NationStates Jolt Archive

This is not new, but its way underdebated.

I'm Agnositic.

I was tempted to answer "it's impossible to know", but things are only impossible until they are possible. I'll go with God doesn't exist.

I'm Agnostic also. People have to think pretty highly of themselves to believe that they have creation all figured out.

I am agnostic and atheist, I beleive it is impossible to know with absolute certainty that there is(n't) a god or gods but with the evidence I have seen and the experiences i've had I do not beleive in a god.

I'm Agnostic also. People have to think pretty highly of themselves to believe that they have creation all figured out.

Agreed 100%

I am agnostic and atheist, I beleive it is impossible to know with absolute certainty that there is(n't) a god or gods but with the evidence I have seen and the experiences i've had I do not beleive in a god.

I geuss I wouldn't have thought of the question as multiple choice...

i think they are essentially the same since in practice they are indistinguishable. so an agnostic is more open to the idea that god may exist than i am, he is not DOING anything about it. he doesnt drop into the catholic church and light a few candles "just in case".
he goes about his business as if god DOESNT exist but he will jump on it if he ever finds some evidence for the existance of god presents itself (which it wont because god doesnt exist)

I geuss I wouldn't have thought of the question as multiple choice...

Most people don't. I tend to see agnosticism and atheism to be dealing with 2 separate parts of a persons belief's. Agnosticism dealing with knowledge and atheism with actual belief. One could be agnostic and theist or gnostic and atheist.

Most people don't. I tend to see agnosticism and atheism to be dealing with 2 separate parts of a persons belief's. Agnosticism dealing with knowledge and atheism with actual belief. One could be agnostic and theist or gnostic and atheist.

Yeah, Gnostism was an early Christian heresy. Be careful about that.

PS, why do people believe God must not exsist because the world is "A Sh*tty Place"? Mybe we just have a terribly mediocre deity. This is the basis of my argument for Agnosticism: we don't know the nature of God(s), and he might not be what we expect at all.

Agreed 100%

Agreed again 100%
Whether there is or isn't a god can be debated.
But in my opinion all "religions" are only attempts by specific groups of people trying affix god to themselves rather than vice versa, which is their purported aim.

Yeah, Gnostism was an early Christian heresy. Be careful about that.

PS, why do people believe God must not exsist because the world is "A Sh*tty Place"? Mybe we just have a terribly mediocre deity. This is the basis of my argument for Agnosticism: we don't know the nature of God(s), and he might not be what we expect at all.

Not that it supports the idea that a crappy society means no God, but I should think that most people would find it impossible for God to be flawed, given that he is represented as being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.

i think they are essentially the same since in practice they are indistinguishable. so an agnostic is more open to the idea that god may exist than i am, he is not DOING anything about it. he doesnt drop into the catholic church and light a few candles "just in case".
he goes about his business as if god DOESNT exist but he will jump on it if he ever finds some evidence for the existance of god presents itself (which it wont because god doesnt exist)
It is both arrogant and unscientific to claim something doesn't exist simply because no empirical evidence of it has been found.

Not that it supports the idea that a crappy society means no God, but I should think that most people would find it impossible for God to be flawed, given that he is represented as being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.

Well, the universe isn't perfect; why should God be? And how do we know perfection is really a universal standard rather than a silly human assumption?

Was Athiest, now agnostic (pseudo Liberal Eastern Asian Christian type, but not really) :)

It is both arrogant and unscientific to claim something doesn't exist simply because no empirical evidence of it has been found.
It is unscientific to claim something exists even when no empirical evidence of it has been found.

Enter naton here, you win at the interweb.

Agnostic athiest here as well. I'm certiainly open to the possibility I'm wrong (and if I am, I hope it's some kind of polytheism or pantheism because I find them amusing. :D ) but until that time comes I'm not going to pussyfoot about it.

It is unscientific to claim something exists even when no empirical evidence of it has been found.
That's true also.

PS, why do people believe God must not exsist because the world is "A Sh*tty Place"? Mybe we just have a terribly mediocre deity. This is the basis of my argument for Agnosticism: we don't know the nature of God(s), and he might not be what we expect at all.

If God exists, he would have to allow evil in the universe, otherwise we would have no consequences for our choices and thus no real freedom, since no matter what we did, the result would be the same, a perfect result. We would have no real freedom and morality would be pointless and that would be infinitely worse than evil in the universe.

I perfer Agnosticism over Atheism and Theism because you don't rule out that some divine being(s) *do* indeed exist (like w/Atheism) and you don't accept said diving being(s) existance upon a purely faith basis (Theism)

It is both arrogant and unscientific to claim something doesn't exist simply because no empirical evidence of it has been found.
i dunno, the absolute lack of evidence would seem to me to be a very good reason to not believe something exists. it seems much more arrogant to me to insist in the existence of something in the face of that lack of evidence.

That's true also.
The way I see it No theory can ever be completly refuted, however all evidence supporting said theory can be discredited to the point where there is no reason to beleive in it. Again however the theory can not be completly refuted. I try and keep an open mind and at the same time I try and look at things critically before I take stock in them.

At any rate i'm tired and either due to my isp or this site it takes awhile to navigate the forums so i'm off to bed.

Play nice. :P

Well, the universe isn't perfect; why should God be? And how do we know perfection is really a universal standard rather than a silly human assumption?

As you've already pointed out, perfection lies in the eye of the beholder. As for why God should be perfect, but the universe not, you may as well ask why a speck of dirt isn't perfect but God is.

One is an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-existant being. The other is an inanimate, non-living gathering of molecules. One is the creator of time, space, and existence itself. The other is infinitesimally insignificant.

I can't begin to explain it better than that. It would be rather difficult to conceive an omnipotent/scient/present being that isn't perfect by its inherent nature.

As you've already pointed out, perfection lies in the eye of the beholder. As for why God should be perfect, but the universe not, you may as well ask why a speck of dirt isn't perfect but God is.

One is an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-existant being. The other is an inanimate, non-living gathering of molecules. One is the creator of time, space, and existence itself. The other is infinitesimally insignificant.

I can't begin to explain it better than that. It would be rather difficult to conceive an omnipotent/scient/present being that isn't perfect by its inherent nature.

Is a computer perfect? It is much, much, more lickly to give a correct answer than a human, assuming it knows how to do the problem (errors are less than once in a million tires). Just because God is so powerful does not mean he's perfect.

i dunno, the absolute lack of evidence would seem to me to be a very good reason to not believe something exists. it seems much more arrogant to me to insist in the existence of something in the face of that lack of evidence.
Indeed, lack of empirical evidence is a good basis on which to found a belief that something doesn't exist. For instance, believing there are no planets around other stars was popular before long-distance telescopes detected them. But lack of evidence is not "absolute", and the claim should not be made that a thing does not exist based on no evidence. No definite conclusion can be drawn from no evidence.

Is a computer perfect? It is much, much, more lickly to give a correct answer than a human, assuming it knows how to do the problem (errors are less than once in a million tires). Just because God is so powerful does not mean he's perfect.

And just because there are thousands, millions, perhaps even billions of levels of imperfection - perhaps even beyond what we can hope to conceive - does not rule out the idea that perfection in fact exists. ;) The difference between a computer and God is that a computer is merely better than a human. A God is, in theory, perfect. The zenith, the pinnacle, the ideal.

We'll pretend humans are, say... 100. And there are lots of things below us. Like ants. And there are lots of things above us. Like computers.

Then there is God, who is infinity. Not only is he so beyond anything else in existence that it cannot be described, he exists on a whole 'nother level. No matter how big a number you could think of, it could never compare to infinity. Nor can the level of perfection of anything other than God hope to compare to Him.

Note that I'm atheist. This is purely Devil's Advocate.

I dont believe in god but you can never know a hundred percent now can we?

