PDA

View Full Version : Do You Need Proof ?


7EL7
10-30-2007, 04:52 PM
Transplanted from another 4 Rum






AN INTERESTING CONVERSATION.

An Atheist Professor of Philosophy speaks to his class on the problem Science has with God, The Almighty.

He asks one of his new students to stand and.....



Prof: So you believe in God?
Student: Absolutely, sir.

Prof: Is God good?
Student: Sure.


Prof: Is God all-powerful?
Student: Yes.


Prof: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal
him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God
didn't.
How is this God good then? Hmm?

(Student is silent.)

Prof: You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fellow. Is
God good?
Student: Yes.

Prof: Is Satan good?
Student: No.

Prof: Where does Satan come from?
Student: From...God...

Prof: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
Student: Yes.

Prof: Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything.
Correct?
Student: Yes.

Prof: So who created evil?


Student does not answer.


Prof: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these
terrible things exist in the world, don't they?
Student: Yes, sir.

Prof: So, who created them?


Student has no answer.


Prof: Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe
the world around you. Tell me, son...Have you ever seen God?
Student: No, sir.

Prof: Tell us if you have ever heard your God?
Student: No, sir.

Prof: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your God?
Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter?
Student: No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.

Prof: Yet you still believe in Him?
Student: Yes.

Prof: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol,
science says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student: Nothing. I only have my faith.

Prof: Yes. Faith. And that is the problem science has.



Student: Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
Prof: Yes.

Student: And is there such a thing as cold?
Prof: Yes.

Student: No sir. There isn't.


(The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events.)


Student: Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat,
mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don't have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold.

Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the
absence of it.


(There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.)


Student: What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as
darkness?


Prof: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?

Student: You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of
something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light,
flashing light....But if you have no light constantly, you have
nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness
isn't. If it were you would be able to make darkness darker,
wouldn't you?

Prof: So what is the point you are making, young man?

Student: Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.
Prof: Flawed? Can you explain how?

Student: Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully
understood either one.

To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it.

Now tell me, Professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?

Prof: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.


Student: Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?


(The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize
where the argument is going.)


Student: Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going
endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a
scientist but a preacher?


(The class is in uproar.)


Student: Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the
Professor's brain?


(The class breaks out into laughter.)


Student: Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's
brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so.
So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable,
demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir.

With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?


(The room is silent. The professor stares at the student, his face unfathomable.)


Prof: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.

Student: That is it sir... The link between man & god is FAITH . That is all that keeps things moving & alive.



This student was none other than Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam, the Ex-President of India .

Koolish
10-30-2007, 06:02 PM
if there is no proof, i demand correct reasoning.

so long as your opinion is based on some level of logic, i can't discredit it. it's exactly what huggah said, everything could be a dream.

Prolifical ENG
10-30-2007, 06:14 PM
Soundness in belief structure is more from reasoning rather than concrete proof.

Cthulhu
10-30-2007, 08:45 PM
That was an astounding display of sophism. The student's philosophy was far more flawed than the professor.

The thing here is accountability. We assume the professor has a brain because all functioning humans generally do. On the other hand, we have nothing to go on for the belief in God other than a book dating back from the Iron Age. The Professor doesn't have to account for God's nonexistence, because it is the student making the claim that God exists.

If I were to say that an invisible green dragon (to use Carl Sagan's example) living in my garage, the burden of accountability rests on me. I can put up every roadblock of reason and say that I believe in this dragon on "faith" and you can't disprove me, but you will dismiss me altogether because you, personally, have no reason to believe such outlandish claims. The burden is not on you to disprove it, because you are not claiming its existence.

In the same way, atheists don't have to disprove god, because they aren't the ones making the claim that such an improbable thing exists.

Cthulhu
10-30-2007, 08:47 PM
And the evolution bit is a flat-out lie. Evolution is entirely observable. Huge evolutionary changes that occur over millions of years are admittedly, not, but we can draw conclusions based on the fossils of common ancestors.

Or you could just lack all imagination and say "god did it", but then you're probably an idiot.

shinobi4227
10-31-2007, 07:10 AM
a society that's led to believe everything was created by an all-powerful god that grants eternal life to "good" people and eternal damnation to "bad" people simply because it's written in a book will operate very differently than one in which people apply rational thought to reach the conclusion that they are all just self-conscious beings struggling to survive under certain environmental constraints.

