Logical proofs for God

padser

i dunnooo............greater?????

Obni

Sorry to jump back in time like this, but I've only just discovered this board.
From the allegedly irrefutable Maynooth argument...

neuro-praxis wrote:

Since we now know with certainty that possibility is insufficient for actuality,...

OK, fine -

neuro-praxis wrote:

... then we know that the possibility of a world is not enough for a world to exist.

Again, no problem-

neuro-praxis wrote:

Possibilities of existence do not alter existence.

Still with you-

neuro-praxis wrote:

And each event has a cause.

Mmm-

neuro-praxis wrote:

Therefore, as we can see that the world is insufficient for its own existence, then there must be something outside of thw world and not identical to itself that caused its existence.

Well-

neuro-praxis wrote:

That which grants existence is unique: to provide that which it is to be. What God turns out to be is that which is identical to what it is to be.

Whoa! How did God just leap into the argument. All this argument can claim to be, if it can claim anything, is to be a logical proof that our understanding of the universe is not sufficient to explain its origin.

Playboy

Hmmm. Neuro-Praxis your arguement sounds like a very poorly phrased reworking of Descartes third meditation. If you really are using Descartes to prove the existence of God then you might want to read some of the hundreds of critics he has had over the few hundred years since his death. They do a very good job undermining nearly all his arguements.

dodgy_stalker

BLah blah blAH blah bloody logic asif, sentience is the only thing that makes a difference here the end product of the chemicals in your brain that produce ideas that is what makes god or not FULLS TOP.

Zulu

dodgy_stalker wrote:

BLah blah blAH blah bloody logic asif, sentience is the only thing that makes a difference here the end product of the chemicals in your brain that produce ideas that is what makes god or not FULLS TOP.

...and that's your first post! Brilliant. :rolleyes: I love boards.

dodgy_stalker

Zulu wrote:

...and that's your first post! Brilliant. :rolleyes: I love boards.

whasup wi me first post yO?


P.S. i love you :rolleyes:

simu

Back on topic please, people.

Playboy

dodgy_stalker wrote:

BLah blah blAH blah bloody logic asif, sentience is the only thing that makes a difference here the end product of the chemicals in your brain that produce ideas that is what makes god or not FULLS TOP.

prove it

Ania

If God's existance was proved, why should anybody 'believe' in him anymore?

Just an example: According to statistics, Ireland has around 4 Million inhabitans.
You cannot prove it, but you believe the statistics.
That's the same with the question about the existance of God.

Catsmokinpot

Fysh wrote:

What? How does that work? I for one don't believe it's in any way logical to conclude that there is a God, and I'm not the only one.

With regard to the topic, I remember reading an interview with Douglas Adams on the matter where he said he usually described himself as a "radical atheist" to try and indicate that yes, he really had thought this through and read up on the subject and no, he didn't want to have some nice but misguided fools from the local parish try to convert him.

how is it illogical to believe in god?

sure the idea of religion weather its catholicism or islam or whatever is a bit outrageous but the belief in god is not an unusual one

you could say you dont believe in god because of the scientific evidence eg. the big bang etc. the big bang proves nothing. its a theory it only suggests that the universe began with a bang. WOW!

think about it for god not to exist means that you can do anything in life and there will be no ultimate consequence, no judgement if you will. if that is the case it means that every bad person in the world who kills rapes and pillages - gets away with it suffers no ultimate consequences. ultimately would mean that life is a bunch of mean mother fukers getting away with murder and everything that is good and just in the world is pointless. and we should all just start killing eachother cause in the end it wont matter. that doesnt sound very logical to me....

there are so many arguments, so many possibilitys and an infinate amount of unknowns, and in the end their is no solid evidence either way so how could someone put foreward any logical argument that the belief in god is unfounded
edit:

Canis Lupus wrote:

I love all the big words ppl use in these arguments. I'm an atheist because god hasn't personally tapped me on the shoulder and said "boo" to me yet. I don't find my attitude lazy.

arent you agnostic then?