The way I see it No theory can ever be completly refuted, however all evidence supporting said theory can be discredited to the point where there is no reason to beleive in it. Again however the theory can not be completly refuted. I try and keep an open mind and at the same time I try and look at things critically before I take stock in them.
Yes, there is no empirical evidence of God, but empirical evidence is not the only kind of evidence. There is also testamony of people who have experienced a "god" feeling or connection. This gives more than enough reason for some people to believe.

There is also no empirical evidence that I had a broken heart 4 years ago, but if I claim that I did, why would people doubt it?

And just because there are thousands, millions, perhaps even billions of levels of imperfection - perhaps even beyond what we can hope to conceive - does not rule out the idea that perfection in fact exists. ;) The difference between a computer and God is that a computer is merely better than a human. A God is, in theory, perfect. The zenith, the pinnacle, the ideal.

We'll pretend humans are, say... 100. And there are lots of things below us. Like ants. And there are lots of things above us. Like computers.

Then there is God, who is infinity. Not only is he so beyond anything else in existence that it cannot be described, he exists on a whole 'nother level. No matter how big a number you could think of, it could never compare to infinity. Nor can the level of perfection of anything other than God hope to compare to Him.

Note that I'm atheist. This is purely Devil's Advocate.

Strangely enough, there are different kinds of infinities, some described as stronger than others.

But what about God's nature defines him a perfect? It is concievable (though not likely) that humans, through thier technology, could restructure the universe so as to do as they please, but humans will still be imperfect. What makes God special?

Yes, there is no empirical evidence of God, but empirical evidence is not the only kind of evidence. There is also testamony of people who have experienced a "god" feeling or connection. This gives more than enough reason for some people to believe.

There is also no empirical evidence that I had a broken heart 4 years ago, but if I claim that I did, why would people doubt it?

Yes, but there is no reason why we should believe you would lie about heart break, but God is a different story. Certianly there are plenty of reasons why someone would believe they talked to God and are really just showing mild patterns of insanity.

Here's a thought. What if I, I mean "God" is not perfect and just want to see what you did with the universe I, I mean "God" gave you?

Here's a thought. What if I, I mean "God" is not perfect and just want to see what you did with the universe I, I mean "God" gave you?

I'm sorry, I lost you...

When there are two theories both consistent with the evidence, scientists employ Occam's Razor to choose between them.
In this case, the theory that God exists and the theory that he doesn't are both consistent with the evidence. However, it is simpler to believe that God does not exist than that he does. Thus, a scientific person who is unsure of God's existence concludes that He does not exist. Of course this could change when new evidence is introduced, but that is true of all theories and you don't hear anyone doubting Newton's Laws because we "can't be 100% sure."

When there are two theories both consistent with the evidence, scientists employ Occam's Razor to choose between them.
In this case, the theory that God exists and the theory that he doesn't are both consistent with the evidence. However, it is simpler to believe that God does not exist than that he does. Thus, a scientific person who is unsure of God's existence concludes that He does not exist. Of course this could change when new evidence is introduced, but that is true of all theories and you don't hear anyone doubting Newton's Laws because we "can't be 100% sure."

This is equivenlant to saying that, dispite the fact that things have fallen every time they we dropped in recorded history does not mean that something will drop next time. I agree with you completely.

Just wondering about this supposed perfection and omnipresence, and trying to inspire hate mail from people who have their prefabricated ideas on the nature of deity.

I'm Agnostic also. People have to think pretty highly of themselves to believe that they have creation all figured out.

Why does believing in God mean that one thinks one has all of creation figured out?

Strangely enough, there are different kinds of infinities, some described as stronger than others.

But what about God's nature defines him a perfect? It is concievable (though not likely) that humans, through thier technology, could restructure the universe so as to do as they please, but humans will still be imperfect. What makes God special?

I don't know what multiple infinities you refer to, but it really doesn't matter. Infinity isn't a solid, concrete number; it's just a concept, really. But no number can ever be larger than infinity. If it was, the original infinity wasn't really infinity at all.

Likewise, a being of infinite power cannot have something more powerful than it. A being of infinite wisdom cannot have something more wise than it. So on, so forth. So if it is impossible for anything to ever exceed the standard God sets, He must be perfection. Anything else would be to suggest a number bigger than infinity; something more perfect than perfection itself, negating the original concept of perfection (which it obviously never was if something more perfect could exist).

If you mean to ask why God is infinitely wise, or infinitely powerful, then you're asking the wrong person. Everything I know of religion - what my parents taught me, what my teachers taught me, what priests taught me - confers the idea that God is perfection.

Given that I don't even believe in God, if I'm going to take a leap of faith and assume he exists, there is no reason not to take another leap and assume he's perfect. It would certainly fit with his motif.

Why does believing in God mean that one thinks one has all of creation figured out?

It depends on the strength of your convictions, but as an absolute, belief is arrogance because no one really knows.

Yes, but there is no reason why we should believe you would lie about heart break, but God is a different story. Certianly there are plenty of reasons why someone would believe they talked to God and are really just showing mild patterns of insanity.
If I were to claim that my broken heart exists in the real world, as a being or force, worse yet one who speaks to me, then there would be reason to believe I was insane also.

However, if we put religion aside and look at only the experience of the "god" feeling as real and everything else as a sort of window-dressing, then god is no less believable than the broken heart.

I don't know what multiple infinities you refer to, but it really doesn't matter. Infinity isn't a solid, concrete number; it's just a concept, really. But no number can ever be larger than infinity. If it was, the original infinity wasn't really infinity at all.

Likewise, a being of infinite power cannot have something more powerful than it. A being of infinite wisdom cannot have something more wise than it. So on, so forth. So if it is impossible for anything to ever exceed the standard God sets, He must be perfection. Anything else would be to suggest a number bigger than infinity; something more perfect than perfection itself, negating the original concept of perfection (which it obviously never was if something more perfect could exist).

If you mean to ask why God is infinitely wise, or infinitely powerful, then you're asking the wrong person. Everything I know of religion - what my parents taught me, what my teachers taught me, what priests taught me - confers the idea that God is perfection.

Given that I don't even believe in God, if I'm going to take a leap of faith and assume he exists, there is no reason not to take another leap and assume he's perfect. It would certainly fit with his motif.

Thats my question! Why does infintie power of infinite foresight suggest infinite perfection.

BTW, if infinity (alpha[null]) is the set of all whole numbers, alpha[1] is the set of all real numbers. But we don't need to go into that.

I don't know what multiple infinities you refer to, but it really doesn't matter. Infinity isn't a solid, concrete number; it's just a concept, really. But no number can ever be larger than infinity. If it was, the original infinity wasn't really infinity at all.
Actually not true. There are an infinite number of whole numbers (1,2,3,et.al.) but a much greater number of decimals because decimals include the entire infinity whole number set. So there are larger infinities.

It depends on the strength of your convictions, but as an absolute, belief is arrogance because no one really knows.

Noone really knows anything. Yet we only question those who profess to know a few certain things. Is it not arrogance to believe that we know what is knowable when others do not?

Thats my question! Why does infintie power of infinite foresight suggest infinite perfection.

BTW, if infinity (alpha[null]) is the set of all whole numbers, alpha[1] is the set of all real numbers. But we don't need to go into that.

Infinite power and infinite foresight are merely examples of perfection, not the definition of it. In theory, God is perfect in every respect.

Indeed, lack of empirical evidence is a good basis on which to found a belief that something doesn't exist. For instance, believing there are no planets around other stars was popular before long-distance telescopes detected them. But lack of evidence is not "absolute", and the claim should not be made that a thing does not exist based on no evidence. No definite conclusion can be drawn from no evidence.

sure

many many things surely exist that we know utterly nothing about
our lack of knowlege, our belief or disbelief in their existence has no effect, no relationship to their existing.

sure

there COULD be some old guy with a long beard living on the dark side of the moon running all of our lives.

but im not going to be bothered with worrying about it

if one acts as if there is no god, i can see no practical difference in "there could be" and "there isnt one"

and if a god cant be bothered to act as if he does exist, i cant see a difference in him existing or not. he certainly doesnt give a damn if i do or not.

so ill be content with being an atheist, arrogant or not. since leaving the door open to belief is irrelevant to my life.

