Is God real post your thoughts!

[blossom2581]

I better start off using a commonly used counter example against "comforts"

 

 

 

People often say positive results come from positive thoughts or religious faith, and dubs this effect as "placebo effect"

 

 

 

Now they argue "placebo effect" comes from biochemical changes in human itself, such as secretion of hormones, but not from any deities

 

 

 

This thought is logically flawed --- the placebo effect exists for some reason, and for Christians this is due to God's creation. It allows those faithful be rewarded by their faith without interventing the natural order that He creates often --- count the number of faithful Christians!

 

 

 

So I would say religion comforts people

[Mr_Cheese]

[hide=Quotes]

That's the whole point of faith. Not needing proof. Religion isn't like evolution, converting because there's proof is stupid and superficial. It's like only being friends with somebody because they've proven their friendship somehow. Your personal beliefs are your own. Besides, can you honestly say that you would go to church every Sunday and Wednesday (at minimum), follow the Bible word-for-word, and all that bull [cabbage] - if there was just a picture of God hanging out in a house or something?

 

 

 

No, because the picture would undoubtedly be photoshopped. I meant real, scientific evidence would convince me, not some picture of 'God'--and even if I was convinced...I reserve the opinion that God may exist, but even if he did, who says he is the Christian God and that the Bible came directly from him? If he was real, the Bible would mostl likely be a myth attempting to explain him, not a factual account.

 

 

 

I find your faith disturbing. Someone once said "It is impossible to reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into", and I think that describes the situation here pretty well. As for your point about friendship...is there any other reason to be friends with someone? I certainly can't think of one.

 

 

 

But you can neither prove nor disprove God, thats why it takes more faith to be an athiest. You have to believe that life is pointless whilst also straying away from the majority.

 

 

 

Nor can you disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But do you believe in it?

 

 

 

Takes more faith to be an athiest? Hardly. All babies are athiests; almost all scientists are atheists. There has been a proven negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence. As for straying away from the majority...that comes natural to me. You'll never get anywhere in life if you aren't prepared to.

 

 

 

Of course life is pointless. The only point in life is to enjoy it while you can; I personaly find it very uplifting to think about how the wonderful (and somewhat less wonderful) things in the world came about by chance.

[/hide]

 

But then if people believing in God comforts them, and makes life a little better, do they need proof?

 

That is indeed a good reason for believing in God in my opinion, because it comforts people. But I wonder, why does it comfort them, some probably (I say probably because there isn't any proof) imaginairy creator who presumably watches us and knows us?

 

 

 

Because some people don't like the thought of their lives being meaningless and that there's nothing after death.

 

 

 

Without the belief in God, society as a whole would be a lot more crummy place to live, think about it. Most charaties are within churches and many people do good to get into heaven.

[EdgedThesis]

The only point in life is to enjoy it while you can; I personaly find it very uplifting to think about how the wonderful (and somewhat less wonderful) things in the world came about by chance.

 

 

 

Enjoy it while you can?

 

Hm.

 

I say it is to uplift the next generation of humanity and keep ourselves going.

 

Contribute to the body of knowledge and progress the race.

 

We have to keep Intelligence alive.

 

 

 

Even if it means to suffer ourselves.

 

 

 

Hey, once we create A.I we can pack up and go. (This is an Agnostic speaking.)

 

 

 

As long as a Universe in existence, there should be someone to admire it.

[Lenticular_J]

No, because the picture would undoubtedly be photoshopped. I meant real, scientific evidence would convince me, not some picture of 'God'--and even if I was convinced...I reserve the opinion that God may exist, but even if he did, who says he is the Christian God and that the Bible came directly from him? If he was real, the Bible would mostl likely be a myth attempting to explain him, not a factual account.

 

That was my point. Wouldn't be religion then.

 

 

 

I find your faith disturbing.

 

Teehee. Darth Vader. But, anyways, why? What harm have my personal beliefs caused you?