Fysh

Catsmokinpot wrote:

how is it illogical to believe in god?

sure the idea of religion weather its catholicism or islam or whatever is a bit outrageous but the belief in god is not an unusual one

you could say you dont believe in god because of the scientific evidence eg. the big bang etc. the big bang proves nothing. its a theory it only suggests that the universe began with a bang. WOW!

think about it for god not to exist means that you can do anything in life and there will be no ultimate consequence, no judgement if you will. if that is the case it means that every bad person in the world who kills rapes and pillages - gets away with it suffers no ultimate consequences. ultimately would mean that life is a bunch of mean mother fukers getting away with murder and everything that is good and just in the world is pointless. and we should all just start killing eachother cause in the end it wont matter. that doesnt sound very logical to me....

there are so many arguments, so many possibilitys and an infinate amount of unknowns, and in the end their is no solid evidence either way so how could someone put foreward any logical argument that the belief in god is unfounded

so, basically, your entire argument is that because you can't cope with the notion of the universe not adhering to your rather localised definition of right and wrong, god must exist?

Yes, well done. Capital effort there. "I'm too scared of accepting that my concept of justice might be arbitrary in terms of galactic or universal scale, therefore God exists". Descartes has nothing on you.

Seriously, though. Your concept of justice is one that, basically, is developed for the functional existence, more or less, of a bunch of lifeforms in a closed space. There is absolutely nothing about it that suggests it applies outside of our own civilisations, much less on other planets. And yes, that does carry with it the rather sucky realisation that ultimately, a lot of people get away with being rather crappy to each other for their entire lives. This does not mean that we should all go and commit crimes and be horrible to each other, and I'd love to see the logical argument that says otherwise. To be perfectly honest, that part of your argument fails and instead makes you look like a stereotype of the repressed religious person. The inexistence of God, to me, suggests only that each person should accept responsibility for their own actions.

We're talking about the human condition. Deal with it. Renounce your sense of justice, start a crusade in the name of justice, accept things as they are and carry on. But don't ignore reality and claim that logic is on your side in doing so.

Catsmokinpot

Fysh wrote:

so, basically, your entire argument is that because you can't cope with the notion of the universe not adhering to your rather localised definition of right and wrong, god must exist?

Yes, well done. Capital effort there. "I'm too scared of accepting that my concept of justice might be arbitrary in terms of galactic or universal scale, therefore God exists". Descartes has nothing on you.

Seriously, though. Your concept of justice is one that, basically, is developed for the functional existence, more or less, of a bunch of lifeforms in a closed space. There is absolutely nothing about it that suggests it applies outside of our own civilisations, much less on other planets. And yes, that does carry with it the rather sucky realisation that ultimately, a lot of people get away with being rather crappy to each other for their entire lives. This does not mean that we should all go and commit crimes and be horrible to each other, and I'd love to see the logical argument that says otherwise. To be perfectly honest, that part of your argument fails and instead makes you look like a stereotype of the repressed religious person. The inexistence of God, to me, suggests only that each person should accept responsibility for their own actions.

We're talking about the human condition. Deal with it. Renounce your sense of justice, start a crusade in the name of justice, accept things as they are and carry on. But don't ignore reality and claim that logic is on your side in doing so.

if you want to just focus on the one thing then you can but the fact is i stated several other things that you mentioned nothing about

your argument was that their is no logical reason why anyone would believe in god, and my argument is that their is no logical reason why anyone shouldnt believe in god. being that their are so many variables and so many unknowns you cannot make a logical argument that the belief in god is unfounded, you cannot say for certain that god doesnt exist therefore there is the possibility that he does exist... and that alone is more proof than any scientific study has given us.......

pissing all over one statement that i made doesnt take away from that

and i wasnt saying that we should all go out on a rampage i was sayin wheres the logic in following rules that ultimately have no concequences

if ur going to use logic about this type of argument you should be willing to throw logic out the window cause it has no place in a god debate cause it always brings us to the dead end each way

im not religious, however i do believe in god and i am not afraid of being wrong because everytime i am wrong means i will be less wrong in the future

Dades

Catsmokinpot wrote:

if you want to just focus on the one thing then you can but the fact is i stated several other things that you mentioned nothing about

pissing all over one statement that i made doesnt take away from that

and i wasnt saying that we should all go out on a rampage i was sayin wheres the logic in following rules that ultimately have no concequences

if ur going to use logic about this type of argument you should be willing to throw logic out the window cause it has no place in a god debate cause it always brings us to the dead end each way

im not religious, however i do believe in god and i am not afraid of being wrong because everytime i am wrong means i will be less wrong in the future

Catsmokin
In your last post you gave one argument which you suggest infers the existence of a god. That one argument is the one that got "pissed on". Namely that if god didn't exist then justice would not be meted out on death. Fire & brimstone. Quake ye sinners etc. This is CROWD CONTROL at it's most basic. Reward and punish. A human concept which exists in some shape or form in every religion. Why is that? Power lies with fear.

