Off-topic

[Aries1918]

Who wants pie?

[Gairun]

I often find it funny that as human beings we have such an overestimation of ourselves. We at times believe there is no such thing as God because we have proven it or have not recognized any evidence that proves it to us. Just because God doesn't fit into our neat little, very little, minds we tend to try to say 'He's not real!'. However if one was to step back an understand that if God does exist trying to prove his existence with our puny little minds and rambling logic is like a stone contemplating a great work of art.

[Peridan]

The real question is: Who doesn't want pie?

[Aries1918]

The real question is: Who doesn't want pie?

Touch

[Gairun]

Touche Pie

[Mighty_Draco]

I often find it funny that as human beings we have such an overestimation of ourselves. We at times believe there is no such thing as God because we have proven it or have not recognized any evidence that proves it to us. Just because God doesn't fit into our neat little, very little, minds we tend to try to say 'He's not real!'. However if one was to step back an understand that if God does exist trying to prove his existence with our puny little minds and rambling logic is like a stone contemplating a great work of art.

I'll have to call ad hominem on that one. The size of my mind and my ability to comprehend things is independent of the point I make. I don't say "He's not real!" I say "There's no reason to believe it exists, and it's irrelevant if it does." There's no way to prove a god doesn't exist. There's no way to prove an unobservable, flying mass of spaghetti doesn't exist. What matters is that since it's unobservable, it is irrelevant.

Also, I could go for some pie

[Jaeram]

I think you make a good point Draco, being a person who uses the scientific method often, they are not theories, you are correct, I would say they would be more accurately defined as hypotheses. Kangleton I think you made a nice list though and there are many things in there I would be inclined to agree with to a certain extent.

I don't claim to know that I worship the right god, if there even is a right one, but what I base part of my faith on is this - (gairun kind of picked up on this) We humans think that we are intelligent, but even our researchers have stated that we only tap into ~9-10% of our brains true potential, and those of us who are considered geniuses are said to be able to tap into ~11-12% of that potential. I like to think of myself as logical as well, but, a lot of unexplained phenomena occur in our world that we can never hope to explain, and until I can explain it I can only believe that something outside of our understanding had some small hand in the event, to say the least. There are going to be things in our world that we will never be made aware of, whether it be governments hiding alien existence or holy warriors with proof of god's existence keeping it from the population for some unknown reason (obviously these examples may be a bit extreme), but the point is that there will always be people in positions to know things and others who are not. Finally, if there were a god or gods or unseen forces that be, they may not want to make their presence known to us, because if you were ever able to prove there were a god then everyone would ask for great things of him/her, and if that god does not provide for it's people they will lost faith in him, if there is doubt of it's existence though, when him/her ever decides to intervene you may never know anything happened at all. Maybe it's just a feeling inside you that tells you half way down the road to pull over and sleep in your car because you had too much to drink, or maybe it's meeting someone when your at the end of your ropes who helps you get out of debt *shrug* who knows, I do know that sometimes things just happen for a reason and I have trouble believing that it's all luck. I personally believe that I was given the parents and life I have for a reason, I was raised a certain way for a reason, and maybe I even have asthma for a reason, who knows.

Although to all the religions out there, and atheists or agnostics I am a very liberal person and I think that everyone has the right to their own beliefs and it is not my duty to press mine upon you, so I will end this post here , sorry for such a long post (although this is starting to become some what of a habit.)

I love this thread.

Edit - I'm not the biggest fan of pie, I don't like the crust, but I could go for a muffin, or maybe some applesauce, actually I have that, I think I'll get some

[Leevoth]

The way I see it, in the end it doesn't matter. God or no god, I can't see why either instance would change anything.

[Kangleton]

The term "god" would imply that it's something sapient. "It would have to be a creature existing of its own necessity" There's no reason to believe it's a "creature" and not merely some universal constant that occurs. Conventional logic says x moves y etc. but it doesn't say that there had to be some sentient thing that made it happen.