[Perakp]

Because some people don't like the thought of their lives being meaningless and that there's nothing after death.

 

 

If there is something after death, it will either have an end or it will be eternal. If it does have an end, people will still want something after this second ending. If it is eternal... :wall: Have fun! :mrgreen:

 

People should learn to respect their life, and especially their death. Death is the most important thing in living, it gives everything else it's true value.

 

 

 

Everyone must find their own meaning for living, if someone wants to "get" this purpose from a supernatural being, it's ok. They have to believe in God to get the purpose, we others just define the purpose on our own, and then believe in it.

 

 

 

 

Without the belief in God, society as a whole would be a lot more crummy place to live, think about it.

 

I don't agree, but neither of us can prove anything, because we will never have any experience from a completely non-religious society.

[Housepig]

That's the whole point of faith. Not needing proof. Religion isn't like evolution, converting because there's proof is stupid and superficial. It's like only being friends with somebody because they've proven their friendship somehow. Your personal beliefs are your own. Besides, can you honestly say that you would go to church every Sunday and Wednesday (at minimum), follow the Bible word-for-word, and all that bull [cabbage] - if there was just a picture of God hanging out in a house or something?

 

 

 

No, because the picture would undoubtedly be photoshopped. I meant real, scientific evidence would convince me, not some picture of 'God'--and even if I was convinced...I reserve the opinion that God may exist, but even if he did, who says he is the Christian God and that the Bible came directly from him? If he was real, the Bible would mostl likely be a myth attempting to explain him, not a factual account.

 

 

 

I find your faith disturbing. Someone once said "It is impossible to reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into", and I think that describes the situation here pretty well. As for your point about friendship...is there any other reason to be friends with someone? I certainly can't think of one.

 

 

 

But you can neither prove nor disprove God, thats why it takes more faith to be an athiest. You have to believe that life is pointless whilst also straying away from the majority.

 

 

 

Nor can you disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But do you believe in it?

 

 

 

Takes more faith to be an athiest? Hardly. All babies are athiests; almost all scientists are atheists. There has been a proven negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence. As for straying away from the majority...that comes natural to me. You'll never get anywhere in life if you aren't prepared to.

 

 

 

Of course life is pointless. The only point in life is to enjoy it while you can; I personaly find it very uplifting to think about how the wonderful (and somewhat less wonderful) things in the world came about by chance.

 

 

 

But then if people believing in God comforts them, and makes life a little better, do they need proof? Does a mysterious man dressed in white have to come down and show us all that he created the earth? There are also many things in the world that scientists can't explain and until they do, people will still say that God created it all.

 

 

 

It's all about what gives you happiness, I suppose. If believing in some divine power comforts people so, be it. However, while that may be a valid reason for believing in God, it is still scientificaly invalid. Desiring something does not make it any more likely. I admit that God existing would be a nice thought when in pain or unhappy, but surely it's better to deal with our problems ourselves than to fall back on an imaginary friend? I'm sure that's psychologicaly unhealthy.

 

 

 

About things science cannot explain...what if they said "but they will explain it one day"? That's what I belive. Where would we be if, whenever scientists found a phenomenon inexplainable, they abandoned their research and published the conclusion "God did it."? Fortunately, they instead continue researching until they find the explanation. And they invariably do.

[Mr_Cheese]

[hide=]

That's the whole point of faith. Not needing proof. Religion isn't like evolution, converting because there's proof is stupid and superficial. It's like only being friends with somebody because they've proven their friendship somehow. Your personal beliefs are your own. Besides, can you honestly say that you would go to church every Sunday and Wednesday (at minimum), follow the Bible word-for-word, and all that bull [cabbage] - if there was just a picture of God hanging out in a house or something?

