NationStates Jolt Archive

I'll post my reasoning in a minute...but what about you? Agree? Disagree? Don't believe in his existence or don't know? What shall NS say on this...

Bogeyman invented by clever people to gain power over not so clever people. Yeah, that's pretty easy to comprehend.

God always takes the last slice of Pizza. :(

I have, erm, not-yet-provable knowledge of Jehovah (and of myself, for that matter), so let's just say that christianity is way off and be done with it.

Yahweh

Personally I believe in his existence but don't worship him. He's overrated and not the true creator...so what you said, DrunkenDove, minus the "invented" part. The Bible actually shows him thinking and feeling like a human, so...he's not the other. That's just an excuse made by modern Christians (no offense).

I have, erm, not-yet-provable knowledge of Jehovah (and of myself, for that matter), so let's just say that christianity is way off and be done with it.

I'll meet you on that.

You need a poll option for "doesn't matter".

I'll meet you on that.

Good, good. When I figure out a way of proving my statement I shall gladly share the proof, but I fear that right now I'm in a position somewhat like Copernicus was when he realized the earth circled the sun, not the other way around.


Copernicus: Dude! The earth circles the sun, not the other way around!
Critic: And you say that because...?
Copernicus: Umm... my studies say that it makes more sense?
Critic: SKETCHES NAO!!!
Copernicus: ...

You need a poll option for "doesn't matter".

That would be "don't know". And @Lorenya: Just wondering...do you stand with any of the major "god-worshiping" religions?

That would be "don't know". And @Lorenya: Just wondering...do you stand with any of the major "god-worshiping" religions?

No, "don't know" is a bit different from "it doesn't matter". "don't know" implies that maybe the answer could matter or that an answer is being sought. "it doesn't matter" states that even if an answer is known, it is also known that the answer doesn't matter.

That would be "don't know". And @Lorenya: Just wondering...do you stand with any of the major "god-worshiping" religions?

Nope -- I'd say the most accurate human religion would be buddhism, and even that's MAYBE 20% accurate.

True..."don't know" can also be a catch-all...and even if it's irrelevant, the question could still be answered with any of the above.

God is completely a man created concept, by definition god is completely comprehensible or otherwise the concept of god could never have developed.

Well, I believe God' Omnipotence is beyond human comprehension (I still get a headache when I try to understand what a place without time would be like), but God, for the most part, is within our comprehension.

There's so much I cannot comprehend at the moment so... I don't really know.

There's so much I cannot comprehend at the moment so... I don't really know.

Human comprehension is beyond human comprehension. *nod*

Human comprehension is beyond human comprehension. *nod*

Yes it is. *nod*

Nope -- I'd say the most accurate human religion would be buddhism, and even that's MAYBE 20% accurate.

Awesome. You're more like me then. :D

And @Nanatsu: Or is it?

And @Nanatsu: Or is it?

Who knows. I don't. :)

Nope -- I'd say the most accurate human religion would be buddhism, and even that's MAYBE 20% accurate.

Jainism is infinitely more humane and sensible though. Mind you I think it's just the least crazy of a super plus crazy group so...

I have,erm, not-yet-provable knowledge of Jehovah (and of myself, for that matter), so let's just say that christianity is way off and be done with it.

Riiight...

Tell me when the happy men take you to the bright room with the padded walls.

Riiight...

Tell me when the happy men take you to the bright room with the padded walls.

Oh, come now -- did you really think that I didn't expect replies like that? I know full well that there are people who don't believe me, and I know full well that even if the clouds suddenly rearranged themselves to spell out "DRAGONATMA IS CORRECT AND CHRISATIANITY IS A LIE" there'll still be people who don't believe me.

I'll post my reasoning in a minute...but what about you? Agree? Disagree? Don't believe in his existence or don't know? What shall NS say on this...There are some religions in which this is true and some not. In Catholicism, for example, it is by definition not true (although a limited amount of comprehension is possible, of course), which may pose problems for your proof if you think it applies to Catholicism.

Human comprehension is beyond human comprehension. *nod*

*tips hat*

Why worry about it anyways? You got some creme pie on hand, mayhaps?









ALSO

I voted "I don't know", which seemed uniquely appropriate. Whether or not s/he is beyond human comprehension is not my realm of expertise, although I'm certain that s/he is far more complex than anything I can work out internally.

*tips hat*

Why worry about it anyways? You got some creme pie on hand, mayhaps?

*tosses several* Yep. :)

*tosses several* Yep. :)

*runs finger down cheek, licks*

Yep, delicious as always :)

I'll just say that it's very easy for modern humans to dismiss the multitude of Gods that people worshipped in the days of Egypt, Greece, and Rome. This leads me to believe that people are for the most part totally rational.

"Of course their Gods were just invisible men in the sky with no legitimate historical base."

But when you talk about THEIR God, woah...

He is. I know it! Ask me any question about god, and i can answer it.

Of course God isn't beyond human comprehension. Humans invented Him.

He is. I know it! Ask me any question about god, and i can answer it.

Why do His fan clubs suck so much?

Human comprehension is beyond human comprehension. *nod*

Literally, physiologically, psychologically and philosophically true. Absolutely well said, O Holy MudTacoPieness.

I'll post my reasoning in a minute...but what about you? Agree? Disagree? Don't believe in his existence or don't know? What shall NS say on this...
to paraphrase laotzu

the god you can understand is not the real god.

Nope -- I'd say the most accurate human religion would be buddhism, and even that's MAYBE 20% accurate.
what is accurate about it?

Oh, come now -- did you really think that I didn't expect replies like that? I know full well that there are people who don't believe me, and I know full well that even if the clouds suddenly rearranged themselves to spell out "DRAGONATMA IS CORRECT AND CHRISATIANITY IS A LIE" there'll still be people who don't believe me.

But having no provable knowledge, and you expect us to believe it? Come on, at least have some respect for the reasonable, rational people who don't despise all religion. Don't expect people not to doubt you.

Those kind of people join Southern Baptist Churches.:p

But having no provable knowledge, and you expect us to believe it? Come on, at least have some respect for the reasonable, rational people who don't despise all religion. Don't expect people not to doubt you.

Those kind of people join Southern Baptist Churches.:p



I actually half-support her...although eclectic paganism's more accurate than buddhism, I think.

Bogeyman invented by clever people to gain power over not so clever people. Yeah, that's pretty easy to comprehend.

^^^This

Why do His fan clubs suck so much?

Because they're made up of fanboys who take everything so damn seriously.

Meaningless question, is meaningless.

The list of things beyond human comprehension is FAR more inclusive then the question of Gods existence or not

God's reasoning and ways are beyond our comprehension so I answered no. Although reading through he is understandable in what he wants for humans. So my answer may be a yes and no.

Since you asked...

I believe that God can be comprehended by the human heart. I believe that Jesus is God expressed in human terms, that He illustrates the nature of our Eternal Father (perfect love, perfect mercy, perfect justice).

"Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father" -- John 14:9

So, can God be comprehended? Yes, to a point.. I believe so.

No you idiots because he doesn't exist.

No you idiots because he doesn't exist.

Source please.:p

Well, prove he exists.

Well, prove he exists.

I can't, but you cannot prove that he doesn't exist.

Yes, yes I can.

Follow the theory of evolution and atheism.

I think they work well in conjunction to each other in comparison to your magical '' SKY DADDY '' theory.

I thought the point wasn't to argue whether or not God existed but to take for granted, for the sake of argument, that he does exist and that if such a being does exist would the being be beyond human comprehension. In that case, I say yes he would because if he could understand the being than we are only a short hop away from being able to do the things that being does. When LG can turn a mud pie into a jello shot, then I'll believe that God is within human comprehension.

God is very easy to comprehend since he's entirely a human construct whether or not he does exist.

God is very easy to comprehend since he's entirely a human construct whether or not he does exist.

Wouldn't he not be a human construct if he does exist or does he exist because humans constructed him?

Yes, yes I can.

Follow the theory of evolution and atheism.

I think they work well in conjunction to each other in comparison to your magical '' SKY DADDY '' theory.

First off, I'm an Agnostic Christian who believes that evolution is true.

Second off, there truly is no way that you can prove that God does NOT exist. Evolution does not necessarily exclude God, and Atheism is based on belief every much as Christianity.

Wouldn't he not be a human construct if he does exist or does he exist because humans constructed him?

He exists because humans constructed him. Same as every other divine being throughout history.

Conservative Morality, are you retarded or something?
Atheism isn't based around belief the fuck are you on about?

He exists because humans constructed him. Same as every other divine being throughout history.

Confused...

I don't believe in the existence of God. Agnostic or agnostic-athiest or whatever. But if he does exist, I was just saying that he wouldn't be a human construct. I was wondering if you were saying that he would still be a human construct if he was proven to exist. I know people who believe similar things and the idea of that confuses and interests me.

Conservative Morality, are you retarded or something?
Atheism isn't based around belief the fuck are you on about?

Atheism is based around the belief that there is no God.

You may call me retarded if it makes you feel better, but I'll still need you to prove to me that atheism is not based around belief.

Conservative Morality, are you retarded or something?
Atheism isn't based around belief the fuck are you on about?

The concept that nothing exists and there is no after life is a belief last I checked; and you spelled his name wrong.

BTW that counts as flaming, watch what you say; never attck the poster just the post.

Athiesm isn't based around any type of belief, I mean you dont class it as a religion

Its based around the concept that god does not exist.

Athiesm isn't based around any type of belief, I mean you dont class it as a religion

Its based around the concept that god does not exist.

Unless you're open to the idea that God can exist, than you are using a belief system. You're taking something on faith.

The concept that nothing exists and there is no after life is a belief last I checked; and you spelled his name wrong.
They always add the V.:(
Athiesm isn't based around any type of belief, I mean you dont class it as a religion

Its based around the concept that god does not exist.
It is based around the belief that God does not exist. Everything that can not be proven, is not known, merely believed in. Atheism, the belief that there is not God, cannot be proven, because the non-existence of God cannot be proven. An Omnipotent God, which is presumably what we're trying to disprove here, could avoid any form of detection, should someone develop a means to 'detect' a God, so to speak, and they would know if it worked unless they detected a God of some sort.

Now please, tell me how you know God does not exist.

Confused...

I don't believe in the existence of God. Agnostic or agnostic-athiest or whatever. But if he does exist, I was just saying that he wouldn't be a human construct. I was wondering if you were saying that he would still be a human construct if he was proven to exist. I know people who believe similar things and the idea of that confuses and interests me.

Humanity invented God, they invented the concept of a singular omnipresent being that behaves much like humanity itself. Enough people believe in this sky fairy for him to have an impact upon every day life on a consistent basis whether or not this being called God actually has any kind of material presence is a subject up for debate but in the end, it is an entirely human invention and as such totally understandable.

They always add the V.:(

Holy shit. There's no V.

Humanity invented God, they invented the concept of a singular omnipresent being that behaves much like humanity itself. Enough people believe in this sky fairy for him to have an impact upon every day life on a consistent basis whether or not this being called God actually has any kind of material presence is a subject up for debate but in the end, it is an entirely human invention and as such totally understandable.

Not necessarily. There could be some sort of supernatural being, although I would agree that most of the traditional views (If not all of them), and even non-traditional views of said being are most likely wrong.

However, this does not necessarily invalidate the argument that there might be some sort of Omnipotent (or even less then Omnipotent) being out there, who may or may not have created our world.

Athiesm isn't based around any type of belief, I mean you dont class it as a religion

Its based around the concept that god does not exist.

This comes from an awesome and useful book called a dictionary.

Belief: confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof

Athiesm: the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

Holy shit. There's no V.

Heh. People who I've debated/posted with notice this all the time, sometimes months or years after I've posted with them.:D

Humanity invented God, they invented the concept of a singular omnipresent being that behaves much like humanity itself. Enough people believe in this sky fairy for him to have an impact upon every day life on a consistent basis whether or not this being called God actually has any kind of material presence is a subject up for debate but in the end, it is an entirely human invention and as such totally understandable.

I get it to a certain point but then it starts going crazy in my imagination.

Because I'm a very bad person, the kind that hell would spit out. You name it, I've probably done it. The fact that God hasn't decided, '' Hey; fuck off and die KWAZP '' to me yet is pretty self-evident

PLUS THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN BY MEN WITH NO REAL EVIDENCE THAT GOD EXISTED ETC ETC

Because I'm a very bad person, the kind that hell would spit out. You name it, I've probably done it. The fact that God hasn't decided, '' Hey; fuck off and die KWAZP '' to me yet is pretty self-evident

PLUS THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN BY MEN WITH NO REAL EVIDENCE THAT GOD EXISTED ETC ETC

You should be a gooder person.

Heh. People who I've debated/posted with notice this all the time, sometimes months or years after I've posted with them.:D

It's in the middle of a large word, and since our brains tend to observe the overall shape of the word along with the first few and the last few letters to determine the word, the "v" lacking is simply not noticed.

That is funny though.

Holy shit. There's no V.

I believe that there is a V.

Of course God isn't beyond human comprehension. Humans invented Him.

It wouldn't be the first time we invented something beyond our comprehension.

...

Actually, that was a long time ago, so maybe it was. But it definitely wasn't the last.

Not necessarily. There could be some sort of supernatural being, although I would agree that most of the traditional views (If not all of them), and even non-traditional views of said being are most likely wrong.

However, this does not necessarily invalidate the argument that there might be some sort of Omnipotent (or even less then Omnipotent) being out there, who may or may not have created our world.

I disagree on a major point, if by definition this 'super natural' being does exist then its entirely natural.
I myself have come to the conclusion that if such a being does exist its more than likely not worth paying respect to anyway because all it does is a whole lot of nothing; and is an entirely human construct created by the belief of induviduals. 2,000 years ago Mars and Jupiter were very real and had a very real impact on the world via the actions of thier followers the same as todays singular God entity.
500 years ago, Vampires existed and had a very real impact on the planet. Witches existed and had a very real impact on the planet; in some places both of them still do exist.

Because I'm a very bad person, the kind that hell would spit out. You name it, I've probably done it. The fact that God hasn't decided, '' Hey; fuck off and die KWAZP '' to me yet is pretty self-evident


Maybe God likes those kind of evil things. Maybe he's not Omni-benevolent, maybe he's Omni-malevolent instead. The traditional view of God may not be the right one. Or maybe God prefers a hands-off approach, allowing Mankind to go about their business, whether he agrees with or not. Maybe this hypothetical God created us because he was bored, created us for a good story. What else would he do in his spare time? Point is, just because you think of yourself as a bad person, doesn't mean that God isn't real because he hasn't killed you yet. Besides, hear of 'turn the other cheek'?


PLUS THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN BY MEN WITH NO REAL EVIDENCE THAT GOD EXISTED ETC ETC
So? The Bible may or may not be the real word of God. Or maybe God did decide to intervene, and inspired these men to write this down. They have no way to prove it to other people, so it must be taken on belief. Who knows? We don't. We only believe.

God is like a thick blanket around your mind. With God, you feel warm and fuzzy, but you're really only hiding from the real world.

Oh, and to the guy on the first page: A place without time would not exist, because it would be there for no time at all.

I get it to a certain point but then it starts going crazy in my imagination.

It does me too.

You should be a gooder person.

But Child Porn is so much fun!

If there is a god, I have no comprehension of its motives.

But Child Porn is so much fun!

You should try humor by using something funny... just a suggestion.

I was being serious.

Obvious troll is obvious.

