mmmcannibalism

Was really expecting Id need to post "your an idiot" in response to this but to whoever the original author was nice job lol. That was quite impressive.

The main key difference between a god and any of the proposed arguments, (bunnies, tea cup, etc.) is that some people actually believe god to be real. We all know that none of you actually believe in the (bunnies, tea cup) just wanted to point that out for the sake of further argument, and to agree that they dont equate to god but the example is reasonable.

Yeah, but if god created the human body and mind then that means he created how it intereperets wavelengths of light (color). I never claimed that god created the human body, I firmly believe in evolution. In some limited way that is a small discredit against creationism based gods but it has no barring on the larger argument on a god existing. As far as my beliefs go, its possible god has quite limited powers, maybe being the spark that began formed a primordial sack of chemicals into the first cell, or maybe god exists as a being but has no actual powers. As long as I am not claiming that god created color the concept that natural evolution gave humans eyes that see different wavelengths as colors is perfectly reasonable.

colors are how the human body interprets different wavelengths of light. So as long as I dont claim that god created the concept of color the point is invalid.

So lucky noone was seriously harmed(from inital reports) and that the pilot pulled off a great landing.

Government(s) would probably try to cover it up but it would get leaked eventually. Then we would wipe out said life and colonize mars.

it would slightly heat up every particle in the room. You might not be able to measure the difference but all the energy would energize particles in the room causing heat increase or chemical reactions.

I say we take it to a vote. All people on warri0r's side, raise your hands. Now, all morons on Zierro's side, raise your hands. What do you know. Thirty to two, con-side wins. It looks like the other one is the guy who said the square root of negative one is irrational (kidding, kidding, I'm only laughing at the moronic and defeated 50/50 idea, not you mate. Unless you buy into it, then I am laughing at you). eh messed up irrational and imaginary my bad. (-1)^(1/2) is still a relevant example as it cant be placed but exists. as I said i moved from 50/50 to 0%

I believe in limiting hate speech and violent protest in some instances but this is basically my opinion. Unless you were attacked first killing is almost never justified( i say almost because I know their is an example escaping me right now)

realizes from that section of your post atheism does have a bit more logical proof then theism, attributed to god creating logical paradoxes. on your points 1) I guess in a way debating the existence of god is actually ridiculous because neither of us can prove our side. Its also could be considered that human logic is flawed which would explain the flaws in the human concept of god. I realize this isnt a good defense but its hard to defend something that is inherently illogical with logic 2) I agree that most/all abilities a god could have would disobey logic; after all, we derive our logic from natural laws which god would not be regulated by. Which means a debate on if god can exist is at its purest form a debate on whether or not logical laws have to apply to everything. 3) beyond logic may mean irrational(see 2) but then again I admit a god would have to disobey logic so its not an inconsistancy. I believe its possible for things to exist in a way that seems illogical to us and you dont, so we are ending up in circles because whether or not god exists will come down to faith or lack there of in him/her/it. Also, two small examples on irrational things existing (-1)^(1/2) being square root of negative one and pi. I dont remember specifics of story but apparently at least one person was killed for pointing out things like pi cant be located on a number line due to irrationality, so if it has no location its odd it exists. I realize math=/=metaphysics but I think the point is reasonable I have to concede atheism has a slightly more logical basis for its belief. This debate has turned into quite an interesting exercise, always a good outcome for such things. I have to concede that I cant logically prove god and that an argument against god is potentially more reasonable, though the statement (chance god exists)<100%>(chance god doesnt exist) so agnosticism stands as logical. Only point I have left to argue is that you cant that god cannot exist. Nice job on the proof tryto

:shock: :shock: :shock: that was epic

I could argue that claiming god does not exist is the claim that needs proof because most of the world believes there to be a god and it is a subjective claim. Similair to how we had to prove the earth was round because most people believed it was flat. Since they had no physics that could prove the roundness of earth general consensus determined what is true. I dont believe that, burden of proof is equal here but just pointing out that you dont have a proof advantage.

