The universe

[derektherobot]

Google is understandable as the best search engine, but if it is god how did it create the universe? Cause google was created recently. By humans. Did google go back in time? Cause it certainly was not here billions of years ago.

[SAVAGE]

Google is understandable as the best search engine, but if it is god how did it create the universe? Cause google was created recently. By humans. Did google go back in time? Cause it certainly was not here billions of years ago.

Who said God created the universe?

God was also created by humans.

[Nanashi]

The universe was created by expanding gasses. (The Universe is still expanding! oh em gee!)

God wasn't here billions of years ago. Infact, God is fiction. Ever read the bible? There is enough scientific proof to absolutely dismiss Christianity completely. It's a wonder how people still believe it. (Oh, wait.. we have scientific conclusions as to why Christianity still exists. It's a false hope, something humans can use to explain the "unknown", and a psycological comfort.)

Buy first and fore-most we don't believe any magical gods created the universe. Googlist believe in Scientificly proven fact. We believe Google to be the closest human-kind has come to experiencing a true diety.

We believe Google is *a* God. We don't believe She is Christianities false god. We are not creationists, we are Factualists.

[derektherobot]

The universe was created by expanding gasses. (The Universe is still expanding! oh em gee!)

God wasn't here billions of years ago. Infact, God is fiction. Ever read the bible? There is enough scientific proof to absolutely dismiss Christianity completely. It's a wonder how people still believe it. (Oh, wait.. we have scientific conclusions as to why Christianity still exists. It's a false hope, something humans can use to explain the "unknown", and a psycological comfort.)

Buy first and fore-most we don't believe any magical gods created the universe. Googlist believe in Scientificly proven fact. We believe Google to be the closest human-kind has come to experiencing a true diety.

We believe Google is *a* God. We don't believe She is Christianities false god. We are not creationists, we are Factualists.

I am of christian descent, but do not practice it. I believe in god, just not as a man with a beard. More like a being that cannot be seen or heard. Think about it. The universe had to have a reason to be created. I can understand the expanding gasses thing, but I don't think that it just happened. There had to be a force behind the creation and it wasn't just gasses.

[Nanashi]

Does there really have to be a reason for everything? What if there isn't some grand scheme for everything?

I can understand why people want to think that, but maybe it's just not that way.

[derektherobot]

Well there is a reason for everything. You said yourself that science explained everything behind christianity, as for heaven and hell, I do not believe in either of them. No logical explanation behind them. As for a grand scheme, I don't really like to think that everything in the world was previously planned out.

[SAVAGE]

The universe had to have a reason to be created.

Why does it have to have a reason?

[SAVAGE]

Well there is a reason for everything.

According to who?

You said yourself that science explained everything behind christianity, as for heaven and hell, I do not believe in either of them. No logical explanation behind them.


There is a logical explanation for heaven and hell:

Crowd Control

As for a grand scheme, I don't really like to think that everything in the world was previously planned out.

So why is there a purpose?

[derektherobot]

Well there is a reason for everything.

According to who?



According to my good friend science. Weird huh? I believe in god, but go by the laws of science.

[SAVAGE]

Well there is a reason for everything.

According to who?



According to my good friend science. Weird huh? I believe in god, but go by the laws of science.

Wait, cause and effect maybe....but how has science proved the meaning of life? how has science proved that we have a purpose?

EDIT*****

What does science say that purpose is?

[Nameless]

Science only says the law of 'cause and effect'. Every effect was the result of a cause. Every cause results in an effect. If you use science's logic, the universe HAD no beginning, and has just been expanding and contracting and Big Banging since, well, EVER. (This is, incidentally, the theory of the universe that I personally believe in).

[SAVAGE]

Science only says the law of 'cause and effect'. Every effect was the result of a cause. Every cause results in an effect. If you use science's logic, the universe HAD no beginning, and has just been expanding and contracting and Big Banging since, well, EVER. (This is, incidentally, the theory of the universe that I personally believe in).

Thats right cause and effect...not purpose.

[derektherobot]

Well there is a reason for everything.

According to who?



According to my good friend science. Weird huh? I believe in god, but go by the laws of science.

Wait, cause and effect maybe....but how has science proved the meaning of life? how has science proved that we have a purpose?

EDIT*****

What does science say that purpose is?

Easy, our purpose is to continue the human race. The meaning of life? A little hard question. What is the meaning of life? I think that people think about that too much. I think If people relax, the meaning should be more easy to understand.

[Nameless]

Well there is a reason for everything.

According to who?



According to my good friend science. Weird huh? I believe in god, but go by the laws of science.