I disagree on a major point, if by definition this 'super natural' being does exist then its entirely natural.
I myself have come to the conclusion that if such a being does exist its more than likely not worth paying respect to anyway because all it does is a whole lot of nothing;
For all you know, it might be controlling our every action, like one Omnipotent puppeteer.:p

Point is, there's so much that we don't know, this hypothetical God could be personally controlling any one of these unknown things personally.

That and we'd have to quibble over the meaning of the words 'Natural' and 'Supernatural'. But that can wait.
and is an entirely human construct created by the belief of induviduals. 2,000 years ago Mars and Jupiter were very real and had a very real impact on the world via the actions of thier followers the same as todays singular God entity.
500 years ago, Vampires existed and had a very real impact on the planet. Witches existed and had a very real impact on the planet; in some places both of them still do exist.
I disagree with this, most of these things you have mentioned did not exist, but had a very real impact on people because of belief. If our thoughts can influence us, why not fictional beings, constructs of our own mind also influence us?

Oh shush, Mr. /b/tard.

Oh shush, Mr. /b/tard.

I think that was directed at me. I'm not sure though, because he never quotes who he's talking to.

God is like a thick blanket around your mind. With God, you feel warm and fuzzy, but you're really only hiding from the real world.

Oh, and to the guy on the first page: A place without time would not exist, because it would be there for no time at all.
Really? Because I do not hide from the real world in any way, yet I believe in a God. And how can you say that? Assuming the existence of an Omnipotent being, time is merely one of his creations, one of which we experience. Not necessarily a hard and set thing.
If there is a god, I have no comprehension of its motives.

A good story? Think about it, if you were some omnipotent being, which would you do:

1. Wait around in your omnipotence.

2. Create a little universe and fuck around with it for a good story?

Oh shush, Mr. /b/tard.

This from the poster talking about how fun kiddy porn is?

I disagree with this, most of these things you have mentioned did not exist, but had a very real impact on people because of belief. If our thoughts can influence us, why not fictional beings, constructs of our own mind also influence us?

You caught my reference to belief and existance, but you misinterpreted it.

Dont make me spring some Epicus.

This from the poster talking about how fun kiddy porn is?

WOW LOL /b/ CHILD PORN HURRR DURRR

You caught my reference to belief and existance, but you misinterpreted it.
So.. You're saying because it affects people, it exists?
Dont make me spring some Epicus.

I see your Musical taste is lacking as well.

Obvious troll is obvious.

My desire to feed obvious troll is so strong that I'm going to sing to you instead:
Spring was never waiting for us, girl
It ran one step ahead
As we followed in the dance
Between the parted pages and were pressed,
In love's hot, fevered iron
Like a striped pair of pants

[Chorus]
MacArthur's Park is melting in the dark
All the sweet, green icing flowing down...
Someone left the cake out in the rain
I don't think that I can take it
'Cause it took so long to bake it
And I'll never have that recipe again
Oh, no!

I recall the yellow cotton dress
Foaming like a wave
On the ground around your knees
The birds, like tender babies in your hands
And the old men playing checkers by the trees

[Chorus]

There will be another song for me
For I will sing it
There will be another dream for me
Someone will bring it
I will drink the wine while it is warm
And never let you catch me looking at the sun
And after all the loves of my life
After all the loves of my life
You'll still be the one.

I will take my life into my hands and I will use it
I will win the worship in their eyes and I will lose it
I will have the things that I desire
And my passion flow like rivers through the sky.
And after all the loves of my life
After all the loves of my life
I'll be thinking of you
And wondering why.

MacArthur's Park is melting in the dark
All the sweet, green icing flowing down...
Someone left the cake out in the rain
I don't think that I can take it
'Cause it took so long to bake it
And I'll never have that recipe again
Oh, no!
Oh, no
No, no
Oh NO!!

But Child Porn is so much fun!

I was being serious.

WOW LOL /b/ CHILD PORN HURRR DURRR

Are you insulting yourself now?

So.. You're saying because it affects people, it exists?


I'm saying that if it affects people it might as well exist.

I'm saying that if it affects people it might as well exist.

Fair enough.

This from the poster talking about how fun kiddy porn is?

Are you insulting yourself now?

I'm just that emo.

<snippy song>

*breaks into song*

I recall the time they found those fossilized mosquitoes
And before long, they were cloning DNA
Now I'm being chased by some irate veloceraptors
Well, believe me... this has been one lousy day

Jurassic Park is frightning in the dark
All the dinosaurs are running wild
Someone shut the fence off in the rain
I admit it's kinda eerie
But this proves my chaos theory
And I don't think I'll be coming back again
On no

I cannot approve of this attraction
'Cause getting disemboweled always makes me kinda mad
A huge tyrannosaurus ate our lawer
Well, I suppose that proves... they're really not all bad

Jurassic Park is frightning in the dark
All the dinosaurs are running wild
Someone let T. Rex out of his pen
I'm afraid those things'll harm me
'Cause they sure don't act like Barney
And they think that I'm their dinner, not their friend
Oh no

Jurassic Park is frightning in the dark
All the dinosaurs are running wild
What a crummy weekend this has been
Well, this sure ain't no E-ticket
Think I'll tell them where to stick it
'Cause I'm never coming back this way again
Oh no... oh no

I'm just that emo.
No response to my counter-arguments? Or is this just spam?
*breaks into song*

I recall the time they found those fossilized mosquitoes
And before long, they were cloning DNA
Now I'm being chased by some irate veloceraptors
Well, believe me... this has been one lousy day

Jurassic Park is frightning in the dark
All the dinosaurs are running wild
Someone shut the fence off in the rain
I admit it's kinda eerie
But this proves my chaos theory
And I don't think I'll be coming back again
On no

I cannot approve of this attraction
'Cause getting disemboweled always makes me kinda mad
A huge tyrannosaurus ate our lawer
Well, I suppose that proves... they're really not all bad

Jurassic Park is frightning in the dark
All the dinosaurs are running wild
Someone let T. Rex out of his pen
I'm afraid those things'll harm me
'Cause they sure don't act like Barney
And they think that I'm their dinner, not their friend
Oh no

Jurassic Park is frightning in the dark
All the dinosaurs are running wild
What a crummy weekend this has been
Well, this sure ain't no E-ticket
Think I'll tell them where to stick it
'Cause I'm never coming back this way again
Oh no... oh no

http://egg.org.au/gallery/d/935-1/You+Win+an+Internet.jpg
I love that song.

*breaks into song*

[snips glorious Weird Al Tune]
I also love Franks 2000 inch TV off that album. The genius of Weird Al is unmatched.

Dear Conserative Morality,

I did not make a counter-arguement, because I dont want to get any deeper into an arguement then I already am. I am sorry if I expressed my views brashly; but god-fucking-dammit I've had a really bad day. You know those days when you feel like blowing shit up like they did in Fight Club? One of those days.

I also love Franks 2000 inch TV off that album. The genius of Weird Al is unmatched.

My favorite Weird Al song is "Barney's on Fire." It makes me happy.

What?

What?

I didn't say anything.

Dear Conserative Morality,

I did not make a counter-arguement, because I dont want to get any deeper into an arguement then I already am. I am sorry if I expressed my views brashly; but god-fucking-dammit I've had a really bad day. You know those days when you feel like blowing shit up like they did in Fight Club? One of those days.

You forgot the V which is not there but in which, I believe.

He's referring to my secret touches.

Dear Conserative Morality,

I did not make a counter-arguement, because I dont want to get any deeper into an arguement then I already am. I am sorry if I expressed my views brashly; but god-fucking-dammit I've had a really bad day. You know those days when you feel like blowing shit up like they did in Fight Club? One of those days.
My problem is not how you expressed your views, but that you stopped our little debate before I could finish up with a death-blow to your arguments.:D

The mods make take a different view, but we can pray that they don't enter this thread.

And it's fine that you've had a bad day, but watch what you say. The last thing you want to branded as is a troll.

Dear Conserative Morality,

I did not make a counter-arguement, because I dont want to get any deeper into an arguement then I already am. I am sorry if I expressed my views brashly; but god-fucking-dammit I've had a really bad day. You know those days when you feel like blowing shit up like they did in Fight Club? One of those days.

I'm physically and mentally drained, lonely, unloved, and pissed off at the world in general but I still have my sense of humor so I know that I am doing ok.

And it's fine that you've had a bad day, but watch what you say. The last thing you want to branded as is a troll.

Too late.

I'm physically and mentally drained, lonely, unloved, and pissed off at the world in general but I still have my sense of humor so I know that I am doing ok.

NSG loves you SaintB.:D
:fluffle:

Too late.

Again, I mean.

My problem is not how you expressed your views, but that you stopped our little debate before I could finish up with a death-blow to your arguments.:D

The mods make take a different view, but we can pray that they don't enter this thread.

And it's fine that you've had a bad day, but watch what you say. The last thing you want to branded as is a troll.

I suppose it doesn't help my non-troll branding that I live under a bridge and eat small animals trying to eat from the other meadow when they frolic over.

Just a few points:

First: Atheism is not a belief. It is the denial of all theist beliefs. It's not saying "I believe God does not exist" but "I do not believe that God exists." There's a difference between the two. Some atheists, of course, also do actually have the belief that God does not exist, but that's not what atheism actually is.

Second: True, you cannot disprove God's existence. But neither can you disprove the existence of unicorns, leprechauns, Russell's teapot, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, et cetera.
Unless you apply the same standards of evidence and the same burden of proof to these things as you do to God, then you are a hypocrite, because nobody has ever provided any reason that the existence of these things should be treated any differently than God's.

I suppose it doesn't help my non-troll branding that I live under a bridge and eat small animals trying to eat from the other meadow when they frolic over.

As long as the Big one doesn't knock you on your ass, you're okay.:D

NSG loves you SaintB.:D
:fluffle:

And I love NSG even though I have no idea why. :fluffle:

As long as the Big one doesn't knock you on your ass, you're okay.:D

There is a big one?

I'm so fucked. :(

Just a few points:

First: Atheism is not a belief. It is the denial of all theist beliefs. It's not saying "I believe God does not exist" but "I do not believe that God exists." There's a difference between the two. Some atheists, of course, also do actually have the belief that God does not exist, but that's not what atheism actually is.

Well, that's what the poster was arguing. In order to reject all those other beliefs, you have to believe that every Religion you know is false, which is a belief, mind you.

Second: True, you cannot disprove God's existence. But neither can you disprove the existence of unicorns, leprechauns, Russell's teapot, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, et cetera.
Unless you apply the same standards of evidence and the same burden of proof to these things as you do to God, then you are a hypocrite, because nobody has ever provided any reason that the existence of these things should be treated any differently than God's.
Oh, I realize that completely. I believe in God because I want to believe in an afterlife, and because I find it hard to believe that everything spontaneously came this way. In other words, I have trouble believing that the 'Big Bang' came into being without some sort of outside hand. Of course, that leaves the problem of how said God-being came to exist, but believing in one kills two birds with one stone, yeah?

On the other hand, Unicorns have nothing to offer me, nor can they be differentiated from normal animals, minus some physical differences. A God, on the other hand, could not be compared to anything we know of, and can prove. A God could also avoid all forms of detection, whereas a creature that
supposedly once existed, in at least moderate numbers, yet left no remains is rather hard to swallow. At least with a God you'd have no lack of proof, although, you'd also have no proof.

Just a few points:

It's not saying "I believe God does not exist" but "I do not believe that God exists." There's a difference between the two.

I think that the only way to convey that is to say that I don't believe that it can be known if God exists which is agnosticism and which people tie into atheism.

Second: True, you cannot disprove God's existence. But neither can you disprove the existence of unicorns, leprechauns, Russell's teapot, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, et cetera.
Unless you apply the same standards of evidence and the same burden of proof to these things as you do to God, then you are a hypocrite, because nobody has ever provided any reason that the existence of these things should be treated any differently than God's.


A long time ago, when the Earth was green
There was more kinds of animals than you've ever seen
They'd run around free while the Earth was being born
And the loveliest of all was the unicorn

There was green alligators and long-necked geese
Some humpty backed camels and some chimpanzees
Some cats and rats and elephants, but sure as you're born
The loveliest of all was the unicorn

The Lord seen some sinning and it gave Him pain
And He says, "Stand back, I'm going to make it rain"
He says, "Hey Noah, I'll tell you what to do
Build me a floating zoo,
and take some of those...

Green alligators and long-necked geese
Some humpty backed camels and some chimpanzees
Some cats and rats and elephants, but sure as you're born
Don't you forget My unicorns

Old Noah was there to answer the call
He finished up making the ark just as the rain started to fall
He marched the animals two by two
And he called out as they came through
Hey Lord,

I've got green alligators and long-necked geese
Some humpty backed camels and some chimpanzees
Some cats and rats and elephants, but Lord, I'm so forlorn
I just can't find no unicorns"

And Noah looked out through the driving rain
Them unicorns were hiding, playing silly games
Kicking and splashing while the rain was falling
Oh, them silly unicorns

There was green alligators and long-necked geese
Some humpty backed camels and some chimpanzees
Noah cried, "Close the door because the rain is falling
And we just can't wait for no unicorns"

The ark started moving, it drifted with the tide
The unicorns looked up from the rocks and they cried
And the waters came down and sort of floated them away
That's why you never see unicorns to this very day

You'll see green alligators and long-necked geese
Some humpty backed camels and some chimpanzees
Some cats and rats and elephants, but sure as you're born
You're never gonna see no unicorns

God killed all the Unicorns. Sumaltaniously disproving the existance of both.

God killed all the Unicorns. Sumaltaniously disproving the existance of both.

http://www.playfeed.com/blogimages/head_asplode.jpg

Well, that's what the poster was arguing. In order to reject all those other beliefs, you have to believe that every Religion you know is false, which is a belief, mind you.

But you were saying that atheism is a belief, from what I could tell, not his brand of it.


Oh, I realize that completely. I believe in God because I want to believe in an afterlife, and because I find it hard to believe that everything spontaneously came this way. In other words, I have trouble believing that the 'Big Bang' came into being without some sort of outside hand. Of course, that leaves the problem of how said God-being came to exist, but believing in one kills two birds with one stone, yeah?


But a desire that something be true is not a justifiable reason to believe it. To believe that desire has an impact on what actually is true is just ... silly.
Also, argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy. :tongue:



On the other hand, Unicorns have nothing to offer me, nor can they be differentiated from normal animals, minus some physical differences. A God, on the other hand, could not be compared to anything we know of, and can prove. A God could also avoid all forms of detection, whereas a creature that
supposedly once existed, in at least moderate numbers, yet left no remains is rather hard to swallow. At least with a God you'd have no lack of proof, although, you'd also have no proof.

Also, unicorns are magical and thus escape detection. Kinda like God. ;)

I think that the only way to convey that is to say that I don't believe that it can be known if God exists which is agnosticism and which people tie into atheism.
I don't think so. I think the distinction between "I don't believe X" and "I believe not X" is clear enough for any intelligent person.

God killed all the Unicorns. Sumaltaniously disproving the existance of both.

You have good taste in music.

But you were saying that atheism is a belief, from what I could tell, not his brand of it.

His was a belief that there was no God, not merely rejecting all other beliefs. He was arguing that there was no God, not from a lack of proof, just that he wasn't! Which is a belief.