You might be right, but i think God might have be a man made idea that was visualized by the early settlers of Earth.( but i believe that there is still a higher being tho) Think about it, when the world was still young with primitive minds that never really understood the purpose of life.But the world has now changed; You don't expect people to still think like people at least 2000 years ago. I guess that's why we now see people with different theories.

x.l.nc
10-31-2007, 09:44 AM
excellent thread....... i really enjoyed reading that one..

Longbongcilvaringz
10-31-2007, 10:08 AM
amusing read,

its a good piece of writing, being so persausive and convenient, however the motive of the author is blatant, and the whole conversation is constructed to serve a particular arguement.

the 'Students' arguement is flawed and factually incorrect (as already pointed out).

heres the thing:

regardless of what people "feel" Science is supported theorectically, there are explanations for the umimaginable and inconcievable.

religion posesses no logical theory.

hence, why should someone believe in religion, which has no theorectical base and no 'proof'?

to say that science is in some way comparable is ludicrous.

the 'student' is speaking in paradoxes.

a valid argument would be that Heat is merely the absence of Cold, and Light is merely the absence of Darkness. the problem is, that both points are "feelings", said whimsically without any explaination or substantiation.

the baseless faith of religion cannot be compared with faith that a human has a brain.

all of the arguments sound valid, well thought out and sound. but view them in isolation and they are ridiculous.

x.l.nc
10-31-2007, 10:13 AM
And the evolution bit is a flat-out lie. Evolution is entirely observable. Huge evolutionary changes that occur over millions of years are admittedly, not, but we can draw conclusions based on the fossils of common ancestors.

Or you could just lack all imagination and say "god did it", but then you're probably an idiot.


well thats YOUR theory. to call people an idiot if they believe that is very arrogant.

Longbongcilvaringz
10-31-2007, 10:45 AM
Religion is not theoretical

but yes, to call people who believe in it "idiots" is arrogant.

shinobi4227
10-31-2007, 12:41 PM
A very interesting thread, i have to say.

shinobi4227
10-31-2007, 12:45 PM
Religion is not theoretical

but yes, to call people who believe in it "idiots" is arrogant.

Very true. Religion is a powerful and deceptive entity; most people believe in it not because they want to,but it's something that has been programed in their minds. For example, you can talk a person into believing and following a Religion, but you can't talk a person out of the Religion he or she was brought up to believe(or the program), regardless of trying to let that person know the Religion which they believed in was fictitious.

Prince Rai
10-31-2007, 01:14 PM
amusing read,

its a good piece of writing, being so persausive and convenient, however the motive of the author is blatant, and the whole conversation is constructed to serve a particular arguement.

the 'Students' arguement is flawed and factually incorrect (as already pointed out).

heres the thing:

regardless of what people "feel" Science is supported theorectically, there are explanations for the umimaginable and inconcievable.

religion posesses no logical theory.

hence, why should someone believe in religion, which has no theorectical base and no 'proof'?

to say that science is in some way comparable is ludicrous.

the 'student' is speaking in paradoxes.

a valid argument would be that Heat is merely the absence of Cold, and Light is merely the absence of Darkness. the problem is, that both points are "feelings", said whimsically without any explaination or substantiation.

the baseless faith of religion cannot be compared with faith that a human has a brain.

all of the arguments sound valid, well thought out and sound. but view them in isolation and they are ridiculous.

lol at the red.

having loled at that, your reply is very true. The purpose of the conversation is to illustrate word play and how it may seem conclusive.

We should be on our feet about any "certainties" in anything.

LHX
10-31-2007, 04:52 PM
the conversation seems contrived but it illustrates some interesting points

7EL7
10-31-2007, 05:51 PM
replies from "anovah" 4Rum


good stuff

but still

the prof. argument made more sense
and the students argument was formed for retaliation


in other words it looked like this


"well if i don't know for a fact that god exist, you don't know if your brain exist either,now there"





I think going back and forth about it on a hip-hop forum with useless weed heads could really shed some light on the subject.