 

 

 

No, because the picture would undoubtedly be photoshopped. I meant real, scientific evidence would convince me, not some picture of 'God'--and even if I was convinced...I reserve the opinion that God may exist, but even if he did, who says he is the Christian God and that the Bible came directly from him? If he was real, the Bible would mostl likely be a myth attempting to explain him, not a factual account.

 

 

 

I find your faith disturbing. Someone once said "It is impossible to reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into", and I think that describes the situation here pretty well. As for your point about friendship...is there any other reason to be friends with someone? I certainly can't think of one.

 

 

 

But you can neither prove nor disprove God, thats why it takes more faith to be an athiest. You have to believe that life is pointless whilst also straying away from the majority.

 

 

 

Nor can you disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But do you believe in it?

 

 

 

Takes more faith to be an athiest? Hardly. All babies are athiests; almost all scientists are atheists. There has been a proven negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence. As for straying away from the majority...that comes natural to me. You'll never get anywhere in life if you aren't prepared to.

 

 

 

Of course life is pointless. The only point in life is to enjoy it while you can; I personaly find it very uplifting to think about how the wonderful (and somewhat less wonderful) things in the world came about by chance.

 

 

 

But then if people believing in God comforts them, and makes life a little better, do they need proof? Does a mysterious man dressed in white have to come down and show us all that he created the earth? There are also many things in the world that scientists can't explain and until they do, people will still say that God created it all.

 

 

 

It's all about what gives you happiness, I suppose. If believing in some divine power comforts people so, be it. However, while that may be a valid reason for believing in God, it is still scientificaly invalid. Desiring something does not make it any more likely. I admit that God existing would be a nice thought when in pain or unhappy, but surely it's better to deal with our problems ourselves than to fall back on an imaginary friend? I'm sure that's psychologicaly unhealthy.

 

 

 

About things science cannot explain...what if they said "but they will explain it one day"? That's what I belive. Where would we be if, whenever scientists found a phenomenon inexplainable, they abandoned their research and published the conclusion "God did it."? Fortunately, they instead continue researching until they find the explanation. And they invariably do.

[/hide]

 

 

 

But where does it all end? Why do humans crave to know everything? There used to be a place in everyone for God but because of science that has been replaced with.... nothing.

 

 

 

I don't believe in the "christian" God as such but I do believe in a higher power. There was one scientific argument that can't be explained (I think so anyway) If people believe that the big bang occured, then some outside force must have pushed them into motion (newtons 1st law ftw) because an object can't move by itself. Another one is "We can.t see God." Well, we can;t see gravity eityher, that doesnt meen it doesnt exist?

[Housepig]

[hide=]

That's the whole point of faith. Not needing proof. Religion isn't like evolution, converting because there's proof is stupid and superficial. It's like only being friends with somebody because they've proven their friendship somehow. Your personal beliefs are your own. Besides, can you honestly say that you would go to church every Sunday and Wednesday (at minimum), follow the Bible word-for-word, and all that bull [cabbage] - if there was just a picture of God hanging out in a house or something?

 

 

 

No, because the picture would undoubtedly be photoshopped. I meant real, scientific evidence would convince me, not some picture of 'God'--and even if I was convinced...I reserve the opinion that God may exist, but even if he did, who says he is the Christian God and that the Bible came directly from him? If he was real, the Bible would mostl likely be a myth attempting to explain him, not a factual account.

 

 

 

I find your faith disturbing. Someone once said "It is impossible to reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into", and I think that describes the situation here pretty well. As for your point about friendship...is there any other reason to be friends with someone? I certainly can't think of one.

 

 

 

But you can neither prove nor disprove God, thats why it takes more faith to be an athiest. You have to believe that life is pointless whilst also straying away from the majority.

 

 

 

Nor can you disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But do you believe in it?

 

 

 

Takes more faith to be an athiest? Hardly. All babies are athiests; almost all scientists are atheists. There has been a proven negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence. As for straying away from the majority...that comes natural to me. You'll never get anywhere in life if you aren't prepared to.