But a desire that something be true is not a justifiable reason to believe it. To believe that desire has an impact on what actually is true is just ... silly.
Also, argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy. :tongue:

Well, think about it. With me, believing in God changes my life very little, other than a hope, and even some excitement, for the unknown beyond death. Not believing in God would require a similar amount of faith, and is based on the desire to believe that there is no God. (Minus Agnostic Atheism)
So, I choose the option that would give me more hope. Logical fallacy or not, Logic rarely meshes well with belief of any kind.:p


Also, unicorns are magical and thus escape detection. Kinda like God. ;)
Heh. But according to Medieval Legends, said Unicorns could have their horns removed and made into a cup, which could detect poison. Why have we not found any of those?

Heh. But according to Medieval Legends, said Unicorns could have their horns removed and made into a cup, which could detect poison. Why have we not found any of those?

Obviously, someone got to all the unicorns first and made their horns into cups. Then probably lost them - I mean honestly who needs a cup that can detect poison but who wouldn't have the wealth and power to hire taste-testers? Considering how rare and expensive the whole unicorn-cup manufacturing process must be the answer to your question is that ultimately, unicorn horns weren't as competitive and the unicorns themselves a victim of economic pressures, much like pagers.

I don't think so. I think the distinction between "I don't believe X" and "I believe not X" is clear enough for any intelligent person.




Personally, the more I argue "I believe not X", the closer I get to agnosticism. Which is how I became agnostic.

I don't think so. I think the distinction between "I don't believe X" and "I believe not X" is clear enough for any intelligent person.


Yeah, but they're getting rare nowadays.:D

You have good taste in music.

As a disclaimer folk music isn't really one of my favorite genres, but Shel Silversteen the writer of that song was a personal hero of mine when I was a child, I still love his whimsical and innocent humor he wrote into his poetry as an adult and I try to emulate it in my own jokes and writing; and I most certainly will pass his stuff on to my kids should I have any.

His was a belief that there was no God, not merely rejecting all other beliefs. He was arguing that there was no God, not from a lack of proof, just that he wasn't! Which is a belief.

Yeah. "God certainly does not exist" is a belief. however, you said "Atheism is a belief," which is the part I had a problem with.


Well, think about it. With me, believing in God changes my life very little, other than a hope, and even some excitement, for the unknown beyond death. Not believing in God would require a similar amount of faith, and is based on the desire to believe that there is no God. (Minus Agnostic Atheism)

Well, I would argue that Agnostic Atheism is the only rational choice, given the (lack of) evidence. I would also argue the only justifiable basis for belief is that which seems to be true, not that which we would prefer.

So, I choose the option that would give me more hope. Logical fallacy or not, Logic rarely meshes well with belief of any kind.:p

Ah, so I assume when somebody uses a logical fallacy in a debate with you on some other topic, you'll think that their argument is valid, then?

As for me, I try to base all my beliefs on reason and evidence. The only things I believe are those things that I actually think are true. If somebody points out a logical fallacy in one of my arguments, I stop using that argument because it's not valid.


Heh. But according to Medieval Legends, said Unicorns could have their horns removed and made into a cup, which could detect poison. Why have we not found any of those?

According the Christian myth, God created the world 6,000 years ago, flooded all of it 4,000 years ago, etc. Why do we not find evidence of this?

Obviously, someone got to all the unicorns first and made their horns into cups. Then probably lost them - I mean honestly who needs a cup that can detect poison but who wouldn't have the wealth and power to hire taste-testers? Considering how rare and expensive the whole unicorn-cup manufacturing process must be the answer to your question is that ultimately, unicorn horns weren't as competitive and the unicorns themselves a victim of economic pressures, much like pagers.
Ah, but you forget how expensive it would be to hire taste tester after taste tester! I mean, in a time when you could get away with murder (literally, if you were a noble), you'd have taste testers dropping like flies! Eventually, you'd either have no one left willing to taste, or you'd have no one left in your fief! Besides, as a novelty, a little show off, the cup would be great.

Yeah, but they're getting rare nowadays.:D

True.

As a disclaimer folk music isn't really one of my favorite genres, but Shel Silversteen the writer of that song was a personal hero of mine when I was a child, I still love his whimsical and innocent humor he wrote into his poetry as an adult and I try to emulate it in my own jokes and writing; and I most certainly will pass his stuff on to my kids should I have any.

Oh, I'm usually more of a fan of metal and some industrial. But I just can't help but love that song in particular.

Ah, but you forget how expensive it would be to hire taste tester after taste tester! I mean, in a time when you could get away with murder (literally, if you were a noble), you'd have taste testers dropping like flies! Eventually, you'd either have no one left willing to taste, or you'd have no one left in your fief! Besides, as a novelty, a little show off, the cup would be great.

Also, if you have a wife or a mistress, I'm sure she could find another use for the horn ;)

Ah, but you forget how expensive it would be to hire taste tester after taste tester! I mean, in a time when you could get away with murder (literally, if you were a noble), you'd have taste testers dropping like flies! Eventually, you'd either have no one left willing to taste, or you'd have no one left in your fief! Besides, as a novelty, a little show off, the cup would be great.

Taste testing was a dangerous occupation, true, but it's a better status symbol to have people willing to die (just to let you know not to eat the fig) for you all the time. The fancy cup hardly compares, and you could get knock-offs more often than not - eventually you'd get tired of yet-another unicorn-cup-salesman trying to wheedle you out of your gold coins.

Maybe take possession of their cups and force them into another career... say, taste-testing.

Yeah. "God certainly does not exist" is a belief. however, you said "Atheism is a belief," which is the part I had a problem with.


Well, I would argue that Agnostic Atheism is the only rational choice, given the (lack of) evidence. I would also argue the only justifiable basis for belief is that which seems to be true, not that which we would prefer.

If I told a scientist in the 19th century that the atom could be split, he'd call me crazy, and say it could not be done, that Nuclear power was an impossibility. That was not true, although it would seem to be. I find that a God existing to be much more believable than total spontaneity.

Ah, so I assume when somebody uses a logical fallacy in a debate with you on some other topic, you'll think that their argument is valid, then?

No, but what other explanation is there? When there really isn't any evidence either way, what do you choose? The one that's more pleasent, or less pleasant?

As for me, I try to base all my beliefs on reason and evidence. The only things I believe are those things that I actually think are true. If somebody points out a logical fallacy in one of my arguments, I stop using that argument because it's not valid.

And if there is no evidence one way or the other?
According the Christian myth, God created the world 6,000 years ago, flooded all of it 4,000 years ago, etc. Why do we not find evidence of this?
I don't take the whole bible literally.

Also, if you have a wife or a mistress, I'm sure she could find another use for the horn ;)
And I'm sure it'd go well with the dungeon.;)
Taste testing was a dangerous occupation, true, but it's a better status symbol to have people willing to die (just to let you know not to eat the fig) for you all the time. The fancy cup hardly compares, and you could get knock-offs more often than not - eventually you'd get tired of yet-another unicorn-cup-salesman trying to wheedle you out of your gold coins.

Maybe take possession of their cups and force them into another career... say, taste-testing.
Nah, they'd keep them to test for poison first. Then they'd make the taste testers they didn't like drink from said cup, but only if it wasn't poison. Wouldn't want to waste a good drink on the peasantry, now would we?

If I told a scientist in the 19th century that the atom could be split, he'd call me crazy, and say it could not be done, that Nuclear power was an impossibility. That was not true, although it would seem to be. I find that a God existing to be much more believable than total spontaneity.


Heh.. here's something interesting to think about: When we split up a molecule all we find are atoms, if wesplit up an atom all we find are explosions... what gives?

If I told a scientist in the 19th century that the atom could be split, he'd call me crazy, and say it could not be done, that Nuclear power was an impossibility. That was not true, although it would seem to be. I find that a God existing to be much more believable than total spontaneity.

True. Sometimes reason gets it wrong. But it is inherently self-correcting. Faith is not. Also, had they said "it's impossible," they would not have been reasonable. "We don't see any evidence of that at this time" would have been more reasonable.


No, but what other explanation is there?

Argument from ignorance.

When there really isn't any evidence either way, what do you choose? The one that's more pleasent, or less pleasant?

I don't take pleasantness into account because that's not justifiable.

And if there is no evidence one way or the other?

A fallacy is fallacy.

I don't take the whole bible literally.
You missed my point. Take my question in context of yours.

Heh.. here's something interesting to think about: When we split up a molecule all we find are atoms, if wesplit up an atom all we find are explosions... what gives?
Erm... Look behind you! A three-headed monkey!:D
True. Sometimes reason gets it wrong. But it is inherently self-correcting. Faith is not. Also, had they said "it's impossible," they would not have been reasonable. "We don't see any evidence of that at this time" would have been more reasonable.

It's like how some people, including Einstein, said time travel into the future was impossible. We're human, humans are rarely reasonable.

Argument from ignorance.

Indeed. Ignorance, not knowing. I don't know whether or not a God of any kind exist. There is only belief.

I don't take pleasantness into account because that's not justifiable.

I take pleasantness into account because if I don't, what am I basing my belief in the specific God I believe in on? The roll of my d20?

A fallacy is fallacy.

A fallacy can be excusable when there is no other option.

You missed my point. Take my question in context of yours.
Having checked back a few posts, I'm still not seeing it. if God didn't want to be detected, assuming he's an omnipotent being unlike the unicorn, he could avoid detection in any and every possible way.

Erm... Look behind you! A three-headed monkey!:D

It's like how some people, including Einstein, said time travel into the future was impossible. We're human, humans are rarely reasonable.

That we rarely do base all our beliefs on reason doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive to.


Indeed. Ignorance, not knowing. I don't know whether or not a God of any kind exist. There is only belief.

Yeah. And "We don't know how X happened, so it must have been God" is a logical fallacy, was my point.


I take pleasantness into account because if I don't, what am I basing my belief in the specific God I believe in on? The roll of my d20?

If you don't have anything to base a belief on, you should have no belief. What's so frightening about stopping at "I don't know?"


A fallacy can be excusable when there is no other option.

"You're an asshole, therefore God does not exist."
Is that a valid argument? Ad hominem is no more or less fallacious than your argument.


Having checked back a few posts, I'm still not seeing it.


You said we should find these horns. My point was that you can believe in unicorns without believing that you can make poison detecting cups from their horns, just like you can believe in God but believe that the Biblical creation story is wrong.


if God didn't want to be detected, assuming he's an omnipotent being unlike the unicorn, he could avoid detection in any and every possible way.

Unicorns are magic. They're not omnipotent, but they're powerful enough to avoid detection.

Oh yes I am.

That we rarely do base all our beliefs on reason doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive to.

I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that not everything has to be based on reason.

Yeah. And "We don't know how X happened, so it must have been God" is a logical fallacy, was my point.

So? Not everything has to be based on logic.

If you don't have anything to base a belief on, you should have no belief. What's so frightening about stopping at "I don't know?"

A belief does not need a solid, factual base. It's merely a feeling. I will admit, it's not much. But so is the belief that all other religions are wrong.

"You're an asshole, therefore God does not exist."
Is that a valid argument? Ad hominem is no more or less fallacious than your argument.

Mmm. I disagree. Ad hominem is inexcusable. Believing in something because it's pleasant and because there is no proof either way, and possible benefits isn't quite stupid.

You said we should find these horns. My point was that you can believe in unicorns without believing that you can make poison detecting cups from their horns, just like you can believe in God but believe that the Biblical creation story is wrong.

Fine, what's your point?

Unicorns are magic. They're not omnipotent, but they're powerful enough to avoid detection.
Well, it's your choice to believe in Unicorns.

I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that not everything has to be based on reason.

Why shouldn't it? What other systems consistently produce factually accurate results?


So? Not everything has to be based on logic.

No belief should be based on a fallacy. A fallacy, by definition, is a bad argument.


A belief does not need a solid, factual base. It's merely a feeling. I will admit, it's not much. But so is the belief that all other religions are wrong.

But the lack of belief in any religion is not "merely a feeling." It's entirely rational.


Mmm. I disagree. Ad hominem is inexcusable. Believing in something because it's pleasant and because there is no proof either way, and possible benefits isn't quite stupid.

Why is ad hominem any more inexcusable than any other fallacy?


Fine, what's your point?

That unicorns are no more disprovable than God, yet you do not believe in them. You don't apply your intellectually standards consistently.


Well, it's your choice to believe in Unicorns.

I don't believe in unicorns, but not by choice. Belief is not a choice, at least not for me. I either am convinced by an argument or I am not.

I don't believe in unicorns, but not by choice. Belief is not a choice, at least not for me. I either am convinced by an argument or I am not.

You probably do make a choice, although it's on a subconscious level. Pretty much by definition - you encounter a claim, an idea, and your brain either says "yeah whatever" or "hmm, yes." Actually, there's an interesting article about studies that would seem to indicate that decision-making happens subconsciously, and happens as much as 10 seconds before you are consciously aware of making that decision. The article I read made a big hooey about people not being in control of their own brains, but to me it clearly indicates that conscious thought is the tip of a complex system which we only begin to understand.

You probably do make a choice, although it's on a subconscious level. Pretty much by definition - you encounter a claim, an idea, and your brain either says "yeah whatever" or "hmm, yes." Actually, there's an interesting article about studies that would seem to indicate that decision-making happens subconsciously, and happens as much as 10 seconds before you are consciously aware of making that decision. The article I read made a big hooey about people not being in control of their own brains, but to me it clearly indicates that conscious thought is the tip of a complex system which we only begin to understand.

Good point. More accurately, I do not make a conscious choice, which is not what most people mean when they say "it's your choice."

Why shouldn't it? What other systems consistently produce factually accurate results?


No belief should be based on a fallacy. A fallacy, by definition, is a bad argument.


But the lack of belief in any religion is not "merely a feeling." It's entirely rational.


Why is ad hominem any more inexcusable than any other fallacy?


That unicorns are no more disprovable than God, yet you do not believe in them. You don't apply your intellectually standards consistently.



I don't believe in unicorns, but not by choice. Belief is not a choice, at least not for me. I either am convinced by an argument or I am not.
I'm tired tonight, so this will be my last post here. (Tonight, obviously)

Okay, I do not believe in Unicorns, and do believe in God, because Unicorns do not offer me any possible benefits, nor do they offer me hope. Unicorns do not help lessen a problem I see with the Universe, nor do they offer me any hope for the afterlife. Better? This has nothing to do with intellectuality, it has to do with a cost-benefit analysis. Cost of believing in a God: Nothing (for some). Possible benefits: Eternal Heaven, being on the good side of an omnipotent being, etc.

Belief is a choice, for me at least. A convincing argument might appeal to every bit of logic within me, but if I believe in something, and see no immediate proof against it, I will either continue to believe, or choose not to believe.

Ad hominem is inexcusable because it falls back to insulting the person who is arguing, not only a conscious choice, but one that shows that you have fallen to the level of degrading your opponent out of desperation, going against all of civilization as we know it.

Fallacies are based on logic. If something does not include logic, fallacies are useless. My beliefs concerning a God of some sort are not based on logic, Deep Blue.

Atheism is not necessarily entirely rational. Believing there is no God because bad things happen does not exclude a God, but might exclude an omni-benevolent one, depending on your view of things. Believing there is no God because of a lack of proof is asking for a Intervening God, rather than the watching one I described earlier to Yootopia. I could go on.

Since you asked...

I believe that God can be comprehended by the human heart. I believe that Jesus is God expressed in human terms, that He illustrates the nature of our Eternal Father (perfect love, perfect mercy, perfect justice).

"Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father" -- John 14:9

So, can God be comprehended? Yes, to a point.. I believe so.

^This.

But Child Porn is so much fun!

Ah, Anonymous. We meet again.