If there's a god....how come Dinosaurs existed? HA! God made man in his form right? But Dinosaurs were here before humans right? So Dinosaurs were god! Or God came to a planet with dinosaurs and took over or some shit and made us. Either way that shit's not in the Bible I think.




this is like that shit in the video scale posted whr the professor made a life changing decision after one of his students asked him for proof to show the transition stages in evolution lol... they teach about all this earlyman, sapiens, erectus fucknuts and its all drawn out images, couple scientists n archaeologists faked it before and got caught out, museums n institutions being raided on some fake artifacts n early man remains shit lol

Sexy Jasper
10-31-2007, 06:10 PM
Either way, believing in a God is pure schizophrenia. Fear will make you do crazy things.

7EL7
10-31-2007, 06:55 PM
Either way, believing in a God is pure schizophrenia. Fear will make you do crazy things.


there is more fear for a god in the older generations
they didn't grow up off of TV
but they really fear satan more than anything

Visionz
10-31-2007, 07:14 PM
And the evolution bit is a flat-out lie. Evolution is entirely observable. Huge evolutionary changes that occur over millions of years are admittedly, not, but we can draw conclusions based on the fossils of common ancestors.

Or you could just lack all imagination and say "god did it", but then you're probably an idiot.........................or your parents


"they made me go to church and I feel horribly deceived" :'(:'o:'(:'o:'(





I draw the conclusions from the world around me, those connections are made with both imagination and intuition.


arrogant fuckin know-it-all atheist, still trying to define things beyond the realm of your own preception with 3D standards, perhaps you can tell me what its like to be a sentient being of the 10th demension??

7EL7
10-31-2007, 07:42 PM
........................or your parents


"they made me go to church and I feel horribly deceived" :'(:'o:'(:'o:'(





I draw the conclusions from the world around me, those connections are made with both imagination and intuition.


arrogant fuckin know-it-all atheist, still trying to define things beyond the realm of your own preception with 3D standards, perhaps you can tell me what its like to be a sentient being of the 10th demension??


what is this ?

what are these things ?

Koolish
11-01-2007, 12:20 AM
one of the problems i'm seeing is that "religion" is automatically associated with western theology.

STYLE
11-01-2007, 01:09 AM
^^^truth^^^
eastern religion such as tao and the teachings found in the metu neter delve deep into the relationship between the mind/body/spirit and energy/reality/universe.


a valid argument would be that Heat is merely the absence of Cold, and Light is merely the absence of Darkness. the problem is, that both points are "feelings", said whimsically without any explaination or substantiation.


wrong.

light is the perception of photons. heat is the perception of energy due to molecular vibration.

the funny thing is that science would have you believe in a reality that exists in excess of 17 dimensions. only 3 of which are observable. but yet cannot accept the idea of God which is also unobservable.

Visionz
11-01-2007, 01:11 AM
what is this ?

what are these things ?

String theorists are betting that extra dimensions do indeed exist; in fact, the equations that describe superstring theory require a universe with no fewer than 10 dimensions. But even physicists who spend all day thinking about extra spatial dimensions have a hard time describing what they might look like or how we apparently feeble-minded humans might approach an understanding of them. That's always been the case, and perhaps always will be.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/dimensions.html


my guessing is that if there is indeed a 10th dimension then there is at least One who occupies and understands it and all the dimensions below. Just as you could observe white blood cells through tiny microscopes, in terms of understanding, it is much easier to look down than it is to look up.


The human mind can in no way fully grasp what God is nor what it is to be God, hell we can't even fully grasp being human, look at how we act. If evolution is indeed how we got here, we still cling to alot of our base instincts. Alot of cats will come in to a thread like this talking about science this and science that but they can't see the big picture of what all that science is really saying. I throughly enjoy the science itself as it is a meaning of seeing and understanding the world around you but nothing that I've seen from the scientific community has ever caused me to doubt of God's existence.




one of the problems i'm seeing is that "religion" is automatically associated with western theology.
indeed, <belief in God=Christian> in a lot of people's eyes. I try to take the knowledge out of all that's out there and compile it. The Bible has some usefull lessons in it, felt like the Quran has more. Taoism can help with the abstraction and esoteric nature. Buddism can help with finding the God within. all usefull stuff and shouldn't be so quickly disgarded. People will pick apart the things they find crazy while I put together what makes sense lol, some people just will never get it. ahhwell, let the world and the record keep spinnin :spin:


S.M. sums up nicely what I ramble on forever about

7EL7
11-01-2007, 05:54 AM
will have to come back to this ^


my take is this

SO what there is or may be a 10th dimension

SO what there may or may not be a "GOD"

human beings are destroying each other regardless

the beast holds the crown

there are children suffering right now

no time to wait for an all knowing omni potent god from the 10th dimension to save us

unless you feel all we have to do is go to college make money and be happy

Longbongcilvaringz
11-01-2007, 01:30 PM
wrong.