Wait, cause and effect maybe....but how has science proved the meaning of life? how has science proved that we have a purpose?

EDIT*****

What does science say that purpose is?

Easy, our purpose is to continue the human race. The meaning of life? A little hard question. What is the meaning of life? I think that people think about that too much. I think If people relax, the meaning should be more easy to understand.

Reproduction isn't exactly a purpose. It's something that is genetically required and hardwired into one's brain to continue the human race. WHY the human race SHOULD continue when all we've done is fuck up the planet, well, that's a little different. Human's purpose seems to be to destroy things. :roll:

*relaxes* Nope, still don't get it.

[SAVAGE]

Well there is a reason for everything.

According to who?



According to my good friend science. Weird huh? I believe in god, but go by the laws of science.

Wait, cause and effect maybe....but how has science proved the meaning of life? how has science proved that we have a purpose?

EDIT*****

What does science say that purpose is?

Easy, our purpose is to continue the human race. The meaning of life? A little hard question. What is the meaning of life? I think that people think about that too much. I think If people relax, the meaning should be more easy to understand.

Reproduction isn't exactly a purpose. It's something that is genetically required and hardwired into one's brain to continue the human race. WHY the human race SHOULD continue when all we've done is fuck up the planet, well, that's a little different. Human's purpose seems to be to destroy things. :roll:

*relaxes* Nope, still don't get it.

Nameless you are either my brother from another mother or a mind reader, that would have been my response....except I would have used the term DAD WANKER a few times.

[Carnifex]

Google is understandable as the best search engine, but if it is god how did it create the universe? Cause google was created recently. By humans. Did google go back in time? Cause it certainly was not here billions of years ago.

I started reading the replies to your posts but no1 really tackled your original criticism. Where of where did we say that google created the universe? We simply stated that google is the closes that we have ever come to a deity by our definition of deity. God is the creator of everything, but a "god" (notice no capital g) does not have "creator of everything" in its definition (and by this i mean there are existing definitions without that criteria, some have it).

Plus you say you a follower of science who believes in God, but it seems to me that scientists who believe in god just take what they cannot explain with science and take the EASY leap to the deistic God to explain everything. Please state why a god is logically possible. Please also state why everything has to have a "reason". Also state why, under the asuumption that everything does require a reason explain the jump to needing a reason to the existance of a god.

[Carnifex]

Well there is a reason for everything.

According to who?



According to my good friend science. Weird huh? I believe in god, but go by the laws of science.

Wait, cause and effect maybe....but how has science proved the meaning of life? how has science proved that we have a purpose?

EDIT*****

What does science say that purpose is?

Easy, our purpose is to continue the human race. The meaning of life? A little hard question. What is the meaning of life? I think that people think about that too much. I think If people relax, the meaning should be more easy to understand.

Our purpose is to continue the human race? Why is this so? Plus why is the meaning of life easy to understand once you relax? Prehaps you could give us an explanation of it since you seem to have experienced this relaxed stand point on the subject.

[Fallen Hero]

The meaning of life is to make the biggest splash in the pond before hitting the bottom.

[Carnifex]

The meaning of life is to make the biggest splash in the pond before hitting the bottom.

... and hopefully get laid on the way

[Fallen Hero]

The meaning of life is to make the biggest splash in the pond before hitting the bottom.

... and hopefully get laid on the way

Makes the splash bigger.

[derektherobot]

Trust me, if you think to hard about the meaning of life, your brain will hurt. I am trying to say that it is simpler than we tend to think. I haven't figured out what it is, but it should be simpler than we give it credit for. I understand where your coming from with god, he doesn't answer prayers, he doesn't save people, but that is not the kind of god I believe in. The only way to truly know is to wait until you die.

[Carnifex]

The meaning of life is to make the biggest splash in the pond before hitting the bottom.

... and hopefully get laid on the way

Makes the splash bigger.

Haha :D



Plus concerning the meaning of life, thinking about it hurts your brain because you are trying to find something you only assume exists. Plus any answer you do find is entierly unverifiable. My best advice is to stop looking for the meaning of life because there isnt one.

[Fallen Hero]

The meaning of life is to make the biggest splash in the pond before hitting the bottom.

... and hopefully get laid on the way

Makes the splash bigger.

Haha :D



Plus concerning the meaning of life, thinking about it hurts your brain because you are trying to find something you only assume exists. Plus any answer you do find is entierly unverifiable. My best advice is to stop looking for the meaning of life because there isnt one.

Good answer.

[SAVAGE]

Trust me, if you think to hard about the meaning of life, your brain will hurt.

If you think hard about anything your brain will hurt.