The only other point you make is that consistantly infuriating notion that because god can't be proven not to exist, that nobody can believe he doesn't. I refer you to the IPU as an example of just how pointless that line of thought is.

You say you are not religious but yet you believe in god and believe that you will be rewarded or punished in the afterlife for the life you lived. Well that makes you religious in my book. And that's fine - knock yourself out.

Just don't presume to tell others what they can or can't believe in, or try to use LOGIC to prove the existance of a notional figure that you obviously require to put order to your existance.

If someone was to prove there is no god, would you reject your morals? Would you go on a selfish rampage knowing that in death there would be no consequences? I don't think so. Because you, like me, or fysh do not require the fear of eternal torment to live our lives morally. And if you accept that you have to accept that god is not a requirement for everyone.

Playboy

There are lots of questions here that need to be answered.

1. What is logic?
2. Who invented logic?
3. Why should we believe in logic?
4. Why is it illogical to believe in a force outside of ourselves and greater than ourselves?
5. Why cant we say that we just dont know when nobody actually does?
6. Was it really a conincidence that the world exists like it does and we think like we do?
7. Why do we assume we have the intellectual ability to fully comprehend the true meaning of the world and the cosmos whether it is through science or religion?

Catsmokinpot

The Atheist wrote:

Catsmokin
In your last post you gave one argument which you suggest infers the existence of a god. That one argument is the one that got "pissed on". Namely that if god didn't exist then justice would not be meted out on death. Fire & brimstone. Quake ye sinners etc. This is CROWD CONTROL at it's most basic. Reward and punish. A human concept which exists in some shape or form in every religion. Why is that? Power lies with fear.

The only other point you make is that consistantly infuriating notion that because god can't be proven not to exist, that nobody can believe he doesn't. I refer you to the IPU as an example of just how pointless that line of thought is.

You say you are not religious but yet you believe in god and believe that you will be rewarded or punished in the afterlife for the life you lived. Well that makes you religious in my book. And that's fine - knock yourself out.

Just don't presume to tell others what they can or can't believe in, or try to use LOGIC to prove the existance of a notional figure that you obviously require to put order to your existance.

If someone was to prove there is no god, would you reject your morals? Would you go on a selfish rampage knowing that in death there would be no consequences? I don't think so. Because you, like me, or fysh do not require the fear of eternal torment to live our lives morally. And if you accept that you have to accept that god is not a requirement for everyone.

yes an infuriating argument isnt it but none the less just as valid as any argument that you put fourth

are you so arrogant that you cant admitt that there is a slight possibility that you are infact wrong? i can admit it with no problem

i also said that no amount science has proven so far or even pointed to the conclusion that god doesnt exist......

the big bang is only a theory.... which points to the conclusion that the universe began with a bang. it only points out that most religions have got it wrong about their beliefs.......

evolution points to the conclusion that we evolved from single cellular organisms and that we were just an elaborate accident which i to be honest is like believing in the immaculate conception. but i mean in the end believe what you want to believe

and i never said anyone should believe in god or that they shouldn't. but i get really pissed off when people say that the belief in god is unfounded and stupid. it is not stupid

rules whatever they are, keep a balance, the universe is balanced it was isaac newton who said that every action has an equal and opposite reaction..... now i know you cant litterally relate this to good and bad but i believe there is a balance here that needs to be kept. weather it infact is a judgement or fire and brimstone or what some people call karma its a balance.
i believe some sort of god keeps a balance

thats only my belief... but who are you to just poo poo it like that.

edit:
Religious
→ adj.
1. relating to or believing in a religion. • belonging or relating to a monastic order or other group united by their practice of religion.
2. treated or regarded with a devotion and scrupulousness appropriate to worship.

i do not worship god and i am do not belong to a religion and i dont think god is up there warming my seat.... :rolleyes:

Catsmokinpot

Playboy wrote:

There are lots of questions here that need to be answered.