light is the perception of photons. heat is the perception of energy due to molecular vibration.

it is possible to have no heat

Thus, heat cannot be said to exist unless there is one system in contact with another system of differing temperature. This can be illustrated by way of the old philosophical question: "If a tree falls in the woods when there is no one to hear it, does it make a sound?" From a physicist's point of view, of course, sound waves are emitted whether or not there is an ear to receive their vibrations; but, consider this same scenario in terms of heat. First, replace the falling tree with a hypothetical object possessing a certain amount of internal energy; then replace sound waves with heat. In this case, if this object is not in contact with something else that has a different temperature, it "does not make a sound"—in other words, it transfers no internal energy, and, thus, there is no heat from the standpoint of physics.
This could even be true of two incredibly "hot" objects placed next to one another inside a vacuum—an area devoid (http://www.answers.com/topic/devoid) of matter, including air. If both have the same temperature, there is no heat, only two objects with high levels of internal energy. Note that a vacuum was specified: assuming there was air around them, and that the air was of a lower temperature, both objects would then be transferring heat to the air.

but yeah, i take your point, i was just playing devils advocate


the funny thing is that science would have you believe in a reality that exists in excess of 17 dimensions. only 3 of which are observable. but yet cannot accept the idea of God which is also unobservable.

wrong,

this is not acceped as a scietific truth, its merely some specualtion built into some un testable theories.




.

Cthulhu
11-01-2007, 05:26 PM
........................or your parents


"they made me go to church and I feel horribly deceived" :'(:'o:'(:'o:'(





I draw the conclusions from the world around me, those connections are made with both imagination and intuition.


arrogant fuckin know-it-all atheist, still trying to define things beyond the realm of your own preception with 3D standards, perhaps you can tell me what its like to be a sentient being of the 10th demension??

I'm clearly not the one who is trying to define things beyond the realm of my own perception. As I said in my original post, the burden of proof rests upon the religious. It's like that student's argument about cold being the absence of heat. Well that applies to atheism as well. It's not a doctrine of belief, it's simply the absence of belief in any god.

"I draw the conclusions from the world around me, those connections are made with both imagination and intuition."

So do I, and based on my conclusions, I have no reason to believe in god, so it's not up to me to disprove their beliefs, but rather it's up to the faithful to prove to me that their beliefs somehow have any basis in the real world.

So you can stop with the "parents took me to church" and "arrogant fucking atheist" comments, because I'm only speaking about what science has proven about the natural world. I don't need any barbaric Iron Age literature to hand me its desert morals and ludicrous creation stories. It's time to add Allah/Jehovah/Yahweh to the same antiquities shelf containing Zeus, Thor, Baal, Osirus, and all the other abandoned gods of old.

7EL7
11-01-2007, 07:35 PM
I'm clearly not the one who is trying to define things beyond the realm of my own perception.

deep


do you think that those people who claim that we who say we don't >Believe< in a unseen >Being< from the 10th dimension really believe that they themselves have a higher level of understanding,perception,and intuition ?

and thats why they themselves can be at that level of Belief because they have a clearer vision,and that they are over all "smarter" ?

STYLE
11-01-2007, 08:28 PM
it is possible to have no heat

(ur explanation summed up......heat needs a medium to transfer energy)


but like i said "perception". ex: a person raised in alaska would view a 50º winter as heat. opposed to a brazillian who would view a 50º winter as cold.


i said:
the funny thing is that science would have you believe in a reality that exists in excess of 17 dimensions. only 3 of which are observable. but yet cannot accept the idea of God which is also unobservable.


u said:
wrong,

this is not acceped as a scietific truth, its merely some specualtion built into some un testable theories.

u missed my point.....i am pointing out the hypocrisy in believing in 17 dimesions but not believing in God when you have the same amount of empirical evidence for both....zero.