I'm tired tonight, so this will be my last post here. (Tonight, obviously)

Okay, I do not believe in Unicorns, and do believe in God, because Unicorns do not offer me any possible benefits, nor do they offer me hope. Unicorns do not help lessen a problem I see with the Universe, nor do they offer me any hope for the afterlife. Better? This has nothing to do with intellectuality, it has to do with a cost-benefit analysis. Cost of believing in a God: Nothing (for some). Possible benefits: Eternal Heaven, being on the good side of an omnipotent being, etc.

Belief is a choice, for me at least. A convincing argument might appeal to every bit of logic within me, but if I believe in something, and see no immediate proof against it, I will either continue to believe, or choose not to believe.

Ad hominem is inexcusable because it falls back to insulting the person who is arguing, not only a conscious choice, but one that shows that you have fallen to the level of degrading your opponent out of desperation, going against all of civilization as we know it.

Fallacies are based on logic. If something does not include logic, fallacies are useless. My beliefs concerning a God of some sort are not based on logic, Deep Blue.

Atheism is not necessarily entirely rational. Believing there is no God because bad things happen does not exclude a God, but might exclude an omni-benevolent one, depending on your view of things. Believing there is no God because of a lack of proof is asking for a Intervening God, rather than the watching one I described earlier to Yootopia. I could go on.

Looking back it was nice to have faith in something, I have no idea what I have faith in these days.

I don't think the problem is comprehending God. He's not beyond us, He never intended for it to be that way. Rather, we're beyond Him with the things we do and feel.

I'm tired tonight, so this will be my last post here. (Tonight, obviously)

Okay, I do not believe in Unicorns, and do believe in God, because Unicorns do not offer me any possible benefits, nor do they offer me hope. Unicorns do not help lessen a problem I see with the Universe, nor do they offer me any hope for the afterlife. Better? This has nothing to do with intellectuality, it has to do with a cost-benefit analysis. Cost of believing in a God: Nothing (for some). Possible benefits: Eternal Heaven, being on the good side of an omnipotent being, etc.

None of these things have any bearing of the truth, however.

Belief is a choice, for me at least. A convincing argument might appeal to every bit of logic within me, but if I believe in something, and see no immediate proof against it, I will either continue to believe, or choose not to believe.

I find this ability surprising. I wish I could chose my beliefs. If I could, I would choose to believe that I had all the money I ever wanted, a gorgeous, funny, intelligent, and interesting lover, and a brilliant and fulfilling career that greatly contributed to humanity's knowledge.

Ad hominem is inexcusable because it falls back to insulting the person who is arguing, not only a conscious choice, but one that shows that you have fallen to the level of degrading your opponent out of desperation, going against all of civilization as we know it.

No, I don't mean why is it more ethically inexcusable, but more intellectually inexcusable.

Fallacies are based on logic.

???
Isn't the whole point of a fallacious argument is that it's failing at being based on logic?

If something does not include logic, fallacies are useless. My beliefs concerning a God of some sort are not based on logic, Deep Blue.

Why? The things they are based on are not more likely to make it true.


Atheism is not necessarily entirely rational. Believing there is no God because bad things happen does not exclude a God, but might exclude an omni-benevolent one, depending on your view of things. Believing there is no God because of a lack of proof is asking for a Intervening God, rather than the watching one I described earlier to Yootopia. I could go on.

Um. You keep talking about atheism in the sense of "Belief in no God." I am an agnostic atheist.

Well, I believe God' Omnipotence is beyond human comprehension (I still get a headache when I try to understand what a place without time would be like), but God, for the most part, is within our comprehension.Where in the bible did it say god is Omnipotent or Omniscient? I keep hearing people say this but are these words in the bible or just assumed?

Sigh, religious debates.
Neither side is ever going to convince the other using their current tactics, and neither side is ever going to change tactics, so all of them inevitably end up as two parties arguing for no reason but to try and make the other look stupid or narrow minded.

No matter how many times you do it, spraying metaphorical oil on a figurative grease fire is never to put it out. Theoretically.

The agnostic in me says, "We can never know whether or not 'God' exists, due largely to the fact that nobody in the history of ever has come up with the conclusive definition of 'God,' so obviously 'God' is beyond our comprehension."


The atheist in me says, "God is simply the name people give to a certain class of imagined beings and forces, and therefore, since God is entirely the invention of humans, God is entirely understandable by the human mind."


The Cubs fan in me says, "We can never understand why God, in its infinite wisdom, has decided to punish us, but we can continue to have faith that one day there will be divine mercy."

Sigh, religious debates.
Neither side is ever going to convince the other using their current tactics, and neither side is ever going to change tactics, so all of them inevitably end up as two parties arguing for no reason but to try and make the other look stupid or narrow minded.

No matter how many times you do it, spraying metaphorical oil on a figurative grease fire is never to put it out. Theoretically.
I have personally seen many people change their perspective or even change their view on God as a result of religious discussions. If you've never seen that happen, it's probably because you're bad at debating and should leave the internet.

I can't believe I just read almost 10 pages of Conserative Morality's circular argument.

I must be feeling particularly masochistic today.

Yes I am a lurker. ;)

I have personally seen many people change their perspective or even change their view on God as a result of religious discussions. If you've never seen that happen, it's probably because you're bad at debating and should leave the internet.

^^This. This a thousand times over.

I know that I changed my views on God largely because of religious discussions, many of them on the internet (some of those were on NSG, even!) I was raised a Christian, grew up believing a lot of the Christian mythology. So yeah, it really annoys me when people come and try to say "Nobody's ever going to change their mind in a debate, so don't bother!!!!"
It kinda has this air of pseudo-intellectualism. It's like the person's trying to say "hey! Look at me! I'm jaded and above such silly matters as intellectual discussion and debate!"
Note that this applies to basically any issue where people often say "don't bother; nobody ever changes their mind on this."

Second: True, you cannot disprove God's existence. But neither can you disprove the existence of unicorns, leprechauns, Russell's teapot, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, et cetera.
Unless you apply the same standards of evidence and the same burden of proof to these things as you do to God, then you are a hypocrite, because nobody has ever provided any reason that the existence of these things should be treated any differently than God's.What reason have you, besides taking what people say at face value, to assume that the concept of God is in any way similar to a Russel's teapot?

What reason have you, besides taking what people say at face value, to assume that the concept of God is in any way similar to a Russel's teapot?

As far as reasons to believe in existence go? They both have the same amount of evidence in favor of their existence. That is to say, none. The whole point of Russell's Teapot is to illustrate the silliness of "well you can't disprove it so it's rational to believe."

to those posting about budhism, its not a religion, its a philosophy, can't quote anything, but of all ive heard about it, its more of a way of living and a way of thinking, as aposed to the worship of some god, cause budha isn't a god, just the first person to reach enlightenment

As far as reasons to believe in existence go? They both have the same amount of evidence in favor of their existence. That is to say, none. The whole point of Russell's Teapot is to illustrate the silliness of "well you can't disprove it so it's rational to believe."You've heard of religions where things which are natural are held to be evidence of God's existence, surely? A rainbow is evidence of God's covenant with man. A summer rain in time of need, divine providence.

But my main contention is that it seems to treat the concept of God as if it were an object. This is manifestly not the case. Russel's teapot is a good example of why you don't want to believe in objects you don't have any evidence for-- but God is not an object.

to those posting about budhism, its not a religion, its a philosophy, can't quote anything, but of all ive heard about it, its more of a way of living and a way of thinking, as aposed to the worship of some god, cause budha isn't a god, just the first person to reach enlightenment
of course its a religion.

why would a philophy have temples, monks, lamas?

not specifying a god means that it is much easier to spread. people keep their local gods and remodel them in a buddhist fashion.

if you go to a buddhist country you will find that all the buddhist have gods. they just dont all have the same god.

of course its a religion.

why would a philophy have temples, monks, lamas?

I want a Llama... :(

You've heard of religions where things which are natural are held to be evidence of God's existence, surely? A rainbow is evidence of God's covenant with man...

Sure, they claim that all those things are evidence of God's existence, but there's no logical connection between the two. I could say "the sky is blue. Therefore, God does not exist," but that would not mean the color of the sky actually is evidence for non-existence.


But my main contention is that it seems to treat the concept of God as if it were an object. This is manifestly not the case. Russel's teapot is a good example of why you don't want to believe in objects you don't have any evidence for-- but God is not an object.

Why should believe in any entity for which you have no evidence? Even if you insist that Russell's teapot does not apply, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn certainly do. God may not be an object, but he certainly is an entity, even if he doesn't physically exist in our universe.

I want a Llama... :(
id get an alpaca but the damned things are soooo overpriced.

Sure, they claim that all those things are evidence of God's existence, but there's no logical connection between the two. I could say "the sky is blue. Therefore, God does not exist," but that would not mean the color of the sky actually is evidence for non-existence. This is an interesting position. The believers don't know what they believe (???) and now you do?

What makes the sun rising necessary? Yet we say: the sun rising demonstrates physical law. All this shows is the character of physical laws.

And I'm saying that God is like that: it's manifestly true that there exists evidence for God in nature. And all this shows is the character of the concept of God.


Why should believe in any entity for which you have no evidence? Even if you insist that Russell's teapot does not apply, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn certainly do. God may not be an object, but he certainly is an entity, even if he doesn't physically exist in our universe.Entity? Of course it's an entity. God is something! What a wonderfully ambiguous word. Did you arrive at this by careful introspection?

"People talk about God, but he's clearly not physical, so there must be SOMETHING there that's not physical which is the referent!" Must?

You sound like Descartes: "the mind is unextended substance." Mysterious!

It's like everyone thinks that language consists of nouns and nothing else: "'God' is a noun, therefore there has to be an object it refers to." "The mind is a noun, therefore..." Neither of you have bothered to look and see whether or not this something, this substance, is necessary. I don't see why it would be. Why can't talk just be talk?

This is an interesting position. The believers don't know what they believe (???) and now you do?


Of course they know what they believe. They believe that nature is evidence for God. But my point is, it isn't. They are wrong. To use the existence of nature as evidence for God, you have to show the connection. Or else you can say anything is evidence for anything, which is silly.


What makes the sun rising necessary? Yet we say: the sun rising demonstrates physical law. All this shows is the character of physical laws.

And I'm saying that God is like that: why should we care about logical necessity when it's manifestly true that there exists evidence for God? And all this shows is the nature of the concept of God.

It is not true that there exists evidence for God. There is no fact or observation from which we can rationally determine the existence of God.


Entity? Of course it's an entity. God is something! What a wonderfully ambiguous word. Did you arrive at this by careful introspection?

My point was that, as an entity, God requires as much evidence as any other entity. You can't make a special exception just because it's God.


"People talk about God, but he's clearly not physical, so there must be SOMETHING there that's not physical which is the referent!" Must?

Of course there must be something that people refer to when they speak about God, even if that something is a fictional character, as I think God probably is.

You sound like Descartes: "the mind is unextended substance." Mysterious!

In most respects, I would certainly not describe myself as a follower of Descartes. I find reason alone useless unless you apply it to the observations of your senses.


Neither of you have bothered to look and see whether or not this something, this substance, is necessary. I don't see why it would be. Why can't talk just be talk?

I do not think that God's existence is necessary. I don't see where the fuck you got that from.

I've enjoyed reading this thread so much, I'm going to post, something I rarely do :). Firstly, I'd like to talk about the very meaning of belief, and it's bearing on the conversation at hand. According to the dictionary, belief is described as such, "Something believed, an opinion or conviction." It is also described thusly, "Confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof."

So, then it would seem, that to believe in something, neither logic nor proof are inherently needed. I would venture as far as to say, if there becomes proof, or enough logical deduction to your belief, it ceases to be a belief, and thusly becomes a known fact.

So, for this portion I'd have to side with Conserative Reality, though the cost-benefit analysis portion does admittedly give me slight pause. Though it comes back to the fact that logic needs nothing to do with belief. If you want to believe something based on the seen potential benefits to you, again, tis fine.

Finally, just to clear up something that bothered me a tiny bit. To Pirated Corsairs, I like how you view the world, it's a very logic driven approach, and it's those like you that we need to keep a little bit of anchoring to our crazy world. I would like to refute one of your assertions though, namely when you were talking about the accounts given by the Bible. I can give a reasonable amount of proof to the assertion that 4,000 years ago there was a massive flood that changed the very face of the Earth to what we know today. For approximately 9 years now we've had proof of a massive world wide flood. As far back as 2000, we had come across proof of human habitation, at the bottom of what is today the Black Sea. The structure was found 900 meters underwater and 19.2 km off the shore of Turkey. Also on what would be has been identified as an ancient shoreline, they found two forms of shells. One was that of a fresh-water animal extinct and dating back 7000+ years, and the second was a salt-water shell-fish dating back 6,500 years. As I would never expect someone to believe my account of this without citing sources, please look at the works of one Robert Ballard, who in 2000 a National Geographic Society explorer-in-residence. So, we have rather conclusive evidence, that indeed, somewhere between 4,000 and 6,500 years ago, there was a massive flood, much like the one described in the Bible. I know this was completely off topic, but it was a point I wanted to raise.

To answer the original poster's question though, I do whole heartedly believe, that God is 100% beyond our comprehension. We have our personal view of who God is and what He can do, but in the end, there's no way we can know what He looks like, how He actually thinks, how He can love all of us so immensely without turning His back on us in disgust. So, that's my opinion, or belief as you'd have it. ;-)

I've enjoyed reading this thread so much, I'm going to post, something I rarely do :). Firstly, I'd like to talk about the very meaning of belief, and it's bearing on the conversation at hand. According to the dictionary, belief is described as such, "Something believed, an opinion or conviction." It is also described thusly, "Confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof."

So, then it would seem, that to believe in something, neither logic nor proof are inherently needed. I would venture as far as to say, if there becomes proof, or enough logical deduction to your belief, it ceases to be a belief, and thusly becomes a known fact.

So, for this portion I'd have to side with Conserative Reality, though the cost-benefit analysis portion does admittedly give me slight pause. Though it comes back to the fact that logic needs nothing to do with belief. If you want to believe something based on the seen potential benefits to you, again, tis fine.

Finally, just to clear up something that bothered me a tiny bit. To Pirated Corsairs, I like how you view the world, it's a very logic driven approach, and it's those like you that we need to keep a little bit of anchoring to our crazy world. I would like to refute one of your assertions though, namely when you were talking about the accounts given by the Bible. I can give a reasonable amount of proof to the assertion that 4,000 years ago there was a massive flood that changed the very face of the Earth to what we know today. For approximately 9 years now we've had proof of a massive world wide flood. As far back as 2000, we had come across proof of human habitation, at the bottom of what is today the Black Sea. The structure was found 900 meters underwater and 19.2 km off the shore of Turkey. Also on what would be has been identified as an ancient shoreline, they found two forms of shells. One was that of a fresh-water animal extinct and dating back 7000+ years, and the second was a salt-water shell-fish dating back 6,500 years. As I would never expect someone to believe my account of this without citing sources, please look at the works of one Robert Ballard, who in 2000 a National Geographic Society explorer-in-residence. So, we have rather conclusive evidence, that indeed, somewhere between 4,000 and 6,500 years ago, there was a massive flood, much like the one described in the Bible. I know this was completely off topic, but it was a point I wanted to raise.

To answer the original poster's question though, I do whole heartedly believe, that God is 100% beyond our comprehension. We have our personal view of who God is and what He can do, but in the end, there's no way we can know what He looks like, how He actually thinks, how He can love all of us so immensely without turning His back on us in disgust. So, that's my opinion, or belief as you'd have it. ;-)
what does the flood of the black sea have to do with the story of noah?