1. What is logic?
2. Who invented logic?
3. Why should we believe in logic?
4. Why is it illogical to believe in a force outside of ourselves and greater than ourselves?
5. Why cant we say that we just dont know when nobody actually does?
6. Was it really a conincidence that the world exists like it does and we think like we do?
7. Why do we assume we have the intellectual ability to fully comprehend the true meaning of the world and the cosmos whether it is through science or religion?

exactly
at the end of the day noone knows what the **** is going on. religion and science get it wrong all the time so why cant we just listen to eachothers opinion without getting smart and slating the othersides views...........

SkepticOne

Catsmokinpot wrote:

evolution points to the conclusion that we evolved from single cellular organisms and that we were just an elaborate accident which i to be honest is like believing in the immaculate conception. but i mean in the end believe what you want to believe

Well, evolution is a fairly well tested and plausible theory with great explanatory power. It is true though that ultimately you believe what you want to believe but I think that the reason why people believe in things like evolution is very different to the reason why people believe in things like the immaculate conception.

Catsmokinpot

SkepticOne wrote:

Well, evolution is a fairly well tested and plausible theory with great explanatory power. It is true though that ultimately you believe what you want to believe but I think that the reason why people believe in things like evolution is very different to the reason why people believe in things like the immaculate conception.

true i suppose, but its the elabourate accident part of the evolution theory is the part that is just as unbelievable their is no proof or evidence behind this part of the theory it is just made up by some guy just like the immaculate conception was made up by some guy....

the actual process of evolution is very plausable but none of it explains where it started

SkepticOne

Catsmokinpot wrote:

the actual process of evolution is very plausable but none of it explains where it started

Well the origin of life itself is still a debated topic and there are a variety of theories. The theory of evolution through natural selection really only deals with the process once it gets started. But the motivation behind these theories and the way they are arrived at and, say, immaculate conception is the crucial thing not the believability imo.

Catsmokinpot

SkepticOne wrote:

Well the origin of life itself is still a debated topic and there are a variety of theories. The theory of evolution through natural selection really only deals with the process once it gets started. But the motivation behind these theories and the way they are arrived at and, say, immaculate conception is the crucial thing not the believability imo.

i understand what your saying but to be honest the people who made up both theories have an unbelievably limited understanding of whats going on in the universe although one has a little more understanding than the other theyre still both not convincing enough to make me believe either story

SkepticOne

Catsmokinpot wrote:

i understand what your saying but to be honest the people who made up both theories have an unbelievably limited understanding of whats going on in the universe although one has a little more understanding than the other theyre still both not convincing enough to make me believe either story

My respect tends to go to those who attempt to formulate testable, plausible theories with predictive and explanatory powers. With regards to theories about the origin of life, at least you can say that those who formulate these theories are open to be proved wrong.

The doctrine of the immaculate conception, on the other hand, is not subject to this. It is either an article of faith or derived from other articles of faith. If you believe in these things you do so because you are required to as a member of that religion not because, independent of your religion, the thing can be established as being true.

The Muslim believes that the Quran is the literal word of God because he is required to. The Christian is not obliged to believe this but is required to believe that Jesus was the son of God and so forth. These things are more part of the definition of the religion than objective aspects of the world. Believing that Jesus was the son of God is part of of what it means to be Christian. It is a tautology.

I'm probably overstating the case here. I just want to make explicit the fundamental difference in the two types of story and why whether or not you believe them is not really important.

Playboy

tbh Skeptic what I think Catsmokinpot is trying to say is that believing in a God or a force in the universe is a logical thing. If you hold to mans linear way of thinking then there has to have been a begining to all of this. To think that all of this is a coincidence is probably the more illogical point of view. Science has thought us a great deal about how the universe works and operates but it doesnt explain the bigger mystery of life and its purpose. Many scientists (esp biologists) have a belief in something greater in the universe outside of themselves. End game physics is so out there with some of its theories that most people would find it incredible that they are plausible scientific theories.

Fysh

Yes, but to say that "we can't explain something" is one thing. To then claim that this justifies believing in an entity who we have no evidence for (other than as the stated cause of those things we can't explain) and whose attributes we cannot, by definition, test by experiment, is to violate that notion.

dictionary.com wrote:

log·ic Pronunciation Key (ljk)
n.

