A few points I'd like to bring up... Because I love playing devil's advocate. And to be fair, for both sides.

 

For the atheists

• How are we so sure that we have free will? There is no evidence for its existence at all. There is even at least one field of psychology that suggests the opposite of free will based on the fact that we act based on previous experiences.
  
• How is saying "God did it" more complicated than the scientific explanation if the simplest answer is usually the right one?
  

And to both, why are the beliefs of others such a concern? Why spend time arguing about who's right when we have bigger things to worry about?

 

I think you don't quite understand the reasoning behind proving free will as false/true.

A man without free will cannot really sin, because it wasn't his choice. If someone steals, for example, and the concept of free will is false, it wasn't him who decided to steal whatever it is that he stole, but the future that was set for him. For that reason, if free will is false, humans cannot&should not be punished for what they do (religously that is).

If, however, the concept of free will is true, an omniscient God cannot exist. If someone (anyone, not necessarily a God) knows the future, that means the future is set, and is unchangeable (if something is changed, that change was foreseen by God, and thus wasn't really a change but rather the future as it is supposed to be). For example, long before you were born, God knew whether you'd belong to Heaven or Hell, whether you'd steal and murder, and even when, how, and why you'll die.

So, it's either free will, or an omniscient God. The existence of both creates a paradox that cannot be solved. If free will doesn't exist, men cannot sin, and thus shouldn't be punished for their sins. If an omniscient God doesn't exist, that means the God many religions created isn't as people thought, and if they were wrong about one thing related to God (and as acute as whether God is omniscient or not), they could be wrong about more. They could even be wrong about whether or not God exists.

 

As for your second point- It's not about how complicated it is, it's about the truth. It doesn't matter which 1 is more complicated, aslong as the one we believe in is the correct one.

 

And as for your last question- For many reasons:

1. The truth is something we should seek regardless of the consequences. If, for instance, the consequences of finding out whether God exists or not, is cancelation of all religions, that's something we should seek.

2. I guess theists cannot let their one true God not be true for all. If there really is one true religion, each religion shouldn't want anyone to dismiss it's "facts".

3. The "bigger things to worry about" doesn't stand well here. So what if we have bigger things to worry about? Does that mean we shouldn't worry about the "smaller" things? You probably already know we're not able to explain everything on Earth, or even reach Earth's center- Does that mean we should stop researching space? Even the moon?

4. Personaly, as some of you probably already noticed, I find it fun and interesting to discuss God, religion, etc.

5. God is a philosophical question just as any other.

6. Religion thus far has done more harm than good IMO, and is probably going to continue doing what it's doing. I think a world without religion would be a better world, and the only possible way we could ever dismiss religion, is disprove God.

I'm sure there's more, I just can't think of any right now.

Atheists don't admit they can't disprove gods.

Don't admit? Personaly I've admitted that countless times. It's the fact that we cannot disprove God that keeps this religous debate alive everywhere. I just see the fact that you can't prove God does exist, as enough to deem him false, just like I deem the Tooth-Fairy and Leprechauns false.

 

Many atheists believe that there's a scientific reason for every single thing

Umm... I KNOW there isn't a scientific reason for every single thing. I believe one could eventually be found, but that doesn't mean I think science can explain everything. Science itself doesn't claim to be able to explain or prove everything.

 

disregarding the need for faith in a deity.

 

The 'need'? What need?

 

Many atheists believe that there's a scientific reason for every single thing

Umm... I KNOW there isn't a scientific reason for every single thing. I believe one could eventually be found, but that doesn't mean I think science can explain everything. Science itself doesn't claim to be able to explain or prove everything.

 

 

You just made him cry.

Pseudo-knowledge kinds of pisses me off... Just putting that out there, to whomever it might apply.

 

If you don't know the physics behind a certain principle, don't attempt to paraphrase it to counter another argument. Just makes the argument that much more horrible.

 

A few points I'd like to bring up... Because I love playing devil's advocate. And to be fair, for both sides.

 

For the atheists

• How are we so sure that we have free will? There is no evidence for its existence at all. There is even at least one field of psychology that suggests the opposite of free will based on the fact that we act based on previous experiences.
  