Le sigh. Infinity never ends, so you can never compare infinity to something else. No matter how large the number of decimals between numbers exist, you can never actually stop counting to compare.

I'll give you two roads that never, ever end. I'll tell you to measure them both and let me know which is longer. You can't come to a conclusion until you've measured the entirety of both roads. How do you ever compare them?

But the difference is that one contains the other and an infinity between each number in addition. No matter how you try and get around it, one is larger. Oh, and since each road has infinite length, they have the same length (as they both fall under the same category of infinity, namely all positive numbers). To know which is bigger measure their width.

Infinite power and infinite foresight are merely examples of perfection, not the definition of it. In theory, God is perfect in every respect.

That is an assumption I don't attest to.

When there are two theories both consistent with the evidence, scientists employ Occam's Razor to choose between them.
In this case, the theory that God exists and the theory that he doesn't are both consistent with the evidence. However, it is simpler to believe that God does not exist than that he does. Thus, a scientific person who is unsure of God's existence concludes that He does not exist. Of course this could change when new evidence is introduced, but that is true of all theories and you don't hear anyone doubting Newton's Laws because we "can't be 100% sure."
There are many theories, but the evidence is not consistent.
1) There is no god because no empirical evidence of him exists.
2) There is a god. There is no empirical evidence of him, but there is testamony of a subjective experience of "god".
3) There is a god and empirical evidence has yet to be found.

EDIT: Oops. Hypotheses, not theories.

Le sigh. Infinity never ends, so you can never compare infinity to something else. No matter how large the number of decimals between numbers exist, you can never actually stop counting to compare.

I'll give you two roads that never, ever end. I'll tell you to measure them both and let me know which is longer. You can't come to a conclusion until you've measured the entirety of both roads. How do you ever compare them?

See, you can't compare two roads that never end becuase they are the same length. But no one has ever (and this is quite impossible) compared every decimal to every integer. Therefore, the set of all decimal values is larger than the set of all whole numbers.

You still don't get it. No number can be larger than infinity, because infinity is infinite. Suggesting that one infinity is larger than the other is merely to suggest the latter isn't infinite. :rolleyes: There is never a point in time in which either would ever stop growing. And since neither ever takes a concrete number, you can never suggest one is larger than the other.
No, you don't get it. While neither ever stops, one can encompass and surpass other infinities.If you contain the entire set of an infinite numbers (see decimal example) then you equal. Between each set of real numbers there are also an infinite number of decimals. Thus you have your original infinity squared. It doesn't matter if they stop growing, they are still larger.

See the above. Infinity isn't a number. It's a never-ending series of numbers. And because infinity will never, ever be a number (if it ever became a static number, it isn't infinity anymore but just a really big number) you can never compare another number to it.
But we aren't comparing static numbers. We are comparing infinity to an infinite number of infinities. Something doesn't have to be static to be smaller than a non-static value. This is the flaw in your logic.

See the above. Infinity isn't a number. It's a never-ending series of numbers. And because infinity will never, ever be a number (if it ever became a static number, it isn't infinity anymore but just a really big number) you can never compare another number to it.

Its not a matter of comparing numbers, its a matter of comparing sets. And why am I arguing math with you? You could find that I'm right in any library

We could bicker back and forth all night, but we obviously are of two different minds on the matter, and aren't going to reach a resolution any sooner than infinity will. I'll leave you to yours, as it isn't my place to impose my beliefs on others.
Though you are wrong from a mathematic standpoint, deal.

I would like to point out that Perfect God is a notion accepted by the followers of Judaism/Christianity/Muslim but not necessarily all theists. Greek/Egyptian gods were unquestionably un-perfect, which explains the impefection of the world.

I confess that I am frankly lost by a post arguing that there is as much empirical evidence of broken heart as there is of God. Broken-heartedness is a feeling that is almost, if not totally, universally experienced, which is why it is so readily accepted. Feeling God, obviously, is not. Empirical evidence is something that is objectively verifiable by human experience, and so, former would fall in its definition while the latter would not.

Finally, I consider myself agnostic, as distinct from atheistic (despite what some posters have argued). I guess the distinction lies in the strength of conviction--I am willing to seriously entertain the notion that God exists, although lacking empirical evidence and logical consistency, the major religions have so far failed to convince me. The whole issue feels a bit empty because nobody really knows God. How can you seriously argue whether you believe in God or not, when you don't even know what it is?

There are many theories, but the evidence is not consistent.
1) There is no god because no empirical evidence of him exists.
2) There is a god. There is no empirical evidence of him, but there is testamony of a subjective experience of "god".
3) There is a god and empirical evidence has yet to be found.

EDIT: Oops. Hypotheses, not theories.

Okay, I agree that there are hypotheses for which the evidence is not consistent, but it's not worth our time to consider them because they are clearly wrong. There is some set of hypotheses that are all consistent with the evidence, and they are what concern me.


On an unrelated note, Sydenia, you should stop talking because you are showing your ignorance of higher math. Infinities are often analyzed by mapping the elements of one to another, which allows us to make conclusions such as "there are just as many positive integers as there are integers" or "just as many numbers are divisible by 3 as are divisible by 89," but also "there are more rational numbers between 0 and 2 than there are positive integers" or "there are more surreal numbers than real numbers."

It depends on the strength of your convictions, but as an absolute, belief is arrogance because no one really knows.

Noone really knows anything. Yet we only question those who profess to know a few certain things. Is it not arrogance to believe that we know what is knowable when others do not?

I would appreciate a response, SI.

Here's a simple test for you. For a number to be larger than another number, you must be able to remove the smaller number from the larger number and still have something left.

Remove the 'smaller' infinity from the 'larger infinity'. Tell me what is left.

Goodnight sir. ;)
All decimals except whole numbers. Easy one, mortal.

Infinity doesn't just apply to math. :rolleyes: But in any event, you can always ignore my posts if they bother you that much. :p
No, but all forms of infinity can be expressed in higher math.

No, but all forms of infinity can be expressed in higher math.

How would you map an infinitely long string of yarn in higher math?

It is unscientific to claim something exists even when no empirical evidence of it has been found.

Yes, well, tell that to Einstien, Newton, and all the other scientists.

Now, I'm not claiming that a god DOES exist. But, let me ask you something: Does the Bible have, overall, good morals in it? For instance, in the Bible it tells you not to argue, steal, cheat, murder, commit adultery, ect. Now, just because you don't believe in Jesus, or whoever, doesn't mean that these aren't good values. Cheating on your wife is going to ruin your relationship. Stealing might throw you in jail. Arguing might get you fired.

I don't think I should force you to do anything. However, which is worse: To believe in a god, follow his principals, have a good life, and then it ends up he isn't real and you are in blank empty nothingness OR you don't believe in a god, are a jerk to everyone, and then it turns out he does exist and you rot in eternal torment.

I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have the first happen to me.

It would be impossible for God to be infinitely wise by Godel's theorem, which says that no system/unit can prove/know every axiom there is. For example, in the context of computeres, no comptuer is or ever will be able to solve ALL possible mathematical problems. In other words, no self-contained thing can ever know EVERYTHING there is to know, thus disproving the theory that God is all-knowing. I know this probably makes no sense, but look up Godels theorem on the internet and you will understand.

It would be impossible for God to be infinitely wise by Godel's theorem, which says that no system/unit can prove/know every axiom there is. For example, in the context of computeres, no comptuer is or ever will be able to solve ALL possible mathematical problems. In other words, no self-contained thing can ever know EVERYTHING there is to know, thus disproving the theory that God is all-knowing. I know this probably makes no sense, but look up Godels theorem on the internet and you will understand.