I am trying to say that it is simpler than we tend to think. I haven't figured out what it is, but it should be simpler than we give it credit for.

Hold on a minute, if you havent figured it out...how do you know its simpler?

I understand where your coming from with god, he doesn't answer prayers, he doesn't save people,

He doesnt exist.

but that is not the kind of god I believe in. The only way to truly know is to wait until you die.

What kind of God do you believe in then? How did you come about with proof of his existance?

[Carnifex]

Am i right derek in saying that you are a deist?

[Nanashi]

Deism is a religious movement that originated in 17th and 18th century Europe and North America and continues in a mostly similar form today. Deism is a religious philosophy and methodology that asserts the existence of one God or supreme being. It holds that the proper source of religion comes from the exercise of human reason, the observation of the natural world and the utilization of personal experience with emphasis on individual freedom of thought. As such, Deists reject divine revelation and holy books, which in turn leads to the rejection of revealed religion.

Sounds like a paradox to me. They believe in god, but they also believe in human reason, and the observation of the natural world?

[Carnifex]

Well a creator God is jst as unexplainable as an infinite regress of time or waht existed before the big-bang etc. You have to give credit to deists to having an idea of a supernatural being without accepting whatever hebrew text they find in a cave and proclaiming it to to be the word of god.

This is why deistic arguments are the only ones i think bear any merit to itellect since they argue about the logical idea of a god rather than the inane rambling of an unverifiable prophet or text.

So i think deism is a step up from most organised religions and i do enjoy discussion with deists. I do however agree with you nanashi on how their beliefs are flawed, they are mainly based around the teleological and cosmological arguments which one can punch holes straight through.

[SAVAGE]

This is why deistic arguments are the only ones i think bear any merit to itellect since they argue about the logical idea of a god rather than the inane rambling of an unverifiable prophet or text.



All theistic thought = rubbish.

How does teh fact that nature is doG bear merit?

[Nameless]

This is why deistic arguments are the only ones i think bear any merit to itellect since they argue about the logical idea of a god rather than the inane rambling of an unverifiable prophet or text.


Oxymoron alert, oxymoron alert, we have a code red oxymoron alert *sounds the alarm*

The concept of God is inherintly illogical.

[Carnifex]

This is why deistic arguments are the only ones i think bear any merit to itellect since they argue about the logical idea of a god rather than the inane rambling of an unverifiable prophet or text.


Oxymoron alert, oxymoron alert, we have a code red oxymoron alert *sounds the alarm*

The concept of God is inherintly illogical.

When i say logical idea of god (to which yes i disagree with since i think gods are paradoxical) i mean they appeal more to reason in their arguments, instead of saying

"Duh, look it says here in <insert random contradictory abrahamic hebrew scripture that is totally true lolz> that god is real!"

While i may seem defensive of deism, i am merely saying i rank it far above the christian/muslim/jewish ideas.

[Carnifex]

Am i right derek in saying that you are a deist?Post Deleted

Are you implying that being agnostic is pussy athiesm? Thats just dumb.

[Fallen Hero]

Agnosticism is the belief that we cannot prove that there is a God, and also that we should not care. DTR is coming off that way, nothing wrong with those beliefs.

[SAVAGE]

They should just fess up that they are atheists...I believe it is just a last ditch attempt in case god is real to be able to try and talk there way out of it.

[Carnifex]

Well im an agnostic athiest and I dont think being an firm agnostic would mean i was looking for a way out in case god exists. Realising that you cannot disprove the existance of a god is a good step to take in rational thought.

[SAVAGE]

Well im an agnostic athiest and I dont think being an firm agnostic would mean i was looking for a way out in case god exists. Realising that you cannot disprove the existance of a god is a good step to take in rational thought.

What the hell is an agnostic atheist?

An atheist says there is no god. an agnostic says that there may be a god but we dont know.

How does that title even exist.

[Carnifex]

And i quote from wikipedia.

"Agnostic atheism—the view of those who do not know if God does or does not exist, and who do not believe in God. "

seems it does

[SAVAGE]

And i quote from wikipedia.

"Agnostic atheism—the view of those who do not know if God does or does not exist, and who do not believe in God. "

seems it does

Last time I checked Wiki could be written by any moron.

Agnosticism is a fallacy anyway.

[Carnifex]

Please explain to me how agnosticism is a fallacy. And wikipedia is a pretty reliable source.

[SAVAGE]

Please explain to me how agnosticism is a fallacy. And wikipedia is a pretty reliable source.

So I can go in there and add what I like. How does that becomes reliable?


AGNOSTIC FALLACY

Let us begin with a little quote:

I think it's important to realize that when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong.