 

 

 

Of course life is pointless. The only point in life is to enjoy it while you can; I personaly find it very uplifting to think about how the wonderful (and somewhat less wonderful) things in the world came about by chance.

 

 

 

But then if people believing in God comforts them, and makes life a little better, do they need proof? Does a mysterious man dressed in white have to come down and show us all that he created the earth? There are also many things in the world that scientists can't explain and until they do, people will still say that God created it all.

 

 

 

It's all about what gives you happiness, I suppose. If believing in some divine power comforts people so, be it. However, while that may be a valid reason for believing in God, it is still scientificaly invalid. Desiring something does not make it any more likely. I admit that God existing would be a nice thought when in pain or unhappy, but surely it's better to deal with our problems ourselves than to fall back on an imaginary friend? I'm sure that's psychologicaly unhealthy.

 

 

 

About things science cannot explain...what if they said "but they will explain it one day"? That's what I belive. Where would we be if, whenever scientists found a phenomenon inexplainable, they abandoned their research and published the conclusion "God did it."? Fortunately, they instead continue researching until they find the explanation. And they invariably do.

[/hide]

 

 

 

But where does it all end? Why do humans crave to know everything? There used to be a place in everyone for God but because of science that has been replaced with.... nothing.

 

 

 

I don't believe in the "christian" God as such but I do believe in a higher power. There was one scientific argument that can't be explained (I think so anyway) If people believe that the big bang occured, then some outside force must have pushed them into motion (newtons 1st law ftw) because an object can't move by itself. Another one is "We can.t see God." Well, we can;t see gravity eityher, that doesnt meen it doesnt exist?

 

 

 

But if God started it, what created God? And yeah, that "We can't see God" argument proves that atheists can be just as stupid as theists. Human stupidity will never be solved, even if we were all atheist.

[Shinjula]

If people believe that the big bang occured, then some outside force must have pushed them into motion (newtons 1st law ftw) because an object can't move by itself.

 

Newtons first law is only a law inside the universe, it doesn't necessarily hold outside the universe, also quantum mechanics does actually specifically allow objects to move (or rather do stuff) by themselves - check out spontaneous particle/anti particle creation and hawking radiation

[Housepig]

No, because the picture would undoubtedly be photoshopped. I meant real, scientific evidence would convince me, not some picture of 'God'--and even if I was convinced...I reserve the opinion that God may exist, but even if he did, who says he is the Christian God and that the Bible came directly from him? If he was real, the Bible would mostl likely be a myth attempting to explain him, not a factual account.

 

 

 

That was my point. Wouldn't be religion then.

 

 

 

What do you mean? Your point seemed to be something along the lines of "it's stupid and anti-religious to belief in things because of proof".

 

 

 

I find your faith disturbing.

 

Teehee. Darth Vader. But, anyways, why? What harm have my personal beliefs caused you?

 

 

 

No harm whatsoever. I don't mean that you're beliefs hurt me; I mean that your...honesty about how irrational religion is and your acceptance of this fact without being swayed by it defies...reason. And that worries me. Don't take this personaly, but this mentality you have just convinces me that there realy is no point debating religion with some people--exept for the fact I enjoy it.

 

 

 

Takes more faith to be an athiest? Hardly. All babies are athiests; almost all scientists are atheists. There has been a proven negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence. As for straying away from the majority...that comes natural to me. You'll never get anywhere in life if you aren't prepared to.

 

 

 

babies are born agnostic, you cant call them atheist when they havent thought about matters involving god. Site a legit source on the scientist and intelligence claims, I highly doubt both of them.

 

 

 

But the only babies brought up to be religious don't turn out atheist. Oh, and here's your source:

 

 

 

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1384909.

 

 

 

Note the phrase "Religious believers as a group were found to be significantly less intelligent...than religious skeptics.

[Zierro]

Nor can you disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But do you believe in it?