I doubt that looking it up will automatically confer understanding. One would have to have sufficient education to truly grasp it.

http://www.apatheticagnostic.com/images/aacwelcome2.jpg

My theory:

God himself created the universe. And because he created the universe, all the laws that apply to the universe do not apply to him. For instance, time does not apply to God, because God created time. (Now, on another unrelated note, this is why I believe God can tell if you are going to sin or not) I believe that when you die, everyone else will be dead as well. Thus, Godel's theory does not apply to him, because the theory is a law of this universe, and like I stated earlier, all the laws that apply to the universe do not apply to him.

Consider God's realm another dimension, just to make it simpler.

Care to show the longhand math on that one? ;)



Math, especially infinity, is largely estimates.

.999~ = 1. Does it really? Of course not. Nor does .333~ + .333~ + .333~ equal one. The inherent problem with using numbers to represent infinity is that numbers are finite, infinity isn't. ;)
First off, I do not have the space (infinite) to show you the longhand. Secondly, true math has no estimates, and in that is more precise than any branch of science. Approximations are used only by humans to make life easier. And this takes us to number three, your example. 0.333~ is not 1/3, as any mathematician will tell you. It is a decimal approximation used because 1/3 can only be expressed exactly as a fraction

Its not a matter of comparing numbers, its a matter of comparing sets. And why am I arguing math with you? You could find that I'm right in any library
An infinitely-sized set is infinite in size. Therefore both sets are equal size.

I doubt that looking it up will automatically confer understanding. One would have to have sufficient education to truly grasp it.

I assume you also know Godel's theorem? It is rather difficult to explain, isnt it? But once you get it, its a powerful concept.

My theory:

God himself created the universe. And because he created the universe, all the laws that apply to the universe do not apply to him. For instance, time does not apply to God, because God created time. (Now, on another unrelated note, this is why I believe God can tell if you are going to sin or not) I believe that when you die, everyone else will be dead as well. Thus, Godel's theory does not apply to him, because the theory is a law of this universe, and like I stated earlier, all the laws that apply to the universe do not apply to him.

Consider God's realm another dimension, just to make it simpler.

Thus, as i said before, the basis of my Agnosticism.

I assume you also know Godel's theorem? It is rather difficult to explain, isnt it? But once you get it, its a powerful concept.

I'm familiar with it, yes.

It is difficult to explain to those who are not so fortunate as to have the necessary background.

It is a very powerful concept indeed, but IMO it is not applied to important concepts often enough. :(

I think we've hijacked this thread enough for one night.

On that at least, we can surely agree.
I agreed a while ago, but you kept going. You're still wrong of course. On an unrelated note, who feels string theory is a good model for a hypothetical god?

My theory:

God himself created the universe. And because he created the universe, all the laws that apply to the universe do not apply to him. For instance, time does not apply to God, because God created time. (Now, on another unrelated note, this is why I believe God can tell if you are going to sin or not) I believe that when you die, everyone else will be dead as well. Thus, Godel's theory does not apply to him, because the theory is a law of this universe, and like I stated earlier, all the laws that apply to the universe do not apply to him.

Consider God's realm another dimension, just to make it simpler.

Well, consider the Bible, which mentions God's creation of the earth, though not of the nothingness itself, which is what mostly compromises our universe. To deny the Bible would be to deny the existence of God himself because that is where the notion of God came from (at least in the modern monotheistic sense), .

I confess that I am frankly lost by a post arguing that there is as much empirical evidence of broken heart as there is of God. Broken-heartedness is a feeling that is almost, if not totally, universally experienced, which is why it is so readily accepted. Feeling God, obviously, is not. Empirical evidence is something that is objectively verifiable by human experience, and so, former would fall in its definition while the latter would not.

I have known and had testamony from people who have claimed that they have never had a broken heart. It would seem that, for subjective feelings such as these, although all humans potentially have capacity to feel all feelings, not all do.

I agreed a while ago, but you kept going. You're still wrong of course. On an unrelated note, who feels string theory is a good model for a hypothetical god?

*raises eyebrows* What brings you to ask that question?

I have no problem telling a person there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Superman or Batman. There are no Vampires, Elves, Unicorns or Gods. What do theists and agnostics tell people? All of these entities may/probably/do exist because they cannot absolutely be proven not to?

I agreed a while ago, but you kept going. You're still wrong of course. On an unrelated note, who feels string theory is a good model for a hypothetical god?

Yes, I can't recall what made me pick it back up. ;) I had said goodnight, then something happened... could it be that someone said something... nah... surely after I'd agreed to end the conversation, nobody would try to spark it all over again with an obvious cheap shot. :o

Oh well. I guess we'll never know. ;)

I'd like to note, on-topic, that I agree with something that was said earlier. In practice, being atheist or agnostic is nearly indentical. The philisophical is the only real difference.

To avoid inciting any further debate of math, I'll remove my math related posts. We don't need someone coming along in 20 minutes and starting it all over again. Other users may leave theirs or delete them at their discretion.

Well, consider the Bible, which mentions God's creation of the earth, though not of the nothingness itself, which is what mostly compromises our universe. To deny the Bible would be to deny the existence of God himself because that is where the notion of God came from (at least in the modern monotheistic sense), .

I severly doubt this on a historical basis.

Okay, I agree that there are hypotheses for which the evidence is not consistent, but it's not worth our time to consider them because they are clearly wrong. There is some set of hypotheses that are all consistent with the evidence, and they are what concern me.

"Clearly wrong" based on what evidence? :-)

*raises eyebrows* What brings you to ask that question?
well, string theory could show god as a collective harmonic series of strings in a higher dimension (12th. a dozens a good number.) Hence infinite power by altering the vibrations on a series of strings.

To avoid inciting any further debate of math, I'll remove my math related posts. We don't need someone coming along in 20 minutes and starting it all over again. Other users may leave theirs or delete them at their discretion.

Don't do that. I am firmly against any kind of destruction of intellectual document, even that which I disaggree with.

well, string theory could show god as a collective harmonic series of strings in a higher dimension (12th. a dozens a good number.) Hence infinite power by altering the vibrations on a series of strings.

Ah. You are the first person I've known who has also considered that. Personally, I have not arrived at any conclusion on the issue.

*gives FAP a gold-colored sticker in the shape of a star*

I'm Agnostic also. People have to think pretty highly of themselves to believe that they have creation all figured out.

One would have to think very highly of ones self to believe that it was knowable that (G)od/gods were unknowable.

Don't do that. I am firmly against any kind of destruction of intellectual document, even that which I disaggree with.

Well, it would have helped if I'd refreshed before deleting all the posts. -.- They're still quoted in the replies though, so it shouldn't be hard to follow what is going on. Besides, as long as my posts existed, someone was bound to eventually disagree and derail the thread again. Pooh on that, I say.

It is unscientific to claim something exists even when no empirical evidence of it has been found.Yes, well, tell that to Einstien, Newton, and all the other scientists.
Actually, they're the ones who told me, through their writings.

Now, I'm not claiming that a god DOES exist. But, let me ask you something: Does the Bible have, overall, good morals in it? For instance, in the Bible it tells you not to argue, steal, cheat, murder, commit adultery, ect. Now, just because you don't believe in Jesus, or whoever, doesn't mean that these aren't good values. Cheating on your wife is going to ruin your relationship. Stealing might throw you in jail. Arguing might get you fired.
I am no expert on the Bible, but from what I have read it reflects morals that were appropriate for the times. Some work for us in modern times (are "good") and some don't (are "bad").

I don't think I should force you to do anything. However, which is worse: To believe in a god, follow his principals, have a good life, and then it ends up he isn't real and you are in blank empty nothingness OR you don't believe in a god, are a jerk to everyone, and then it turns out he does exist and you rot in eternal torment.