1. The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.
2.
1. A system of reasoning: Aristotle's logic.
2. A mode of reasoning: By that logic, we should sell the company tomorrow.
3. The formal, guiding principles of a discipline, school, or science.
3. Valid reasoning: Your paper lacks the logic to prove your thesis.
4. The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events: There's a certain logic to the motion of rush-hour traffic.
5. Computer Science.
1. The nonarithmetic operations performed by a computer, such as sorting, comparing, and matching, that involve yes-no decisions.
2. Computer circuitry.
3. Graphic representation of computer circuitry.

I've left the Computer Science definition in there because it illustrates my point rather neatly. Logic is about consistency and structural integrity as applied to chains of reasoning.

I for one find it very difficult to accept that the logical thing to do is believe in a deity who, by definition, is outside everything covered by the scientific method , whose attributes cannot be tested or explored by experiment and who, ultimately, there is no direct evidence for. The only "evidence" for the existence of God is actually just a collection of unexplained phenomena (such as the beginning of the universe, if there was such a thing) that people point to and say "See? Science can't explain that. Therefore there must be a God.". Or people like Catsmokinpot say "Well, I hate the idea of us being alone in the universe and not subject to any reason to be ethical, therefore there must be a god." Or people say "well, I've been told it's true since I was a child and find it very difficult to challenge this deeply ingrained belief, therefore there must be a God".

Lots of reasons people give themselves, but none of them are actually very convincing unless you already believe in God. At least not from where I'm sitting.

Dades

Catsmokinpot wrote:

thats only my belief... but who are you to just poo poo it like that.

You didn't just state your belief - you tried to justify it with logic on a message board. I have no problem with anyone believing what they want, but any argument is fair game to scrutiny here.

Catsmokinpot wrote:

are you so arrogant that you cant admitt that there is a slight possibility that you are infact wrong?

Where did you get that idea? I'm an atheist because I don't believe in a "god" as defined by me. We are ALL in fact agnostic because none of us know the truth, and anyone who claims to do so rightly deserves derision.

Oh, and what fysh said.

Playboy

Fysh wrote:

Yes, but to say that "we can't explain something" is one thing. To then claim that this justifies believing in an entity who we have no evidence for (other than as the stated cause of those things we can't explain) and whose attributes we cannot, by definition, test by experiment, is to violate that notion.



I've left the Computer Science definition in there because it illustrates my point rather neatly. Logic is about consistency and structural integrity as applied to chains of reasoning.

I for one find it very difficult to accept that the logical thing to do is believe in a deity who, by definition, is outside everything covered by the scientific method , whose attributes cannot be tested or explored by experiment and who, ultimately, there is no direct evidence for. The only "evidence" for the existence of God is actually just a collection of unexplained phenomena (such as the beginning of the universe, if there was such a thing) that people point to and say "See? Science can't explain that. Therefore there must be a God.". Or people like Catsmokinpot say "Well, I hate the idea of us being alone in the universe and not subject to any reason to be ethical, therefore there must be a god." Or people say "well, I've been told it's true since I was a child and find it very difficult to challenge this deeply ingrained belief, therefore there must be a God".

Lots of reasons people give themselves, but none of them are actually very convincing unless you already believe in God. At least not from where I'm sitting.

See my problem with your point of view is your unshakeable faith in logic and reasoning. Western logic is only one way of looking at and understanding the world, and the scientific method is by no means flawless. Would a dog’s method of reasoning help him understand quantum mechanics? No it wouldn’t because quantum mechanics in my opinion falls outside the ability of a dog’s mind to understand or comprehend. Just because the dog has no evidence for the existence of quantum theory does not mean it does not exist. Can we apply the same principle to human beings? One of the questions I asked earlier was what makes us think that we have the ability to comprehend the true nature of our existence? Is it illogical to think that there are things that exist outside us and beyond our understanding? In my opinion it is illogical to think the opposite. You will find that people such as myself and I assume Catsmokinpot believe in something greater in the universe that falls outside our ability to comprehend and we attach the name God to this. We don’t assume to know anything about it apart from the belief in its existence.

Dades

Playboy wrote:

You will find that people such as myself and I assume Catsmokinpot believe in something greater in the universe that falls outside our ability to comprehend and we attach the name God to this. We don’t assume to know anything about it apart from the belief in its existence.

So as usual then this particular snippet of debate depends on one's definition of a "god".