STYLE
11-01-2007, 08:41 PM
indeed, <belief in God=Christian> in a lot of people's eyes. I try to take the knowledge out of all that's out there and compile it. The Bible has some usefull lessons in it, felt like the Quran has more. Taoism can help with the abstraction and esoteric nature. Buddism can help with finding the God within. all usefull stuff and shouldn't be so quickly disgarded. People will pick apart the things they find crazy while I put together what makes sense lol, some people just will never get it. ahhwell, let the world and the record keep spinnin :spin:


S.M. sums up nicely what I ramble on forever about

studying one religion is like only listening to one type of music. i read the metu daily and Koran and Tao prolly weekly. I read the bible 3 or 4 times and go back to it once and awhile, mostly to find ammo to battle rabid christians ironically.

i'm gonna get into judaism later next year. see what them jews talkin bout.

but yeah if you are only gettin your info from one source you are missin out. there is so much more knowledge and even power to be gained from other cultures and religions.

Cthulhu
11-01-2007, 08:50 PM
deep


do you think that those people who claim that we who say we don't >Believe< in a unseen >Being< from the 10th dimension really believe that they themselves have a higher level of understanding,perception,and intuition ?

and thats why they themselves can be at that level of Belief because they have a clearer vision,and that they are over all "smarter" ?I'm not really sure what you're talking about.

Visionz
11-01-2007, 10:38 PM
And the evolution bit is a flat-out lie. Evolution is entirely observable. Huge evolutionary changes that occur over millions of years are admittedly, not, but we can draw conclusions based on the fossils of common ancestors.

Or you could just lack all imagination and say "god did it", but then you're probably an idiot.

I'm clearly not the one who is trying to define things beyond the realm of my own perception. As I said in my original post, the burden of proof rests upon the religious. It's like that student's argument about cold being the absence of heat. Well that applies to atheism as well. It's not a doctrine of belief, it's simply the absence of belief in any god.

"I draw the conclusions from the world around me, those connections are made with both imagination and intuition."

So do I, and based on my conclusions, I have no reason to believe in god, so it's not up to me to disprove their beliefs, but rather it's up to the faithful to prove to me that their beliefs somehow have any basis in the real world.

So you can stop with the "parents took me to church" and "arrogant fucking atheist" comments, because I'm only speaking about what science has proven about the natural world. I don't need any barbaric Iron Age literature to hand me its desert morals and ludicrous creation stories. It's time to add Allah/Jehovah/Yahweh to the same antiquities shelf containing Zeus, Thor, Baal, Osirus, and all the other abandoned gods of old.so science has proven that everyone that believes in a God is an idiot?? lol lets not act like its an emotional topic but if we're going to carry on with this conversation then its going to require a certain amount of civility. I can make cynical, condenscending remarks all day about beliefs that differ from my own but in the end what does it accomplish? I'll put my best foot forward from here on out as long as I am shown the same.


At the same time, let's be honest. There isn't anything that will ever happen in the physical world that's going to change your mind. I could no more prove to you that God exist than you could prove that this reality isn't a well connected dream.


You talk about a burden of proof but this isn't a court of law and this isn't some guidelines out of a debate book, this is life and people will believe what they will. It's not up to anyone who believes to prove anything. Who owes you this? Maybe if they're at your front door trying to convert you over or some shit but lets be honest, why would God even care? My beliefs aren't encompassed by any one religion and I don't really claim any of them.None of them hold all the answers but all of them contain some of them. The human population has been sent messengers but as a whole we're great at fucking up the message and then using it to exploit others. I'm not unaware of that fact. But who's problem is that, God's or people? We've been given all the answers now its up to us to figure out the proper course of action. I don't use religion as a belief but as a way of life.


Best things ever said in the Bible

1. Treat people how you want to be treated (obvious why this is important)
2. Love God with all your heart (appreciate the wonders of this world, appreciate the beauty and the struggle of life itself, realize we're in this together)

you can forget everything else, you can point out the cases of rape & brutality etc & to that I say, whatever, I don't agree nor condone those type of things, it don't make that ^ any less true. I practice spirtual jeet kun doe, I take what's useful and discard the rest and the whole point is personal self-improvement, what someone else is doing with their life?? well, that's their business.

Cthulhu
11-01-2007, 11:20 PM
so science has proven that everyone that believes in a God is an idiot?? lol lets not act like its an emotional topic but if we're going to carry on with this conversation then its going to require a certain amount of civility. I can make cynical, condenscending remarks all day about beliefs that differ from my own but in the end what does it accomplish? I'll put my best foot forward from here on out as long as I am shown the same.