• How is saying "God did it" more complicated than the scientific explanation if the simplest answer is usually the right one?
  

And to both, why are the beliefs of others such a concern? Why spend time arguing about who's right when we have bigger things to worry about?

 

I think you don't quite understand the reasoning behind proving free will as false/true.

A man without free will cannot really sin, because it wasn't his choice. If someone steals, for example, and the concept of free will is false, it wasn't him who decided to steal whatever it is that he stole, but the future that was set for him. For that reason, if free will is false, humans cannot&should not be punished for what they do (religously that is).

If, however, the concept of free will is true, an omniscient God cannot exist. If someone (anyone, not necessarily a God) knows the future, that means the future is set, and is unchangeable (if something is changed, that change was foreseen by God, and thus wasn't really a change but rather the future as it is supposed to be). For example, long before you were born, God knew whether you'd belong to Heaven or Hell, whether you'd steal and murder, and even when, how, and why you'll die.

So, it's either free will, or an omniscient God. The existence of both creates a paradox that cannot be solved. If free will doesn't exist, men cannot sin, and thus shouldn't be punished for their sins. If an omniscient God doesn't exist, that means the God many religions created isn't as people thought, and if they were wrong about one thing related to God (and as acute as whether God is omniscient or not), they could be wrong about more. They could even be wrong about whether or not God exists.

 

 

OK, I'm going to express my argument with the least amount of flaming that I can endure. You don't know the pain I'm going through right now... Not being able to flame... It's... Like there's an Australian Bull Frog slowly making its way up my [wagon]... Slowly...

 

 

For your first wall of words, I counter with my own:

 

The paradox you mentioned doesn't make any sense because you're only taking into perspective the idea of theism.

 

I'm going to quote my original response to Local's question:

 

By free will, I assume that you mean the ability for one to choose to do whatever it is they want. If so, then there are theories for its existence. The first theory is that we can do whatever we want, even if it's based on previous experiences. Previous experiences come from somewhere, therefore, they've been exercised by some sort of will, presumably free. Albeit somewhat circular in logic, I don't see how arguing otherwise is any different. It's a very abstract term to attempt to define.

 

Also, the Multiverse theory explains different outcomes fairly well. If we have an option to do two things, then those two things will happen. If only a few electrons in your brain determine what choice you come upon, then, by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, those electrons will almost undoubtedly choose both routes. One route will take place in one parallel universe, and the other route in a different parallel universe. By the Multiverse theory, there are an infinite number of parallel universes, which means that every outcome that can be explain by physics in our universe can and will happen an infinite number of times. Therefore, free will would have to be expressed in some fashion in some parallel universe.

 

 

Expanding on that, the Multiverse theory explains how, even in the presence of God, free will can in fact exist. This is because even though God knows which decision you will make (assuming the existence of God), the infinite number of parallel universes dictates that the decision one makes is entirely randomized. In one universe, yes, you might be predetermined to make one set of decisions, but your "existence" (note: this is very abstract; as in a parallel universe, you are essentially you, but in another, you aren't, even though you are) in another universe is randomized so that those sets of decisions you make span infinity, therefore making it so that free will has to exist within any specific set.

 

Taking a step back, this can also mean that since every possible set of combinations has already been determined in the Multiverse (there are different levels of Multiverse, so I'm not covering anything over the first level, which are Parallel Universes), then there is actually no free will. Everything that can happen, will and already has happened an infinite number of times. Considering this, one can assume that no one has any free will to begin with (this concept applies both with or without the presence of God). But, as I mentioned before, in any given set, an infinite number of outcomes can occur, so at only one set of values, free will does exist because probability assumes that that set of values can contain any possible outcome.

 

 

And as for your last question- For many reasons:

1. The truth is something we should seek regardless of the consequences. If, for instance, the consequences of finding out whether God exists or not, is cancelation of all religions, that's something we should seek.

2. I guess theists cannot let their one true God not be true for all. If there really is one true religion, each religion shouldn't want anyone to dismiss it's "facts".

3. The "bigger things to worry about" doesn't stand well here. So what if we have bigger things to worry about? Does that mean we shouldn't worry about the "smaller" things? You probably already know we're not able to explain everything on Earth, or even reach Earth's center- Does that mean we should stop researching space? Even the moon?