 

 

 

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is undeniably an invention by mankind and bringing it up is a strawman. People invented spaghetti and meatballs - they are not found in nature.

[Dizzle229]

Why does everyone doubt the existence of the spaghetti monster?

[tryto]

Nor can you disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But do you believe in it?

 

 

 

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is undeniably an invention by mankind and bringing it up is a strawman. People invented spaghetti and meatballs - they are not found in nature.

 

 

 

Then the Hindu gods, Zeus and Thor, and Mithra and Venus are also "undeniably inventions by mankind" ? Every god you don't believe in is an invention by mankind?

 

 

 

The FSM is a parody; it seeks to show WHY you can not believe in it, yet not hold those same standards to other things. Why do you think that your god is not invented by mankind, yet every god you do not believe in is?

[Zierro]

Then the Hindu gods, Zeus and Thor, and Mithra and Venus are also "undeniably inventions by mankind" ? Every god you don't believe in is an invention by mankind?

 

 

 

The FSM is a parody; it seeks to show WHY you can not believe in it, yet not hold those same standards to other things. Why do you think that your god is not invented by mankind, yet every god you do not believe in is?

 

 

 

I don't belief a specific god - I just believe there is something more than meets the eye in this universe which can be defined as god.

 

 

 

And god is just as much an invention of man as infinity - yet infinity exists naturally. Spaghetti is an invention - not a discovery.

[tryto]

Then the Hindu gods, Zeus and Thor, and Mithra and Venus are also "undeniably inventions by mankind" ? Every god you don't believe in is an invention by mankind?

 

 

 

The FSM is a parody; it seeks to show WHY you can not believe in it, yet not hold those same standards to other things. Why do you think that your god is not invented by mankind, yet every god you do not believe in is?

 

 

 

I don't belief a specific god - I just believe there is something more than meets the eye in this universe which can be defined as god.

 

 

 

And god is just as much an invention of man as infinity - yet infinity exists naturally. Spaghetti is an invention - not a discovery.

 

 

 

So you just admitted, that while you do not believe in a specific god, you still disbelieve in many gods.

 

In any case, your last statement is a matter of debate; is mathematics discovered or invented?

 

 

 

Name an infinite physical object that exists naturally.

[Shinjula]

Name an infinite physical object that exists naturally.

 

The length of a coastline

[tryto]

Name an infinite physical object that exists naturally.

 

The length of a coastline

 

 

 

What? I can easily measure the length of a single coastline to be x length.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... _coastline

 

 

 

For example, the length of Canada's coastline is around 200,000km.

[Zierro]

So you just admitted, that while you do not believe in a specific god, you still disbelieve in many gods.

 

 

 

So your argument is that if you believe in one god then you must believe in them all - including the FSM?

 

 

 

In any case, your last statement is a matter of debate; is mathematics discovered or invented?

 

 

 

Mathematics is an invention but that's besides that point. We're talking about the concept of infinity here. I guess my example would have been less vague if I would have said something like gravity - so I retract my statement. Let's use gravity instead.

 

 

 

Name an infinite physical object that exists naturally.

 

 

 

Whether it's physical or not is irrelevant. There is an infinite amount of space in the universe - therefore infinity exists in nature.

 

 

 

We're getting pretty sidetracked from the main point though. The FSM is used to show that anyone can make up a ridiculous entity, and it is impossible to disprove. The problem is that, by it's own name (spaghetti), it is already defined as something which is made-up by man. That's why it's a strawman in comparison to belief of a god - because it can be disproved.

[tryto]

So you just admitted, that while you do not believe in a specific god, you still disbelieve in many gods.

 

 

 

So your argument is that if you believe in one god then you must believe in them all - including the FSM?

 

 

 

In any case, your last statement is a matter of debate; is mathematics discovered or invented?

 

 

 

Mathematics is an invention but that's besides that point. We're talking about the concept of infinity here. I guess my example would have been less vague if I would have said something like gravity - so I retract my statement. Let's use gravity instead.