Saying you believe in something other than what we know or understand, and labelling it a "god" simply muddies the water. How can anyone debate the [non] existence of something that is completely undefined?

I asked this before to no reply: if we were to discover that life on our planet was planted by an intelligent alien race - would they then be gods? Or do "gods" have be at the very top of the food chain?

Interesting analogy with the dog on quantum physics. And true. The problem starts when the dog claims to have all the answers without the capacity to reach them.

Fysh

Playboy wrote:

See my problem with your point of view is your unshakeable faith in logic and reasoning. Western logic is only one way of looking at and understanding the world, and the scientific method is by no means flawless. Would a dog’s method of reasoning help him understand quantum mechanics? No it wouldn’t because quantum mechanics in my opinion falls outside the ability of a dog’s mind to understand or comprehend. Just because the dog has no evidence for the existence of quantum theory does not mean it does not exist. Can we apply the same principle to human beings? One of the questions I asked earlier was what makes us think that we have the ability to comprehend the true nature of our existence? Is it illogical to think that there are things that exist outside us and beyond our understanding? In my opinion it is illogical to think the opposite. You will find that people such as myself and I assume Catsmokinpot believe in something greater in the universe that falls outside our ability to comprehend and we attach the name God to this. We don’t assume to know anything about it apart from the belief in its existence.

My "faith" in logic and reasoning comes from the core distinction between it and actual faith-based belief systems - which is that it requires you to be willing to change your perspective upon presentation of new data. It does assume that we perceive the world accurately but frankly if you're going to question that you can join the queue.

Your analogy with a dog is flawed. Partly because a dog's cognitive ability, including its ability to form causal links based on cause & effect chains, is very limited compared to that of humans. You only have to check with dog trainers and ask how they train dogs to behave in certain ways to realise this. So if a dog cannot easily form links between non-immediate events and analyse them, how would we expect it to develop a system of reasoning?

There are things that we don't understand and cannot currently explain. I don't see why we have to assume that we're never going to understand them. Nor do I see why you have to call that "God" and then side with those whose belief in what they call "God" is extremely different to yours. Our key difference here would appear to be whether you believe the human endeavour can ever understand everything about our universe.

I believe that, with enough work and time, we can. And even if we do not ever get to the stage of fully comprehending everything about our existence, I would opt for the attempt to further our understanding than for resigning ourselves to never fully getting there and choosing to believe in what may or may not be a total fiction instead.

You appear to believe that we can't, therefore preferring for the presumably comforting belief that there is some sort of higher intellect or entity out there that cares about us.

I would also point out that you do not know anything at all about it. You are assuming it exists. Frankly, once you've done that you're pretty much entitled to ascribe whatever properties to it you like, since you're openly admitting that you've got no evidence for it and therefore no way of convincing someone who doesn't already share your belief.

Catsmokinpot

Fysh wrote:

Yes, but to say that "we can't explain something" is one thing. To then claim that this justifies believing in an entity who we have no evidence for (other than as the stated cause of those things we can't explain) and whose attributes we cannot, by definition, test by experiment, is to violate that notion.

I've left the Computer Science definition in there because it illustrates my point rather neatly. Logic is about consistency and structural integrity as applied to chains of reasoning.

I for one find it very difficult to accept that the logical thing to do is believe in a deity who, by definition, is outside everything covered by the scientific method , whose attributes cannot be tested or explored by experiment and who, ultimately, there is no direct evidence for. The only "evidence" for the existence of God is actually just a collection of unexplained phenomena (such as the beginning of the universe, if there was such a thing) that people point to and say "See? Science can't explain that. Therefore there must be a God.". Or people like Catsmokinpot say "Well, I hate the idea of us being alone in the universe and not subject to any reason to be ethical, therefore there must be a god." Or people say "well, I've been told it's true since I was a child and find it very difficult to challenge this deeply ingrained belief, therefore there must be a God".