4. Personaly, as some of you probably already noticed, I find it fun and interesting to discuss God, religion, etc.

5. God is a philosophical question just as any other.

6. Religion thus far has done more harm than good IMO, and is probably going to continue doing what it's doing. I think a world without religion would be a better world, and the only possible way we could ever dismiss religion, is disprove God.

 

 

Note, in my responses to these, I'm going to assume that I understood what it was you were trying to say... It's not very clear the way you wrote it...

 

1.) Agreed. Mankind has always pursued the dream of indulging themselves with the secrets of the masses, en masse.

2.) I really don't know what you're trying to say here... The last part is confusing, and the first part makes little sense. I think you're taking into account Man's interpretation of God, not the idea of God itself. On both sides of the debate, it's pretty widely accepted that Man is fairly stupid, and attempting to counter the idea of God by criticizing Man's views on it is idiotic at best.

3.) Sure.

4.) I'll agree it is, but only if everyone comes to the conclusion that arguing for/against the idea of God is completely inane. We have no perception of anything past our minuscule 3-dimensional field of view... Which is pretty pathetic if you consider some of the things that science is uncovering in the field of String Theory.

4.) Apparently I can't count...

5.) Sure.

 

6.) OK, this is where you really started to piss me off. You bring up some good points (granted, your "good" points are only relative to what I've seen on teh intrawebs thus far), but your assumption here is entirely ungrounded. You might be stating your opinion, but even opinions can be wrong.

 

You say that the world would be a better place without religion, but fail to notice all the things that religion has given us. Morals, for example, stem from religious gospels of Man and Woman being punished by God for their crimes. Sure, you could argue that these laws would eventually develop with the "discovery" of the social contract, but, IMO, nothing hits as hard as the fear of being eternally damned.

 

The social contract might apply to small communities, but if you're surrounded by 6 billion people, 5.999999 billion of those people wont give a [cabbage] if you randomly stabbed someone to death. If the fear of consequences hadn't been drilled into our heads for the past few millenia, we'd be no closer to the idea of God than we would be to the animals. Religion taught humanity to actually give a damn about what they do, and you can't ever take that away from history.

You say that the world would be a better place without religion, but fail to notice all the things that religion has given us. Morals, for example, stem from religious gospels of Man and Woman being punished by God for their crimes. Sure, you could argue that these laws would eventually develop with the "discovery" of the social contract, but, IMO, nothing hits as hard as the fear of being eternally damned.

And to build on that, there were more atrocities committed for a reason that wasn't religious. To assume that the world would be a better place without religion is ignorance to the rest of history.

Hell, even the religious ones had political undertones.

 

Many atheists believe that there's a scientific reason for every single thing

Umm... I KNOW there isn't a scientific reason for every single thing. I believe one could eventually be found, but that doesn't mean I think science can explain everything. Science itself doesn't claim to be able to explain or prove everything.

 

 

You just made him cry.

 

Yeah, except he claims otherwise in the first 7 seconds of this video-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iwYDO1PtJY

The paradox you mentioned doesn't make any sense because you're only taking into perspective the idea of theism.

But that's, basically, the perspective I'm trying to disprove. I know for certain that I cannot disprove God, and I don't mind the agnostic perspective. It's the theist ones I care about.

 

 

Expanding on that, the Multiverse theory explains how, even in the presence of God, free will can in fact exist. This is because even though God knows which decision you will make (assuming the existence of God), the infinite number of parallel universes dictates that the decision one makes is entirely randomized. In one universe, yes, you might be predetermined to make one set of decisions, but your "existence" (note: this is very abstract; as in a parallel universe, you are essentially you, but in another, you aren't, even though you are) in another universe is randomized so that those sets of decisions you make span infinity, therefore making it so that free will has to exist within any specific set.

 

Taking a step back, this can also mean that since every possible set of combinations has already been determined in the Multiverse (there are different levels of Multiverse, so I'm not covering anything over the first level, which are Parallel Universes), then there is actually no free will. Everything that can happen, will and already has happened an infinite number of times. Considering this, one can assume that no one has any free will to begin with (this concept applies both with or without the presence of God). But, as I mentioned before, in any given set, an infinite number of outcomes can occur, so at only one set of values, free will does exist because probability assumes that that set of values can contain any possible outcome.