At the same time, let's be honest. There isn't anything that will ever happen in the physical world that's going to change your mind. I could no more prove to you that God exist than you could prove that this reality isn't a well connected dream.


You talk about a burden of proof but this isn't a court of law and this isn't some guidelines out of a debate book, this is life and people will believe what they will. It's not up to anyone who believes to prove anything. Who owes you this? Maybe if they're at your front door trying to convert you over or some shit but lets be honest, why would God even care? My beliefs aren't encompassed by any one religion and I don't really claim any of them.None of them hold all the answers but all of them contain some of them. The human population has been sent messengers but as a whole we're great at fucking up the message and then using it to exploit others. I'm not unaware of that fact. But who's problem is that, God's or people? We've been given all the answers now its up to us to figure out the proper course of action. I don't use religion as a belief but as a way of life.


Best things ever said in the Bible

1. Treat people how you want to be treated (obvious why this is important)
2. Love God with all your heart (appreciate the wonders of this world, appreciate the beauty and the struggle of life itself, realize we're in this together)

you can forget everything else, you can point out the cases of rape & brutality etc & to that I say, whatever, I don't agree nor condone those type of things, it don't make that ^ any less true. I practice spirtual jeet kun doe, I take what's useful and discard the rest and the whole point is personal self-improvement, what someone else is doing with their life?? well, that's their business.The "idiot" comment was only in relation to how unimagintive people find it more pleasing to say "god" did something than to understand the scientific principles that brought about whatever item of nature they are talking about. I admit it was in poor taste, I suppose, and perhaps ruined my credibility. It was rather an emotional remark because the unending irrationality I see on this board makes me exasperated.

I'm not saying there's some kind of system, and that I'm entitled to proof or anything. I'm making a reference to Russelll's Celestial Teapot analogy and similar rhetorics. It's a response to the usual religious retort that "you can't DISPROVE my beliefs either". This is true, but that's because most religious beliefs are constructed to be unfalsifiable (which in turn means you can't prove it either).

To quote Bertrand Russell: "If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

I could even simplify it by claiming to believe in leprechauns and other fairies. Almost no one would feel inclined to disprove my assertion because they would laugh it off as preposturous. Thus, the burden of proof rests on me to convince you that these things are real.

STYLE
11-02-2007, 12:34 AM
the main problem with these "flying spaghetti monster" analogies is that, leprechauns pasta and celestial teapots can in no way compare to the scope and magnitude of God's existence.
i deal with dinnerware on a daily basis pasta as well i understand the origin and the physical char. and limitations of them. i understand the physics of rainbows and the history of irish folklore. this is why your analogy is flawed. it's because you, nor I, can understand the true nature of God.


yeah i can think of a million things we can't prove or disprove but i submit
Exibit A:
REALITY- the existence of all things is a product of God
LIFE- you and i and all living things are products of God
MIND/SPIRIT- sentience is a product of God

justs as the majority of new scientific discoveries are not made by observing an object or phenomenon directly, but observing the effect. the same can apply to God.

ex:
pulsars, blackholes and extrasolar planets, have not been observed directly but have been found by observing bent lightwaves and orbital wobbles of other celestial objects.

to be able to debate God's existance there must be:
a basic understanding of WHAT God is
a consensus of WHERE God is

then we can start to discuss whether or not God is Who and Where people claim he is.

Feel Me?

but i do know God is Not a White man in the Sky.

STYLE
11-02-2007, 12:38 AM
i have a running debate on youtube with the Society for Rational Thought, an athiest group.

i'm trying to convert athiests using logical reasoning and science. oh yeah, you can peep my funky beats playing in the bkg too.

latest vid
pt3
X0E_9DGJ4dc


pt1
DQ5jrTOuHuo
pt2
2oblI8Kzljs

Longbongcilvaringz
11-02-2007, 01:46 AM
ok, heres my answer to the question.

i dont need 'proof' necessarily.

but i need some form of thought process, logic or theory.

science, although flawed in some areas, provides logical, theoretical explanations for its beliefs.

religion provides a set of "truths" which have little to no explanation or theoretical basis.

so yeah, i dont need proof, just some reasoning.

religious people can try and disprove science all they like, but in the end they have gone no further in justifying their own beliefs.