Lots of reasons people give themselves, but none of them are actually very convincing unless you already believe in God. At least not from where I'm sitting.

science itself is about looking outside the box. being open to possibilities

that you cant even accept the possibility amazes me

what im saying is science hasnt even suggested that god doesnt exist

and even if their is no evidence; the mere fact that life, even a single celld organism is so unbelievably complicated points me to the conclusion that this wasnt an accident. that is a theory based on the observation of how complex life is, even given the grand scale of the universe and the amount of possibilities

look at a random book for instance not nearly as complicated as a single cell of bacteria but looking at this book you can see by its complexity it is not a natural phenomenon. now you can say that you cant compare the two but with an open minded view you can see the similarities and notice A possibility that life also might not be an accident

dont just limit yourself to logic your not vulcan....

i have been told since i was a child to make my own conclusions about the whole thing. i was baptised against the will of my mother when i was a baby but in the end she figured it would be no harm and it wasnt, and that is my only affinity to any religion. im not afraid of being alone in the universe cause as far as i know we've been alone in the universe for quite some time now...........

Fysh

Catsmokinpot wrote:

science itself is about looking outside the box. being open to possibilities

that you cant even accept the possibility amazes me

what im saying is science hasnt even suggested that god doesnt exist

Indeed. Science has had very little to say either way. But if that's your argument in favour of god, you'll be accepting the existence of invisible hermaphroditic pink unicorns and insane anal-fisting dwarves named Klaus because I could present the same arguments regarding their existence.

Or, put shortly, the onus is on you to prove something exists, not on me to prove it doesn't exist. Otherwise things just get silly.

catsmokinpot wrote:

and even if their is no evidence; the mere fact that life, even a single celld organism is so unbelievably complicated points me to the conclusion that this wasnt an accident. that is a theory based on the observation of how complex life is, even given the grand scale of the universe and the amount of possibilities

Do you have any conception of how vast the universe is? And how long its currently estimated lifespan is? Because, if you do and you had any understanding of Drake's equation, you'd understand that actually the emergence of life doesn't necessarily represent the existence of a higher power. I'd encourage you to read a bit about anthropic reasoning and Drake's equation if you want to understand my position on this subject further.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the only way I would accept the emergence of life as being indidative of a higher power would be if we found conclusively that there was no life anywhere else in the universe.

catsmokinpot wrote:

look at a random book for instance not nearly as complicated as a single cell of bacteria but looking at this book you can see by its complexity it is not a natural phenomenon. now you can say that you cant compare the two but with an open minded view you can see the similarities and notice A possibility that life also might not be an accident

And a possibility is that it is. Look at our solar system. Even within that there are expectations that Mars or Europa may have, at some point, been host to lifeforms. And that's just the local neighbourhood. Quite why you assume that life is unique and special to the Earth when we've got comparatively little evidence regarding life elsewhere is beyond me. I'm remdined of the alleged joke about statisticians, mathematicians, astrophysicists (the one with the "in scotland there is at least one field with at least one sheep at least one half of which is black" punchline).

catsmokinpot wrote:

dont just limit yourself to logic your not vulcan....

If the alternative is to believe things without proof, I'll stick to logic thanks.

catsmokinpot wrote:

i have been told since i was a child to make my own conclusions about the whole thing. i was baptised against the will of my mother when i was a baby but in the end she figured it would be no harm and it wasnt, and that is my only affinity to any religion. im not afraid of being alone in the universe cause as far as i know we've been alone in the universe for quite some time now...........

....

So, us being alone in the universe matches your previously suggested belief in a higher power how? In a Stephen-King's-"IT"-style "God is dead" way? Not that I'm about to convert or anything, but it would probably make it easier to discuss this if I had a reasonable idea where you're coming from.

Playboy

Fysh can u understand that logic is a construct? Its an invention of man .. its a way of understanding the world. Your belief in logic is exactly the same as someone else's belief in pink unicorns. Don’t u get it? Man invented logic. Ofc other points of view don’t make sense if you try and understand everything with logic. Aristotle wrote the first book on logic.. does that make him your God .. because as I said b4 your FAITH in logic as a way of understanding the world is ridiculous. Every argument that you use to try and knock someone else's point of view can be turned around and used against you. All that anyone can say for sure is that we know nothing.

Also my analogy of the Dog is not flawed.. try and think about it this time .. what is to say that our cognitive ability is not limited in comparison to something else?

Your belief in the fact that we will be eventually be able to understand everything is just as ridiculous as someone else's belief in a God. How do you know what our cognitive ability is? How do you know if cognitive ability means anything when it comes to understanding the nature of our existence? Why do you think that conscious awareness and logic is going to give us all the answers? Because you believe in them? Logic and science is your God, and if you don’t understand that then you would want to think about it some more.