Whether it is that there is an infinite number of realities, each holding the precence of a different decision, or there's only 1, either free will is canceled or an omniscient God.

I'm not claiming that free will is wrong and neither that it is right, only that an omniscient God couldn't exist along with free will.

 

And as for your last question- For many reasons:

1. The truth is something we should seek regardless of the consequences. If, for instance, the consequences of finding out whether God exists or not, is cancelation of all religions, that's something we should seek.

2. I guess theists cannot let their one true God not be true for all. If there really is one true religion, each religion shouldn't want anyone to dismiss it's "facts".

3. The "bigger things to worry about" doesn't stand well here. So what if we have bigger things to worry about? Does that mean we shouldn't worry about the "smaller" things? You probably already know we're not able to explain everything on Earth, or even reach Earth's center- Does that mean we should stop researching space? Even the moon?

4. Personaly, as some of you probably already noticed, I find it fun and interesting to discuss God, religion, etc.

5. God is a philosophical question just as any other.

6. Religion thus far has done more harm than good IMO, and is probably going to continue doing what it's doing. I think a world without religion would be a better world, and the only possible way we could ever dismiss religion, is disprove God.

 

 

Note, in my responses to these, I'm going to assume that I understood what it was you were trying to say... It's not very clear the way you wrote it...

 

1.) Agreed. Mankind has always pursued the dream of indulging themselves with the secrets of the masses, en masse.

2.) I really don't know what you're trying to say here... The last part is confusing, and the first part makes little sense. I think you're taking into account Man's interpretation of God, not the idea of God itself. On both sides of the debate, it's pretty widely accepted that Man is fairly stupid, and attempting to counter the idea of God by criticizing Man's views on it is idiotic at best.

3.) Sure.

4.) I'll agree it is, but only if everyone comes to the conclusion that arguing for/against the idea of God is completely inane. We have no perception of anything past our minuscule 3-dimensional field of view... Which is pretty pathetic if you consider some of the things that science is uncovering in the field of String Theory.

4.) Apparently I can't count...

5.) Sure.

 

6.) OK, this is where you really started to piss me off. You bring up some good points (granted, your "good" points are only relative to what I've seen on teh intrawebs thus far), but your assumption here is entirely ungrounded. You might be stating your opinion, but even opinions can be wrong.

 

You say that the world would be a better place without religion, but fail to notice all the things that religion has given us. Morals, for example, stem from religious gospels of Man and Woman being punished by God for their crimes. Sure, you could argue that these laws would eventually develop with the "discovery" of the social contract, but, IMO, nothing hits as hard as the fear of being eternally damned.

 

The social contract might apply to small communities, but if you're surrounded by 6 billion people, 5.999999 billion of those people wont give a [cabbage] if you randomly stabbed someone to death. If the fear of consequences hadn't been drilled into our heads for the past few millenia, we'd be no closer to the idea of God than we would be to the animals. Religion taught humanity to actually give a damn about what they do, and you can't ever take that away from history.

2. What I was trying to say is that a religion has to protect it's truth if it believes only 1 truth exists. Obviously, 2 contradicting truths cannot be correct at the same time. It can't be that both theists and atheists are right, so one side must be wrong.

Furthermore, different religions contradict each other (even if by very small differences). A religous person that believes his truth is the only truth, sees other truths as false (other truths could be other religions, atheism, deism, agnoticism, etc), and thus should protect his own truth.

4. No, not that insane. I assume by insane you mean that since God couldn't be proved and neither disproved, trying to prove one side is right is impossible. But that does not mean that we shouldn't believe in what, logically, is closest to the truth. If, for example, I presented Russell's teapot analogy, in a way, I made 1 truth seem a little bit more likely.

6. I never said religion doesn't do good. I actualy believe the contrary. Religion had given people morals and thus had helped quite a bit throughout human history. I completely agree that logically, being punished for immorality, is a much better incentive to be a moral person. And yet I believe religion had caused more harm than good.