I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have the first happen to me.

Of the two (unlikely) scenarios you have offered, I would choose the first.

Ahh, the eternal battle rages on. Here's my two cents into the fray:

First off, religion and God have nothing to do with eachother. Religion, no matter how it is veiwed, is man made, and any divine force could exist regaurdless of any human's beliefs. Even if the person claimed to have been Divinely inspired, the person is still human. There is no reason that there could be no God if man had never developed religion, and none of those religions could ever "influance" God. Don't even get me started on any of that Jesus demi-god whatever. Save that discussion for another thread.

That having been said, on to God.

I regaurd theology as any science: it is developing. Just like people use to think the the Earth was the center of the universe (AND HAD THE MATH TO BACK UP the claim) the thought prevaield untill it was later disproven. The same with most of the more "early" religions, which have also now been disproven.

Theology to me is the rational cevelopment of what humans can understand of Divine Nature, as incredibly limited it might be. Mortal minds can just barely scratch the surface, because most of it is logically out of human understanding. SOMETHING is there, we just don't have the methods or means to even begin to understand it. It's like trying to unravel the mystery of DNA without having a microscope, labratory, or basic arithmatic.

Now I've heard a lot of hem-and-haw about how math can disprove God in some way. I see a slight hole in that logic:

Namely, that math and God are of the same nature.

I'll go off the idea that God is just a figmant of the imagination becuase when you think about it, so it math.

Both concepts can be argued to be entirely absract and only existing in the human imagination. Math does not exist in nature. Yes, there are various patterns and "natural laws" that some organisms follow, but even the very concept of numbers and naming quantities is a purely human creation.

So here's my question: Does the presence of one idea, which is inarguably a figmant of human imagination, negate the possibility of an idea which might not be purely in the imagination?

Ah. You are the first person I've known who has also considered that. Personally, I have not arrived at any conclusion on the issue.

*gives FAP a gold-colored sticker in the shape of a star*
It was proposed on an episode of NOVA. ;-)

SOMETHING is there, we just don't have the methods or means to even begin to understand it. It's like trying to unravel the mystery of DNA without having a microscope, labratory, or basic arithmatic.

Now I've heard a lot of hem-and-haw about how math can disprove God in some way. I see a slight hole in that logic:

Namely, that math and God are of the same nature.

I'll go off the idea that God is just a figmant of the imagination becuase when you think about it, so it math.

Both concepts can be argued to be entirely absract and only existing in the human imagination. Math does not exist in nature. Yes, there are various patterns and "natural laws" that some organisms follow, but even the very concept of numbers and naming quantities is a purely human creation.

So here's my question: Does the presence of one idea, which is inarguably a figmant of human imagination, negate the possibility of an idea which might not be purely in the imagination?
Sorry Sydenia, but I can't let this stand. Math is not purely human. Quantities, ratios, and all the way up to and past calculus math does exist in nature. Some is arbitrary, but mostly as a way to standardize and allow the progression to higher forms of math. Math is the demonstrable and logical relationship between things. Hence most of modern science, which you cannot deny, is based on mathematic principles. Vs god. Who has nothing but faith and the existence of the universe to back me up. The universe could have started without divine intervention, so DON'T LEAP TO CONCLUSIONS AND USED FAULTY OR FALSE LOGIC TO BACK IT UP!!!!!!!!!

It was proposed on an episode of NOVA. ;-)
It was? Then I've got to start watching NOVA. What channel?

It was proposed on an episode of NOVA. ;-)

You watch that show? You deserve a sticker as well! Because of my schedule I hardly ever watch TV anyomore except for news, so no NOVA for me. :(

It was? Then I've got to start watching NOVA. What channel?
PBS (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/)

I find it amusing that when you tried to troll me, you quoted Global People.

...boy, I need sleep. o__o;;

He wasn't trying to troll you. You had expressed a dislike for the hijacking of this thread into mathematics earlier. My bet is that FAP was acknowledging that.

Edit: Sydenia does indeed need sleep.

I wasn't trying to troll you, I just new you were against the introduction of math into the topic. I was apologizing for bringing it up. Go to sleep, and rest well.

He wasn't trying to troll you. You had expressed a dislike for the hijacking of this thread into mathematics earlier. My bet is that FAP was acknowledging that.

[points to deleted post] Nearly 3AM. Very, very tired. Misread post. Fixed now. All good.

[points to deleted post] Nearly 3AM. Very, very tired. Misread post. Fixed now. All good.

I already fixed my post too.

Thanks Willamena.

He wasn't trying to troll you. You had expressed a dislike for the hijacking of this thread into mathematics earlier. My bet is that FAP was acknowledging that.

Edit: Sydenia does indeed need sleep.
Why do we sound identical?

Why do we sound identical?

Because we have similar modes of written expression?

Sorry Sydenia, but I can't let this stand. Math is not purely human. Quantities, ratios, and all the way up to and past calculus math does exist in nature. Some is arbitrary, but mostly as a way to standardize and allow the progression to higher forms of math. Math is the demonstrable and logical relationship between things. Hence most of modern science, which you cannot deny, is based on mathematic principles. Vs god. Who has nothing but faith and the existence of the universe to back me up. The universe could have started without divine intervention, so DON'T LEAP TO CONCLUSIONS AND USED FAULTY OR FALSE LOGIC TO BACK IT UP!!!!!!!!!
"Math is the demonstrable and logical relationship between things." And hence, requires a mind to rationalize it. You cannot remove the conscious human viewer from the equation and still have any "logical relationship".

"Math is the demonstrable and logical relationship between things." And hence, requires a mind to rationalize it. You cannot remove the conscious human viewer from the equation and still have any "logical relationship".

Well, you actually could remove the conscious human viewer, but you would have to replace it with an equivalent or possibly greater entity.

"Math is the demonstrable and logical relationship between things." And hence, requires a mind to rationalize it. You cannot remove the conscious human viewer from the equation and still have any "logical relationship".
Not true. Concious logic is based on the demostrable principles of the universe, for example if magnets attract iron, and there is a magnet and some iron, the iron will be attracted to the magnet. If you remove a concious human viewer, the iron will still stick to the magnet. And without the knowledge magnets attract iron a person will still see bits of metal move towards each other. The logic is applying two known, related facts to figure out what will happen, or to reverse the process and determine a fact from a known event. It is to this and the demonstrable facts behind the principles I referred to, not our determination of them.

"Clearly wrong" based on what evidence? :-)

"Inconsistent" is largely synonymous with "wrong." Thus, stating that there exist theories that are inconsistent, but they are wrong, is not much of a statement at all and certainly not one that deserves to be challenged.

To clarify, I believe that there are infinitely many hypotheses about the existence of God that are comparable to the set of statements {1: If A, then B; 2: If not B, then A}. It is an inconsistent set, because all the statements taken together form a contradiction.

i think they are essentially the same since in practice they are indistinguishable. so an agnostic is more open to the idea that god may exist than i am, he is not DOING anything about it. he doesnt drop into the catholic church and light a few candles "just in case".
he goes about his business as if god DOESNT exist but he will jump on it if he ever finds some evidence for the existance of god presents itself (which it wont because god doesnt exist)

Ever hear of Pascal's wager? You'd be better off beliveing in God, even if he doesn't exist. In other words, even as a agnostic, you should be lighting candles. It might be enough...

Ever hear of Pascal's wager? You'd be better off beliveing in God, even if he doesn't exist. In other words, even as a agnostic, you should be lighting candles. It might be enough...
But with so many religions, and most of the major ones saying if you follow another do not pass go, do not collect $200, how would an agnostic cover their bets?