Cthulhu
11-02-2007, 08:47 PM
the main problem with these "flying spaghetti monster" analogies is that, leprechauns pasta and celestial teapots can in no way compare to the scope and magnitude of God's existence.
i deal with dinnerware on a daily basis pasta as well i understand the origin and the physical char. and limitations of them. i understand the physics of rainbows and the history of irish folklore. this is why your analogy is flawed. it's because you, nor I, can understand the true nature of God.


yeah i can think of a million things we can't prove or disprove but i submit
Exibit A:
REALITY- the existence of all things is a product of God
LIFE- you and i and all living things are products of God
MIND/SPIRIT- sentience is a product of God

justs as the majority of new scientific discoveries are not made by observing an object or phenomenon directly, but observing the effect. the same can apply to God.

ex:
pulsars, blackholes and extrasolar planets, have not been observed directly but have been found by observing bent lightwaves and orbital wobbles of other celestial objects.

to be able to debate God's existance there must be:
a basic understanding of WHAT God is
a consensus of WHERE God is

then we can start to discuss whether or not God is Who and Where people claim he is.

Feel Me?

but i do know God is Not a White man in the Sky.
The problem with your argument is that you're relying on the assumption that God exists in the first place. On what are you basing this assumption? Religious upbringing? Wishful thinking or a psychological need for some meaning to life?

STYLE
11-04-2007, 04:15 AM
well to answer you..
there must be a source to this existence. that is what i consider God to be. i do not anthropomorphize God, and i think that is what many atheists are really in conflict with.

Longbongcilvaringz
11-04-2007, 04:47 AM
im pretty sure most atheists are in conflct with the entire idea of "God"

Cthulhu
11-04-2007, 11:21 AM
well to answer you..
there must be a source to this existence. that is what i consider God to be. i do not anthropomorphize God, and i think that is what many atheists are really in conflict with.

1.) Why MUST there be a source to this existence? What is the source of that source and so forth? Maybe this existence is eternal. Maybe it's not. We don't know right now, so I'm not going to make any assumptions.

2.) I don't deny the possibility of some ultimate source or transcendental force thing-a-majig, but I find it futile to try to guess at what that thing might be. It it's so great that I can't possibly comprehend it, why bother? Surely such a great thing couldn't be concerned with me and 6 billion other insignificant carbon based lifeforms on a little blue planet. I find it hard to imagine that at least. What would make us so important?

Now, yes, I'm making assumptions here, but they are based on the logic that there's no way to make assumptions about nature of "God" anyway. I think living your life according to what you think "God" wants is an exercise in futility. The personal, creator God is such a highly unlikely possibility for me, and the transcendental, distant, universal force concept of God doesn't seem like it's anything worth worshipping. Why would it fucking care what I do?

STYLE
11-04-2007, 12:04 PM
gosh you amaze me with your ability to spew ignorance in such an intelligent fashion. lol

it really doesn't take much to see what God wants. just look around you, or look in the mirror.

we must assume that God is the driving force behind existence. the hydrogen and helium atom is perfect structurally speaking. why would there be a need to progress further than that?
why did protein molecules evolve into complex organisms? that seems unnecessary.

the only logical explanation is that there is a blueprint to existence that is being manifested by a force. and if we agree that energy cannot be created, then that force is eternal.

you assume that God is in space somewhere ambivalent to the needs desires thoughts of us insignificant specks of dust. but in actuality God is everywhere. god is you but not all of god, just as a white blood cell is you but not ALL OF YOU.

if we assume that God is the force of existence, then to nurture this existence is to do GOD's WILL.

anything that denigrates or destroys this existence is evil. its really not that complicated.

LORD NOSE
11-09-2007, 09:28 PM
the words creation,existence,the will of god,sin,holy ghost got us thrown off from higher understanding

we like these words
they make us look and sound like righteous intelligent people to ourselves when we are talking to others

LORD NOSE
07-27-2009, 01:28 PM
up

DRUNKENDRAGON
07-27-2009, 03:09 PM
Transplanted from another 4 Rum






AN INTERESTING CONVERSATION.

An Atheist Professor of Philosophy speaks to his class on the problem Science has with God, The Almighty.

He asks one of his new students to stand and.....



Prof: So you believe in God?
Student: Absolutely, sir.

Prof: Is God good?
Student: Sure.


Prof: Is God all-powerful?
Student: Yes.


Prof: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal
him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God
didn't.
How is this God good then? Hmm?

(Student is silent.)

Prof: You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fellow. Is
God good?
Student: Yes.