I'm going to guess he was reading the verse that says 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' That would be the logical guess. to whoever asked, gouge is to remove with brute force generally with a sharp instrument ex. he gouged the rock face by smashing his pick axe against the surface and ripped apart the rock as he removed the pick.

agreed, since their is no reason to believe either claim is illogical or logical 50/50 odds are the "best" model now, thats not to say the odds arent 30/70 70/30 25/75 etc, in fact I doubt the odds are 50/50 but I have no idea so the only other logical model is existence of god<100% certain>nonexistance of go actually Ill take that as my model so for the purposes of discussion im going off of existence of god<100% certain>nonexistance of god. going off of that if y coordiante =logic then f(athiesm)=f(agnosticism)>f(specific religion) specific religion only being less logical because if there is more then one possible model of god, believing in a certain one raises odds of being incorrect above that of simply believing god is possible.

Love could exist seperate of humans assuming other populated worlds.(point taken just joking) I will give that you have discredited many parts of "standard" models of god but that does not do anything to the reasoning behind a god. If I start on only the assumption that god exists outside of the physics we understand then he could be an infinite or finite being. Everyone does look at god a little differently here is why Lets say I put 360 cameras around a circle at even intervals (one per degree), I then place an object lets say a rock in the center of these cameras and have each one take a picture. Each picture is in a sense just as good of an image of the rock as every other image; however, due to lighting, or characteristics of the rock' shape, we as humans will deem some of these picture preferable to others. Of course one flaw with this model is that their is no true "correct" image, but the point is that there are an infinite amount of possible ways to define god including as nonexistant. Over time different images of the universe have appeared with different god(s)/lack of god(s). Since we cannot know for sure the only judgement we can make is if there are flaws in religious/secular logic. There is no flaw in my thinking there is some form of a god and that I cant understand god further, just as there is no flaw in saying you dont believe there to be a god, but there is a flaw in believing that god kills everyone that doesnt like pasta enough because a. lots of people dont like pasta and are quite alive, and b. noone has seriously put that idea forward as a possibility. I agree the purple bunnies and other such gods cannot be disproven, but that does not make them a reasonable conclusion for what could exist outside of physics.

So, youve never wanted anything to happen in your life I take it? I mean if rational people never wish for anything then your either irrational or have zero ambition. Unless of course some outside force is making everything you accomplish in life happen but since you say there is no god that cant be possible. Oh btw, believing in something =/= thinking I have to be right If you ask ten people what the best color is you will get somewhere between 1 and 10 different answers, each persons believes it but that doesnt mean they obsess if someone thinks teal while they think light blue. edit--to above post, if probability is >0 then probability of not being true is also <100. If there is not a 100% chance god doesnt exist then saying you know he doesnt exist makes no sense. Accepting the possibility but saying you dont believe there to be a god= aceppting the possibility but saying you believe there is a god.

All specifics of what I believe are derived basically from logical reasoning. If god punished anyone that is not of the "correct denomination" at least 66% of the world is in trouble. Christianity as a whole is the largest religion for numbre of people in the world and it only makes up one third of the people. However, since christianity is a broad category of many often very different churches, its reasonable to assume a judgemental god would consider at least some of them wrong. So if god is a harsh being, somewhere around 80% of the world is going straight to hell for not believing. I have no rationization of faith other then what I already said, in many ways its just hope that life goes on after death. If you find that a bit illogical it doesnt bother me, as I said god judging based on how you live is much more reasonable to me and I find atheists more reasonable then most religious people anyway. Everyone believes in their god or lack there of based off of what they want him to be, you dont believe in a god because you dont want their to be one or find the idea ridiculous etc..;hence, the plague of churches whose god somehow manages to condemn everyone they disagree with :roll: . Atheism is just as rationale as agnosticism, if were on different sides of that line its just a different train of thought, I choose to believe there is a god that is not definable, while you choose their to just not be one. One clear thing to differentiate is Im not following the christian form of god, I have very few charicteristics I actually attribute to god, understanding that I cant define him/her/it I quite agree, especially old testament god. edit-- I never said I could disprove your bunnies, I just said they were utterly ridiculous which =/= nonexistant. Similiar to if you had a fear of the color greeen, utterly ridiculous but that fear would exist. Im also willing to wager the bunnies are extremely unlikely which I think we can agree is true.

