was an anklebiter and I received that answer from you, I'd slap your knee in disgust and skedaddle.

Tikoo:

Who? Is it you?! Religion ends up finishing itself, just as philosophy ends up questioning itself. It's love that can't get enough of itself, and doesn't want to. Name names, or snake in the grass. It doesn't matter!
:-D

Slek thors drap iful wixen d'ruh.

 

time = X

the spirit of your words reflects the positive
you have so far shared with us , and all that i
have too . d'ruh . unity .

inventively , your soulful dialect is down to earth /physical .
you discern reality just fine .

right . there is no sensible word for 'destroy religion' .
drap , fQk itt .

 

"Religion" covers a wide variety of phenomena. I don't think that many if any in the three Christian groups I take fellowship with would state that "God exists", although they'd probably say "I believe that God exists. I notice that among the atheists I encounter, there's a tendency to take the "soft" atheist position by saying "I believe that God does not exist', as an alternative to the older "hard atheist" position "God does not exist." Both cases, I think , are a result of growing sophistication about what we can and cannot know, and the fallibility of human judgments. As I've said often enough, I'd never say "God exists". I prefer to say "I think there's substantial evidence to suspect that God exists (reasonable suspicion) and I'm betting on that. This position isn't idiosyncratic. It can be traced to the pragmatism of William James.

As for quarks, their existence was, as you say, confirmed in 1968 by deep inelastic scattering experiments involving a linear accelerator and they are "accepted" as fact. But my understanding is that their existence is inferential from the way projectiles bounce off of target particles. According to Dr. John Polkinghorne, in 2010, "Quarks are in some sense unseen realities. Nobody has ever isolated a single quark in the lab. We believe in them not because we've, even with sophisticated instruments,seen them, so to speak. But because assuming that they're there makes great sense of great swaths of physical experience." But what does he know? He's just an elementary particle physicist who was professor at Cambridge and a Fellow of the Royal Society. And he is my source for suggesting that possibly they might qualify in terms of your question.

But my reference to Weinberg was based on his faith in alternative universes, which as you correctly stated are not based on established, empirically validated science at all, but on meta-science (i.e., metaphysics). As Bruce Mazet explained in Skeptic magazine, "there is no evidence whatsoever that this infinite number of hypothetical universes exist, and according to the cosmologists who postulate these hypothetical universes theer is no means by which to obtain any such evidence." So Mazet concludes, as I do, that "if it is acceptable to postulate the existence of hypothetical universes, then it is acceptable to postulate the existence of God."

 

Personally, I take the position that the only truly rational way of looking at the issue is that there is nothing that proves the existence of a creator, and there is nothing that disproves the existence of one either.
So far, all there are, are theories. I really don't think the issue will ever be resolved conclusively one way or the other to anyone's satisfaction.