It gives credibility to the Noah account certainly. The Bible was written by individuals living in what we now call the Middle East. To then have proof, that up to 6,500 years ago the coastline in that area was at least 900 meters lower then it is today. So it certainly lends a note of validity to the writers who described a massive flood that killed hundreds of thousands.

It gives credibility to the Noah account certainly. The Bible was written by individuals living in what we now call the Middle East. To then have proof, that up to 6,500 years ago the coastline in that area was at least 900 meters lower then it is today. So it certainly lends a note of validity to the writers who described a massive flood that killed hundreds of thousands.

The Flood story is shared by many religions, though, and in that area particularly. That may make it's credibility a bit diluted.

Perhaps, though I will note, in my first post I made no real reference to Noah or any specific religion. I was merely refuting Pirated Cosairs, as he seemed to be making the assertion that the account in the Bible of a massive flood thousands of years ago, had no general proof to it.

It gives credibility to the Noah account certainly. The Bible was written by individuals living in what we now call the Middle East. To then have proof, that up to 6,500 years ago the coastline in that area was at least 900 meters lower then it is today. So it certainly lends a note of validity to the writers who described a massive flood that killed hundreds of thousands.
does anyone doubt that there have been massive floods in the ancient past? considering the floods we have seen in my lifetime that would be rather silly wouldnt it?

Yeah. "God certainly does not exist" is a belief. however, you said "Atheism is a belief," which is the part I had a problem with.


Well, I would argue that Agnostic Atheism is the only rational choice, given the (lack of) evidence. I would also argue the only justifiable basis for belief is that which seems to be true, not that which we would prefer.

Ah, so I assume when somebody uses a logical fallacy in a debate with you on some other topic, you'll think that their argument is valid, then?

As for me, I try to base all my beliefs on reason and evidence. The only things I believe are those things that I actually think are true. If somebody points out a logical fallacy in one of my arguments, I stop using that argument because it's not valid.



According the Christian myth, God created the world 6,000 years ago, flooded all of it 4,000 years ago, etc. Why do we not find evidence of this?

The emphasis at the end of the quote is mine of course. As I said, I was merely refuting the claim that there was no evidence of a massive flood during biblical times, when there very certainly is.

Perhaps, though I will note, in my first post I made no real reference to Noah or any specific religion. I was merely refuting Pirated Cosairs, as he seemed to be making the assertion that the account in the Bible of a massive flood thousands of years ago, had no general proof to it.

Yes, there were massive floods at various points in history. But there is no evidence of one that covered the entire surface of the Earth, which is what the Bible says happened.

The emphasis at the end of the quote is mine of course. As I said, I was merely refuting the claim that there was no evidence of a massive flood during biblical times, when there very certainly is.
To be more accurate, there is evidence that the authors of the Bible incorrectly recorded a local flood as being a flood that covered the entire world.

But I'm sure this is one of the passages of the Bible that we're allowed to view as "metaphor" or "in its historical context," unlike all the passages that we're supposed to take as literal recordings of God's word.

To those that already read the un-edited post, I apologize for my incorrect assertions in regards to the Black Sea. I have indeed shown a level of ignorance, and hope you'll be willing to forgive that.

God always takes the last slice of Pizza. :(

That's just Yahweh.

Who knows. I don't. :)

What happened to your avatar?!

Oh, come now -- did you really think that I didn't expect replies like that? I know full well that there are people who don't believe me, and I know full well that even if the clouds suddenly rearranged themselves to spell out "DRAGONATMA IS CORRECT AND CHRISATIANITY IS A LIE" there'll still be people who don't believe me.

That'd actually be pretty awesome to see.

I'll just say that it's very easy for modern humans to dismiss the multitude of Gods that people worshipped in the days of Egypt, Greece, and Rome. This leads me to believe that people are for the most part totally rational.

"Of course their Gods were just invisible men in the sky with no legitimate historical base."

But when you talk about THEIR God, woah...

Hehe, so true.

He is. I know it! Ask me any question about god, and i can answer it.

Which Religion is the right religion?

Why do His fan clubs suck so much?

Because they believe that their religion is the one true religion, and everyone else is fucked, so they try to save all the fucked one so that they won't be fucked, but the problem is, some of us like swimming...and don't want to spend an eternity on a life raft with the likes of The 700 Club, Haggard, the guy who was a faith healer...you get my drift.

I actually half-support her...although eclectic paganism's more accurate than buddhism, I think.

*gives you a slice of cheesecake* :)

As for me, I don't think we'll ever really comprehend the Divinity. I may be able to understand parts of the God, and parts of the Goddess, but I'll never fully comprehend all of it.

What happened to your avatar?!

I took it off?

I took it off?

*snickers* Hehe, that was just funny to me. sorry.

But why though? I don't read your names, I just look at the pretty pictures! :p

But why though? I don't read your names, I just look at the pretty pictures! :p

Uncle Willy, I just did. :wink:

Is God beyond our comprehension? I think 99% of everything that exists is beyond our comprehension so it wouldnt come as much of a suprise to me. We cant comprehend what dark matter is and if it does indeed actually exist it supposedly is 80% of the matter in the universe so thats a pretty big head start on lack of comprehension just right there.

For one system A to "comprehend" another system B, the "comprehending" system must be able to conceptually contain the "comprehended" system. Thus, system A would have to be at least as complex as the system B to assess it.

And waffles.

God was made up by some smart blokes who wanted to have control over people. He only exists in peoples minds, how can he be real? It's fucking impossible.

God was made up by some smart blokes who wanted to have control over people. He only exists in peoples minds, how can he be real? It's fucking impossible.

Sure its possible. A lonely God from some other plane of self-awareness is playing solitaire when it realizes that creatures from our plane of self awareness have invented some kind of belief system based around a powerful being. Seeing a fine opportunity, it translates itself into our universe and is now real.

Its probably silly, but its not impossible.

Sure its possible. A lonely God from some other plane of self-awareness is playing solitaire when it realizes that creatures from our plane of self awareness have invented some kind of belief system based around a powerful being. Seeing a fine opportunity, it translates itself into our universe and is now real.

Its probably silly, but its not impossible.

Nah, it's impossible. It is all science. Evolution and the big bang

Nah, it's impossible. It is all science. Evolution and the big bang

You didn't read the entire thread, did you?

This is my reasoning:

One of the most common adjectives used to describe God is "infinite".
Something that is infinite has no end.
If God has no end, then there is nothing He is not, because that would imply an end and therefore finiteness.
Therefore, "God" is nothing more or less than the universe in its entirety.

So I don't believe in God in the conventional sense of some n-dimensional bloke up in the sky somewhere.

Nah, it's impossible. It is all science. Evolution and the big bang

Science having models to explain species development and the separate principle of cosmological expansion hardly preclude the premise of some really powerful thing unconstrained by time or space manifesting.

There's no real necessity for it, but its not impossible either.

Impossible is a very categorical term, and explanations for natural phenomena do not intrinsically rule out conditions outside those phenomena.

Science having models to explain species development and the separate principle of cosmological expansion hardly preclude the premise of some really powerful thing unconstrained by time or space manifesting.

There's no real necessity for it, but its not impossible either.

Impossible is a very categorical term, and explanations for natural phenomena do not intrinsically rule out conditions outside those phenomena.

Exactly.
If I can dip into the platitudes, things like evolution and the Big Bang are the answer to "how," not "why."

Exactly.
If I can dip into the platitudes, things like evolution and the Big Bang are the answer to "how," not "why."

If you're going to dip into platitudes, please use lube first.




Alright, I admit, that was uncalled for.

If you're going to dip into platitudes, please use lube first.




Alright, I admit, that was uncalled for.

I liked it. ;)

God was made up by some smart blokes who wanted to have control over people. He only exists in peoples minds, how can he be real? It's fucking impossible.

Nah, it's impossible. It is all science. Evolution and the big bang

SO what you're saying is that God is beyond your comprehension. ;)

Of course they know what they believe. They believe that nature is evidence for God. But my point is, it isn't. They are wrong. To use the existence of nature as evidence for God, you have to show the connection. Or else you can say anything is evidence for anything, which is silly. You've apparently missed my point, which was: you aren't in a position to say that they're wrong about what constitutes evidence for their belief. Simply because you think a practice is silly does not preclude people from doing it.

It is not true that there exists evidence for God. There is no fact or observation from which we can rationally determine the existence of God. And I'm suggesting here that you're using your idea of God, and not the one the believer is using. You're completely ignoring what is actually happening - the fact that believers do use natural phenomena as evidence for their God - and saying to them, "Sorry, can't do that-- doesn't fit with my concept of God so you're wrong!" Since when was your idea of God the only one permissible?

My point was that, as an entity, God requires as much evidence as any other entity. You can't make a special exception just because it's God."Just as much evidence as any other entity"? What, exactly, is that supposed to mean? I know that there are different kinds of evidence for different kinds of "entities". For example, I know how to show that there is a teapot orbiting the planet. I know how to show that there is a fictional character called Aragorn. I know how to provide evidence that someone misspelled a word in the newspaper I read this morning. As it happens, I also know what some people count as evidence that their God exists. If this is a special exception than please tell me how to be more ordinary, because I clearly need help!

Of course there must be something that people refer to when they speak about God, even if that something is a fictional character, as I think God probably is.Good. Then accept what that something is: look and see for yourself whether people talk about evidence of God in the same way as they do as evidence of, e.g., a chair. If they don't, then don't say that there is no evidence of God just because there is no evidence of an immaterial something!

In most respects, I would certainly not describe myself as a follower of Descartes. I find reason alone useless unless you apply it to the observations of your senses.Like I tried to point out before about the believer's talk about God: don't take what people say at face value. Look and see how they actually go on (in this case, the way you argue; the conclusions you draw). Well, I looked and saw Descartes' problem.

I do not think that God's existence is necessary. I don't see where the fuck you got that from.That's not quite what I was criticizing. Simply the fact that you were looking for possible evidence of God (and subsequently not finding it) demonstrated you were thinking about God in terms of: he's an unextended object. Your further assumption that there cannot be evidence of God seems to rest on the grounds that "God" is supposed to be a "philosopher's god." That is: you think of god as a metaphysical something. And if we just can show that there's no reason to believe that something is there, religion and irrationality can go away. I completely agree on one thing - of course you can't show any physical evidence of metaphysical somethings; that's true by definition. But you'll find that in practice people believe something quite different than this 'philosophical' concept of God (to be honest, I haven't a clue what the 'philosopher's God' is supposed to be useful for), and if you wish to address those believers, you'll have to change the arguments you use.

If you're going to dip into platitudes, please use lube first.
Can't see that helping much with this topic line historically, mon Flexo-san.

Now, I have no time machine (and thus cannot be 100% sure, at least for now), but my theory is that the "great flood" story is from words passed down form the end of the last ice age. Naturally, when all that ice melts the water has to go SOMEWHERE...


Anicent philosopher: Hmm... in my father's time, we moved inland because the Poseidon Sea was eating land. Same thing for his father and his father and his father. Will Poseidon ever be full?

Now, I have no time machine (and thus cannot be 100% sure, at least for now), but my theory is that the "great flood" story is from words passed down form the end of the last ice age. Naturally, when all that ice melts the water has to go SOMEWHERE...They had one in that Volkswagen bus on that one Futurama episode ... hmmm.

whatever exists is under no obligation to limit itself to the potential of human comprehension. it is nothing other then collective egotism to imagine otherwise.

nor is whatever anyone pretends to know about it, of any pertinence what so ever to whatever may or may not, unbeknownst to any or all of us, exist.

my own feelings are based of course on my own experience. that experience and attempts at self honesty and objectivity tell me that we live in a universe that is statistical in nature, mostly if not entirely impersonal, and gratifyingly diverse. they do not tell me that this in any way excludes nor is incompatible with the existence of something big, friendly and invisible that gives great hugs and a lot little friendly and invisible somethings that do to. and it certainly does not tell me that there is any inherent conflict between any of them not that conflict is any sort of default condition of anything.

now big friendly and invisible is close enough for government work to being god or a god as far as i'm personally concerned. those who choose to feel otherwise for whatever reasons of fanatacism, self intrest, or whatever else, that is their own concern.

only when they attempt to dictate those perceptions upon the rest of us, then there doing so becomes a concern of and possible threat to, us all.

I know that I changed my views on God largely because of religious discussions, many of them on the internet (some of those were on NSG, even!) I was raised a Christian, grew up believing a lot of the Christian mythology. So yeah, it really annoys me when people come and try to say "Nobody's ever going to change their mind in a debate, so don't bother!!!!"
It kinda has this air of pseudo-intellectualism. It's like the person's trying to say "hey! Look at me! I'm jaded and above such silly matters as intellectual discussion and debate!"



I didn't say stop >_>
And you say this as if you expected me to have known that you've changed your views on such things, and just been stupid enough to forget or not count it. I couldn't possibly have known this until after I posted that message. In my personal experience, up until just now, people involved in religious debationing have never "switched sides" during or as a direct result of the debate itself. I didn't mean to imply I'm above debate, and what I've seen other people do in arguments I didn't get involved in is in no way a reliable indicator of my personal skill at logical argument, but I can certainly see where my two critics are coming from.

In light of this, I retract my previous statement and issue the following correction:

MOST people are stubborn bastards, especially those involved in religious or political debates. Statistically speaking, based on a sample space of what I have personally viewed, most people on most sides of most religious debates, this one included, will eventually turn to flaming. By all means, continue, though.

Your input and insults are much appreciated and will be taken into consideration during any future debates I am involved with, either willingly or unwillingly.

Lolfail

tragic is the narrowness of those who deny the diversity of reality.

a diversity far far far beyond human comprehension, with or without whatever god or gods might also happen to exist.

Well, I personally see this argument in two ways, one of which sees god(s) as a concept designed by humans. This is evidently within comprehension for us mere mortals:P. The other sees god(s) as the otherworldly force that he/she/it/they are generally assumed to be. In this case god is well and truly beyond our comprehension. We cannot currently understand how humanity works, let alone how the great powerful being(s) that created us work. This is of course a humanly narrow view.

P.S. I believe that people's responses should be read through thoroughly and thought about before deciding if they are wrong or right.

I guess I'm insane, nobody else thinks that god is a totally human construct?

Exactly.
If I can dip into the platitudes, things like evolution and the Big Bang are the answer to "how," not "why."
I've never understood how people can buy this.

Evolution and the Big Bang answer the "why" so much more thoroughly than any God or gods, it's just that people don't seem to LIKE the answer for whatever reason.

People want to hear that they, personally, were specifically chosen to exist by a conscious, thinking, feeling entity. But...that doesn't answer "why" either. At some point they always throw up their hands and just admit that "it's all part of God's plan" and that's why.

Fuck that noise.

Evolutionary biology tells me precisely why I exist: because my form of life is the most effective biological solution for the niche in which it evolved. Because the traits I possess have been shaped by millions of years of natural forces, which can be explored in great detail. Because of the environmental, energetic, and mechanical pressures that act on us. Because of the physical laws governing our universe. On and on and on. Evolutionary biology can tell me why I have precise the shape that I have, and it's not some vague "made in god's image" crap...it's actual functional information. It is information that helps me understand how AND WHY my body works the way it does, and how to fix my body if something goes wrong, and why some things are more likely to go wrong than others, and why some things are fixable and others aren't, and on and on and on.