[hide=] agreed, so Im just going to ignore the actual odds as they are also impossible to obtain, the 50/50 was just most likely guess for a yes no question. to the post a few above faith is believing something without evidence, and is perfectly reasonable when their is no proof against one has faith in. If I roll a die and have "faith" the number it lands on will be even its reasonable even though its not guarenteed, because there is nothing that says it cant be an even number. The chance of it being even are not 100%, but since a die is impartial there is no proof of which way it will land. Now it would be illogical to say if I drink poison I wont be affected because we have evidence that most people dont respond too well to poison. I have faith in there being a god of some form because there is no proof against it and I dont like the idea that we just stop existing at death. I dont believe in things such as the purple bunnies because while there is no proof against it, there is no reason or gain from it. If someone is fine with the idea of no afterlife or whatever then it is fine by me I just choose my beliefs because its what I hope, and I see nothing wrong with that. I forgot to mention; if you don't believe in the purple bunnies, they'll get you when you die. Then they'll cut your "soul" up into little pieces, and put it in a blender. Then, they'll throw it in acid. Then, they'll restore your soul, chain you to a rock, and have an eagle eat your liver, heart, lungs, and eyes every day, restoring them the next day to be eaten again, for infinity and forever. Now tell me why you don't believe in them. To show you believe in them, you have to pray to them several times daily, or that will happen to you. If you do believe in them, then when you die, you'll live forever in bliss with a beer volcano, a infinity channel television with no commercials, and a stripper factory. For that matter, why aren't you a Hinduist? Why aren't you a Muslim? Why aren't you any faith that you are not? They all have benefits in believing in them, and dangers in not believing in them. [/hide] I really dont want to start a flame war but your being utterly ridiculous, I am not a member of any religion I merely choose to believe in their being some form of god and some form of afterlife. I follow no organized religion because I dont see the need, any god that would judge someone from their denomination is nothing I am interested in. I dont believe in your sadistic bunnies because there is no rationale or justification for faith in them. Why believe in a deity that punishes people for ridiculous things such as not believing? Does not the way you live your life matter in the grand scheme of things far more then which building you want to worship at? In fact, whether or not their is a god, living ones life to help the world grow matters much more then what could be after this life. Im at ease knowing that I may be gone forever when I die. I choose to believe Ill still be around in some form, at the very least I intend my memory to be something positive to look towards, to hell with your bunnies.

"Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley; good book, bit of an anti technology book but the plot is very interesting and it isnt a boring monolog like a lot of anti technology books (my fav book) Just finished reading "Lord of the Flies" by Golding for english, pretty good book

agreed, so Im just going to ignore the actual odds as they are also impossible to obtain, the 50/50 was just most likely guess for a yes no question. to the post a few above faith is believing something without evidence, and is perfectly reasonable when their is no proof against one has faith in. If I roll a die and have "faith" the number it lands on will be even its reasonable even though its not guarenteed, because there is nothing that says it cant be an even number. The chance of it being even are not 100%, but since a die is impartial there is no proof of which way it will land. Now it would be illogical to say if I drink poison I wont be affected because we have evidence that most people dont respond too well to poison. I have faith in there being a god of some form because there is no proof against it and I dont like the idea that we just stop existing at death. I dont believe in things such as the purple bunnies because while there is no proof against it, there is no reason or gain from it. If someone is fine with the idea of no afterlife or whatever then it is fine by me I just choose my beliefs because its what I hope, and I see nothing wrong with that.

Thought that post was in wrong thread then realized it was an epic joke :lol:

one problem is that you can not establish an accurate model of god for mathematical testing. Its like me asking you if the answer to my question is yes or no and not giving you the question, there is no way of knowing if one answer is more likely. So probability aside, there is no logic proof or disproof of god due to the nature of god not obeying any physical laws.

Some schools take surveys of students to get these statistics, so who knows the accuracy but they arent made up statistics (generally)

My math stated a 50/50 chance of A god, it would be impossible to calculate the odds of that god being any one certain thing because you cant determine how many options there are in total. We generally dont debate zeus because polytheism of the greek variety because it has fallen out of mass belief, and we dont debate the nature of purple bunnies because well its a strawman argument. Faith is believing when there is no reason to, if you could somehow prove god was not real id very quickly go from agnostic to atheist but until that point neither atheism or theism has more logical backing.

actual, probably "foreplay stuff" in some/most instances but either way Id say the point stands.