You say that the world would be a better place without religion, but fail to notice all the things that religion has given us. Morals, for example, stem from religious gospels of Man and Woman being punished by God for their crimes. Sure, you could argue that these laws would eventually develop with the "discovery" of the social contract, but, IMO, nothing hits as hard as the fear of being eternally damned.

And to build on that, there were more atrocities committed for a reason that wasn't religious. To assume that the world would be a better place without religion is ignorance to the rest of history.

Hell, even the religious ones had political undertones.

 

Well, neither of us could prove the other wrong, and really shouldn't try to. We cannot possibly know what our history would be like without religion. It could be wrose, it could be better, it could even (although highly unlikely) 'stay the same'. Personaly, I just assume a world without religion would be a better one, is all.

A world without religion is a world without government.

A world without government is a world without rules.

A world without rules is a world without progress.

A world without progress is a world without teh interwebz.

A world without teh interwebz is a world where you can't post meaningless opinions on a rs fansite.

 

Good fight

 

Am I really teh only one who is (srsly) agnostic? :s

A world without religion is a world without government.

Not necessarily. That's not even probable.

A world without government is a world without rules.

Not necessarily. Actualy, rules existed long before governments existed.

A world without rules is a world without progress.

Umm... not necessarily...

A world without progress is a world without teh interwebz.

I guess so.

A world without teh interwebz is a world where you can't post meaningless opinions on a rs fansite.

Pretty much :P.

[bleep] it :wall: Never mind

The paradox you mentioned doesn't make any sense because you're only taking into perspective the idea of theism.

But that's, basically, the perspective I'm trying to disprove. I know for certain that I cannot disprove God, and I don't mind the agnostic perspective. It's the theist ones I care about.

 

Edit: I meant that both theism and atheism make rash assumptions about how the universe was created. In no way are they any different; just in how we perceive their reality.

 

 

Expanding on that, the Multiverse theory explains how, even in the presence of God, free will can in fact exist. This is because even though God knows which decision you will make (assuming the existence of God), the infinite number of parallel universes dictates that the decision one makes is entirely randomized. In one universe, yes, you might be predetermined to make one set of decisions, but your "existence" (note: this is very abstract; as in a parallel universe, you are essentially you, but in another, you aren't, even though you are) in another universe is randomized so that those sets of decisions you make span infinity, therefore making it so that free will has to exist within any specific set.

 

Taking a step back, this can also mean that since every possible set of combinations has already been determined in the Multiverse (there are different levels of Multiverse, so I'm not covering anything over the first level, which are Parallel Universes), then there is actually no free will. Everything that can happen, will and already has happened an infinite number of times. Considering this, one can assume that no one has any free will to begin with (this concept applies both with or without the presence of God). But, as I mentioned before, in any given set, an infinite number of outcomes can occur, so at only one set of values, free will does exist because probability assumes that that set of values can contain any possible outcome.

Whether it is that there is an infinite number of realities, each holding the precence of a different decision, or there's only 1, either free will is canceled or an omniscient God.

I'm not claiming that free will is wrong and neither that it is right, only that an omniscient God couldn't exist along with free will.

 

To point, I never said if free will was right or wrong. Also, I'm arguing that infinite Parallel Universes basically proves the notion that free will exists at some point, whether or not God exists along with it. The notion I stated can also apply in the opposite direction, in that you could argue that free will doesn't exist. If you didn't catch on, I'm trying to point out that, with our horribly inadequate intelligence (humans in general), we cannot argue either way when it comes to free will. It could be, as Vonnegut put it, that only humans believe in free will, but it could also be that free will is just a given fact that we cannot fully comprehend. Multiple theories contend for and go against this concept, with or without the existence of God. That was my point in that long and confusing section.

And as for your last question- For many reasons:

1. The truth is something we should seek regardless of the consequences. If, for instance, the consequences of finding out whether God exists or not, is cancelation of all religions, that's something we should seek.

2. I guess theists cannot let their one true God not be true for all. If there really is one true religion, each religion shouldn't want anyone to dismiss it's "facts".

3. The "bigger things to worry about" doesn't stand well here. So what if we have bigger things to worry about? Does that mean we shouldn't worry about the "smaller" things? You probably already know we're not able to explain everything on Earth, or even reach Earth's center- Does that mean we should stop researching space? Even the moon?