 

 

 

Name an infinite physical object that exists naturally.

 

 

 

Whether it's physical or not is irrelevant. There is an infinite amount of space in the universe - therefore infinity exists in nature.

 

 

 

That is also a matter of some debate. The universe may or may not be infinite. http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMR53T1VED_index_0_iv.html

 

 

 

We're getting pretty sidetracked from the main point though. The FSM is used to show that anyone can make up a ridiculous entity, and it is impossible to disprove. The problem is that, by it's own name (spaghetti), it is already defined as something which is made-up by man. That's why it's a strawman in comparison to belief of a god - because it can be disproved.

 

 

 

But your entire argument that you have been arguing is that something man-made can still exist. (infinity)

 

 

 

FSM!= spaghetti; it is a cosmological spiritual being that just happens to be made up of cosmic spaghetti.

 

In either case, perhaps the spaghetti monster had Italian chefs create spaghetti to honour it; in this case, the spaghetti monster would have actually created spaghetti, and not man.

 

Before you object to this, remember that this is how most gods we have seem to work on us; they influence man to create or work something that can honour them; for example, god is described as "the alpha and the omega", which is something made up by man(letters in an alphabet).

 

 

 

Consider that strings, as in yarn, are made by man. String theory, as the name goes, is composed of strings. But these are not strings in the way we think of them as in yarn. The are different. Does this mean that strings in string theory are made-up by man? Of course not.

 

 

 

Or let's take Ganesha of the Hindus. It is defined as an elephant. Does that mean it can be disproved? No.

 

 

 

 

 

When did you last see spaghetti that could create the universe, create man and the earth, that is metaphysical and immaterial, that is undetectable by any means, and can interfere with scientific measurements? Never? There is a clear difference between ordinary spaghetti and the metaphysical cosmological spaghetti of the FSM.

[Smapla]

Name an infinite physical object that exists naturally.

 

The length of a coastline

 

 

 

What? I can easily measure the length of a single coastline to be x length.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... _coastline

 

 

 

For example, the length of Canada's coastline is around 200,000km.

 

 

 

coastlines are fractal in nature, and thus no matter how small your scale is, there is always more detail.

[Lenticular_J]

I don't belief a specific god - I just believe there is something more than meets the eye in this universe which can be defined as god.

 

 

 

And god is just as much an invention of man as infinity - yet infinity exists naturally. Spaghetti is an invention - not a discovery.

 

I think you're a deist. I think I am too, but I'm not sure. A lot of deistic stuff is something I believe, but I believe a good bit of my native Christianity. Too bad every person doesn't have their own -ianity.

[tryto]

Name an infinite physical object that exists naturally.

 

The length of a coastline

 

 

 

What? I can easily measure the length of a single coastline to be x length.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... _coastline

 

 

 

For example, the length of Canada's coastline is around 200,000km.

 

 

 

coastlines are fractal in nature, and thus no matter how small your scale is, there is always more detail.

 

 

 

 

 

I know the Coastline Paradox.

 

It's resolved using advanced science; the smallest piece of coastline you can have is a single atom. And thus a rephrasing of Zeno's paradox falls.

[Zierro]

That is also a matter of some debate. The universe may or may not be infinite. http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMR53T1VED_index_0_iv.html

 

 

 

Taken from that link itself:

 

 

 

ESA: Is the Universe finite or infinite?

 

 

 

Joseph Silk: We don't know. The expanding Universe theory says that the Universe could expand forever [that corresponds to a 'flat' Universe]. And that is probably the model of the Universe that we feel closest to now. But it could also be finite, because it could be that the Universe has a very large volume now, but finite, and that that volume will increase, so only in the infinite future will it actually be infinite.

 

 

 

Either time is infinite or volume is infinite, but either way that article seems to suggest that infinity can be found in nature.