I've never encountered a single religion that answered even 1/1000th of the "why" questions that biology answers. And yes, I've looked.

well it isn't what might or might not exist ITSELF that is a totally human construct, obviously, but what people pretend to know about "it".

we can bullshit ourselves forever and not make anything exist or fail to by doing so.
what we don't know we don't know. what we pretend to know about what we don't know, yes, THAT is self deception.

i also don't think most beliefs started out as a way of bringing people into subservience to some arbitrary centers of power, but rather simply to try and discourage them from beating each other over the head. that this seems to have backfired so dramatically cannot really be blamed entirely on the intention of doing so.

but it also again, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with, what may or may not exist, beyond the self serving sphere of human society.

also, let me put it this way: I am beyond human comprehension. everyone i have ever shared living arrangements with will readily confirm this. therefor any god i might have been created in the image of would also, at the very least, have to be, would it not?

You've apparently missed my point, which was: you aren't in a position to say that they're wrong about what constitutes evidence for their belief.

Of course you can look at a belief and determine what sort of evidence would support a belief. You seem to be under the impression that you can arbitrarily declare anything to be evidence for any given belief, and if you believe that it is evidence, then it is. I could say "I believe that the sky being blue is evidence that I am correct," and, by your argument, you can't tell me what constitutes valid evidence for my belief, so stop oppressing me!


Simply because you think a practice is silly does not preclude people from doing it.

Where did I ever say I would ban people from practicing whatever religion they like?

And I'm suggesting here that you're using your idea of God, and not the one the believer is using. You're completely ignoring what is actually happening - the fact that believers do use natural phenomena as evidence for their God - and saying to them, "Sorry, can't do that-- doesn't fit with my concept of God so you're wrong!" Since when was your idea of God the only one permissible?

No, I am not just using my idea of God. Natural phenomena is not evidence for any conception of God, because God does not logically follow from natural phenomena. For something to be evidence for something else, there has to be some logical connection from the evidence to the claim.


"Just as much evidence as any other entity"? What, exactly, is that supposed to mean? I know that there are different kinds of evidence for different kinds of "entities". For example, I know how to show that there is a teapot orbiting the planet. I know how to show that there is a fictional character called Aragorn. I know how to provide evidence that someone misspelled a word in the newspaper I read this morning. As it happens, I also know what some people count as evidence that their God exists. If this is a special exception than please tell me how to be more ordinary, because I clearly need help!

The point is, they are trying to claim that God exists outside of the imagination, and so they need to present evidence from which one can rationally conclude that God exists.


Good. Then accept what that something is: look and see for yourself whether people talk about evidence of God in the same way as they do as evidence of, e.g., a chair. If they don't, then don't say that there is no evidence of God just because there is no evidence of an immaterial something!

Yes, they are saying God exists in reality, outside the imagination, and, usually, that he does things or has a special plan for humanity. Sure, he might exist in reality, but outside our plane of consciousness, and thus leave no evidence, but that would put believing in God on the same level of believing in Unicorns: it's justifying the lack of evidence with magic.

Like I tried to point out before about the believer's talk about God: don't take what people say at face value. Look and see how they actually go on (in this case, the way you argue; the conclusions you draw). Well, I looked and saw Descartes' problem.

My whole point is that there are no observations that would logically lead to the existence of God. If anything, my argument is closer to empiricism than rationalism.


That's not quite what I was criticizing. Simply the fact that you were looking for possible evidence of God (and subsequently not finding it) demonstrated you were thinking about God in terms of: he's an unextended object. Your further assumption that there cannot be evidence of God seems to rest on the grounds that "God" is supposed to be a "philosopher's god."

Well, no, I'm not saying "there cannot be evidence of God," I'm saying that, at the moment, there is none. If God does turn out exist, there are a number of ways that that fact could be revealed, depending on the god in question. To use an easy one, look at the Biblical God according to a literal reading. His worshipers can drink deadly poison and not be harmed. If God existed in that manner, we could easily test that. Sure, some gods are by design impossible to find any evidence one way or another whether they exist or not, but that puts them in the same class as magical unicorns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


That is: you think of god as a metaphysical something. And if we just can show that there's no reason to believe that something is there, religion and irrationality can go away. I completely agree on one thing - of course you can't show any physical evidence of metaphysical somethings; that's true by definition. But you'll find that in practice people believe something quite different than this 'philosophical' concept of God (to be honest, I haven't a clue what the 'philosopher's God' is supposed to be useful for), and if you wish to address those believers, you'll have to change the arguments you use.

But right now, I'm not trying to "preach" to believers to get them to convert. I'm not concerned with deconverting people at the moment. I'm interested in having a discussion/debate on the issues. Were I seeking deconverts, of course I would go about it differently.

I didn't say stop >_>
And you say this as if you expected me to have known that you've changed your views on such things, and just been stupid enough to forget or not count it. I couldn't possibly have known this until after I posted that message. In my personal experience, up until just now, people involved in religious debationing have never "switched sides" during or as a direct result of the debate itself. I didn't mean to imply I'm above debate, and what I've seen other people do in arguments I didn't get involved in is in no way a reliable indicator of my personal skill at logical argument, but I can certainly see where my two critics are coming from.

In light of this, I retract my previous statement and issue the following correction:

MOST people are stubborn bastards, especially those involved in religious or political debates. Statistically speaking, based on a sample space of what I have personally viewed, most people on most sides of most religious debates, this one included, will eventually turn to flaming. By all means, continue, though.

Your input and insults are much appreciated and will be taken into consideration during any future debates I am involved with, either willingly or unwillingly.

Lolfail

Perhaps you should not have assumed that your anecdotal evidence was meaningful enough to make a categorical statement-- a categorical statement that, when you think about it, doesn't make sense, because it essentially claims that there exist no rational, open-minded people in the world. I'm sorry if I was a bit harsh in my reaction, but really, I hear the line "Nobody will ever change their mind about issue X" that it starts to get old.

if belief required proof of anything it would not be called belief.

this does NOT however, require anything, to not exist just because whatever some pretended to know ABOUT it, might be either in error or unsupportable.

if little furry green things on a planet orbiting alpha centauri believe in a god, i believe in the same god they do, as does every monotheist on this world, whether or not this thought has ever crossed their mind. it IS the same universe, and a VERY big and diverse universe it is.

Bottle, you claim that the Big Bang and Evolution are the how and the why. Yet if that's true, I challenge you to explain the biggest question still eluding scientists to this day. Science says energy is neither created nor destroyed, and you can't get something out of nothingness. So, given that, how is the Big Bang even logically possible? The Big Bang supposedly caused everything to come to creation, yet then where did the energy for the Big Bang come from. Evolutionary theory is implicitly tied into the Big Bang theory, so if the Big Bang theory is unprovable, I'd argue that also throws the Evolutionary theory into question as well.

To quickly address Pirated Corsairs again. You seem to be laboring under the mistaken impression, that to believe in something, you automatically have to be able to prove your belief and present evidence to it's validity. Yet by the very definition of belief, that's something you can't do. If you can present evidence to prove a belief, it's no longer a belief. To belief in something, you inherently are forced to make a leap of faith, by it's very definition.

Bottle, you claim that the Big Bang and Evolution are the how and the why. Yet if that's true, I challenge you to explain the biggest question still eluding scientists to this day. Science says energy is neither created nor destroyed, and you can't get something out of nothingness. So, given that, how is the Big Bang even logically possible? The Big Bang supposedly caused everything to come to creation, yet then where did the energy for the Big Bang come from. Evolutionary theory is implicitly tied into the Big Bang theory, so if the Big Bang theory is unprovable, I'd argue that also throws the Evolutionary theory into question as well.

To quickly address Pirated Corsairs again. You seem to be laboring under the mistaken impression, that to believe in something, you automatically have to be able to prove your belief and present evidence to it's validity. Yet by the very definition of belief, that's something you can't do. If you can present evidence to prove a belief, it's no longer a belief. To belief in something, you inherently are forced to make a leap of faith, by it's very definition.

i take exception only to the claim of evolution being implicitly tied into the big bang. nothing of the sort. evolution is a mechanism that while it doesn't require the existence of a god, it doesn't require the nonexistence of one either, nor of the existence or non existence of ANY way in which the mineral substrate of what exists now came into existence. these are completely apples and oranges.

the energy and belief things are points well made. or at least congruent with my own perceptions as far as they go.

yes i doubt the big bang and not the existence of things i don't know about, but how much if anything, gods or a god, may have had to do with what exists now coming into existence is equally unknown and unknowable.

the existence of mechanisms no one has as yet thought of is always not only plausible but extremely highly probable.

Thank you Cameroi, perhaps my tying together of Big Bang Theory and the Evolution Theory was a bit brash, a bit of a weird personal belief I've held, which I won't go into at length here.

I agree with you on one your points. I'm not saying that a God or a number of gods actually had anything to do with the actual creation of things. Namely I was disputing the fact that the Big Bang theory can be viewed as both how and why. Assuming it is the how, the why is still beyond scientific proof, which by Pirated Corsairs description, would make it impossible to believe in.

It is information that helps me understand how AND WHY my body works the way it does, and how to fix my body if something goes wrong, and why some things are more likely to go wrong than others, and why some things are fixable and others aren't, and on and on and on.

In existential discourses, nobody is asking questions like this, like why the human race has specifically evolved the way it is today, such a question is comparatively trivial.

Thank you Cameroi, perhaps my tying together of Big Bang Theory and the Evolution Theory was a bit brash, a bit of a weird personal belief I've held, which I won't go into at length here.

I agree with you on one your points. I'm not saying that a God or a number of gods actually had anything to do with the actual creation of things. Namely I was disputing the fact that the Big Bang theory can be viewed as both how and why. Assuming it is the how, the why is still beyond scientific proof, which by Pirated Corsairs description, would make it impossible to believe in.

absolutely. it is the how, and not the why in any ultimate sense that is the subject of scientific inquiry. the why is far more the province of speculation, which may or may not be claimed by belief. though is no more knowable by the one then the other. personally i'm not convinced the universe needs a "why" at all. only that its existence neither requires the existence or nonexistence of anything other then itself.

personally i believe in strangeness being the prevailing condition and conflict not being a default condition of anything. i was not born into a universe of masters and servants, but one statistical in nature, totally impersonal, and gratifyingly diverse, while at the same time in no conflict what so ever with the existence or possible existence of something big, friendly and invisible that gives great hugs and a lot of little friendly and invisible somethings that do to, and no conflict between them either.

Just a few points:

First: Atheism is not a belief. It is the denial of all theist beliefs. It's not saying "I believe God does not exist" but "I do not believe that God exists." There's a difference between the two. Some atheists, of course, also do actually have the belief that God does not exist, but that's not what atheism actually is.

I think the terms are implict atheism and explicit atheism. My children who have never really thought about god at all would be implicit atheists as they have no beliefs at all about god. Atheists who do actually have the belief that God does not exist would be explicit atheists.

Where in the bible did it say god is Omnipotent or Omniscient? I keep hearing people say this but are these words in the bible or just assumed?

It's not in the Bible (well, the Bible contradicts itself on this, to be exact, but that's not really a surprise). The omni-everything model of god came from Platonic influences, if I recall correctly.

...

Well, no, I'm not saying "there cannot be evidence of God," I'm saying that, at the moment, there is none. If God does turn out exist, there are a number of ways that that fact could be revealed, depending on the god in question. To use an easy one, look at the Biblical God according to a literal reading. His worshipers can drink deadly poison and not be harmed. If God existed in that manner, we could easily test that. Sure, some gods are by design impossible to find any evidence one way or another whether they exist or not, but that puts them in the same class as magical unicorns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.....

What sort of evidence would you require to believe in god?

Now, different entities require different types of evidence. Physical objects can be empirically verified, but things like the patriarchy or my love of thin crust pizza can not. So, if you're talking about god as a physical object, then you would require being able to touch or somehow sense god directly. But if god is some different model, different evidence would be required.

So, what sort of evidence would you ask for?

Bottle, you claim that the Big Bang and Evolution are the how and the why. Yet if that's true, I challenge you to explain the biggest question still eluding scientists to this day. Science says energy is neither created nor destroyed, and you can't get something out of nothingness. So, given that, how is the Big Bang even logically possible?
*snipped a bunch of counter-factual nonsense**

I don't know any polite way to say this, so I'm just going to say it:

I'm not going to provide a basic high school science education for you in this thread.

Partly because I just don't feel like it, partly because you're spouting all the same boring non-science crap that Creationists usually spout and I have long since lost interest in that stuff, but largely also because this question of yours is totally irrelevant to my point.

If you can't do me the courtesy of reading my post well enough to comprehend my point, then you're not going to have much success if you demand that I spoon-feed you basic science education.

absolutely. it is the how, and not the why in any ultimate sense that is the subject of scientific inquiry.
And again with this weird claim.

Seriously, I'm a professional scientist, and this claim that "science isn't concerned with the why" is absolutely ludicrous. I get paid to ask "why." If I failed to address "why," my funding would be cut. And I am a low-level flunky in the grand scheme of things. I'm still at the ground floor, the lowest level of the totem pole, and even I am expected to address the "why" questions.

I know this lie is a very popular one because it's supposed to provide a truce between science and religion. See, science tells us "how," and religion tells us "why," and thus they are both important! La-la-la we can hold hands and spin in a field of wildflowers now!

But it's a lie. Science answers "why" questions every day. The fact that you don't UNDERSTAND those answers, or that you haven't heard of them yet, or that you don't personally LIKE them, doesn't make them go away.

What sort of evidence would you require to believe in god?

Now, different entities require different types of evidence. Physical objects can be empirically verified, but things like the patriarchy or my love of thin crust pizza can not. So, if you're talking about god as a physical object, then you would require being able to touch or somehow sense god directly. But if god is some different model, different evidence would be required.

So, what sort of evidence would you ask for?

Something that cannot be disputed. If (for example) the clouds over the US rearranged themselves to say "JEHOVAH RULES HEAVEN", then I'd be seriously reconsidering my position. On the other hand, if an aged atheist has a heart attack during a speech on why jehovah is false, that's not enough. Especially if he already had three previous heart attacks.

What sort of evidence would you require to believe in god?

Now, different entities require different types of evidence. Physical objects can be empirically verified, but things like the patriarchy or my love of thin crust pizza can not. So, if you're talking about god as a physical object, then you would require being able to touch or somehow sense god directly. But if god is some different model, different evidence would be required.

So, what sort of evidence would you ask for?
I know you didn't address this to me, but I hope you won't mind my answering:

It would be very, very simple for somebody to provide me with evidence of God.

First, they must simply define "god," so I know what we're talking about.
Second, they must provide any testable hypothesis that could disprove the existence of "god."
Finally, the testing of this hypothesis would need to fail to disprove "god."

It's worth noting that at least a dozen people have already done this for me in the past. For instance, my best friend defined "god" as "the sound of a baby's laughter," then provided a test by which one could disprove the existence of baby's laughter, and when the hypothesis was not disproven I agreed that yes, indeed, there is evidence that their "god" (baby's laughter) exists.

And again with this weird claim.

Seriously, I'm a professional scientist, and this claim that "science isn't concerned with the why" is absolutely ludicrous. I get paid to ask "why." If I failed to address "why," my funding would be cut. And I am a low-level flunky in the grand scheme of things. I'm still at the ground floor, the lowest level of the totem pole, and even I am expected to address the "why" questions.

I know this lie is a very popular one because it's supposed to provide a truce between science and religion. See, science tells us "how," and religion tells us "why," and thus they are both important! La-la-la we can hold hands and spin in a field of wildflowers now!

But it's a lie. Science answers "why" questions every day. The fact that you don't UNDERSTAND those answers, or that you haven't heard of them yet, or that you don't personally LIKE them, doesn't make them go away.