Originally Posted by Igwanarno
Okay, I agree that there are hypotheses for which the evidence is not consistent, but it's not worth our time to consider them because they are clearly wrong.Originally Posted by Willamena
"Clearly wrong" based on what evidence? :-)"Inconsistent" is largely synonymous with "wrong." Thus, stating that there exist theories that are inconsistent, but they are wrong, is not much of a statement at all and certainly not one that deserves to be challenged.
Sorry, but I'm afraid it does have to be challenged as you seem to be mixing up ideas.
- First, as I'm sure you're aware, an hypothesis isn't a theory, just a statement of supposition, of possibility. (That's why I edited it to amend the word 'theory' to 'hypothesis'.)
- Second, that the hypotheses are created on evidence that is inconsistent doesn't mean that the hypotheses are inconsistent, just that they are not readily comparable, such as for the purposes of this Razor thing.
- Third, hypotheses that are inconsistent are not all automatically "wrong" just because they are inconsistent. In this case, some of them are not properly testable (made into theories) because no empirical evidence has been presented.

Originally Posted by Igwanarno
There is some set of hypotheses that are all consistent with the evidence, and they are what concern me.To clarify, I believe that there are infinitely many hypotheses about the existence of God that are comparable to the set of statements {1: If A, then B; 2: If not B, then A}. It is an inconsistent set, because all the statements taken together form a contradiction.
Yes, but the hypotheses as presented earlier do not fit into this logical premise.

Originally Posted by Willamena
"Math is the demonstrable and logical relationship between things." And hence, requires a mind to rationalize it. You cannot remove the conscious human viewer from the equation and still have any "logical relationship".Not true. Concious logic is based on the demostrable principles of the universe, for example if magnets attract iron, and there is a magnet and some iron, the iron will be attracted to the magnet. If you remove a concious human viewer, the iron will still stick to the magnet. And without the knowledge magnets attract iron a person will still see bits of metal move towards each other. The logic is applying two known, related facts to figure out what will happen, or to reverse the process and determine a fact from a known event. It is to this and the demonstrable facts behind the principles I referred to, not our determination of them.
Alright, then, if there's no conscious intellect present, who is this "logic" being demonstrated to?

i'm an agnostic humanist. i don't think that it's possible to know one way or the other and i don't really think it matters with regards to our lives really. as far as everyone knows, we have one life, whether there's something after it or not, we don't know. we can hope there is something, we can believe there is something, but really, all we're left with is one life for certain, so we might as well all live it to the fullest and try to make it as pleasant as possible for the people around us who could also only have one shot at this whole thing called existance.

Ever hear of Pascal's wager? You'd be better off beliveing in God, even if he doesn't exist. In other words, even as a agnostic, you should be lighting candles. It might be enough...

but if the hindhus and buddhists are right, then it doesn't matter so long as you live a good life.

if the ancient egyptians are right, then everyone who's not mummified is screwed.

pascal's wager assumes that only one religion has a chance at being right.

Ever hear of Pascal's wager? You'd be better off beliveing in God, even if he doesn't exist. In other words, even as a agnostic, you should be lighting candles. It might be enough...
you mean ODIN will be impressed that i stopped into the local catholic church?

what religion should i wager on? hmmm is the ancient egyptian pantheon the oldest known? maybe i should try that one?

since this isnt a "religious" thread, but a discussion of atheism vs agnosticism...

the sheer variety of human religions argues against any of them being correct. an all loving all powerful god who cared about how we conduct our religious lives would hardly leave out the vast mulitidues of people throughout the ages who have had ZERO chance of learning the "truth".

shouldnt he have dropped in on papua-new guinea somewhere along the line and told them that they were going in the wrong direction? arent they important enough, GOOD enough to get a message from god?

extrapolate that on your own to all the different religious traditions of the world....

so this god is either NOT all loving, all powerful (since he leaves out billions of people from his path to salvation) or he doesnt really care WHAT you believe or do religiously.

id like an answer to that, what do YOU think? as an atheist, MYanswer is "he doesnt exist so he cant be giving revelations to every civilization" but if you believe that a god does or might exist, what is your preferred take on that problem?

i was going to say more but that problem interests me. what do you think?

since this isnt a "religious" thread, but a discussion of atheism vs agnosticism...

the sheer variety of human religions argues against any of them being correct. an all loving all powerful god who cared about how we conduct our religious lives would hardly leave out the vast mulitidues of people throughout the ages who have had ZERO chance of learning the "truth".

shouldnt he have dropped in on papua-new guinea somewhere along the line and told them that they were going in the wrong direction? arent they important enough, GOOD enough to get a message from god?

extrapolate that on your own to all the different religious traditions of the world....

so this god is either NOT all loving, all powerful (since he leaves out billions of people from his path to salvation) or he doesnt really care WHAT you believe or do religiously.

id like an answer to that, what do YOU think? as an atheist, MYanswer is "he doesnt exist so he cant be giving revelations to every civilization" but if you believe that a god does or might exist, what is your preferred take on that problem?

i was going to say more but that problem interests me. what do you think?

Saying that God does not exist is just as bad as being a religious freak.

You can't possibly know these things!

Personally I'm an atheistand to religious is a human concept designed to expalin the unexplained. in essense it is philosophy taken literally. You could almost say science is today's religon, particularly in the west. I find the whole concept of (G)od/s rather absurd but if other people want to worship a diety they belive exist I fully support it - it's the placebo effect in theological form. Just as long as they don't impose their beliefs on others (which they have a habit of doing...leave me to my 'damnation'!).

As an hypthetical aside, if there were/was a '(G)od/s' which would he/she/they think more highly of - someone who thought about religion and decided (G)od/s don't exist or someone who just went along with what they were told?
If this/these (G)od/s decides to burn everyone who did go to church every Sunday, light some candles, give loadsa cash to the church, let the bishop fondle them, dunk their baby in 'holy' water..etc...won't we Atheists have a large majority of the world burning with us. I mean if the Christian God is the 'real' one then all the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Taoists, etc.. are royally screwed. Same goes for all religions. Or they could all be wrong. So if God exists then us Atheists are in good company. :D

Saying that God does not exist is just as bad as being a religious freak.

You can't possibly know these things!
and just which GOD am i supposed to believe in?

Sorry, but I'm afraid it does have to be challenged as you seem to be mixing up ideas.
- First, as I'm sure you're aware, an hypothesis isn't a theory, just a statement of supposition, of possibility. (That's why I edited it to amend the word 'theory' to 'hypothesis'.)
- Second, that the hypotheses are created on evidence that is inconsistent doesn't mean that the hypotheses are inconsistent, just that they are not readily comparable, such as for the purposes of this Razor thing.
- Third, hypotheses that are inconsistent are not all automatically "wrong" just because they are inconsistent. In this case, some of them are not properly testable (made into theories) because no empirical evidence has been presented.

-First, I don't see how that's relevant.
-Second, if there is evidence that is inconsistent without any hypothesis attached, that's very very bad, because it means logic no longer applies to the universe in any way.
-Third, if there is no evidence it is very hard to construct an inconsistent hypothesis (it has to directly contradict itself).

Yes, but the hypotheses as presented earlier do not fit into this logical premise.

I'm not addressing the hypotheses presented earlier. They were all (IIRC) consistent.

If you want to discuss this using the same words that I am, read a bit about Consistency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistency_proof).

Saying that God does not exist is just as bad as being a religious freak.

You can't possibly know these things!
saying that Santa doesn't exist is just as bad as being a faithful Santa-worshipper. FAITHFUL SANTA-WORSHIPPERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!

-First, I don't see how that's relevant...
Haha. :-) Well, it's only relevant in so far as I thought you were replying to my posts, but as I see you're not so I'll just sit and listen.

Carry on.

I sometimes wonder whether I'm a proper athiest, or just a cynical agnostic. I find the idea of God extremely implausible, and the logic behind most religions highly suspect, but yet I can't be so arrogant as to claim I understand the universe well enough to rule the possibility out entirely, with a 100% degree of certainty.

I believe that God is a self-contradictory concept, therefore it is possible to know of its nonexistence.