That is only a designation that you have assigned to the word "God". Words have value only relating to the meaning you have granted them, and it is not objective for you to say that the aforementioned term implies something sapient - that is based on assumptions and previously used understandings. When I say God, I use it in the sense that it could be a man floating on a cloud, or an energy, or the universe itself, or a mass-conciousness, or anything. I don't really care what designation you give it, but I had already outlined in what context I was using it in: a being that exists of its own necessity, outisde of space and time. Nothing more, nothing less.

Saying something outside our universe has to exist in order for our universe to exist in a rather inconsistent logical step. To extend this logic, something *had* to create this "God" in order for us to be created by it, and something had to create that god etc.

The entire point of the argument is to say that that extention of logic makes no sense. There can't be an infinite series of creators, causers, or movers. There must have been a first, and for that to be true, it cannot be bound by the concept of time. If it cannot be bound by the concept of time, then it cannot be bound by the concept of space either, as space exists within time, since space as we know it had a begining.

Another argument from ignorance. Just because an apple came from a tree, and rots away eventually, doesn't mean our universe did.

The point is that our universe didn't. If it had, it would not be here now. I don't really understand your analogy.

That doesn't make any sense. You're saying since we compare everything for standards of measurement, a "god" must exist. The fact that we measure does not influence such things. I don't think the joule is based off of a "god" unit.

Yeah, I hate the argument too. These aren't mine... they're Thomas Aquinas' five proofs of God, and I felt that I had to put this one in simply for the sake of completion. I probably did a terrible job of explaining it, as I don't recall the specifics of this one, having learned about it a few years ago. But truth be told, I agree with you anyways on this one.

For the universe to have done anything specific, it would be mathematically impossible from a statistical perspective, sure. But, in the same sense, any sort of predesignated combination of rolls on 10^(100) fair dice has a statistically impossible chance of occurring. That does not mean the roll won't exist, but merely that it's impossible to predict. To say that our specific set of numbers is impossible and thus a god must have done it is also an argument from ignorance.

Who rolled the dice?

And thus is why I look to objectivity. No matter how much I do or don't like, I cannot change earth's gravity. I can measure it, I can manipulate the numbers to be deceitful, but no matter how much I don't like it, I can't change it.

Well said.

One cannot say a "God" doesn't exist objectively in the same sense that one cannot assert the non-existence of the flying spaghetti monster. If you take note, I said that asserting god exists is irrational, and whether or not he exists is irrelevant. To "search for god" is a way of putting away objectivity and losing rationality in the name of wanting it to be there.

I would say that whether or not he exists is the only thing relevant. I'll leave that untouched though, as it is purely a matter of fair perspective. What I would disagree with though, is you stating that searching for God would require putting away objectivity and rationality, in the name of wanting it to be there. Personally, I didn't search for God because I wanted him to be there... why would I want that? A being that will, religiously speaking, condemn me for my actions, punish me for my wrong doings, and provoke me to feel compelled to go to spiritual services of one sort or another, does not sound like something I would be excited to find, initially.

When you search, it is your motivation that provides your bias. If you search to find God because you want it to be real, you will find what you are looking for. If you search for God to prove he is not there, you will find what you are looking for. If you search for God to find only the truth, whatever it may be, you will find what you are looking for. Choose your motivation, and proceed to search. But to not search at all will mean you find nothing - truth included.

When I said "devout atheist" I was mostly just trying to be ironic. I do not believe atheism is a cause so much as just an objective assertion.

Hehe, I never noticed you said "devout atheist". Thats actually pretty funny. And atheism isn't really objective. Agnosticism is, if you've heard of it. It sounds more aligned with how you describe yourself anyways, but I may be wrong.

I would rather live my life behaving off of rationality and objectivity, and find some evidence asserting the existence of a god then make an assertion based off of irrationality.

At one point or another, you have to have faith in something. The fun thing about faith though, is that you have nothing to lose no matter what you do with it. You might as well invest in something big, since its risk-free. But really, I agree with you regardless. I just happened to have found rationality through a leap of faith. Lucky me. Then again, luck isn't rational, is it?

One more thing I feel compelled to note. Those "theories" are in no way valid, objective, scientific theories. (right out of wikipedia) A theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experimentation or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.

Would it make you feel better if I changed the word "theory" to the word "concept"? Since really, all this is, is an argument over word-choice...