I feel as though you are misunderstanding(I think) the point of what he said. The "why" you are speaking of is really a form of the "how", in a sense. How something functions is related to why the mechanism works, physically.

However, the "why" of his question is towards a more non-empirical, less physical, and more philosophical question. For instance "Why do I exist?" could be answered as "Your parents gave birth to you." However, in a more phylosophical sense, the question is gearing more towards a grander purpose, if one so does exist. It's sticky.

I feel as though you are misunderstanding(I think) the point of what he said. The "why" you are speaking of is really a form of the "how", in a sense. How something functions is related to why the mechanism works, physically.

However, the "why" of his question is towards a more non-empirical, less physical, and more philosophical question. For instance "Why do I exist?" could be answered as "Your parents gave birth to you." However, in a more phylosophical sense, the question is gearing more towards a grander purpose, if one so does exist. It's sticky.
Well, I'm glad you agree with me.

Because, see, you basically just admitted that science DOES answer "why" questions, it's just that people don't like the answers. They want to hear that there is a "grander purpose" (whatever that's supposed to mean), and rather than ASKING if this purpose exists they are assuming that this purpose must exist and demanding that it be told to them. Nothing like making assumptions and then getting cranky when the universe fails to cooperate with your assumptions!

The truth is, you can answer "why" questions all day long, but until you tell people that they have a grand purpose and they're very special and the universe is personally interested in them because they're terribly important, they'll just sit there pouting about how you didn't answer the "big questions."

I think the terms are implict atheism and explicit atheism. My children who have never really thought about god at all would be implicit atheists as they have no beliefs at all about god. Atheists who do actually have the belief that God does not exist would be explicit atheists.

Sure. The problem is that certain posters have tried to equivocate different types of atheist.


What sort of evidence would you require to believe in god?

Now, different entities require different types of evidence. Physical objects can be empirically verified, but things like the patriarchy or my love of thin crust pizza can not. So, if you're talking about god as a physical object, then you would require being able to touch or somehow sense god directly. But if god is some different model, different evidence would be required.

So, what sort of evidence would you ask for?

Well, the sort of evidence I would need depends on the specific conception of God. Obviously, something like the Deist non-interventionalist God is non-falsifiable and non-testable, so I doubt I will ever believe in it. After all, even if it exists, it will never do anything to demonstrate that.

But most generally, I would require any observation that can best be explained by the existence of a God or gods. For example, if I pray that God cause me to suddenly sprout wings and I do, I'll probably think that it is likely that some sort of God exists.
Or, narrowing it down to just one God, say we find that, when Christians drink deadly poisons, they are not harmed, like the Bible says will happen. That would indicate to me that their God probably exists.

But until some such event occurs, I see no reason not to say "I don't know for sure, but I don't see any reason to believe that any sort of Deity exists."

Something that cannot be disputed. If (for example) the clouds over the US rearranged themselves to say "JEHOVAH RULES HEAVEN", then I'd be seriously reconsidering my position. On the other hand, if an aged atheist has a heart attack during a speech on why jehovah is false, that's not enough. Especially if he already had three previous heart attacks.

So, you would require some sort of empirical evidence, that is highly unlikely to be just a coincidence. What if god does not work through direct actions on the world, but instead acts through natural causes? Then we would have a god that would be unable or unwilling to do the sort of thing you require as evidence.

I know you didn't address this to me, but I hope you won't mind my answering:

Don't be silly, Bottle. The whole point of arguing for theism is that you get to debate the intelligent people.

It would be very, very simple for somebody to provide me with evidence of God.

First, they must simply define "god," so I know what we're talking about.
Second, they must provide any testable hypothesis that could disprove the existence of "god."
Finally, the testing of this hypothesis would need to fail to disprove "god."

It's worth noting that at least a dozen people have already done this for me in the past. For instance, my best friend defined "god" as "the sound of a baby's laughter," then provided a test by which one could disprove the existence of baby's laughter, and when the hypothesis was not disproven I agreed that yes, indeed, there is evidence that their "god" (baby's laughter) exists.

What about those definitions of god that couldn't provide any sort of testable hypothesis?

So, you would require some sort of empirical evidence, that is highly unlikely to be just a coincidence. What if god does not work through direct actions on the world, but instead acts through natural causes? Then we would have a god that would be unable or unwilling to do the sort of thing you require as evidence.

Then they likely won't convince me of their existence that way. Keep in mind that if Zappo Q. Randomgod won't (or can't) do anything to prove responsibility for natural disasters A, B, C, and X, how do we know that it WAS him/her after all?

God was created by man, ergo, man comprehends god.

SO what you're saying is that God is beyond your comprehension. ;)


No, he just doesn't exist.
But I'll tell you whatdoes exist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spagetti_monster

...Well, the sort of evidence I would need depends on the specific conception of God. Obviously, something like the Deist non-interventionalist God is non-falsifiable and non-testable, so I doubt I will ever believe in it. After all, even if it exists, it will never do anything to demonstrate that.

...

But until some such event occurs, I see no reason not to say "I don't know for sure, but I don't see any reason to believe that any sort of Deity exists."

What about the Anthropic Cosmological Principle (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/c-anthro.htm)?

The Anthropic Principle was first suggested in a 1973 paper, by the astrophysicist and cosmologist Brandon Carter from Cambridge University, at a conference held in Poland to celebrate the 500th birthday of the father of modern astronomy, Nicolaus Copernicus. The Anthropic Principle is an attempt to explain the observed fact that the fundamental constants of physics and chemistry are just right or fine-tuned to allow the universe and life at we know it to exist... The Anthropic Principle says that the seemingly arbitrary and unrelated constants in physics have one strange thing in common--these are precisely the values you need if you want to have a universe capable of producing life. The universe gives the appearance that it was designed to support life on earth, ...

Would this be considered evidence for a god that wishes to have intelligent life in the Universe?

No, as if the constants were somewhat different we'd still have life -- just not the kind we're used to.

No, as if the constants were somewhat different we'd still have life -- just not the kind we're used to.

Some sort of life that doesn't need things like atoms or stars or water or neutrons or protons.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that life coud exist in those conditions?

What about the Anthropic Cosmological Principle (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/c-anthro.htm)?

The Anthropic Principle was first suggested in a 1973 paper, by the astrophysicist and cosmologist Brandon Carter from Cambridge University, at a conference held in Poland to celebrate the 500th birthday of the father of modern astronomy, Nicolaus Copernicus. The Anthropic Principle is an attempt to explain the observed fact that the fundamental constants of physics and chemistry are just right or fine-tuned to allow the universe and life at we know it to exist... The Anthropic Principle says that the seemingly arbitrary and unrelated constants in physics have one strange thing in common--these are precisely the values you need if you want to have a universe capable of producing life. The universe gives the appearance that it was designed to support life on earth, ...

Would this be considered evidence for a god that wishes to have intelligent life in the Universe?

To be honest, I don't see anything justifiable that can be drawn from that beyond "I don't know why all those constants are set that way, but let's see if we can find out."

Then they likely won't convince me of their existence that way. Keep in mind that if Zappo Q. Randomgod won't (or can't) do anything to prove responsibility for natural disasters A, B, C, and X, how do we know that it WAS him/her after all?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

To be honest, I don't see anything justifiable that can be drawn from that beyond "I don't know why all those constants are set that way, but let's see if we can find out."

Iwas providing it as an example of something that could be considered as 'best explained by the existence of a God or gods'. Now do you consider that it could best be explained by the existence of god or gods?

Its like a tree falls over and gives shelter to a family of beavers, and every night, the Daddy Beaver says "Now, give thanks to the tree that fell over so we would have a place to live. It did so on purpose, otherwise we wouldn't be here. Its proof of a Beaver God."

If the tilt of earth's axis had been just a bit off, and some other planet's had been just on, something somewhere else could just have easily insisted the world was intended for it by its God.

If the asymmetry of matter to anti-matter had gone another way, things made up of anti-protons whose minds are made up of anti-nitrogen vacancies contained in crystals of allotropic anti-carbon would want to believe that it was meant to be that way, otherwise they wouldn't be there.

We point the finger and say "You're stuck on only your own concept of God" while stuck on only one concept of life. As if the one that would come about in the conditions that did come about must be any more intentional than whatever would come about had other conditions occurred.

Some sort of life that doesn't need things like atoms or stars or water or neutrons or protons.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that life coud exist in those conditions?

Now, I haven't enoucntered much life esigned for other worlds, but here are two plausible scenarios...

SCENARIO 1: The reactions that power the sun produce less heat than they do now and more organisms are acidproof.

POSSIBLE RESULT: Hey, water and life on venus!

SCENARIO 2: The reactions that power the sun produce less heat than they do now, and gravity is stronger.

POSSIBLE RESULT: Hey, water and life on mars!

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

I'm saying that if they make claims but are unwilling and/or unable to back them up, then it's quite possible Zappo Q. Randomgod is no deity at all, but simply a mortal (and a liar as well!)

you basically just admitted that science DOES answer "why" questions

Nobody denies this, I think you took what was said to literally. It was metaphorical.


and rather than ASKING if this purpose exists they are assuming that this purpose must exist and demanding that it be told to them.

This is one mega, mega assumption. For instance, pretty much everyone I have ever actually had any complex existential type debates with have pretty much all been atheists/agnostics or deists without any particular religion. Just because you look for discourse that doesn't involve testable empiricism, doesn't mean you're looking for some religion to have the answers dictated to you, that's an absurd suggestion. Science does not have a monopoly on truth, it's an effective method to observe and discern facts about the observable universe.

Its like a tree falls over and gives shelter to a family of beavers, and every night, the Daddy Beaver says "Now, give thanks to the tree that fell over so we would have a place to live. It did so on purpose, otherwise we wouldn't be here. Its proof of a Beaver God."

If the tilt of earth's axis had been just a bit off, and some other planet's had been just on, something somewhere else could just have easily insisted the world was intended for it by its God.

If the asymmetry of matter to anti-matter had gone another way, things made up of anti-protons whose minds are made up of anti-nitrogen vacancies contained in crystals of allotropic anti-carbon would want to believe that it was meant to be that way, otherwise they wouldn't be there.

We point the finger and say "You're stuck on only your own concept of God" while stuck on only one concept of life. As if the one that would come about in the conditions that did come about must be any more intentional than whatever would come about had other conditions occurred.

That's an interesting scenario.

Now, you are claiming that the likelihood of intelligent life evolving in a universe is the same regardless of the laws of the universe.

Do you have any evidence for such a claim?

Now, I haven't enoucntered much life esigned for other worlds, but here are two plausible scenarios...

SCENARIO 1: The reactions that power the sun produce less heat than they do now and more organisms are acidproof.

POSSIBLE RESULT: Hey, water and life on venus!

SCENARIO 2: The reactions that power the sun produce less heat than they do now, and gravity is stronger.

POSSIBLE RESULT: Hey, water and life on mars!

Do you believe that all plausible scenarios are true? No, you obviously do not. So you must have some reason for believing these two plausible scenarios are more plausible or believable than the idea that god did it. What are those reasons?

I'm saying that if they make claims but are unwilling and/or unable to back them up, then it's quite possible Zappo Q. Randomgod is no deity at all, but simply a mortal (and a liar as well!)

Oh, I see. Do you have a lot of people coming by and claiming to be a god that works only through natural causes?

Now, you are claiming that the likelihood of intelligent life evolving in a universe is the same regardless of the laws of the universe.

Do you have any evidence for such a claim?



A 1:1 sampling suggests that it's true.

The problem with the Anthropic Cosmological Principle is that it takes an observed effect (the universe, as is) and an-other observed effect (the existence of life, as we know it) and not only correlates them, but claims a common AND exclusive cause for both effects.

Given that this, therefore, requires a cause that is outside of the two effects, and given that no such extrapolation is required if you assume that the first IS the cause of the second, Occam suggests that - yes - " the likelihood of intelligent life evolving in a universe is the same regardless of the laws of the universe", because the evolving is contingent on the rules, not externally applied.

That's an interesting scenario.

Now, you are claiming that the likelihood of intelligent life evolving in a universe is the same regardless of the laws of the universe.

Do you have any evidence for such a claim?

That's not even close to what I claimed.

What I claim is that the particular type, place, and nature of "life" that we see is not the only one conceivable. In fact, the anthropic principle suffers from what is often called "carbon chauvinism".

I never claimed the likelihoods are the same because they don't have to be to refute the anthropic cosmology model. As long as there is some non-zero possibility of other kinds of life, it can be stated that the conditions that occurred are not the only ones that can produce life.

Just like the Beaver who says "It is proof of the beaver god that this tree was knocked over on purpose by the beaver god, because if it hadn't knocked over this tree, we couldn't live in it!"

If conditions had been different, life suitable to those conditions could have developed, and insisted they were the "intended outcome of the Great Designer". Instead, its us, so we make that claim, just as limited in our conception of life as you accuse people of being in their conception of God.

The anthropic cosmological principle fails because it doesn't address that if conditions had been different, it would be just as reasonable for there to be a different kind of life or no life at all (where there would be nothing to assume that it was the "intended outcome").

So, as you can see, I never claimed the likelihoods have to be the same because I don't have to claim that. If there are other likelihoods at all, higher or lower, then the fact that one particular outcome occurred doesn't have to be intended. That life suitable to that outcome occurred is no more significant than the beavers living under the fourth tree from the left, because that's the one that fell down.

A 1:1 sampling suggests that it's true.

The problem with the Anthropic Cosmological Principle is that it takes an observed effect (the universe, as is) and an-other observed effect (the existence of life, as we know it) and not only correlates them, but claims a common AND exclusive cause for both effects.

Given that this, therefore, requires a cause that is outside of the two effects, and given that no such extrapolation is required if you assume that the first IS the cause of the second, Occam suggests that - yes - " the likelihood of intelligent life evolving in a universe is the same regardless of the laws of the universe", because the evolving is contingent on the rules, not externally applied.

Your 1:1 sampling is too small to make that claim, isn't it? And wouldn't it also suggest that all these universes would be the same?

I don't think it claims a common cause for both. And it does assume that the first (the universe) IS the cause of the second (the existence of life as we know it), as the whole premise is that in the moment of the creation of the universe, an incedibly unlikely string of mathematical rules came about that just happened to result, billions of years later, in intelligent life. It does not specify that the cause of this astronomically improbable event was god or that it had an external cause, at least according to my understanding of Barrow and Tipler, the authors of the book I got this idea from.

And Occam's razor doesn't describe reality.

It is possible that intelligent life could evolve in a universe without any subatomic particles. Sure. But there is no scientific evidence for such a belief, nor would there be any way to test such a belief. At best, you could define it as a philosophical belief.

Do you believe that all plausible scenarios are true? No, you obviously do not. So you must have some reason for believing these two plausible scenarios are more plausible or believable than the idea that god did it. What are those reasons?

How about the fact that those two scenarios would solve most of mars and venus's problems, which is rather impressive considering that virtually any earth life form would both freeze to death and be asphyxiated on one while they get boiled alive and crushed to death on the other? Or the fact that your opinion of deities has them much more powerful than mine? Or the fact that "a god did it" is no different than "a wizard did it"?

Oh, I see. Do you have a lot of people coming by and claiming to be a god that works only through natural causes?

Not in person, but they appear in the news from time to time -- and let's not forget the frauds who claim to be psychics.

EDIT: No, I'm not saying that they claim to be deities, but it falls under the same category.