 

 

 

But your entire argument that you have been arguing is that something man-made can still exist. (infinity)

 

 

 

My argument is that the over-usage of the FSM is stupid. It worked for stopping creationism from being taught in school, but it's not going to work to disprove god as many seem to think.

 

 

 

FSM!= spaghetti; it is a cosmological spiritual being that just happens to be made up of cosmic spaghetti.

 

 

 

Spaghetti cannot exist without humans. Either you agree or disagree with that statement, which is it? Not only that but god isn't contingent or physical like the FSM is.

 

 

 

In either case, perhaps the spaghetti monster had Italian chefs create spaghetti to honour it; in this case, the spaghetti monster would have actually created spaghetti, and not man.

 

Before you object to this, remember that this is how most gods we have seem to work on us; they influence man to create or work something that can honour them; for example, god is described as "the alpha and the omega", which is something made up by man(letters in an alphabet).

 

 

 

Trying to make the FSM as plausible as you can is actually counterproductive to your argument. Anyone can babble illogical nonsense and claim that X is like Y. "You believe in ghosts? Ghosts are like triangular uncooked pieces of toast with five sides that can talk. Why? Because neither have proof, therefore should be treated the same." Sorry, but that attitude irritates me.

 

 

 

Consider that strings, as in yarn, are made by man. String theory, as the name goes, is composed of strings. But these are not strings in the way we think of them as in yarn. The are different. Does this mean that strings in string theory are made-up by man? Of course not.

 

 

 

No, it means string theory was made by man. After all, theories aren't found in nature.

 

 

 

I'm waiting for you to bring up how god is a psychological comfort. *nudges* :P

 

 

 

I think you're a deist. I think I am too, but I'm not sure. A lot of deistic stuff is something I believe, but I believe a good bit of my native Christianity. Too bad every person doesn't have their own -ianity.

 

 

 

Same with me. I believe in a god separate from the god who condones homosexuality, speaks of hell, asks to be worshiped, etc. but I like the idea behind Jesus's intentions and think that is probably the best way to live your life.

 

 

 

I know the Coastline Paradox.

 

It's resolved using advanced science; the smallest piece of coastline you can have is a single atom. And thus a rephrasing of Zeno's paradox falls.

 

 

 

Unless atoms take up 0 volume, they can still technically be divided - not physically but conceptually.

[tryto]

That is also a matter of some debate. The universe may or may not be infinite. http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMR53T1VED_index_0_iv.html

 

 

 

Taken from that link itself:

 

 

 

ESA: Is the Universe finite or infinite?

 

 

 

Joseph Silk: We don't know. The expanding Universe theory says that the Universe could expand forever [that corresponds to a 'flat' Universe]. And that is probably the model of the Universe that we feel closest to now. But it could also be finite, because it could be that the Universe has a very large volume now, but finite, and that that volume will increase, so only in the infinite future will it actually be infinite.

 

 

 

Either time is infinite or volume is infinite, but either way that article seems to suggest that infinity can be found in nature.

 

 

 

It can, but we do not know if it exists or if it does not.

 

 

 

But your entire argument that you have been arguing is that something man-made can still exist. (infinity)

 

 

 

My argument is that the over-usage of the FSM is stupid. It worked for stopping creationism from being taught in school, but it's not going to work to disprove god as many seem to think.

 

 

 

Did I say it would disprove god? No; it serves as an example of the faultiness of the "if you cannot disprove god, he must exist" argument, among a few other fallacies.

 

 

 

FSM!= spaghetti; it is a cosmological spiritual being that just happens to be made up of cosmic spaghetti.

 

 

 

Spaghetti cannot exist without humans. Either you agree or disagree with that statement, which is it? Not only that but god isn't contingent or physical like the FSM is.

 

 

 

The FSM isn't contingent or physical. That's why it's immaterial and cannot be detected. Are you saying that the FSM or god could not create spaghetti before humans were created?