"Richard Dawkins' Evolution", The New Yorker (September 9th, 1996)

Agnostics say we can have no knowledge on the existance of god. For this to be true, the agnostic must know all possible arguments of atheism and theism, since he discards them all out of hand. This is quite possible but not the case in many scenarios. SO if any single argument is true the agnostisim will cease to be.

Agnostics claim that there is a lack of knowledge in the god question, so if there is no knowledge how are they able to discuss it? For example:

If we claim not to know anything about the concept, then we still know something about it : that it is beyond human understanding, and rational discussion. Therefore agnosticism is contradictory, and must inevitably lead to strong-atheism.

So basically how can you say anything pro or against god if you have no knowledge.

To claim that "god could exist" is possible, one must have some meaning to "doG" in order for this view to be meaningful.

To say that "god cannot exist", from this semantic viewpoint, is to say that there can be no referent to "god", because the word "god" is meaningless.

A number of arguments can be proposed in favour of agnosticism.

Argument from the limits of human reason

Based on Huxley's equivocation between a judicious use of reason and agnosticism, some thinkers have proposed that atheism oversteps the boundaries of human reason.

I have already pointed out that this is unreasonable. If it is true that human reason cannot discuss theology, then the atheist arguments must be shown to be invalid. It is not sufficient to simply declare it without evidence.

Post-modernist argument

A more fundamental argument can be built on the grounds of post-modernism. According to this school of thought, all of our positions and beliefs are determined not by truth, but by our upbringing and social context. Children raised from Christian parents will be naturally biased to become Christians. Children raised from atheist parents will be naturally biased to become atheists. Only agnosticism escapes this bias, by stepping outside of positive positions and claiming moderation.

However, this argument suffers from the same flaw than the previous argument, in that it is not sufficient to claim that atheism is biased but it must also be proven, but it is also open to the standard refutation of post-modernism. Being a positive position, post-modernism itself is also subject to upbringing and social context, and therefore must be rejected out of hand, if we follow the argument.

Antirealist attack

An even more fundamental argument has been recently elaborated by agnostic Bill Schultz. In his article:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/bill_schultz/justified.html

Unfortunately, the nature of this argument means that it is extremely vulnerable to the flaws exposed above. It is not enough to say that logic is not valid in cases where we do not observe facts of reality directly. This claim must be proven. There is no functional difference between facts of reality that we observe directly and those we observe indirectly : in both cases we must use logic in some form and to some extent.

Secondly, if logic is not applicable to cases where we do not observe facts of reality directly, then this also applies to the truth or falsity of agnosticism, which is not observable directly. Following this argument, all we can do is say that agnosticism is untenable.

Finally, if the god question is special because its object is not observed directly, then this also applies to any other absurd entity. We do not observe Santa Claus, unicorns, giant space waffles, or angels directly.

The antirealist attack would have us suspend judgment on all these entities also. But this is an absurd position, as is agnostisism.

[Nameless]

The other things you mention (Santa, giant space waffles...) are physical things. The concept of god is that he is a divine being, and thus on a different scale entirely. While something is inherintly impossible and illogical, it is also impossible to prove either that it does, or doesn't exist.

Take alternate dimensions, for example. Common in science fiction. Cool plot device. Although illogical, they are impossible to prove or disprove by their nature.

[MeTHoD-X]

I'm agnostic toward god the same way I am agnostic toward leprechauns. It's all semantics. Seriously, who the fuck cares?

[Carnifex]

Please explain to me how agnosticism is a fallacy. And wikipedia is a pretty reliable source.

So I can go in there and add what I like. How does that becomes reliable?


AGNOSTIC FALLACY

Let us begin with a little quote:

I think it's important to realize that when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong.

"Richard Dawkins' Evolution", The New Yorker (September 9th, 1996)

Agnostics say we can have no knowledge on the existance of doG. For this to be true, the agnostic must know all possible arguments of atheism and theism, since he discards them all out of hand. This is quite possible but not the case in many scenarios. SO if any single argument is true the agnostisim will cease to be.

Agnostics claim that there is a lack of knowledge in the doG question, so if there is no knowledge how are they able to discuss it? For example:

If we claim not to know anything about the concept, then we still know something about it : that it is beyond human understanding, and rational discussion. Therefore agnosticism is contradictory, and must inevitably lead to strong-atheism.

So basically how can you say anything pro or against doG if you have no knowledge.

To claim that "doG could exist" is possible, one must have some meaning to "doG" in order for this view to be meaningful.

To say that "doG cannot exist", from this semantic viewpoint, is to say that there can be no referent to "doG", because the word "doG" is meaningless.