Prof: Is Satan good?
Student: No.

Prof: Where does Satan come from?
Student: From...God...

Prof: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
Student: Yes.

Prof: Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything.
Correct?
Student: Yes.

Prof: So who created evil?


Student does not answer.


Prof: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these
terrible things exist in the world, don't they?
Student: Yes, sir.

Prof: So, who created them?


Student has no answer.


Prof: Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe
the world around you. Tell me, son...Have you ever seen God?
Student: No, sir.

Prof: Tell us if you have ever heard your God?
Student: No, sir.

Prof: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your God?
Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter?
Student: No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.

Prof: Yet you still believe in Him?
Student: Yes.

Prof: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol,
science says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student: Nothing. I only have my faith.

Prof: Yes. Faith. And that is the problem science has.



Student: Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
Prof: Yes.

Student: And is there such a thing as cold?
Prof: Yes.

Student: No sir. There isn't.


(The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events.)


Student: Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat,
mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don't have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold.

Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the
absence of it.


(There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.)


Student: What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as
darkness?


Prof: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?

Student: You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of
something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light,
flashing light....But if you have no light constantly, you have
nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness
isn't. If it were you would be able to make darkness darker,
wouldn't you?

Prof: So what is the point you are making, young man?

Student: Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.
Prof: Flawed? Can you explain how?

Student: Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully
understood either one.

To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it.

Now tell me, Professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?

Prof: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.


Student: Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?


(The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize
where the argument is going.)


Student: Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going
endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a
scientist but a preacher?


(The class is in uproar.)


Student: Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the
Professor's brain?


(The class breaks out into laughter.)


Student: Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's
brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so.
So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable,
demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir.

With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?


(The room is silent. The professor stares at the student, his face unfathomable.)


Prof: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.

Student: That is it sir... The link between man & god is FAITH . That is all that keeps things moving & alive.



This student was none other than Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam, the Ex-President of India .

I've seen this exact same story in a chain e-mail. The one I saw said the student was Albert Einstein. I've even seen a different version where it "proves" exactly the opposite. The whole thing is bullshit created by some religious group as propaganda.

Fatal Guillotine
11-13-2010, 07:31 PM
interesting

WARPATH
11-13-2010, 07:51 PM
I've seen this exact same story in a chain e-mail. The one I saw said the student was Albert Einstein. I've even seen a different version where it "proves" exactly the opposite. The whole thing is bullshit created by some religious group as propaganda.

Even so it makes a valid point:

Science teachers are preaching the "word" of the text book.

Dokuro
11-13-2010, 07:58 PM
to be honest i stopped reading after theres no such thing as darkness they found dark matter


and the absence of heat theres no such thing as cold, Low nuclear energy it devours the energy around it taking the heat until the point of collapse this is the driving force behind the great Crunch witch is the counter part to the big bang witch was proven this year

just because his counter argument is dispelled doesn't make god any less real God is a constructions of our Conciseness we perceive it to be real then it is much like time

WARPATH
11-13-2010, 08:09 PM
to be honest i stopped reading after theres no such thing as darkness they found dark matter


and the absence of heat theres no such thing as cold, Low nuclear energy it devours the energy around it taking the heat until the point of collapse this is the driving force behind the great Crunch witch is the counter part to the big bang witch was proven this year

just because his counter argument is dispelled doesn't make god any less real God is a constructions of our Conciseness we perceive it to be real then it is much like time

Big Bang Theory proven how?

Big Bang Theory is as much a perceived construct as GOD or TIME.

Dokuro
11-13-2010, 08:13 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/09/tech/main7036917.shtml


this makes it over 60% probability thats enough to say its real
however if things come to light it can reduce like most science theory's are constantly shifting there is no 100%

WARPATH
11-13-2010, 08:19 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/09/tech/main7036917.shtml

For a 10 billion dollar device they better be claiming something. LOL

grt05
11-14-2010, 06:55 PM
This is dumb.

DRUNKENDRAGON
11-22-2010, 09:35 AM
Big Bang Theory proven how?

Big Bang Theory is as much a perceived construct as GOD or TIME.

There is evidence that a singularity expanded, which is what the big bang theory is.

As pertaining to the original post, there is evidence the professor's brain exists. There is no evidence whatsoever a god created anything at all. To say it requires faith that the professor's brain exists is intellectual dishonesty.