I sometimes wonder whether I'm a proper athiest, or just a cynical agnostic. I find the idea of God extremely implausible, and the logic behind most religions highly suspect, but yet I can't be so arrogant as to claim I understand the universe well enough to rule the possibility out entirely, with a 100% degree of certainty.
you're agnostic, since you admit that you cannot (currently) know for certain about the existence of God. i'm pretty much in the same boat as you; i can't disprove God and thus cannot disbelieve God, but i think God is as likely to exist as Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy, so i treat God accordingly :).

But, let me ask you something: Does the Bible have, overall, good morals in it?

If you choose to ignore the books of Moses, almost. I can't see how stoning one's son to death for being lazy, taking young girls as slaves, or slaughtering your family for worshipping another god, can possibly be morally justified behaviour.

I sometimes wonder whether I'm a proper athiest, or just a cynical agnostic. I find the idea of God extremely implausible, and the logic behind most religions highly suspect, but yet I can't be so arrogant as to claim I understand the universe well enough to rule the possibility out entirely, with a 100% degree of certainty.
that doesnt bother me a bit. the 1 in a billion chance in my mind that god exists doesnt make me an agnostic. seems to me that to be a real agnostic you have to be interested in the question, actively trying to figure it out perhaps. not just "well its not an absolute utter impossibility"

that doesnt bother me a bit. the 1 in a billion chance in my mind that god exists doesnt make me an agnostic. seems to me that to be a real agnostic you have to be interested in the question, actively trying to figure it out perhaps. not just "well its not an absolute utter impossibility"

Oh... In that case, I'm probably an athiest then. I don't really entertain the possibility; I just can't conclusively rule it out due to lack of complete information.

When there are two theories both consistent with the evidence, scientists employ Occam's Razor to choose between them.
In this case, the theory that God exists and the theory that he doesn't are both consistent with the evidence. However, it is simpler to believe that God does not exist than that he does. Thus, a scientific person who is unsure of God's existence concludes that He does not exist. Of course this could change when new evidence is introduced, but that is true of all theories and you don't hear anyone doubting Newton's Laws because we "can't be 100% sure."


Newton's Laws have been proven to work time and time again,within the confines of the 4 dimensions of the universe that we live in,and then again only under conditions.Try applying Newton's Laws to a galaxy size body and you will get undefined or incorrect results.Of course,whether Newton's Laws exist or not can be debated.They have a form of existence.Similarly,one can apply such thinking to 'God(s)'.For me,I was Catholic,deconverted to agnosticism and have since become an aldeist with a theistic bent.

It can swing both ways.Me,I'd rather live in the here and now than bother with such abstractions.

http://www.apatheticagnostic.com/

Albert Einstein doubted Newton's laws. Hence, the theory of relativity.

The Santa Claus/God argument for and against their existence is in error.

-God(s) are entities posited as immaterial and of a high toposophic level,basically hypersentient beyond our current reckoning.
-Santa Claus is a mythological figure derived from Judeo-Christian mythology and a figure from European folklore,Saint Nicholas,who has been given physical form.
-As one is posited as immaterial and another physical,they cannot be used to argue for the others existence.As Santa Claus is physical,he is therefore confined to the physics of our universe,its limits and laws.Furthermore,he is confined to this planet.His job requires him to cross the world and supply gifts to 'good' children,though what the definition of good is depends on the cultures involved.Now,his crossing the world would require him to violate national borders on the 25th every single day,crossing military and civilian radar networks.Similarly,at the speed he is going,this fat overweight bastard and illegal immigrant who violates international immigration laws as well as air traffic laws would end up burning himself,his sleigh and his reindeer due to the friction between them and the atmosphere.

If he did exist,then we would hear consistent reports of an anamolous UFO from radar networks across the world every late December.Similarly,he requires chimneys to access households,breaking and entering peoples homes.My home has no chimney and is heavily alarmed,as well as guarded by 3 fierce dogs,so if this fat fucker did exist,he would be dead by now if he set foot into the house,because either my dogs would maul him to death or I would use a kukri and slit his throat.

Image of a kukri

http://www.army.lt/history/swords/kukri.jpg

Since non of this occurs,we can conclude that Santa Claus exists only as a mythological figure in the Western European and American Christan meme complex.

However,God(s) are immaterial and supposedly varied.For Hindus,since their Supreme Being,Brahma,is immanent,immaterial and everything is an extension,a manifestation of Brahmas essence,and according to their scripture the Bhagavad Ghita,no matter which belief system or deity you pray to,in the end,you pary to Brahma.

Now,God(s) are posited to be immaterial and hence,they need not necessarily follow the same rules as us,for they can supposedly exist in other dimensions,planes of existence,realms,universes,etc.As such,these entities are not constrained by the same physical laws as us.

Moreever,there are various types of evidence that can prove or disprove the existence of these various entities.You hear consistent reports of people experiencing something that they term 'God" from all over the globe.Such experience is anecdotal and experiential.Similarly,you have your philosophical,logical,empirical,legal and scientific methods of inquiry which can add credence to these arguments for and against God(s).

Conclusively,we can say that Santa Clause sure as hell does not exist as he would have been surely shot down by the air defence network of any country by now.On the theory of immaterial God(s),I can say with confidence that personally,I don't havea a fucking clue because it can go either way,though my belief system has a theistic bent.

Something to think about:

Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher, Bach
All consistent axiomatic formulations of number theory include undecidable propositions ...

Gödel showed that provability is a weaker notion than truth, no matter what axiom system is involved ...

How can you figure out if you are sane? ... Once you begin to question your own sanity, you get trapped in an ever-tighter vortex of self-fulfilling prophecies, though the process is by no means inevitable. Everyone knows that the insane interpret the world via their own peculiarly consistent logic; how can you tell if your own logic is "peculiar' or not, given that you have only your own logic to judge itself? I don't see any answer. I am reminded of Gödel's second theorem, which implies that the only versions of formal number theory which assert their own consistency are inconsistent.

The other metaphorical analogue to Gödel's Theorem which I find provocative suggests that ultimately, we cannot understand our own mind/brains ... Just as we cannot see our faces with our own eyes, is it not inconceivable to expect that we cannot mirror our complete mental structures in the symbols which carry them out? All the limitative theorems of mathematics and the theory of computation suggest that once the ability to represent your own structure has reached a certain critical point, that is the kiss of death: it guarantees that you can never represent yourself totally.


----------------------------------------------------------
Rucker, Infinity and the Mind
The proof of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is so simple, and so sneaky, that it is almost embarassing to relate. His basic procedure is as follows:

Someone introduces Gödel to a UTM, a machine that is supposed to be a Universal Truth Machine, capable of correctly answering any question at all.
Gödel asks for the program and the circuit design of the UTM. The program may be complicated, but it can only be finitely long. Call the program P(UTM) for Program of the Universal Truth Machine.
Smiling a little, Gödel writes out the following sentence: "The machine constructed on the basis of the program P(UTM) will never say that this sentence is true." Call this sentence G for Gödel. Note that G is equivalent to: "UTM will never say G is true."
Now Gödel laughs his high laugh and asks UTM whether G is true or not.
If UTM says G is true, then "UTM will never say G is true" is false. If "UTM will never say G is true" is false, then G is false (since G = "UTM will never say G is true"). So if UTM says G is true, then G is in fact false, and UTM has made a false statement. So UTM will never say that G is true, since UTM makes only true statements.
We have established that UTM will never say G is true. So "UTM will never say G is true" is in fact a true statement. So G is true (since G = "UTM will never say G is true").
"I know a truth that UTM can never utter," Gödel says. "I know that G is true. UTM is not truly universal."
Think about it - it grows on you ...

With his great mathematical and logical genius, Gödel was able to find a way (for any given P(UTM)) actually to write down a complicated polynomial equation that has a solution if and only if G is true. So G is not at all some vague or non-mathematical sentence. G is a specific mathematical problem that we know the answer to, even though UTM does not! So UTM does not, and cannot, embody a best and final theory of mathematics ...