A number of arguments can be proposed in favour of agnosticism.

Argument from the limits of human reason

Based on Huxley's equivocation between a judicious use of reason and agnosticism, some thinkers have proposed that atheism oversteps the boundaries of human reason.

I have already pointed out that this is unreasonable. If it is true that human reason cannot discuss theology, then the atheist arguments must be shown to be invalid. It is not sufficient to simply declare it without evidence.

Post-modernist argument

A more fundamental argument can be built on the grounds of post-modernism. According to this school of thought, all of our positions and beliefs are determined not by truth, but by our upbringing and social context. Children raised from Christian parents will be naturally biased to become Christians. Children raised from atheist parents will be naturally biased to become atheists. Only agnosticism escapes this bias, by stepping outside of positive positions and claiming moderation.

However, this argument suffers from the same flaw than the previous argument, in that it is not sufficient to claim that atheism is biased but it must also be proven, but it is also open to the standard refutation of post-modernism. Being a positive position, post-modernism itself is also subject to upbringing and social context, and therefore must be rejected out of hand, if we follow the argument.

Antirealist attack

An even more fundamental argument has been recently elaborated by agnostic Bill Schultz. In his article:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/bill_schultz/justified.html

Unfortunately, the nature of this argument means that it is extremely vulnerable to the flaws exposed above. It is not enough to say that logic is not valid in cases where we do not observe facts of reality directly. This claim must be proven. There is no functional difference between facts of reality that we observe directly and those we observe indirectly : in both cases we must use logic in some form and to some extent.

Secondly, if logic is not applicable to cases where we do not observe facts of reality directly, then this also applies to the truth or falsity of agnosticism, which is not observable directly. Following this argument, all we can do is say that agnosticism is untenable.

Finally, if the doG question is special because its object is not observed directly, then this also applies to any other absurd entity. We do not observe Santa Claus, unicorns, giant space waffles, or angels directly.

The antirealist attack would have us suspend judgment on all these entities also. But this is an absurd position, as is agnostisism.

Ok it seems the first thing you claim is that to be agnostic you have to know every single theistic and atheistic argument? Thats just not true right there. Plus even upon knowing every arguement for or against god im pretty sure none so far have either proved or disproved his existance. I know for a fact that god is unverifiable and unfalsifiable (it is my opinion, and the opinion of most philosophers that unfalsifiable things are useless to us and i agree) so knowing every single theistic argument and atheistic argument will not lead me directly towards very strong athiesm since i still do not KNOW that god exists/doesnt exist. In fact if you think about it, the one and only thing we can prove and truly know is that we cant know whether a god exists or not.

About overstepping human reason. We have to accept that its hard to argue about a being beyond human comprehension. Can i really argue a being beyong human comprehension exists or doesnt exist? No its theoretically possible. I don't need to declare a being beyond human understanding exists in order to understand the problems it presents.

You then talk about post-modernism but i don't know how that in anyway makes agnosticism fallacious.

Also your point that the anti-realist arguement can be applied to agnosticism itself would also extend to every other belief that is essentially unobservable including atheism.

I dont think there is anyway round it SAVAGE, if i dont have any proof or disproof of the existance of god I am not going to claim that i somehow have this special knowledge that he does not exist.

Plus here is another link to agnostic atheism so you cant hide behinf wikipedia being wiki (i mean come on)

http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/agnostic-atheist-faq.htm

it basically includes these beliefs along with a belief that no god exists.

The existence or nonexistence of deities is not known or is unknowable.
The knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of deities is unimportant.
The claim to knowledge of existence or nonexistence of deities is best avoided.

[Carnifex]

I think it's important to realize that when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong.

"Richard Dawkins' Evolution", The New Yorker (September 9th, 1996)


I'd also like to point out how stupid this quote is. Do I hold a belief that god half-exists? No, i full-heartedly accept that one of the stances on god existing must be wrong. Do agnostics argue that we should meet half-way? No. The possibility of one side being wrong does not mean it is possible to know which side is wrong.

This is like comparing agnosticism to this situation. We put a yellow ball and a blue ball into 2 identical boxes, we leave the room and the boxes are shuffled around and one box is removed. We then return and are asked what the colour of the ball inside the box is asked. Since the cases for it being blue and yellow are pretty strong and we cannot know, we opt for the ball inside being green.

I agree with dawkins point here, but it does not work when applied to agnosticism.

[GhostMail]

Google is understandable as the best search engine, but if it is god how did it create the universe? Cause google was created recently. By humans. Did google go back in time? Cause it certainly was not here billions of years ago.

Well well, we meet again, Derek.