4. Personaly, as some of you probably already noticed, I find it fun and interesting to discuss God, religion, etc.

5. God is a philosophical question just as any other.

6. Religion thus far has done more harm than good IMO, and is probably going to continue doing what it's doing. I think a world without religion would be a better world, and the only possible way we could ever dismiss religion, is disprove God.

 

 

Note, in my responses to these, I'm going to assume that I understood what it was you were trying to say... It's not very clear the way you wrote it...

 

1.) Agreed. Mankind has always pursued the dream of indulging themselves with the secrets of the masses, en masse.

2.) I really don't know what you're trying to say here... The last part is confusing, and the first part makes little sense. I think you're taking into account Man's interpretation of God, not the idea of God itself. On both sides of the debate, it's pretty widely accepted that Man is fairly stupid, and attempting to counter the idea of God by criticizing Man's views on it is idiotic at best.

3.) Sure.

4.) I'll agree it is, but only if everyone comes to the conclusion that arguing for/against the idea of God is completely inane. We have no perception of anything past our minuscule 3-dimensional field of view... Which is pretty pathetic if you consider some of the things that science is uncovering in the field of String Theory.

4.) Apparently I can't count...

5.) Sure.

 

6.) OK, this is where you really started to piss me off. You bring up some good points (granted, your "good" points are only relative to what I've seen on teh intrawebs thus far), but your assumption here is entirely ungrounded. You might be stating your opinion, but even opinions can be wrong.

 

You say that the world would be a better place without religion, but fail to notice all the things that religion has given us. Morals, for example, stem from religious gospels of Man and Woman being punished by God for their crimes. Sure, you could argue that these laws would eventually develop with the "discovery" of the social contract, but, IMO, nothing hits as hard as the fear of being eternally damned.

 

The social contract might apply to small communities, but if you're surrounded by 6 billion people, 5.999999 billion of those people wont give a [cabbage] if you randomly stabbed someone to death. If the fear of consequences hadn't been drilled into our heads for the past few millenia, we'd be no closer to the idea of God than we would be to the animals. Religion taught humanity to actually give a damn about what they do, and you can't ever take that away from history.

2. What I was trying to say is that a religion has to protect it's truth if it believes only 1 truth exists. Obviously, 2 contradicting truths cannot be correct at the same time. It can't be that both theists and atheists are right, so one side must be wrong.

Furthermore, different religions contradict each other (even if by very small differences). A religous person that believes his truth is the only truth, sees other truths as false (other truths could be other religions, atheism, deism, agnoticism, etc), and thus should protect his own truth.

4. No, not that insane. I assume by insane you mean that since God couldn't be proved and neither disproved, trying to prove one side is right is impossible. But that does not mean that we shouldn't believe in what, logically, is closest to the truth. If, for example, I presented Russell's teapot analogy, in a way, I made 1 truth seem a little bit more likely.

6. I never said religion doesn't do good. I actualy believe the contrary. Religion had given people morals and thus had helped quite a bit throughout human history. I completely agree that logically, being punished for immorality, is a much better incentive to be a moral person. And yet I believe religion had caused more harm than good.

 

 

2.) Well, that goes back to Man's interpretation of God. Just because corrupt holy books contradict each other doesn't mean that the concept of theism does. And just so you know, my religion does not go against any of the mainstream religion. I'm a Sikh, and, still, none o your arguments against Man's interpretations of religion challenges mine. There are religions out there that encompass a vast array of beliefs, and "attacking", for a lack of words, a specific religion does nothing special. It doesn't prove/disprove anything.

 

4.) I meant inane, btw. There's a difference. Also, you mentioned the word "believe", which, in an of itself, is a contradiction in trying to prove something existence. Not to metaphysically beat an existential horse to death, but when there's clear doubt, there's no clear solution. It applies to all fields of science, including those of religion.

 

6.) Alright, that's your belief. But I'll note that it contradicts everything we've viewed in history. You can't put a pin down on religion and label it the cause of all sins, when, in fact, it's done the opposite. It might be causing conflicts in some parts of the world today, and some in the past, but they're nowhere close as atrocious as crimes that have been committed without the influence of religion. Don't differentiate crazy people with crazy religious people. They're the same thing and they exist on both sides of the spectrum.