I never claimed the likelihoods are the same because they don't have to be to refute the anthropic cosmology model. As long as there is some non-zero possibility of other kinds of life, it can be stated that the conditions that occurred are not the only ones that can produce life....

The ACP seems to indicate that the chances of having a universe with anything even remotely resembling atoms would only occur in a very limited number of potential universes. Let's say 1 out of every 3,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. It's actually a lot less likely, but whatever. Now if we say that the odds are actually 2 out of every 3,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, we haven't actually shown that the ACP is wrong in claiming that is highly unlikely.

See, to show that the ACP is wrong and that intelligent life would have evolved in most other possible universes, you need to show me some evidence. I am not going to simply say that since Jhanaham believes that this is likely, it must be true.

I don't think it claims a common cause for both. And it does assume that the first (the universe) IS the cause of the second (the existence of life as we know it), as the whole premise is that in the moment of the creation of the universe, an incedibly unlikely string of mathematical rules came about that just happened to result, billions of years later, in intelligent life. It does not specify that the cause of this astronomically improbable event was god or that it had an external cause, at least according to my understanding of Barrow and Tipler, the authors of the book I got this idea from.

In a continuum of possible outcomes, any discrete outcome has an "incredibly unlikely" chance; in fact, it asymptotically approaches zero. But one such outcome will occur. Had any of the other outcomes occurred, they'd have been equally unlikely. Thus, EVERY discrete outcome from a continuous possibility set meets that criteria.

As for the Anthropic Cosmology Principal, you were the one that presented it a few posts back in response to a premise about proof of God. Now you point out that it doesn't specify that it would have to be caused by God or an external cause, so even by your claim, it doesn't address what you attempted to address with it.


And Occam's razor doesn't describe reality.

It is possible that intelligent life could evolve in a universe without any subatomic particles. Sure. But there is no scientific evidence for such a belief, nor would there be any way to test such a belief. At best, you could define it as a philosophical belief.

Cosmology is a subset of philosophy and metaphysics. Appeals to cosmological arguments are thus intrinsically philosophical and metaphysical, including the anthropic cosmology model.

If the premise is "It must have been intended this way because its incredibly unlikely and we have life" is to be considered evidence, you would have to ignore that even the untestable probability of other kinds of life (whose discrete outcome approaches zero no more than ours does) means nothing precludes us from just being what did happen, not what must happen.

How about the fact that those two scenarios would solve most of mars and venus's problems, which is rather impressive considering that virtually any earth life form would both freeze to death and be asphyxiated on one while they get boiled alive and crushed to death on the other? Or the fact that your opinion of deities has them much more powerful than mine? Or the fact that "a god did it" is no different than "a wizard did it"?

I have no idea what you're talking about here.

Not in person, but they appear in the news from time to time -- and let's not forget the frauds who claim to be psychics.

That's....great. Um, I'm not really talking about people who claim to be god.

The ACP seems to indicate that the chances of having a universe with anything even remotely resembling atoms would only occur in a very limited number of potential universes. Let's say 1 out of every 3,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. It's actually a lot less likely, but whatever. Now if we say that the odds are actually 2 out of every 3,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, we haven't actually shown that the ACP is wrong in claiming that is highly unlikely.

May I see your evidence for that claim that atoms are so unlikely?

The ACP seems to indicate that the chances of having a universe with anything even remotely resembling atoms would only occur in a very limited number of potential universes. Let's say 1 out of every 3,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. It's actually a lot less likely, but whatever. Now if we say that the odds are actually 2 out of every 3,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, we haven't actually shown that the ACP is wrong in claiming that is highly unlikely.

Again, any discrete outcome from contiuous probability ranges (which are analogous to the real number line so they don't have a maximum number of possibilities of 3 x10 ^24 or anything else) will be incredibly unlikely. But one occurs, and is still not any more unlikely than the others.


See, to show that the ACP is wrong and that intelligent life would have evolved in most other possible universes, you need to show me some evidence. I am not going to simply say that since Jhanaham believes that this is likely, it must be true.

I never, ever, said "life would have evolved in most other possible universe". I said as long as there is some non-zero chance of another kind of life, then you are being just as limited in your conception of life as you accuse others of being in the conception of God.

To refute the ACP, it only has to be shown that other outcomes were possible, and even those that wouldn't express life simply means there wouldn't be life there to assume that it was the intended purpose.

Here's an interesting question that's kind of related. Does infinity, or eternity, necessitate certainty?

In a continuum of possible outcomes, any discrete outcome has an "incredibly unlikely" chance; in fact, it asymptotically approaches zero. But one such outcome will occur. Had any of the other outcomes occurred, they'd have been equally unlikely. Thus, EVERY discrete outcome from a continuous possibility set meets that criteria.

That doesn't actually matter. All discrete outcomes have the same chance of occurring, but not all discrete outcomes describe the same ending. ACP is about the chances of only having a few posiible discrete outcomes among an near infinite number and luckily arriving at one of those despite the fact that, as you mentioned, all discrete outcomes have the same chance of occurring.

As for the Anthropic Cosmology Principal, you were the one that presented it a few posts back in response to a premise about proof of God. Now you point out that it doesn't specify that it would have to be caused by God or an external cause, so even by your claim, it doesn't address what you attempted to address with it.

Yes. You should go back and reread those posts. You should pay special attention to what I was claiming and what I was asking.

Cosmology is a subset of philosophy and metaphysics. Appeals to cosmological arguments are thus intrinsically philosophical and metaphysical, including the anthropic cosmology model.

The same could then be said for using the Big Bang as some sort of evidence for a lack of god?

If the premise is "It must have been intended this way because its incredibly unlikely and we have life" is to be considered evidence, you would have to ignore that even the untestable probability of other kinds of life (whose discrete outcome approaches zero no more than ours does) means nothing precludes us from just being what did happen, not what must happen.

What exactly do you mean by the bolded bit?

May I see your evidence for that claim that atoms are so unlikely?

Go upthread. Follow the link I provided. Or just read it here (http://books.google.ca/books?id=uSykSbXklWEC&dq=anthropic+principle&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=jHukfMVjR8&sig=KjCXu8OHKdZ0NxMiNVfPXeRjZOI&hl=en&ei=yE3JSei3MM2rtgffk82fAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PPP1,M1).

May I see your evidence for that claim that atoms are so unlikely?

Even if they are, it makes no difference. There is no proof that atoms are required for all concepts of life. Life or self awareness of a completely different sort can't be categorically disproven. So, as long as its possible, talking about carbon based organic life as if it were the possible life is just assumption.

Just like there could be some god or another out there or here or everywhere, there could just as possibly be an outcome without it.

I once saw a peanut that looked just like Nixon. Its incredibly unlikely, but it happened. Therefore, must I now believe that somebody must have genetically engineered it to grow that way?

Again, any discrete outcome from contiuous probability ranges (which are analogous to the real number line so they don't have a maximum number of possibilities of 3 x10 ^24 or anything else) will be incredibly unlikely. But one occurs, and is still not any more unlikely than the others.

I already addressed this.

I never, ever, said "life would have evolved in most other possible universe". I said as long as there is some non-zero chance of another kind of life, then you are being just as limited in your conception of life as you accuse others of being in the conception of God.

To refute the ACP, it only has to be shown that other outcomes were possible, and even those that wouldn't express life simply means there wouldn't be life there to assume that it was the intended purpose.

I think that you think the ACP is claiming that there is something special in this outcome that we have now. It is not. It is saying that there is something highly unlikely in all possible outcomes that could possibly contain intelligent life. It doesn't matter if there is another outcome possible that would also have intelligent life, if that outcome is also astronomically unlikely.

That doesn't actually matter. All discrete outcomes have the same chance of occurring, but not all discrete outcomes describe the same ending. ACP is about the chances of only having a few posiible discrete outcomes among an near infinite number and luckily arriving at one of those despite the fact that, as you mentioned, all discrete outcomes have the same chance of occurring.

What do you mean "despite"? Its completely consistent with a likelihood range. ACP claims that unlikelihood has a special meaning for our specific outcome, but because (not despite) all discrete outcomes have that same near-zero chance, all other outcomes would have the same supposed meaning.


Yes. You should go back and reread those posts. You should pay special attention to what I was claiming and what I was asking.

I did, that's where I saw what you said and its context. You presented the ACP in the context of a proof of god, and now say it doesn't specify to provide that.


The same could then be said for using the Big Bang as some sort of evidence for a lack of god?

Sure, I never argued for provable lack of God. But you pointed to a particular belief as being "at best philosophical" when the premise you presented (ACP) is a subset of ontology and thus also "at best philosophical".
That kind of double standard, employing an inherently philosophical argument and then dismissing a valid refutation because it is "at best philosophical" is part of why ACP survives in discourse.



What exactly do you mean by the bolded bit?

As was explained, every discrete outcome from a continuum of possibilities has a likelihood that approaches zero. Thus, the ones that contain life, and the ones that don't, are each, in specificity, unlikely.

All specificity, including life, is unlikely. But some amount of it will occur. Unlikely things, even enormously unlikely things, occur. If you admit there is nothing necessarily special to that, I agree. Its why the ACP doesn't really prove anything about a God, but that's the context in which you introduced it here.

It is saying that there is something highly unlikely in all possible outcomes that could possibly contain intelligent life. It doesn't matter if there is another outcome possible that would also have intelligent life, if that outcome is also astronomically unlikely.

Technically, there is something highly unlikely in all possible outcomes. Full stop. This is no different from any continuous probability distribution, for instance - a persons height. Having my exact height has an infinitesimally small likelihood. It increases once you instead talk about a range of outcomes, in this instance it would be appropriate to round to the nearest inch. The problem with the universe is that there is an infinite amount of possibilities or outcomes, so whatever set of outcomes you have, the set will always be infinitesimally small in proportion to the set of all possible universes (that being infinity).

I already addressed this.

You may have tried to. But Penrose, Gould, Smoulin, and many others have already addressed Barrow and Tipler, yet sometimes things have to be repeated.


I think that you think the ACP is claiming that there is something special in this outcome that we have now. It is not. It is saying that there is something highly unlikely in all possible outcomes that could possibly contain intelligent life. It doesn't matter if there is another outcome possible that would also have intelligent life, if that outcome is also astronomically unlikely.

Yet again, all specific outcomes are unlikely, but one will occur. If there is no claim that there is anything "special" in this outcome, such as the very special claim that this outcome must indicate something intentional or purposeful for kind of life, then I can agree with that.

GoG, you might also notice Barrow and Tipler's claim:

"Final anthropic principle (FAP): Intelligent information-processing must come into existence in the Universe, and, once it comes into existence, it will never die out."

That seems like a definitely "special" claim they're making.

Technically, there is something highly unlikely in all possible outcomes. Full stop. This is no different from any continuous probability distribution, for instance - a persons height. Having my exact height has an infinitesimally small likelihood. It increases once you instead talk about a range of outcomes, in this instance it would be appropriate to round to the nearest inch. The problem with the universe is that there is an infinite amount of possibilities or outcomes, so whatever set of outcomes you have, the set will always be infinitesimally small in proportion to the set of all possible universes (that being infinity).

Agreed. Thus, if GoG is correct in saying that ACP only claims that these conditions and the resultant life are mathematically unlikely, its redundant and not special at all.

Your 1:1 sampling is too small to make that claim, isn't it?


No.

It's exactly 100% of ALL the data that we have any reason to believe exists.

That's pretty conclusive.

It's rather like you and I flipping coins, and I call 'heads' AFTER the coin has landed, and you ask me whether or not that's 'unlikely', given the fifty-fifty 'probability'.


And wouldn't it also suggest that all these universes would be the same?


No.


I don't think it claims a common cause for both.


It does...


And it does assume that the first (the universe) IS the cause of the second (the existence of life as we know it), as the whole premise is that in the moment of the creation of the universe, an incedibly unlikely string of mathematical rules came about that just happened to result, billions of years later, in intelligent life.


And, here's why - the mechanism is set in place at the point at which the first 'effect' is set in place. The second 'effect' is assured by that 'cause'.

You're proposing ID, just without the name-tags.


And Occam's razor doesn't describe reality.


It describes the probabilities in reality, though.

Flipping a coin 100 times, Occam says it will be either 'head' or 'tails' pretty much every time, and roughly divided between the two. Reality reflects that, by almost never allowing the coin to land perfectly on edge, and even more rarely, to turn into a wombat, mid-flight.


It is possible that intelligent life could evolve in a universe without any subatomic particles. Sure. But there is no scientific evidence for such a belief, nor would there be any way to test such a belief. At best, you could define it as a philosophical belief.

Quite a popular one, though - since dominant religions pretty much agree on the existence of some kind of non-material excarnation.

What do you mean "despite"? Its completely consistent with a likelihood range. ACP claims that unlikelihood has a special meaning for our specific outcome, but because (not despite) all discrete outcomes have that same near-zero chance, all other outcomes would have the same supposed meaning.

You said that all the differnet possible outcomes have the same probability. Like when you roll a die, the chances of one face coming up is as likely as any other face. So, the likelihood of you rolling 14,000,000 sixes in a row is the same as rolling 14,000,000 threes in a row, or getting some other outcome.

But let's say the casino gives you a billion dollars if you roll 14,000,000 sixes in a row. What are the chances of you walking home with that cash?

The ACP simply claims that when the universe rolled its dice, it had to do so 14,000,000 times, and it went away with a billion dollars cash in its pocket (in the form of intelligent life).

I did, that's where I saw what you said and its context. You presented the ACP in the context of a proof of god, and now say it doesn't specify to provide that.

Did I claim it was a proof of god? Are you sure?

Sure, I never argued for provable lack of God. But you pointed to a particular belief as being "at best philosophical" when the premise you presented (ACP) is a subset of ontology and thus also "at best philosophical".

That kind of double standard, employing an inherently philosophical argument and then dismissing a valid refutation because it is "at best philosophical" is part of why ACP survives in discourse.

I don't think that ACP is solely or inherently philosophical. Barrow and Tipler seem to see it as many atheists do: a rule of reasoning that suggests that we can do away with a designer god.

Some, not me, seem to think that it indicates the existence of a designer deity.

To me, it seems like an observation based on mathematical analyses of current scientific knowledge. Is that inherently philosophical?

It's not in the Bible (well, the Bible contradicts itself on this, to be exact, but that's not really a surprise). The omni-everything model of god came from Platonic influences, if I recall correctly.




It's in the Bible. Jesus says in Matthew 10:29-30...

"Are not two sparrows sold for a small coin? Yet not one of them falls to the ground without your Father's knowledge. Even all the hairs of your head are counted."

That one was for omniscience. As for omnipotence, check out Genesis 17:1, Jeremiah 32:27, and Revelation 19:6 for starters.

Also, nothing beats reading the Good Book cover to cover to get a hold of the major themes. I highly recommend it. 10-20 pages and day and you're done in a few months.

The ACP seems to indicate that the chances of having a universe with anything even remotely resembling atoms would only occur in a very limited number of potential universes. Let's say 1 out of every 3,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Unfortunately, while an impressively huge number - it's somewhere between wishful thinking, pointless noodling, and just plain bullshit.

The only permutation we have access to, resulted in 1 out of every 1 universe having atoms.

Its also interesting to note that Barrow and Tipler's calculations on life in our galaxy was based on the specific case of Homo Sapiens. It largely discounts other possible concepts of life.

Its also interesting to note that Barrow and Tipler's calculations on life in our galaxy was based on the specific case of Homo Sapiens. It largely discounts other possible concepts of life.

the problem is though, isn't that sort of circular? We haven't seen any other kind, so we can't say what's possible, except for what we already know.