 

 

 

In either case, perhaps the spaghetti monster had Italian chefs create spaghetti to honour it; in this case, the spaghetti monster would have actually created spaghetti, and not man.

 

Before you object to this, remember that this is how most gods we have seem to work on us; they influence man to create or work something that can honour them; for example, god is described as "the alpha and the omega", which is something made up by man(letters in an alphabet).

 

 

 

Trying to make the FSM as plausible as you can is actually counterproductive to your argument. Anyone can babble illogical nonsense and claim that X is like Y. "You believe in ghosts? Ghosts are like triangular uncooked pieces of toast with five sides that can talk."

 

 

 

 

 

Consider that strings, as in yarn, are made by man. String theory, as the name goes, is composed of strings. But these are not strings in the way we think of them as in yarn. The are different. Does this mean that strings in string theory are made-up by man? Of course not.

 

 

 

 

 

No, it means string theory was made by man. After all, theories aren't found in nature.

 

 

 

I'm waiting for you to bring up how god is a psychological comfort. *nudges* :P

 

 

 

String theory says that there exist strings in nature. Are these strings, should they exist(let's assume they do) made by man? no, they are not. God isn't a psychological comfort; I think it's a psychological harm.

 

 

 

I think you're a deist. I think I am too, but I'm not sure. A lot of deistic stuff is something I believe, but I believe a good bit of my native Christianity. Too bad every person doesn't have their own -ianity.

 

 

 

Same with me. I believe in a god separate from the god who condones homosexuality, speaks of hell, asks to be worshiped, etc. but I like the idea behind Jesus's intentions and think that is probably the best way to live your life.

 

 

 

OT: Gandhi > Jesus.

 

 

 

I know the Coastline Paradox.

 

It's resolved using advanced science; the smallest piece of coastline you can have is a single atom. And thus a rephrasing of Zeno's paradox falls.

 

 

 

Unless atoms take up 0 volume, they can still technically be divided - not physically but conceptually.

 

 

 

In our atmosphere, on a coastline, something smaller than an individual atom cannot exist. We are talking about the physical nature of a coastline, and a single piece of coastline cannot be divided into a piece smaller than an atom without it no longer being a coastline.

 

I don't know why I am arguing this, it really helps my argument that man created an infinity and then it was shown to exist(like the FSM) heh.

[Zierro]

It can, but we do not know if it exists or if it does not.

 

 

 

? Your article says that either the universe is infinite right now or is expanding infinitely. Are you trying to discredit the article that you yourself posted?

 

 

 

Did I say it would disprove god? No; it serves as an example of the faultiness of the "if you cannot disprove god, he must exist" argument, among a few other fallacies.

 

 

 

Nobody said that either. What was said was, "You can neither prove nor disprove god, therefore atheists are using faith in their beliefs too." By definition, faith is a belief that is not based on proof. If you have no proof that god does not exist but you still believe that, then you have faith that he doesn't exist.

 

 

 

The FSM isn't contingent or physical. That's why it's immaterial and cannot be detected. Are you saying that the FSM or god could not create spaghetti before humans were created?

 

 

 

Are you really arguing that mankind didn't invent spaghetti...? http://www.bestofsicily.com/mag/art73.htm And the FSM not being physical kind of defeats the purpose of him having the ability to fly and being made out of spaghetti. Maybe next time people will come up with names that don't contradict the point they're trying to make.

 

 

 

String theory says that there exist strings in nature. Are these strings, should they exist(let's assume they do) made by man? no, they are not.

 

 

 

Those strings aren't just something made up for the purpose of crediting a rhetorical argument, unlike your invisible spaghetti strands that exist in outer space.

 

 

 

God isn't a psychological comfort; I think it's a psychological harm.

 

 

 

Ooo, you're such a bad boy. :)

 

 

 

OT: Gandhi > Jesus.

 

 

 

Their teachings are both good, but when it comes to what they've physically done I think Jesus wins.