To derail the thread yet again...

 

If there is an infinite number of universes with an infinite amount of possibilities, wouldn't there be some where at least one God exists and others where none exist?

To derail the thread yet again...

 

If there is an infinite number of universes with an infinite amount of possibilities, wouldn't there be some where at least one God exists and others where none exist?

This is the internet. Logic won't get you anywhere :shame:

To derail the thread yet again...

 

If there is an infinite number of universes with an infinite amount of possibilities, wouldn't there be some where at least one God exists and others where none exist?

 

 

In the first level of the Multiverse, there exists Parallel Universes. I don't want to delve any deeper than that, but this is "kind of" proved by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. There are three other levels. In the first level (the Parallel Universes), the same physics that are present in the Universe we live in are present in all other parallel universes. If something is even remotely possible in our Universe, it's also possible in another Parallel Universe. Basically, if God exists in our Universe, it must exist in all of the other ones.

 

But, considering that God is all powerful, you can also say that God exists everywhere, but that's where theism and strict science kind of diverge. In the hierarchy of the Multiverse, physics changes as quantum mechanics behaves in eccentric ways. God could be an entity that exists solely in our set of Parallel Universes (note, in the third domain, an infinite set of Parallel Universes exists, all with an infinite varying degree of different physics), or one that is present in all types. There's just no theory that can explain the connection. I guess we'll all have to wait for String Theory to bring it all together, lol.

To derail the thread yet again...

 

If there is an infinite number of universes with an infinite amount of possibilities, wouldn't there be some where at least one God exists and others where none exist?

This is the internet. Logic won't get you anywhere :shame:

 

 

Lol, there happens to be a difference, my evil/less good looking twin.

 

Many atheists believe that there's a scientific reason for every single thing

Umm... I KNOW there isn't a scientific reason for every single thing. I believe one could eventually be found, but that doesn't mean I think science can explain everything. Science itself doesn't claim to be able to explain or prove everything.

 

 

You just made him cry.

 

Yeah, except he claims otherwise in the first 7 seconds of this video-

 

His quote says, "Unlike religion, science doesn't pretend to know everything. There are still deep questions [...] that have yet to be explained. But just because science can't answer it right now..."

 

How does that contradict what I said, "Many atheists believe that there's a scientific reason for every single thing"?

Edit: I meant that both theism and atheism make rash assumptions about how the universe was created. In no way are they any different; just in how we perceive their reality.

First of all, that's not atheists that believe in theories like the big bang as a group. Scientists came up with it, our current evidence shows that's the most likely possibility. But that in no way means atheists=someone who claims to know how the universe was created. I'll let you off with saying that the vast majority of atheists do go with that theory (including myself by the way).

Also, most who do believe in theories like the big bang, are usually aware to the fact that the theory they follow may be very likely, considering the evidence we have, but it still is a theory and could eventually, if wrong, be disproven. What religion does (or atleast mainstream religion) is claim to know. And not to doubt what it claims to know.

 

 

To point, I never said if free will was right or wrong. Also, I'm arguing that infinite Parallel Universes basically proves the notion that free will exists at some point, whether or not God exists along with it. The notion I stated can also apply in the opposite direction, in that you could argue that free will doesn't exist. If you didn't catch on, I'm trying to point out that, with our horribly inadequate intelligence (humans in general), we cannot argue either way when it comes to free will. It could be, as Vonnegut put it, that only humans believe in free will, but it could also be that free will is just a given fact that we cannot fully comprehend. Multiple theories contend for and go against this concept, with or without the existence of God. That was my point in that long and confusing section.

What's the point of arguing that free will could either exist or not exist with someone who claims to believe it could either exist or not exist? I never once said I trust 1 theory to be true, only that an omniscient God couldn't exist along with the concept of free will. That's my only point here, really.

 

 

2.) Well, that goes back to Man's interpretation of God. Just because corrupt holy books contradict each other doesn't mean that the concept of theism does. And just so you know, my religion does not go against any of the mainstream religion. I'm a Sikh, and, still, none o your arguments against Man's interpretations of religion challenges mine. There are religions out there that encompass a vast array of beliefs, and "attacking", for a lack of words, a specific religion does nothing special. It doesn't prove/disprove anything.