Although this theorem can be stated and proved in a rigorously mathematical way, what it seems to say is that rational thought can never penetrate to the final ultimate truth ... But, paradoxically, to understand Gödel's proof is to find a sort of liberation. For many logic students, the final breakthrough to full understanding of the Incompleteness Theorem is practically a conversion experience. This is partly a by-product of the potent mystique Gödel's name carries. But, more profoundly, to understand the essentially labyrinthine nature of the castle is, somehow, to be free of it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
He proved it impossible to establish the internal logical consistency of a very large class of deductive systems - elementary arithmetic, for example - unless one adopts principles of reasoning so complex that their internal consistency is as open to doubt as that of the systems themselves ... Second main conclusion is ... Gödel showed that Principia, or any other system within which arithmetic can be developed, is essentially incomplete. In other words, given any consistent set of arithmetical axioms, there are true mathematical statements that cannot be derived from the set... Even if the axioms of arithmetic are augmented by an indefinite number of other true ones, there will always be further mathematical truths that are not formally derivable from the augmented set.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Boyer, History of Mathematics

Gödel showed that within a rigidly logical system such as Russell and Whitehead had developed for arithmetic, propositions can be formulated that are undecidable or undemonstrable within the axioms of the system. That is, within the system, there exist certain clear-cut statements that can neither be proved or disproved. Hence one cannot, using the usual methods, be certain that the axioms of arithmetic will not lead to contradictions ... It appears to foredoom hope of mathematical certitude through use of the obvious methods. Perhaps doomed also, as a result, is the ideal of science - to devise a set of axioms from which all phenomena of the external world can be deduced.


http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/CDMTCS/chaitin/georgia.html (a link to the International Journal of Theoretica Physics about Godel's Incompleteness Theorem).

As you can see,we can apply Godel's Incompleteness Theorem to the argument that posits whether or not beings of such magnitude exist.And we can see that his theorem,in my opinion,defeats both sides arguing for and against God(s).In the end,the only winner of the argument are the agnostics.

Santa Claus is a physical being, but he uses magic. That's pretty clear. Everyone knows reindeer can't fly and fat men can't fit through chimneys, so there's no doubt that if Santa exists he does not obey all of our laws of physics. As such, I see no reason why he needs to obey any.

Conclusively,we can say that Santa Clause sure as hell does not exist as he would have been surely shot down by the air defence network of any country by now.On the theory of immaterial God(s),I can say with confidence that personally,I don't havea a fucking clue because it can go either way,though my belief system has a theistic bent.

nicely said
but
arent god's as we think of them more than just guys who have extradimensional existence?

to be god for christians, jews, muslims this guy would have to be all loving, all knowing, all powerful.

to be a greek god he would have to have power over the world and ME.

otherwise they are some kind of ....gremlin... or something. hardly a being who deserves my worship

Clarke's Three Laws(taken from www.fact-index.com)

Science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke formulated the following three laws:

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Clarke's Law, later the first of the three laws, was proposed by Arthur C. Clarke in the essay "Hazards of Prophecy: The Failure of Imagination", in Profiles of the Future (1962). The second law is offered as a simple observation in the same essay; its status as Clarke's Second Law was conferred on it by others. In a revised edition of Profiles of the Future (1973), Clarke acknowledged the Second Law and proposed the Third in order to round out the numbers, adding "As three laws were good enough for Newton, I have modestly decided to stop there."
Other writers have since proposed corollaries to Clarke's laws:

;Isaac Asimov's Corollary to Clarke's First Law (not actually a corollary, strictly speaking):When, however, the lay public rallies round an idea that is denounced by distinguished but elderly scientists and supports that idea with great fervor and emotion — the distinguished but elderly scientists are then, after all, probably right.

;Gregory Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Third Law:Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced
-------------------------------------------------------------------
(http://www.lsi.usp.br/~rbianchi/clarke/ACC.Laws.html)

In the book Profiles of the Future: An Inquiry into the Limits of the Possible Arthur C. Clarke states his three Laws, which are formulated as follows:

Clarke's First Law:
"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

Clarke defines the adjective 'elderly' as :"In physics, mathematics and astronautics it means over thirty; in other disciplines, senile decay is sometimes postponed to the forties. There are of course, glorious exceptions; but as every researcher just out of college knows, scientists of over fifty are good for nothing but board meetings, and should at all costs be kept out of the laboratory". (in Profiles of the Future.)


Clarke's Second Law:
"The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
As Arthur C. Clarke's Laws have held until now,perhaps we can posit that Santa Claus uses highly advanced technology that seems magic.Imo,I am unsure about the existence of magic.I am a paranormal investigator in my home country,and I have seen that and heard stuff that is pretty damn hard to believe.I always try to reserve judgements until I receive more information about a subject.

Clarke's Third Law:
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Thought he wrote after the laws that "Since three laws was sufficient for both the Isaacs - Newton and Asimov - I have decided to stop here", he continued to write laws, as we can see in the Appendix 2 of The Odissey File where he states th e Clarke's 69th Law:

"Reading computer manuals without the hardware is as frustrating as reading sex manuals without the software."

i think they are essentially the same since in practice they are indistinguishable. so an agnostic is more open to the idea that god may exist than i am, he is not DOING anything about it. he doesnt drop into the catholic church and light a few candles "just in case".
he goes about his business as if god DOESNT exist but he will jump on it if he ever finds some evidence for the existance of god presents itself (which it wont because god doesnt exist)

In terms of practice, though, I have witnessed atheists attempting to force others (most often, their children) toward their beliefs. This is not something that I see in agnostics.

Beliefs do have an impact upon actions, and atheists, just like most theists, have an affirmative belief in their capacity to divine the nature of humanity's relationship to the supernatural.

I believe in Jehova and Lucifer, I don't on the other hand believe they are the definition of what you consider gods. Simply incredibly powerful, advanced beings. It is impossible to really know if there is a God in the classical sense.

In terms of practice, though, I have witnessed atheists attempting to force others (most often, their children) toward their beliefs. This is not something that I see in agnostics.

Beliefs do have an impact upon actions, and atheists, just like most theists, have an affirmative belief in their capacity to divine the nature of humanity's relationship to the supernatural.
cant you just see it now?

agnostic: "dont be so SURE, dammit. have less conviction!"

not that i personally care what other people believe. but i certainly know of people whose mission in life is to destroy other peoples belief in god.

i remember a friend of mine, an atheist, who was very upset when one of her brothers became a born-again christian. she hit me when i told her it was her cross to bear.

i remember a friend of mine, an atheist, who was very upset when one of her brothers became a born-again christian. she hit me when i told her it was her cross to bear.

Now, that's good satire! LOL

Image of a kukri

Was it really necessary to specify what precise implement you would cut his throat with, in this wildly hypothetical scenario? It's not like it makes you special because you know what a kukri is. :p

I've never heard the word agnosticism before now.

Lots of folks confusing religion and the concept of "God". The concept of God is merely the concept of something existing that defies all reason, limits, explaination, understanding and imagination. By its very nature, the concept of God is going to be discarded by anyone who can not "wrap them selves" around the unknowable. God is basically just a word to define the undefinable, the unknowable.

Religion, on the other hand is man's attempt to reason, limit, explain, understand, imagine, define, and know God. For the math junkies: Religion is the mathematical equivalent of trying to express infinity as a a specific whole number. Atheists and religious pratictioners are essentially the same.

They both reject the idea of something existing that defies defies all reason, limits, explaination, understanding and imagination. The difference is that the relgious create their own little system where it all makes sense to them and atheists don't bother.

This is not new, but its way underdebated.

I'm Agnositic.

Agnostic 100%.

Agnostics rely on ideas
atheists rely on faith
Religious rely on faith