Disclaimer: Let it be known that I am, in no way, attempting to push religion onto you, Draco, or anyone else reading this. I am also not trying to be disrespectful or negatively critical of your own personal views and beliefs. I simply enjoy, drastically, these kinds of discussions. I just plain love them.

[Peridan]

Croissant!

[Gairun]

I'll have to call ad hominem on that one. The size of my mind and my ability to comprehend things is independent of the point I make. I don't say "He's not real!" I say "There's no reason to believe it exists, and it's irrelevant if it does." There's no way to prove a god doesn't exist. There's no way to prove an unobservable, flying mass of spaghetti doesn't exist. What matters is that since it's unobservable, it is irrelevant.

Also, I could go for some pie

Your missing the general thrust of my point though Draco. I'll try to elaborate, try to go with me on this one. The whole idea of 'ad hominem' or anything we 'use' to label, discern, or understand things with is not that great. An ant can say that because it never understood or saw any proof of wearing white after labor day is a fashion faux pas, that there fore it must not exist, or it does exist but is not relevant, is just kind of silly. The ant that is. . . silly as in "Awww look at the dumb little fellah"

I guess if you can see the discussion that the 'created' beings, thats us, trying to disprove the 'creator', with the little berries we have in our skulls is pretty much just a laugh riot.

Just because we say something is scientific does not make it so. Any scientist that really pushes the folds of study comes to the conclusion or a breakthrough that 'hey!' the rules I have been forcing on the universe really aren't true, Gee Whiz!

I guess thats what I'm also trying to say, we as humans think very highly of ourselves and try to force our 'rules' on the universe. When instead we should be looking and searching for the rules we should adhere to, not vice versa.

And in conclusion the Ad Hominem label was tenous at best, what with you using an argumentum ad verecundiam.

I love Chicken Pot Pie, beats the snot out of its bastardized fruity cousins.

[Jaeram]

I also enjoy these kinds of discussions, as long as everyone involved does not get overly critical of the other's beliefs I think they can be very refreshing. I enjoy the exchange of such ideas and debates, and I'm glad that so far everyone has responded very maturely with their ideas and hasn't flown off the handle or anything about someone else. hopefully it can continue this way.

Edit - OMG YES POT PIES!

Continuation of the edit - I agree with you gairun, the way I see it, we have tried to use science to disprove an idea such as god before, and put everything into an I can see it therefor it's only this way 'box'. The way I think of it though, is that, if I were a god and for some reason I felt compelled to create a society and foster it's growth so that I could watch the little darlings become something great I wouldn't just drop them on a white sheet of paper and say here you go. I would want to put them in a foreign place so that they could discover all the little building blocks (like cells and atoms) that I decided to make for them, and then see what they decide to do with those blocks. Just because I put the blocks there though doesn't mean that if my stamp isn't on them I won't exist to them though. If they try to disprove me using my blocks it doesn't make much sense either because the blocks I gave them are not related directly to whether I exist or not, they are just essential things I added so that these creatures won't simply eat each other until the last one starves to death. For the society to thrive they need 'something' to work with otherwise they would not thrive at all, simply waste away after a period of time, and that would be boring. Since all of our science known to us is based upon these blocks and we can prove nothing else with them besides what we can do with them doesn't necessarily mean that we will never find other uses for these blocks, and it doesn't necessarily mean that nothing specifically put these blocks here for us. All it means is that these blocks are here and we know we can do x things with them in this surrounding, which is why even though I am a student of chemistry I can't see how it can ever attempt to disprove something such as a god, only that I can study these blocks and find new unique ways to use them.

Edit - Edit - Umm... Edit - I like how there are random people that are popping in on the current discussion with things like croissant lol, it seems like an attempt to derail the conversation, but at the same time I think it's funny because there's a few of us making these long drawn out statements and then there are a few others putting breaks in between. Once again, great job with this off-topic topic Aries I love it.

[Aries1918]

*starts handing out pie*
None for Dune though. He doesn't like my thread

[Gairun]

You bring up some marvelous points Jaeram, and you even handled my thoughts with words much cleaner and concise then I did. Well done.

[Jaeram]

Oh, thank you!