 

4.) I meant inane, btw. There's a difference. Also, you mentioned the word "believe", which, in an of itself, is a contradiction in trying to prove something existence. Not to metaphysically beat an existential horse to death, but when there's clear doubt, there's no clear solution. It applies to all fields of science, including those of religion.

 

6.) Alright, that's your belief. But I'll note that it contradicts everything we've viewed in history. You can't put a pin down on religion and label it the cause of all sins, when, in fact, it's done the opposite. It might be causing conflicts in some parts of the world today, and some in the past, but they're nowhere close as atrocious as crimes that have been committed without the influence of religion. Don't differentiate crazy people with crazy religious people. They're the same thing and they exist on both sides of the spectrum.

 

2. What you seem to have missed is that I said "What I was trying to say is that a religion has to protect it's truth if it believes only 1 truth exists."

4. An S jumped infront of my face for some reason, lol.

Also, you misread what I said. I clearly mentioned that God cannot be proved or disproved. And then I said that although it cannot be proved/disproved, we should follow (my exact phrase was believe) the most likely one.

I also once said in this thread (not sure if as a response to you or not) that I find the mere fact that religion cannot prove itself correct as enough to dismiss it. When I present a story or a new faith, and claim it is true to the other side (being anyone who does not already believe in my story/follow my faith), I'm the one who should supply the proof, and not claim that since the other side cannot prove me wrong, I'm infact right.

6."You can't put a pin down on religion and label it the cause of all sins"... but I never did?

I'd also like to present a quote I think fits greatly in here- "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." – Steven Weinberg

 

Lastly, I'd like to remind your where these numberings came from. a_local_guy asked both sides of the equation (theists and atheists) why do they care so much for what the other side believes. These are the reasons I gave him for both sides to want to keep discussing the issue and prove the other wrong.

[hide]

 

Many atheists believe that there's a scientific reason for every single thing

Umm... I KNOW there isn't a scientific reason for every single thing. I believe one could eventually be found, but that doesn't mean I think science can explain everything. Science itself doesn't claim to be able to explain or prove everything.

 

 

You just made him cry.

 

Yeah, except he claims otherwise in the first 7 seconds of this video-

 

His quote says, "Unlike religion, science doesn't pretend to know everything. There are still deep questions [...] that have yet to be explained. But just because science can't answer it right now..."

 

How does that contradict what I said, "Many atheists believe that there's a scientific reason for every single thing"?

[/hide]

I never said it contradicts what you said...

 

I said- "Umm... I KNOW there isn't a scientific reason for every single thing. I believe one could eventually be found, but that doesn't mean I think science can explain everything. Science itself doesn't claim to be able to explain or prove everything."

Then you said "You just made him [Dawkins] cry."

Which is when I showed you that video of Dawkins saying the same thing I did- that science does not claim to know everything. Which is why I wouldn't "make him cry"...

/facepalm

 

The sentence "Many atheists believe that there's a scientific reason for every single thing" doesn't imply that scientists know everything. I implied that there's a scientific reason that has either been discovered or will be discovered in the future.

/facepalm

 

The sentence "Many atheists believe that there's a scientific reason for every single thing" doesn't imply that scientists know everything. I implied that there's a scientific reason that has either been discovered or will be discovered in the future.

 

As it's off-topic, let's take that discussion to a private conversation.

Everyone wants closure. Christians want heaven. Physicists want their Theory of Everything.

 

I talked with a pastor friend of mine that I really just met this weekend, and he generally despises religion. He sees dogma and faith as bones, and knowledge and education as flesh. Most people are either skeletons or blobs of meat. There's hardly anything that forms a body any more.

 

I'm tired of religious [cabbage] anyways. I don't even know why I said anything here.

Actually lent, that pastor guy made a lot of sense thats pretty true haha

I don't find it true. It actualy makes no sense...

 

Why would I need to believe in fairytales in order to have "bones"?

I don't find it true. It actualy makes no sense...

 

Why would I need to believe in fairytales in order to have "bones"?

 

Metaphor. First person is saying that his friend thinks of being able to believe or to disbelieve is what makes us what we are, so it's pitiful when a person makes a show of being able to do one but not the other.